I Was Too Early on Solar Power -- Let's Not Be Too Late
In his State of the Union address, President Obama noted that although America invented solar energy technology, we have fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. He is right of course.
I remember when America was leading the pack on clean energy in the 1970s. We abdicated that leadership thanks to the influence of a fossil fuel industry with deep pockets and friends in the White House. But Obama reminded us of an important aspect of the American character: ingenuity. We are a nation of innovators, and we can harness that resourcefulness again to build a better future.
I saw that ingenuity emerge three decades ago, when the promise of renewable energy became clear to many of us. We were so eager to spread the word about solar power that we created "Sun Day," the solar equivalent of Earth Day. We had events from Maine to Chicago to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir even agreed to participate in one event.
People were just starting to get excited about pollution-free power, but then Ronald Reagan became president and took the solar panels off the White House and the policies promoting renewable energy were stripped from the books.
In 1975 I produced a short film called "The Solar Film." The people interviewed say they like how solar power cuts down on their bills, doesn't have to be imported, and makes them worry less about terrorists. All of those benefits remain extremely relevant today, but we have lost three decades in the effort to extend them to more Americans.
I was too early in my efforts to promote solar power, but now is the time. We are getting a second chance--another American trait. If we don't seize this moment, we will be too late to get the competitive advantage in a global marketplace, too late for the economic dividends, and too late to stave off the worst of global warming.
The Obama administration wants to see America double our supply of renewable energy in the next three years. Many lawmakers want to pass a national renewable portfolio standard, which would require a certain percentage of our country's electricity generation to come from clean sources like solar and wind. Congress will likely vote this year on a bill to limit global warming pollution that will dramatically expand the market for clean power. These are the kind of bold, visionary actions we need right now. I urge you to call on your representatives to support them.
In this time of economic crisis and uncertainty, I am reminded of being a child during World War II. I have no nostalgia for the turmoil and suffering of those days, but I do recall the communal effort, the sense that we all rallied around to support the greater good. Today we are trying to achieve the greater good of shared prosperity, and I believe it will be built on a clean and affordable energy economy. With enough resourcefulness, I know we can do it this time around..
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
First Solar 1$ per watt assembled modules:
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6640264.html
First Solar is claiming 1$ per peak watt for assembled Modules!
http://www.firstsolar.com/projects_applications.php
Economics is the study of scarce resources with alternative uses. The relative supply and demand of each of these resources determines the price. As resources become more scarce, prices increase, causing individuals to self-ration without any fiat by the government. This simple fact is misunderstood, or even outright ignored, by the elite politicians who try to scare the public.
No government fiat caused people to recognize that whale oil was getting more scarce, causing people to move to Kerosene, or from Kerosene to crude or from crude to gasoline. Prices did that. When one resource became more scarce, it signaled the market to correct itself in the development of newer resources that were relatively less expensive and more efficient. Imagine that.
In the real world, big fish eat the little fish and control supply, prices, and the message machine for the entire pond.
It's called markey manipulation, and it happens on a scale you could scarcely imagine.
You sound like you understand the way a free market is supposed to behave, in the classroom!
Only in the pristine confines of the imaginary reality of the free market fundamentalist does the system work with the magical benevolence and omniscience claimed for it.
Meanwhile, out here in the world as it actually is, dirty deeds are done dirt cheap, and good ideas are routinely crushed in their infancy if they show any risk of cutting into the profits of the big players. And those big players got that way by knowing how to manipulate the government (and thereby the market) to advance their own ends and crush the competition. The higher the stakes, the more true this becomes, and fewer areas have stakes as high as the energy business.
for some reason, i keep getting blocked on this thread, which is crazy since i know a TON about solar. The main thing people need to know is that there is a RIGHT way (rooftops, urban brownfields) and a WRONG way (deserts).
the second thing we need to know is that FEED IN TARIFFS are not only the most successful way to ramp up clean, democratic, non-lethal renewable energy -right where it is needed, but they are also the most successful way to get people to CONSERVE power.
Don't be taken in by the Big Energy GREENWASH. NOT a single acre of our wilderness needs to be or should be killed "for the sake of the planet." we have 190% of the solar resources we need right in urban load centers, on existing rooftops and urban brownfields. Let's work on that and STOP KILLING OUR WILDNERNESS FOR PROFITS.
I could not agree more, the idea of paving tens of thousands of square miles of desert is obsc ene! Either put solar panels on your roof or windmills in your backyard. If you refuse to do that then don't complain when someone builds a nu clear plant next door.
You are 100% correct. The delay now is the utilities and big business trying to figure out how solar and other energies can be worked into the existing grid, so that we can continue paying our tribute every month. I'd like to see more personal systems, tax credits for those systems, more systems on office building, schools, apartment houses, condos and so on.
I remember when my parents bought a solar water heater in the late 1970's, and between the nascent developmental stage of solar technology at the time and the relief in energy prices in the early 80's, the investment never really paid for itself.
Once again there has been an oil crash and the alternative energy industry is finding itself challenged by the market (I worry in particular about the ethanol plant in Soperton, Georgia, that may or may not have the capital to make it through the next two years). While Americans may be more wary of volatile energy prices, some new incentives must be thought of to keep green energy investment and industry alive. As a layman, I don't have a solution that would fit in the space of a HuffPo comment, but I hope you and other high-profile advocates like Boone Pickens will continue to soldier on and keep enough people motivated to move this country towards responsible and environmentally-friendly self-sufficiency. We won't run out of sunlight or wind.
We won't run out of sunlight or wind, and their availability varies from day to day but not from year to year, so their prices will never dictate our standard of living as Saudi Arabia now does.
Well said, the sun does shine all year long and it may be cloudy some place but not everywhere.
Traditional thinking on power generation is not the answer. The technology exists now for a massive increase in solar power. This technology is improving rapidly. What is lacking is a commitment to use this energy source. I am talking about subsidizing individuals and businesses to install solar panels for point of use generation. The grid, smart or otherwise, is not required to transport electricity from your roof to your air conditioner or the outlet for your plug in hybrid. This would be costly but less so than the half trillion per year we spend to keep militarily engaged in the Middle East. In many areas wind is also a viable option for small to medium scale generation.
We need jobs and a lot of them. Manufacturing and installing solar and wind units could employ a million people. Subsidies in the form of tax credits and federally guaranteed loans for individuals and businesses would make solar and wind power viable economically. Warehouse owners with acres of roof could generate enough power at a profit for local use without expanding the grid. Likewise mall owners could provide covered parking with thousands of solar panels. The possibilities are limitless if you think small.
I remember Reagan taking the solar panels off the White House. Thus began the long descent into deregulation, uncontrollable pollution, attacks on our rights, greed, and mlitary adventurism. It has collapsed into a nation locked into an insane war, a trashed economy, and world depression with its concomitant rising fascist dictatorships.
And it all comes from that same mentality that pulled the solar panels off the White House.
The “free” market brings forth innovations, efficiencies, wealth to a few and employment for many. It is not a solution to every problem. Natural gas is a good intermediate solution to many of our pressing problems both economic and environmental. Gas (CH4) produces 40% less CO2 compared to gasoline (-CH2-). I noted that when the price of gas fell below a certain level it made wind power “uneconomical”. This is solely based on “market” forces.
The “free” market exists to serve those within its sphere. People and the Earth do not exist to serve the “free” market. When a viable solution runs afoul the market the market must be changed to allow the solution to be implemented. One simple solution is to place a tax on gas used to generate electricity as a variable rate to yield an overall cost that makes wind power “competitive”. If market forces pushed gas up the tax would go down and vice versa. In that way investors would be assured of a return on their investments in wind power. The gas that is freed up could be used as transportation fuel replacing imported oil.
It would also be of great benefit economically to place a higher tax on automobile gasoline and diesel. This tax would not be levied on natural gas or biofuels. An 85% ethanol blend would escape 85% of the tax. Biodiesel would be untaxed. This would give biofuels a leg up on the competition.
What you say about the "free" market is very true. In the market we have had in the United States on the other hand, petroleum has been given special treatment -- tax exemptions worth $billions per year, and in challenging years, handouts for tens of $billions more -- which has actively put clean sources of energy at a calculated, insurmountable competitive disadvantage. Giving equal incentives to wind and solar would only level the playing field. If we are serious about _pushing_ clean energy, we would fund new solar and wind collection facilities and power grid improvements in an amount equal to what the taxpayers have already given to petroleum corporations in tax breaks and direct payments, _plus_ impose a 100% or greater tax on all petroleum products, paid directly to subsidize installation of home wind and solar power collection. Because the market for sunlight and wind cannot be cornered they are the greatest enemies of corporatocracy and the greatest friends to humanity.
In reading many of the comments, if many had their way , we would be living in the past not preparing for the future. The future will be renewable energy, we better start R&D where we would use less power, and create more power from renewable means. Don't forget the public dollar made possible much of the technology we use today, not that mythical free market.
Mr. Redford, thanks for your timely post. Any chance you can resurrect your film from 1975: The Solar Film?
I remember how many of us highly criticized Jimmy Carter for literally giving away the Panama Canal; it appears that presidents who succeeded him have given away far more than the land of the Panama Canal. I am so hopeful that it is indeed not toooo late for recovery.
Thanks Mr. Redford. I remember those days. I always feel like my generation dropped the ball.
The fact that Reagan removed the solar panels goes to show that the Grand Oil Party just wants to promote every backwards policy imaginable. Now that we have a chance to seriously advance, let's do it. If we wait too long, someone like Sarah Palin could come to power and try to reverse things further.
Dear Robert Redford: You should go down on your knees with gratitude in the knowledge that America is becoming serious about Solar Power.,
I happen to come from a Land Down Under, aka Australia. We are masters of not innovating a single thing. We are quite happy to wander along, following a stupid game called football, and we stifle our brain-power to the point that all intelligent Australians go to the vast talent-pools overseas, the ones offered by other countries.
We have sun for about three-hundred and fifty days a year. In the northern states it is more. And what, do you suppose we do with it? Bugger all. With the exception of private individuals who have gone solar, our governments-State, Federal, and Local, give no encouragement to the Solar Power Industry at all. Which is why our leading solar- power thinkers have gone to live overseas. Of course we have mega-acres of coal-black, brown and grey. The owners of these industries have used every stinking bit of extortion in the book in order to bring our governments to heel. This is why we are a nation of mediocrity and docile followers.
Such strong commitment of persons of the public stature of Robert Redford looks as important for the chances of turning the prevailing economic crisis into an opportunity for a prompt transition to the clean solar sources of energy as is regeneration of a grassroots movement like that which celebrated Sun Day on Wednesday, May 3, 1978; the apparent main purpose of his posting.
As an active participant then, but at an age likely to preclude serious future action, I ought to urge that it be tougher and learn from the easy disposal of its 1970s predecessor; which happened right after Sun Day, at least in Berkeley; not normally expected in the pocket “of a fossil fuel industry with deep pockets”. Jimmy Carter was still early in his first term and had encouraged government research labs to take part in Sun Day events. My copy of the memo had been withheld until three weeks after my participation without that. For that the “influence” of purveyors of Dirty Obsolete Energy (DOE) sources is simpler to trace. Since President Obama is likely to listen to Robert Redford, if he knows what's good for him, he might also be urged to keep up his guard toward anti-solar networks that include employees of his.
http://members.shaw.ca/ElSol/One_Life/Part_VI.html#TOWARD_SUN_DAY is a personal account of the 1970s California solar movement leading up to Sun Day.
If solar power were so feasible, there would be no shortage of investment in it.
Our house is about 210 sq meters. It takes about 44 solar cells (150 MM x 150 MM) to cover 1 sq meter. That is 9,240 to cover our roof (not considering the slope). At $13.00 each, that comes out to $120,120 plus ancillary electronics plus installation.
That is the kind of surface size you need to power a mdoern house, particularly in winter.
$120,120 is more than 1/3rd the price of my house. Based on mortgage costs, this would add approximately $800 a month ot my mortgage while my electricity averages out to $150 a month. There is no payback - not ever.
If there was, TV would be filled with ads pushing solar power for your house.
If coal and oil and nukes all get special breaks and gov money you expect solar to compete?
Well it does. See my profile for details of the great growth in solar and wind installations and technology.
Wind is cheaper than coal in many cases.
Rooftop Solar is cheaper than Natural gas turbines used to Air condition peak load through the country. It has a less than 3 year break even point installed on large commercial roofs.
You can buy assembled solar panels for about 3-4$ per peak watt.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=90599
In a good location you will get about 1 average watt per 4 peak watt rating.
that's 16 $ per average watt. electricity coast about a dollar per watt per year or more since it's peak air conditioning load. So it has a very pessimistic worst case 16 year payback time, then you electricity is free for probably another 20 years or more.
if you average 3KW it will cost you 48k$.
Which is less than the cost of electricity if you don't install it.
City states and us gov all are offering lots of money to help you afford it, some utilities are giving interest f4ree loans, other utilities are building the solar system on your house for free, just to save them the highest cost noon demand.
You should search around.
I'll make a deal with you.
How about you invest the $48,000 in equipping my house with solar panels (assuming that they generate enough electricity for my usage even without a a miracle plug-in car). I will pay you at the same rate as my electric bill minus whatever I have to buy from NOVEC when the sun doesn't shine for a couple of days?
You will make a nice profit. You can build a nice company and get rich. You get rich and it costs me the same as electricity from NOVEC.
That beats all of our governments taxing me to pay me to put in solar panels.
How about you form a company that puts solar panels on roofs and charge people the same rates as their local electric company for the energy generated?
You will get really rich, like an oil company or a coal company, and I don't have to be taxed to give myself a subsidy on installing the panels.
For my Florida net-zero energy home, I had to think about where the sun would come in, so I lessened the amount of light I needed to read or work by without increasing the heat inside the house; I looked for an extremely efficient air conditioning system, I installed LED lighting (cut the light wattage use to 1/6 of what it would have been), and worked on issues like that before I decided how much solar energy I had to produce. Down here, the issue is heat not cold.
For my house, all in, including all solar hot water and 14.4 kwh of energy produced by solar panels, I spent approximately $21.00 per watt. (My house is connected to the grid, but I will probably have a net negative metering situation where, over a one year's period, the power company will pay me a nominal sum.) We then looked at the cost of borrowing just to finance that much solar and came up with approximately $250 per month. (Lots of variables in that question alone, of course. -- How many years, what interest rate, etc.) And then we looked at the average electric bill in Florida ($300 per month) and concluded I'd save. Using current energy prices, a Michigan home would not save the same amount because air conditioning is not as big a factor.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
