State poised to invest billions in solar power - San Jose Merc - 1/12/06

[Coastie for Truth]

FRONT PAGE NEWS - TOP OF THE FOLD

Last year, hybrid cars zoomed toward mainstream popularity. This year, it could be solar power.

In a milestone for renewable energy, California is expected today to make the largest investment in solar power of any state in U.S. history.

Ending more than two years of debate among political leaders, the state Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to take a final vote on a plan to spend $3.2 billion to provide rebates over the next 11 years to homes, businesses, farms and public buildings that install solar energy systems.

Closely based on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ``Million Solar Roofs Initiative,'' which died in the state Legislature last year, the new initiative will roughly triple the annual amount of state funding to subsidize solar power by tacking a new fee of about $1.10 a month on utility bills.

The goal is to install solar energy on 1 million buildings statewide by 2017, generating 3,000 megawatts of electricity -- the equivalent of six large power plants, or enough to serve 2.3 million people. By comparison, all the solar power installed in all 50 states today has a capacity of about 400 megawatts.

Snippets:

* The subsidy generally would pay about one-third of the costs for people wanting to put solar power on their homes or businesses. A typically sized home solar system of about three kilowatts costs about $27,000 to buy and install. The new program will pay $2.80 a watt toward that cost, or about $8,400 for the standard system.


* In Silicon Valley, venture capital firms have increased their investments in renewable energy -- including fuel cell, battery and solar technologies. VC firms invested a record $425 million into clean-tech start-ups during the third quarter of 2005, according to the Cleantech Venture Network.
*``The interest in solar power in Silicon Valley is higher than almost anywhere in the country,'' said Barry Cinnamon, president of Akeena Solar, a Los Gatos solar installation firm.

``It is a combination of the price of electricity and the forward-thinking mentality where people are looking for high-tech solutions to environmental problems,'' said Cinnamon, a former software entrepreneur who founded the solar company in 2001.

* Critics of the new program said the costs exceed the benefits, because solar power still costs three or four times as much as electricity from natural gas plants.
They said that about electric cars, hybrid cars, and nuclear power too - as we kill 2200 of our kids in Iraq for oil.


*Frank Wolak, a Stanford economics professor who specializes in electricity, said he has other worries.

``Who is going to be taking advantage of this subsidy?'' Wolak said. ``Not poor people who live in apartments, but rich people who live in big houses. But under this policy, the poor will be subsidizing the rich.''
This is the Northern California, SF Bay area - home of Berkeley - you have to expect that from the local libeal arts and crafts academics

MY EXPERTISE IS IN THIN FILM, AMORPHOUS SI PV - SO HERE'S MY 2 CENTS WORTH-->

* Very similar manufacturing technology to Flat Panel LCD's - we used the same fab line to "pilot" both. This means that the factors driving down the cost of LCD's also drive down the cost of Amorphous Si PV cells.
* Staebler-Wronski degradation has pretty much been solved.
* Amorphous Si PV cells work in the UV region - clouds do not block UV the way they block visible. We prototyped them in Northern Oakland - north of Detroit and north of Chrysler's Tech center - in Michigan's normal cloudy winter days.
* At a very simplistic level - using PV as a "time shifter" with Metal Hydride batteries -- metal hydride batteris are "sorta kinda" like fuel cells - except they generate their onw hydrogen (charge cycle) and store it as a solid hydride alloy internally.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. kick

[Ready4Change]

2. K&R

Every state in the country should do this.

[4dsc]

3. This says it all!!

"Who is going to be taking advantage of this subsidy?'' Wolak said. ``Not poor people who live in apartments, but rich people who live in big houses. But under this policy, the poor will be subsidizing the rich.''

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Other side of the coin

1. Their kids are dying in Iraq -- and more will die in Iran and Venezuela and the oil states of the former USSR.

2. Fossil fuel fired boilers have a cost too - it's called dead soldiers and dead coal miners (I was born in the coal fields of SW Pennsylvania, Dad was a UMWA lawyer).

3. PV cost is falling - faster then 10% per year.

4. I am a DUer in California, a Progressive in California, and I know the capacity for vast overstatement that we Progressive Dems have in California. That's why it's called the "Left Coast" - and "All the nuts roll to the Left Coast."

[Massacure]

13. I want a link showing that PV costs are falling faster than 10% a year.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. I took the prices for an amorphous Si cell in 1983

divided it by the price of an amorphus Si cell in 2005, and went into MatLaw to get the effective "interest."

[Massacure]

15. What the hell is MatLaw?

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Typo - MatLab

Software from "Math Works"

[Massacure]

17. Did you do a linear calculation?

Because I highly doubt the price is falling linearly or exponentially. It is most probably falling logarithmically.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Logarithmic

[skids]

22. Link.

They were falling at about that (inflation adjusted) until 2003. Then the Si shortage. Lately holding steady, minus flux in the dollar.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm

Also for those buying, that's an average price -- cheap offers are listed here:

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

There are a number of companies positioned to undercut as their thin film/CIGS/reduced Si capacity comes online -- foremost as far as I can tell, EverGreen. But with demand so high, sales are pretty much a guarantee. They may choose to reap profit and reinvest it in expansion for a couple years instead.

Anyone know if the CA initiative covers solar thermal? A huge buy of that tech could finally shock its producers into using competitive business practices for a change and bring prices down signifigantly. Or at least boost efficiency and kick some of the less desirables off the market.

[jpak]

5. There is no incentive for landlords OR renters to invest

in PV, solar hot water or conservation (i.e., insulation, Energy Star rated AC/heat pumps/appliances, etc.).

This is a policy issue that must be addressed - in California and nationwide.

The GOP can spend a trillion bucks on its War in I-raq, give away a trillion more in tax breaks to millionaires, and billions more in tax breaks to Big Oil and Coal and Nuclear, but it cannot spend a dime to help the working poor who rent.

Typical GOP mentality..

[Coastie for Truth]

6. A PV cell is a solid state device

(an ultra large scale integrated circuit) - made with solid state fabrication technology ---> we rolled Amorphous Si PV cells out of the same fab equipment as LCD displays. What has been the trend line in IC costs? I can tell you from here in Silly Valley what it has been.

The time shifter is a battery. The drop in battery prices (with digital cameras, Ipods, cell phones, hybrid cars, etc.) has been equally drastic.

And if we can't lower the costs in California -- we have competitors in Beijing and Bangalore who certainly can.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Havn't seen the price drop

Maybe my time horizon is too short. Seems I have been seeing $5/Watt for several years. Though it might have had trouble the last couple of years with the shift to RoHS compliance. I assume they are removing all the restricted substances from PV cells.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. My frame of reference is over 20 years

[phantom power]

9. Over the 5-year time-frame...

there have been economic factors at work. Demand exceeding supply, and shortages of solar-grade silicon. The catch is, that's likely to continue for a while. To make it stop, either demand would have to level off, or new supplies of silicon would have to come on-line, coupled with new factories producing PV arrays.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Your talking crystalline

with Amrophous Si, it's a matter of silane gas, which is not in particularly short supply.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. There are adjustments to the real estate tax - as well as other incentives

[skids]

23. Hey, I tried...

...to shine some light on that very issue in that "Since Sliced Bread" contest:

http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/idea/20290

but instead they chose these:

http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/ideas

(only one energy idea among them, and not a very politically practical one.)

Read the blog there to watch SEIU get torn several new defecatory organs. :evilgrin:

But anyway -- my point is if you're wondering that you're just insane, or whether noone seems to ever listen to that very important point because they are chowderheads, it's the latter.

[NNadir]

11. 3000 Mega"watts" or 3000 Megawatts. What are the units of energy?

Are we talking magical solar "watts" or physicist watts?

3000 Mega"watts" with a 20% capacity loading, typical of solar loading capacities, is the equivalent of a 600 MW plant operating at 100% capacity.

A six hundred megawatt plant (continuous load) at 3.2 billion dollars is, frankly, a lousy investment. That is over $5,000/kw. A 900 MWe gas fired (thermal) plant is built for around half a billion dollars - ignoring the external costs, which are dumped into the earth's atmosphere. This is way out of line with an acceptable capital investment in a business, and probably an environmental, sense.

I will believe the 40 year old claims of the solar PV industry when it begins to report itself in units of energy and not peak power. I recall vividly day dreaming about just such stuff while biking down the Strand in Hermosa Beach in the late 1970's. I was young then, and I believed almost anything. I have heard this story so many times in my lifetime, that I find the whole claim dubious. I also see it, like the critic in the link, as a typically Republican "screw the poor to benefit the rich scheme."

I suggest that for peak loading capacities, solar concentrator plants in the California desert could be built much more cheaply and at a much lower cost to the environment. Moreover the benefits of these plants would be distributed over the entire population of California, and not just some rich kids living in the hills above San Jose powering up their 500 watt stereos with slightly less guilt involved. Shit, who knows, with even less guilt, they'll probably crank the power up and brag insipidly about it too.

My qualitative guess is that the energy spent in producing web sites extolling the benefits of solar PV power almost entirely consumes the world output of PV cells.

I have yet to see a grand solar PV scheme that promised anything in a 5 year time frame and certainly I have never seen such as scheme that actually delivered any where near what was initially claimed in the interminable series of press releases. This one, of course, constitutes a new solar PV record in that it claims it will be available in only 11 years. My prediction: It won't be. I would prefer records that produce units of delivered significant energy. The nuclear industry, my favorite, has been setting such records regularly over the last several years. It would be wonderful, for instance, if we could say, "California produced half an exajoule of solar PV electricity last year," but we can't say that. The target date is always 15 to 50 years off, and when you come back in 15 to 50 years, it is still off 15 to 50 years.

For the record, according to this link: http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/demand.html the peak power demand in California is around 38,000 watts. Thus even at peak, this three billion dollars won't produce a significant portion of California's load, less than 10%, and then only on sunny days.

To the extent that this alleged capacity actually is installed - and I don't believe for a second that it ever will be, as the industry has been far too long on promises and far too short on delivery for far too many decades - it will be useful to the extent that it replaces the 27,000 megawatts of natural gas capacity that currently exists in California. But even if it did succeed, it would represent a drop in the global climate change bucket.

I would be thrilled, of course, to be proved wrong but I very much doubt I will be.

But it's no skin off my back. If the citizens of California want to spend their money this way, I don't really care. I suppose it is a more reasonable investment than investments in new prisons and new freeways, but it is probably not as good as an investment in education or health care or mass transit, but, hey, I don't live there any more.

[trekbiker]

12. some comments

I think you meant 38,000 Megawatts (38 gigawatts)

3,000 megawatts IS significant. Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant puts out 2,200 megawatts and cost 6 billion. Dont get me wrong, I like nuclear and it definately will have a future as the oil and nat gas peak pass us by.

your 20% capacity loading factor is irrelevant as demand and the required installed capital infrastructure, generation, etc., is peak driven. PV is not a base load application, at least not until battery storage technology and price improves. The california peak is during summer heat waves. The sun tends to be shining full force during these heat waves and these million PV arrays will be putting out full capacity. Nuclear needs to run 100% 24/7 and is better used as base load generation. In fact, Diablo Canyon works in conjunction with the PG&E Helms pumped storage plant to pump water and fill a lake at night then drain the lake thru hydro gen during the day, this way Diablo can run full blast like Nuclear needs to do. Natural gas can be used as base generation or peaking plant generation but you still have to build enough gen capacity for peak needs. After the california energy crisis 100's of millions were spent on nat gas peaking plant generators. These generators mostly sit idle waiting for summer peak conditions. PV is an ideal peak load generator for any sun belt area. And the amorphous Si type panels apparently can utilize UV during cloudy days but not sure about degradation problems over time.

PV has a huge future but not with today's PV technology (has to be subsidized). While I would welcome any investment to help get PV off the ground, I think this money would be better spent on next generation PV research, specifically, some of the interesting developments in the nanotech world. Present PV cell efficiencies of around 15% are too low and silican costs too high to make present PV technology cost effective without subsidies. But this is going to change, maybe within 5 years. Nanotech is relatively new and is going to bust things wide open. Nanotech holds out the potential for 50% efficiencies and lower costs. Look at the latest developments in Lithium Ion battery development using nanotech. incredible. practical 100mpg PHEV's are right around the corner. The energy future is not quite as bleak as Kunstler predicts (but I do like his writings)

[jpak]

18. Be prepared to be thrilled

If similar programs in Japan and Germany are any indication of success, this program will be wildly popular (and probably oversubscribed).

...and, as natural gas prices increase, there will be additional incentive for homeowners to to install these systems.

It will create thousands of new jobs as well.

...and according to the article...

<snip>

Most customers' bills will remain about the same, Grueneich said, because a similarly sized fee, put in place in 1996 to fund energy deregulation, is expiring.

<snip>

So much for "screwing the poor"....

[NNadir]

21. Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, just about everywhere, for the last 30 years.

According to this graphic, from 2003 well into the so called "Green Game" that was going to make Germany "solar PV" by "whatever," as usual, the results were piss poor:



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Germany/Electricity.html

I note that the huge German solar subsidy forces utilities to buy solar PV at any price.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "wildly popular." To must people "wildly popular" means a substantial fraction of the population. To others it may mean "wildly popular" among distracted PV fans.

Germany consumed 15 exajoules of energy in 2003 and the renewables portion was rather unremarkable:



Of course, my concern, is not the blue, yellow or green fraction. I am concerned with the red fraction. That is the one I am trying to stop. That is the one that's killing us. It continues to thicken during Germany's much ballyhooed hype "Green revolution."

Of this total unremarkable quantity represented by the green portion, we see that the "wildly popular" PV was almost almost invisible when displayed on the same graph with wind power (first graphic).

I'd say that these graphics give a good idea of the rabbit hole into which California will drop three billion dollars. But it's no skin off my back. If they keep coming back for more and more, that's their problem and not mine.

A fraud is a promise involving lots of money with no delivery or trivial delivery. Three billion dollars is a lot of money.

This subsidy however, is the type that politicians love. It makes them sound like they're doing something, when actually they are not doing anything. The subsidy only gets paid when someone actually buys the equipment, but the equipment itself is still hugely expensive.

[jpak]

24. The same logic is used against hybrid vehicles

"So what if Japanese automakers are increasing hybrid auto production. Hybrid vehicles represent an insignificant fraction of the US an world auto market - they don't even comprise 1 percent of the cars on the road today. SUV's on the other hand comprise >50% registered US cars. It will take 30 years (if ever) before there are enough hybrids on the road. They will never make an impact on oil consumption or slow global warming."

"Hybrids cost twice as much as similarly sized cars - they are toys of the rich."

"Tax breaks for hybrids are really tax breaks for the rich."

"They price of a Prius is going UP not DOWN and you have to wait 6 months to get one."

"Hybrids are wildly popular among the Greenpeace twit crowd. The ninnies who buy hybrids do it so they can "feel good" about the environment."

"Hybrids are too small and dangerous - SUV's SAVE LIVES".

"Conservation is a personal virtue and can't be used as a basis for sound energy policy"

blah blah blah

Where have we heard this before????

By this logic, indoor plumbing, light bulbs, automobiles, radios, TV's, home computers, and digital cameras would never have achieved public acceptance or economic success.

What a crock of dittohead talking points...