US Projected To Lead the World In New Solar Installations This Year (computerworld.com) 314
Lucas123 writes: The U.S. solar market is expected to grow 120% this year, with 16GW of new solar power, more than double the record-breaking 7.3GW installed in 2015. The total operating solar PV capacity in the U.S. is expected to reach 25.6 gigawatts (billion watts or GW) of direct current (DC) by the end of the year, according to GTM Research's U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review. When accounting for all projects (both distributed and centralized), solar accounted for 29.4% of new electric generating capacity installed in the U.S. in 2015, exceeding the total for natural gas for the first time and it will put the U.S. ahead of all other nations with regard to new solar installations for 2016.
Meanwhile in Indian (Score:4, Interesting)
It's easier to win if you are screwing the competition: https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You made an asinine comment. The reality is that India put in protectionist rules in place to ensure their folks got jobs and didn't have to compete internationally. Apparently you think it is perfectly acceptable for US tax dollars to go to a project where their own citizens don't have a chance to get some of the work because the Indian government won't allow it.
The trade agreement specifies that contracts have to be competitive and India chose to ignore this rule. It isn't a really hard concept.
Re:Meanwhile in Indian (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the US *does* have a track record for abusing the WTO to get what's best for the US (along with many other countries), blatantly ignoring WTO rulings that go against it (e.g. online gambling), and the main point of the article, that treaties like TPP are almost certainly going to be abused to enforce what corporates what over what's best for the population at large, is still valid, even if they possibly didn't find the best example of such abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you think it is perfectly acceptable for US tax dollars to go to a project where their own
Since when is US tax money going to Indian projects?
citizens don't have a chance to get some of the work because the Indian government won't allow it.
Of course thy have a chance to get work there. But not to sell the solar panels.
Which is plain obvious necessary for the Indians or the american companies simply would get the contracts via bribery/corruption. Yes, that is bottom line an indian problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Khyber, thank you for gracing us with your insults.
"So you are advocating overriding the law of the land in a sovereign country"
When that country entered into a trade agreement they need to abide by it. Not very challenging to understand. If they don't want to abide by the terms of the agreement, then they should withdraw.
"Your view of reality is fucked. Go seek help."
Thank you again for your insult. It says a lot about you.
Re: (Score:2)
"When that country entered into a trade agreement they need to abide by it."
When we violate it regularly, you have no fucking place to say anything to the contrary.
"Thank you again for your insult. It says a lot about you."
Thank you again for your very lacking world experience (of which I have PLENTY and you can check my passport and taxes regarding it.) It only serves to make us dumber and says EVERYTHING about you.
Re:Meanwhile in Indian (Score:4, Interesting)
"When we violate it regularly, you have no fucking place to say anything to the contrary."
Wait. Your argument seems to have flipped 180 degrees. First you were saying that only the country's national laws applied, WTO rules be damned. Now you are saying that you are upset because you perceive that the US ignores the WTO. Rather inconsistent arguing.
Alleged "violations" (your term) are taken up with the WTO which decides if the complaint has merit and what the appropriate next steps are. This is exactly what happened with India and the United States.
And the reality is that the WTO rules against the United States often. A couple times each year I'll read about something where the US is found to have violated a rule, the WTO rules against the US and the US is forced to change its trade practices, pay restitution or both. In fact many groups in the US would like to see us out of the WTO because they say it hinders our ability to be competitive in the global market. I am not sure I agree with that, but it does show that the US doesn't simply ignore the WTO as you seem to think.
And I have viewed your posting history and strongly suggest you get counseling. You are obviously a very hateful person who flies into abusive comments for no reason. Your constant insults are consistent with a person who deep down feels very inferior and uses harsh words to try to cover for it. Truly successful people don't brag about how great they... only insecure people do that. If you behave like this in real life then you will never have any healthy relationships. You may view this as a personal insult, but it is not... simply a deep concern that you are in need of serious help.
Re: (Score:2)
"India was trying to ignore trade agreements since it felt the imports were being dumped below production costs."
They are. China is currently dumping shit so cheap that I can refit four houses with solar + DEEP CYCLE LEAD ACID (that is an important qualifier here) batteries + inverters + wiring + labor to entirely and permanently remove them from the electrical grid for a few grand per home and only a couple grand every 25 years between all those houses for maintenance.
"However, the Indian government is not
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it per person? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner.
Fair enough, but its closer to $10 billion per year than tens of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner.
Fair enough, but its closer to $10 billion per year than tens of millions.
Last I checked that number, it not only wasn't for a year, but almost 2 decades, and a large part went into "alternative" energies like oil and coal (making them "cleaner").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you haven't checked recently:
"On Friday, Congress passed legislation making the solar investment tax credit (ITC) available for several years and creating a new production tax credit for wind power projects.
The solar ITC, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, was extended for as many as eight years as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wi... [forbes.com] - December 18, 2015 - not even 4 months ago.
Re:What is it per person? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING. More than 20 times the amount of the top 10 biggest spenders COMBINED. I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner. Get a grip people.
While that is true, it is worth noting that the spending on defense is in fact the primary purpose of our federal government, it is right in the Constitution.
Spending on solar panels is not. It also isn't a few tens of millions a year, it is closer to a few tens of BILLIONS a year.
However, even that number is fairly small when all things are considered.
The REAL point is that if solar ever takes off for real, it'll have to do so on its own. The current government support for solar could never last if it started to get deployed in a serious way, because then it would start to cost what the defense budget costs.
The next question is: "Is this the best way to replace coal, oil, and natural gas power?" I would submit that we could outright give away a free nuclear power planet each year for the cost of all this solar, and in reality, if we simply provided $5 billion towards the cost of each plant, we might get 3 a year built.
What brings more value to us, the solar we are getting or 3 new nuclear power plants a year? That is a separate debate, but I think it is one worth having.
Re: (Score:3)
While that is true, it is worth noting that the spending on defense is in fact the primary purpose of our federal government, it is right in the Constitution.
Maybe time to read it again....
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi... [archives.gov]
Article 1, section 8 lays out congress' jobs and it actually lists 8 things including the post office and "patents" before talking about the military. The primary purpose of the federal government is to enable a functioning state of which a military is surely a part but there is much more to it than that, thank goodness. If you look around the world, bad things happen when the military always comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
While that is true, it is worth noting that the spending on defense is in fact the primary purpose of our federal government, it is right in the Constitution.
So throw a dollar at the military complex and call the constitution done for the year. The defence of the US government fiscal budget is absolutely mind-boggling.
Re: (Score:3)
What brings more value to us, the solar we are getting or 3 new nuclear power plants a year?
Given that the nuclear plants cost us money to build and then cost us money again to decommission, and can easily get us into a position where we're losing money on them if something goes wrong, that should be an easy one. And if we had made that decision intelligently in the 1970s, then we'd have a whole hell of a lot more solar in the field today. It was economically viable back then if only the subsidies given to other, more harmful power generation technologies had been diverted in its direction.
Re:What is it per person? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING. More than 20 times the amount of the top 10 biggest spenders COMBINED. I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner. Get a grip people.
While that is true, it is worth noting that the spending on defense is in fact the primary purpose of our federal government, it is right in the Constitution.
Spending on solar panels is not.
Isn't spending on solar the same as spending on defense, security-wise? Isn't our need for oil, and our giving tons of money to countries which hate us, one of the major reasons we need so much defense?
Energy self-sufficiency is national security.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't spending on solar the same as spending on defense, security-wise? Isn't our need for oil, and our giving tons of money to countries which hate us, one of the major reasons we need so much defense?
Not really, because solar replaces coal, not oil.
Oil provides 5% of our electricity, Coal provides over 40%.
Most of the oil we use goes to gas for our cars, and solar doesn't power our cars. Yea, yea, EVs and all, but EVs won't be a major thing for decades.
Energy self-sufficiency is national security.
We are there already, if we want to be. We have plenty of coal, oil, and natural gas to meet our needs. But keep in mind that oil is easily moved, which is why it is a world wide commodity. It is why oil pumped in Alaska often doesn't go to the US, be
Re:What is it per person? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the oil we use goes to gas for our cars, and solar doesn't power our cars. Yea, yea, EVs and all, but EVs won't be a major thing for decades.
Teslas and Leafs are already proving that EVs are perfectly viable right now, just a bit too expensive compared to comparable gas cars and not that suitable for road trips. Cars like the GM Volt (50-mile range plug-in hybrid) are also very viable, not using any gas for commuting but still allowing road trips. Battery costs are coming down so pretty soon EVs will make even more sense for commuters. However, cheap gas hampers adoption; if gas taxes were jacked up a lot to account for the true costs of gasoline cars to society, EVs would become a lot more popular.
With a lot more EVs on the road, power generation switching to renewable sources will have a big effect on oil demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things are subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. Like $550,000,000,000 PER YEAR IN DEFENSE SPENDING.
DoD procurement spending, which is what I assume you're referring to as subsidized by the government and our tax dollars, was just over $102 billion in 2015 [bga-aeroweb.com]. Federal subsidies for electricity-related renewable energy increased 54% to $13.2 billion from 2010 to 2013 [institutef...search.org], and has no doubt increased significantly since then. Doesn't seem too out of whack to me.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm not worried about tens of millions in subsidized alternative energy rebates that arguably helps to make our country cleaner."
I actually love it and would encourage more of it. I just bought a fuckton of 99-cent 9w LED bulbs. They're great with 90+l/w (92 by my measurements) 3000K 92CRI. Every single fixture that has an E26/27 socket has one in it. If I include my LED-lit aquarium and patio, I can keep my entire house lit 24/7 for ~$0.42/day.
From there, my only real power usage is cooking and computers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What puzzles me about the economics of solar and wind is how solar and wind can cost so much even though they have minimal running costs. That is, all the cost of solar and wind is fixed cost (plus maintenance); there is no recurring fuel cost.
Especially with wind, I don't understand why costs are so high, except for the fact that all the manufacturers have to do is price their product just slightly below conventional energy; it's the old "price what the market will bear" rather than "let's price it at what
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable cost so much to develop and manufacture and little to operate over time. For example, Wind Energy requires significant engineering and materials to deal with the stresses in the blades. Also, braking the blades in emergencies is a significant challenge. And solar is in its infancy for large scale usage.
So while you remove the fuel costs, the initial startup costs are much higher for renewables. And the materials are much more complex than simple furnaces and boilers.
Re: (Score:2)
I maintain that's an consequence of choosing to try and build "utility-scale" windmills (like the 500MW, 200m-long blade beast I recently read about) instead of much simpler, smaller "neighborhood-scale" supplies. If it costs 10x as much to make a giant windmill with 5% more efficiency than the equivalent collection of smaller, cheaper windmills, it's economically terrible to choose the giant one. It's not like heat-engine plants where paying for efficiency makes sense because you're reducing operating co
Re: (Score:2)
What puzzles me about the economics of solar and wind is how solar and wind can cost so much even though they have minimal running costs. That is, all the cost of solar and wind is fixed cost (plus maintenance); there is no recurring fuel cost.
It is the upfront costs that ruin it. Fuel is actually not that expensive purchased in bulk.
Also, you have to consider the wholesale price of power, not retail.
While my office pays 7 cents per kWh, half of that is for the actual power, the other half is for the delivery of the power. I'm actually paying close to wholesale for power, about 3.5 cents per kWh.
When I'm quoted 10 cents per kWh for wind, it is actually 6.5 cents for the power and 3.5 cents for delivery. My delivery cost is the same 3.5 cents r
Re: (Score:2)
What puzzles me about the economics of solar and wind is how solar and wind can cost so much even though they have minimal running costs. That is, all the cost of solar and wind is fixed cost (plus maintenance); there is no recurring fuel cost.
Two reasons, subsidies and externalized costs. If big oil (etc.) didn't get subsidized and double extra especially if fossil fuel producers had to pay for CO2 release (etc.) then solar would be dramatically cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article:
"The IEA singled out the Middle East as a region where fossil fuel subsidies are hampering renewables. It said 2 million barrels per day of oil are burned to generate power that could otherwise come from renewables, which would be competitive with unsubsidized oil."
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone
Re: (Score:2)
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source, quoting an article focused on what govts on the Middle East are up to is hardly a fair reason to call someone a "dumb shit" when they are arguing over what the US govt is up to.
There have been plenty of articles posted in here about just how much the US subsidizes fossil fuel. A little searching might find the actual numbers which I've posted - I'm just not where I can do the research - again - right now. As for unfair comparisons, proponents of solar have had to bear a lot of criticism regarding how the Chinese subsidized solar panel production, so middle east subsidized fossil fuel production is a fair comparison - unless we don't use any of it.
The point is, for all of the h
Re: (Score:3)
While my general view on this is that my govt should get out of the habit of subsidizing any particular energy source
I tend to agree there...
I wouldn't have said it 5 years ago, but today I think I'd rather simply have a carbon tax and no subsides for anything. Rather than try and pick winners, pick the losers and let the market sort out the winners.
Start the carbon tax of REALLY small, but with a slow and steady rampup published way in advance over the next 50 years, so that people would understand that while tomorrow it is nearly nothing, in 5 years it is a small something and in 25 years it is a big something and in 5
Re: (Score:2)
What is that in REAL wattage? (Score:4, Interesting)
So.... what is that in AC Wattage units? (Considering I've worked at several power plants I ought to know this.)
Reading towards the end of the article it seems to indicate 100-200 MW total, which is not worth bragging about considering how much electricity we produce and consume in the United States.
The plant I work at now consumes around 100 MW when running, we have 6 on site gas turbines producing 20MW each.
Solar Photovoltaic and solar thermal unfortunately do not have a good track record for going up to the 500 to 1000 MW range which is what you want for a nice utility sized power plant. Maybe we could have more small solar power plants, unfortunately they have a large foot print in terms of space used. (How many square miles would it take for a 1000 MW sized PV plant?)
Before anyone even starts, de-centralized power is in 'development' stage. I see rooftop solar as more of an energy saver/efficiency more than anything else but not a 'break even' per se. I expect most of the coal plants in the U.S. will get replaced with natural gas.
The real interesting thing will be when all the nuclear units that went online in the 70s and 80s need to be replaced... fun times ahead.
Re:What is that in REAL wattage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone even starts, de-centralized power is in 'development' stage. I see rooftop solar as more of an energy saver/efficiency more than anything else but not a 'break even' per se. I expect most of the coal plants in the U.S. will get replaced with natural gas.
I've looked into rooftop solar three times, the most recent two months ago.
I spoke with a local solar installer. It just makes no sense, no matter how far you turn your head to the side. And that is with the federal government picking up 30% of the cost outright, plus another rebate from the local power company, plus cheap financing. It STILL makes zero sense.
You have to REALLY make a lot of assumptions about the future for it to kinda sorta make sense. As in, regular power prices will double over the next decade. And the new equipment will work for 20 years trouble free. And you'll always get net-metering. And it will add 50% of the system cost to the value of your home.
And so on. Do all that, and yea, it can make sense. But it takes ALL of that, plus the tax money, to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they'll find your "It STILL makes zero sense" comment interesting when sea level rise is being measured in meters.
I imagine FlyHelicopters's descendants will for the most part be smart enough to not breathe water.
Re: (Score:2)
Meters, huh? Maybe, who knows... easy for you to say, since neither of us will be here in a thousand years to know either way, now will we?
It might rise another half a foot or so by the end of this century. I suspect we'll all be just fine. And if we're not, we are just as likely to be better off adapting to the change as trying to fight it.
Any change in climate due to mankind is largely committed at this point. A few more solar panels and a few more wind farms won't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Any change in climate due to mankind is largely committed at this point. A few more solar panels and a few more wind farms won't change that.
Adding renewables (actually: reducing emissions) won't fix the damage that has already been incurred, but it will definitely reduce the amount of additional damage in the future.
It's the difference between accepting a bad situation and minimizing the damage as much as possible, vs deciding instead to continue making the situation worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is that in REAL wattage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do you live? In most parts of the world you can't lose with solar now. You don't need to make assumptions about future energy prices or anything like that, and the panels only need to last a few years to pay for themselves in most places. In any case, any reasonable quality panel will come with a warranty longer than the pay-back period, and ditto things like the inverter.
Even without feed-in, there are few parts of the world where solar won't pay for itself in under a decade, and then it's all profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live?
Texas
I pay 7 cents per kWh for my office power and 10 cents per kWh for my house power, both coal.
It would cost me 10 cents per kWh for my office to be powered by 100% wind and 13 cents per kWh for my house to be powered by 100% wind. Solar isn't even an option here (at least from the power companies).
In most parts of the world you can't lose with solar now.
Generally in the 1st world, only those nations that have stepped in and either subsidized solar or taxed the crap out of everything else. Sure, in Germany where you pay 35 cents per kWh, yea I'm sure solar m
Re:What is that in REAL wattage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Texas has plenty of sun. Your electricity is currently coal powered, which means it is damaging your health (or some other person's health).
It makes sense to put some solar up where you live. In a few years it will have covered its costs and you will be making a profit.
Comparing commercial scale solar and wind to your coal power, you forgot to include the environmental and health costs. Maybe you are lucky and don't have to deal with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas has plenty of sun. Your electricity is currently coal powered, which means it is damaging your health (or some other person's health).
About 5.5 hours a day, on average.
Yes, the coal power is "bad", but it is also cheap. Yes, I could switch to wind power and pay a bit more, but ultimately it wouldn't change anything. It hurts me financially for an undetectable difference overall.
It makes sense to put some solar up where you live. In a few years it will have covered its costs and you will be making a profit.
Except, it doesn't... I've posted the detailed numbers in this story in another reply, but in short, it simply makes no sense. My out of pocket cost to install a 10KW system is about $25,000 and my annual savings in power is about $1,500. But that assumes net-
Re: (Score:3)
I pay 7 cents per kWh for my office power and 10 cents per kWh for my house power, both coal.
That's dirt cheap, among the cheapest in the country. In fact, it's below the average for Texas [eia.gov], which is 11.5 cents. And, are you sure that's the total rate? Most utilities do a tiering system where usage above certain thresholds costs more. For example where I live (Utah, which also has very cheap power, coal and hydro), I pay 8.9 cents per kWh for the first 400 kWh, 11.6 cents for the next 600 kWh and 14.5 cents above that (perhaps there are more tiers; that's as high as I've gone, even in a hot summer a
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? In most parts of the world you can't lose with solar now. You don't need to make assumptions about future energy prices or anything like that, and the panels only need to last a few years to pay for themselves in most places.
Time to chime in with one of my favorites. A big percentage of the anti-solar crowd seems to think that the second the warranty expires, a solar panel dies. Or at least those in here.
The only time disadvantage I can see is that an earlier install might lose out to newer technology over time, but that doesn't stop us from buying cars or computers.
All in all, I think the anti-solar crowd is arguing old hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some actual numbers to back this up? For our installation our payback period is 7 years with subsidies. The panels have a 20 year warranty and are likely to produce power for another 10 after that. How does that not make sense?
The lowest installed cost here for a 10KW system is about $35,000 before rebates. I have gotten quotes from more than one company, I think it is high, but that seems to be the going rate around here. Considering I pay 10 cents per kWh for my house, that simply makes no sense, even with the 30% back from the IRS. For a $35,000 up front investment ($25,000 after tax credit), I'd save about $125 a month in power, or about $1,500 a year.
Saving $1,500 a year for a $25,000 investment is a lousy return on inves
Re: (Score:2)
What is your current monthly bill? What effective interest rate were they charging? What have you done to improve the energy efficiency of your home? Did you need to do any upgrades to your roof to make it viable?
Generally speaking, rooftop solar is $3/W for a complete installed system, 10% higher in some locations based on labor and demand. Median for the US is about 1800 hours per year equivalent full output for a fixed rooftop array. So the system gives you about $1.67/annual kWh, or $1.15 after tax
Re:What is that in REAL wattage? (Score:4, Informative)
What is your current monthly bill?
Average $250 a month
What effective interest rate were they charging?
I can borrow from my house at 3.5%
What have you done to improve the energy efficiency of your home?
Replaced HVAC with a really good Trane 2 stage, 2 speed 16 SEER unit, cut $100 average off my bill overnight, best upgrade I ever did. For $17,000 (5 ton and 3 ton units, including everything inside and out), I get a colder house and $100 a month back in my pocket. And my old unit broke, so I had to spend money anyway.
Did you need to do any upgrades to your roof to make it viable?
No, I have a brand new roof as of 2 years ago, thanks to hail (and Allstate)
Generally speaking, rooftop solar is $3/W for a complete installed system
$3.50 a watt here, I've been quoted by three different companies, that is just the going rate. $35,000 for a 10KW system.
advantageous if your blended cost of electricity is $0.15/kWh or more at a minimum effective rate of return of 13%
I pay 10 cents per kWh and my cost is $5K more than your estimate. :) That is part of where it torpedoes.
If you are at a more risk tolerant and only need 8% return then you are good down to $0.10/kWh.
It is actually closer to 5%, given my install cost and my power cost. But even that might be worth doing, if I could get a 10 year net-metering guarantee.
But yes, the kicker is net metering.
Yep, that is what torpedoes it. There is no chance that net-metering will survive as it stands today. Taken to the logical conclusion, imagine if we all had solar enough to offset our annual bill, but that we needed the power company to provide power at night, but we all fed power back during the day. And we all had zero bills because of net-metering, yet expect the power company to provide a grid.
That will never happen of course, so somewhere between today and then it would have to change.
---
In principle, I would LOVE to have solar power, how cool would it be to have clean free power from the sun! But it has to make financial sense, and it just doesn't.
BTW, to give you an idea, I live in a city of 250,000 people and there is a local solar association here. By their own count, a whole 150 homes in my city have put solar on the roof. Out of 250,000 people. It simply doesn't make sense here. I have never actually seen a solar install on a roof in person, only pictures on TV or the Internet. It just isn't done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Were it not for the need for A/C without a complete redesign of a house (and no, swamp coolers don't work in humid areas), most places in Texas could run off-grid with a rooftop panel array, coupled with a propane tank.
On a small scale, a few panels on the roof, a couple AGM batteries, a MPPT charge converter, and a PSW inverter can be used to add a dedicated circuit so low-draw devices can use that, and not suck off the mains power. Add a bit more wattage, you have a dedicated, clean power circuit that yo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
DC distribution in the home has some issues that make it somewhat impractical and not worth the bother for small devices like lights and some appliances. You would need to step it up to a pretty high voltage to avoid having more loss in the wires than you would get with AC, but that brings its own problems with safety (isolation in particular, you don't want arcing).
You also can't use a transformer for simple isolation, because transformers only work with AC. There are other options, but none as easy and ch
Re: (Score:3)
It is not that support for oiland coal are patriotism or anything. It is cost and artificially increasing them that seems to be necessary for it to make economic sense. If the power plant can deliver the energy more reliable and cheaper, using that makes sense. If rooftop solar can, that makes sense. Where the objections come in to play that gives you the patriotism impressions is when the costs of one are inflated to make the others more attractive. It is simply unamerican to have the federal government di
SolarCity - Tax dollars - Why this is happening (Score:5, Informative)
Last year I called SolarCity, they are offering to install panels for "free" to your home, then sell you the power for less than you're paying now.
Sounds like a no-brainer, right? No up front cost, no maintenance, guaranteed power for less than you're paying now.
Why NOT say yes?
Except, they won't install in my area. They WILL install 2 miles away, because that is a different electric energy provider that gives bigger rebates than mine does (I live in a co-op that doesn't provide huge rebates and tax incentives).
---
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
Even utility scale solar, which I've looked at investing in purely from an investment point of view, requires tax dollars to make work.
http://www.absolutelysolar.com... [absolutelysolar.com]
FIT Program Areas
FIT â" LADWP: The Department of Water and Powerâ(TM)s new solar Feed-In Tariff program. Buildings and land in the city of Los Angeles and parts of the Owens Valley are eligible.
Look at the very bottom of that page:
http://energy.gov/savings/ladw... [energy.gov]
And there is the program, promising to pay FAR above the "going rate" of power.
So solar works, assuming you can count on the government money to keep flowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should divert some of the 300+ billion that fossil fuels get in subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a fan of fossil fuels so if you have links to subsidies (again not accelerated depreciation) I would be interested in seeing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I ask I get the same answer: accelerated depreciation. Sorry. I don't consider that to be a subsidy.
Go study a dictionary and get back to us. Definition 1 is "a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like." Aid is support for or relief, you know, know tax relief. You are engaging in bullshit selective revisionist thinking in order to give Big Oil a free pass on their special tax break.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a subsidy.
I am NOT pro oil by any means. What I would like are examples of subsidies instead of people parroting what they believe are irrefutable facts.
If you start a moving business, rent a van. Your rental costs are 100% deductible. Meaning that if you charged $1000 for moving. Paid $100 for the van you would pay taxes on $900. If you bought a dolly and some padding they would be 100% deductible. But if you bought a van it would not be
Re: (Score:2)
Explain, in your words, how this qualifies as a subsidy.
If they don't have to pay taxes that they otherwise would have paid, and that others have to pay, it's tax relief, and thus it's a subsidy. I thought I made that quite clear in my prior post, but some people just need things spelled out in small, simple words. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
They accelerated depreciation doesn't mean you pay less. You pay the same amount.
Example you start a consulting business. You have expenses. You have a phone bill, travel to your customers, buy business cards. You make $2,000 for the year and spend $1,00. You pay taxes on your profit of $1000.
The next year you again make $2000, you again spend $1000 on phone, travel, business cards but your computer broke. This time you spend $1000 on a computer. You may think, that since you spent
Re: (Score:2)
What's it's "giving" you is the time value of money. Assuming a 40% marginal tax rate, if you can deduct 100% of the cost of the computer this year, you're getting a $400 tax deduction now, which is worth more than $80/year over the next five years.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuel subsidies (Score:2)
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
To some degree you could say the same about fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are hugely subsidized [imf.org] by governments to the tune of something like $5 trillion worldwide. Solar is just a small percentage of that.
The only difference is that you don't notice the subsidies for oil and gas but there is no question that they are there and substantial.
So solar works, assuming you can count on the government money to keep flowing.
That's to be expected for an emerging technology. You subsidize a technology like this until it can scale up to the point where it can compete on its own merits. Solar is
Re: (Score:2)
To some degree you could say the same about fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are hugely subsidized by governments to the tune of something like $5 trillion worldwide. Solar is just a small percentage of that.
It is SO easy to report a number like that, but you really have to be careful in doing so.
The VAST bulk of these "subsidies" are not real money. No one is paying $400 billion a year to Exxon or BP.
For example, from the very link you provided:
"The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage, including local air pollution"
So it is just the IMF's opinion of what carbon taxes SHOULD be to make up for the pollution. It isn't remotely the same thing as d
Externalized costs are real subsidies (Score:2)
The VAST bulk of these "subsidies" are not real money. No one is paying $400 billion a year to Exxon or BP.
Well I happen to be a certified accountant and the fact that some of these subsidies are not cash money doesn't make them any less real. In cost accounting it's called an externalized cost. Literally a cost someone else pays. There is a very real and measurable cost to that pollution which the companies selling fossil fuels do not have to pay for. That is in effect a subsidy to those companies because it relieves them of having to pay the full cost of the product they sell. It would be no different tha
Re: (Score:2)
Well I happen to be a certified accountant and the fact that some of these subsidies are not cash money doesn't make them any less real. In cost accounting it's called an externalized cost. Literally a cost someone else pays.
Yea, but it doesn't hold up to direct payments. I get the concept, you aren't telling me anything new, but frankly it is rather dishonest to compare a "we wish we had carbon taxes" thing to "real actual dollars being spent".
The panels are NOT "dirt cheap"
Yes they are, 1 dollar a watt, or less.
http://www.directsolarsupply.c... [directsolarsupply.com]
75 cents a watt, there you go. That is dirt cheap. The cost to get those panels installed on my roof? $3.50 a watt.
Making the panels free wouldn't really do much to the overall cost of putting them on my roof.
The cost of land is generally not an issue
It
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so you are angry that you don't get something for nothing?
From a network effect, rooftop solar reduces system costs: peak demand shifts from 1:30PM to about an hour before sunset, and the total peak magnitude is reduced. This is good for the utility, since it's costs are based on peak power flow.
The Net Metering problem though is that users cram power one direction during the day and use it at night. The first solution to this is "smart grid" crap-- making sure your demand is minimized during the new
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so you are angry that you don't get something for nothing?
No, but I expect to get something for something. If I'm going to spend $25,000 on solar power, it has to provide more than $1,500 a year in power bill savings.
From a network effect, rooftop solar reduces system costs: peak demand shifts from 1:30PM to about an hour before sunset, and the total peak magnitude is reduced. This is good for the utility, since it's costs are based on peak power flow.
Good for them, but that isn't my problem. If the utility wants to provide more money to help pay for solar, I'm all on board.
The Net Metering problem though is that users cram power one direction during the day and use it at night. The first solution to this is "smart grid" crap-- making sure your demand is minimized during the new peak period: pre-cool house; water heater, washer, dryer off; don't start cooking dinner until after 7:00; etc. When residential users do this, they reduce their usage of the grid, and can lower costs while still making net metering attractive for everyone. Seasonal effects are worse, and likely should be the first to go-- only carry a 4-month rolling balance or something.
Yea, that SO isn't going to happen.
If you think it will, come over to my house and talk to my wife, tell her that she can't run laundry during the day when the kids are in school, that she can't cook dinner for the kids, well,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government money only needs to flow long enough to subsidize enough investment to bootstrap the industry. Prices are coming down and scale is going up, exactly as you would expect. The government is probably stuck providing some degree of subsidy for a long time to come simply because such political programs are difficult to kill, but it won't take many more years before solar is cheap enough to be the obvious choice with or without subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
but it won't take many more years before solar is cheap enough to be the obvious choice with or without subsidy.
I'm interested in knowing how the install cost is going to come down. 74% of all the solar installed in the US last year was utility scale solar. The residential stuff makes the news, but it is a small percentage of the total and almost half of all of it is in one state, CA.
The panels are below a dollar a watt, 75 cents give or take. Maybe a dollar for premium panels. But the other equipment and installation adds $2.50 more to that price.
The panels could be free, it still wouldn't be cheap enough to mak
Re: (Score:2)
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
The same can be said for pretty much everything. The people elect the government, the government set the policy, and the policy is driven by taxation and regulation.
It's the reason why the Australian wine industry is so massive while beer prices are ludicrously high. It's the reason why smoking rates are plummeting in some countries at faster rates than others. It's the reason why green house gas emissions are reducing in different rates in different countries despite the fact that a common technology is th
Re: (Score:2)
So it really comes down to the fact that all this solar makes sense only if you count on a whole pile of tax dollars.
This will continue to be true until it's not. Every year solar gets cheaper, while most other energy sources get more expensive. At some point (probably within 5-10 years) solar will be the same price as (or less than) traditional power, at which point the subsidies can go away, and solar will still sell. Until then, the subsidies are how we get from here to there -- the only way to improve the product is to build a market and sell the product, to build up the economies of scale and the necessary experie
Re: (Score:2)
This will continue to be true until it's not. Every year solar gets cheaper, while most other energy sources get more expensive.
Everyone loves to say that, and it makes sense if you don't look too closely at it.
There are several flaws with that viewpoint.
First, solar panels are already cheap, dirt cheap. Less than a dollar a watt, much less in some cases. The panels could be free, it wouldn't lower the cost of solar much more. The real cost of solar is in labor, land, and maintenance (which isn't nothing, despite what you have heard).
Second, as demand for something drops, so does the price. The US and EU might burn a big less co
Re: (Score:2)
Basically they don't install it where you live for exactly the same reason as you wanted it installed. You would have installed it to pay less in electricity, to increase your available money, and they don't install it at your place because it would not increase their revenue. Shocking.
You're missing the point. They won't install it here because there isn't enough government money in the form of local rebates and incentives to do so.
Translation: Solar only works if a decent part of the cost is paid for by taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil provides only 5% of our electric power. It is really all coal and natural gas, which are domestic.
Oil comes into play in gas prices for vehicles, not in power prices for homes and businesses.
40% distributed PV capacity is in CA (Score:5, Informative)
A few interesting points from the article:
1. Almost 40% of the distributed PV capacity in the U.S. is located in California. The next nine states after California account for another 44%, according to the EIA.
This is key because CA pays one of the highest kWh rates in the US (places like Hawaii are higher, but there aren't that many people there).
http://www.bls.gov/regions/wes... [bls.gov]
San Francisco pays 40% higher energy prices on average than the rest of the US. So of COURSE solar makes more sense there. But it doesn't most other places.
California's leadership in distributed solar capacity is driven by a combination of factors, including high electricity prices, a large population, strong solar resources, and state policies and incentives that support solar PV, according to the EIA.
2. One of the factors spurring growth last year and this was the impending expiration of the U.S. government's solar investment tax credit (ITC). That measure, passed in 2008, offered a 30% tax credit for residential and business installations. It was due to expire this year, and the tax credit was supposed to drop to a more permanent 10%. In December, however, Congress passed a three-year extension on the 30% ITC.
So a crap load of tax dollars are propping this market up. It actually goes further than this. There are many state and Dept of Energy programs that further fix the rate of solar power to above market rates, to provide guaranteed returns for utility solar power.
http://energy.gov/public-servi... [energy.gov]
Just a sample of some of the various programs to pay for solar and wind.
3. The total operating solar PV capacity in the U.S. is expected to reach 25.6 gigawatts (billion watts or GW) of direct current (DC) by the end of the year, according to GTM Research's U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review. Last year, solar installations broke all previous records, but the amount was only 16% more than in 2014 with 7,260 GW of new DC solar power.
That sounds impressive, doesn't it? Well, consider this:
In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.
So the new DC solar power being installed is 7.2 billion out of 4,093 billion total. It is nice, but we could install that much every year for the next 20 years and it wouldn't make a real dent in the total.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
3. The total operating solar PV capacity in the U.S. is expected to reach 25.6 gigawatts (billion watts or GW) of direct current (DC) by the end of the year, according to GTM Research's U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review. Last year, solar installations broke all previous records, but the amount was only 16% more than in 2014 with 7,260 GW of new DC solar power.
That sounds impressive, doesn't it? Well, consider this: In 2014, the United States generated about 4,093 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.
So the new DC solar power being installed is 7.2 billion out of 4,093 billion total. It is nice, but we could install that much every year for the next 20 years and it wouldn't make a real dent in the total.
I'm not sure if you don't know the difference between a Watt and a Watt.hour, or if you think that there is only one hour in a year. But anyway you got saved by your other mistake, which was to go from 4,093 billion kilowatt hours to 4.093 billion total, forgetting the kilo and the fact that solar panel don't output power during night and don't work at full capacity during day. The order of magnitude of your 7.2 vs 4093 should probably be somewhere around 12 vs 4093. (24*365 hours in a year, solar peak capa
Re: (Score:2)
So a crap load of tax dollars are propping this market up. It actually goes further than this. There are many state and Dept of Energy programs that further fix the rate of solar power to above market rates, to provide guaranteed returns for utility solar power.
I'm inclined to believe that a big chunk of solar's success boils down to tax credits, not inherent economic viability.
But then there's all the complaints about the subsidies to carbon energy, which are at least fair on the surface.
My question, though, is why is a huge necessity like energy subsidized at all? Is it perverse competition incentives, like giving a tax break to some oil related industry in order to attract jobs from some other state's similar industry? Extremely indirect subsidies, like enhan
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to believe that a big chunk of solar's success boils down to tax credits, not inherent economic viability.
This has been my conclusion as well. Without the federal IRS 30% break, the state breaks, and the other programs, solar wouldn't be doing much of anything. Even as it stands, it is still below 1% of our power generation.
Wind makes far more sense, it is at least in the ballpark of reasonable.
But then there's all the complaints about the subsidies to carbon energy, which are at least fair on the surface.
You'd think, but a lot of what counts as a "subsidy to carbon energy" isn't as simple as direct money. For example, the IMF counts the carbon released as a "subsidy" when a proper carbon tax is not in place. To the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is solar reliable? It only makes power when the sun is up.
My power works 24/7/365. It has been so long since a power outrage, I honestly don't know when the last one was. It has been years, and even then it probably was for 1 min or so.
I am not sure the power has been out for more than an hour since I've been an adult. That is more than 20 years.
As for the rolling blackouts, in CA that was caused by a seriously messed up power market and politics, not a lack of power. That was a self-created proble
Re: (Score:2)
You dont need to spend anything to save with solar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except when power companies are forced to buy the power generated from the panels at a premium price, everyone contributes to that subsidy
Except that doesn't happen anywhere in the USA. At best, some people get a halfway decent deal. Some people don't get anything back at all.
Wordsmithing is Fun! (Score:3, Insightful)
I love it how it is phrased "U.S. leading in new installations!" vs "U.S. catching up to per-capita installed capacity already found elsewhere."
Gotta be #1, always!
Looks like (Score:2)
Still needs to be hooked to the Grid. (Score:2)
The biggest problem is that Most Solar still has us hooking to the grid, and at whim of the state and the power companies.
The fact that the U.S. is very large in area, and low in population density. The Power Grid, isn't so effective then it is in say Europe, or Asia, however self sustaining Solar with battery night backup can be a good solution. Once we realize that the power companies are going to be obsolete in suburban and rural areas, And should just focus on cities.
time to stop the subsidies (Score:2)
1) require that all new buildings below 6 stories to have on-site AE that equals or exceeds the energy needed by the HVAC. This allows builders to decide how to deal with this, while also stopping the massive energy growth for buildings.
2) stop the subsidies for oil/gas drilling and instead convert them to drilling for geo-thermal energy. In particular, for those that convert old wells to geo-thermal. This will
Were the Republicans Wrong? (Score:2)
That's strange. If the Republicans could be wrong about solar, then maybe they could be wrong about global warming, or the environment, even.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a person of mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, things need to change. We've got practically unlimited power beaming upon us in areas where life is practically unsustainable and our only real challenge is power transmission from those locations. Advocating for these technologies is a Good Thing.
On the other hand, I am aware of mdsolar's sockpuppeting. As a person that relies solely upon one ID on any given site to gently 'advertise' I find this sort of potential advertising revenue generation fairly ob
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't paying attention to the words and intent behind them. You're taking everything at face value and not thinking. You are the kind of cowardly fool we don't need in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
no, only massive bits help.
Quiz time kids.
16GW of solar panel vs. 2.5GW nuke plant, which makes more energy in a year?
not that i'm against solar, but instead of these chickenshit installations we really could make massive collection arrays in desert and with long distance UHVDC lines power the whole country
Re: (Score:2)