Reply With Quote
Um, no.
Their economy is still growing at a pretty decent clip.
They are arguably doing better than we are, atm.
Yep, they are in the same boat we are in. Less money to spend vacationing, heating, etc.
Um, no.
Their economy is still growing at a pretty decent clip.
They are arguably doing better than we are, atm.
Here's an interesting side effect by the mandates being done:
BPA and wind developers: Federal energy ruling is wrong for our region
Part of the Federal/regional dialogue.
Hope they can work it out.
Maybe the industrial scale battery technology being considered will make things a bit easier.
The BPA problem could be tied to a out-dated, dumb grid where a smart, expanded grid could move the excess power to where it would be welcome.
dubya's FERC allowed KennyBoy to rape CA and other states in 2000/2001 by gaming energy trading.
Top 10 Clean Energy Stories of 2011 (with Charts)
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...1-with-charts/
China wiping out Germany's solar panel industry
Flying too close to the sun: German solar companies fall on hard times
“We are looking at a consolidation of the global solar industry,” says Wolfgang Hummel, director of the Center for Solar Research in Berlin. “Having seen a whole range of US companies go under in the last few months, it is now Germany’s turn. And the biggest threat comes from China.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...All+Stories%29
It doesn't matter. Mandating use of wind over water, so California can get a green credit, from energy that comes from Oregon and Washington... Really now. Especially when it means having to waste water, using the spillway, and putting excessive nitrogen in the water which damages the fish more than the dam does otherwise!
How can any one-size-fits-all federal regulation be good for 50 states?
Google Invests $94 Million in Four Solar Projects
Google has really been cranking out the solar energy investments this year. Just a few months ago, the company put up $75 million toward rooftop solar installations out West and in the spring they made headlines by investing $168 million in Brightsource Energy's huge Mojave Desert project.
Now, in time to make us feel all warm and fuzzy during the holiday season, the tech giant has announced that they're investing $94 million in a group of four solar projects by Recurrent Energy. This latest investment brings the total of the company's renewable energy investments to almost $1 billion.
The four solar photovoltaic projects will have a combined capacity of 88 MW and will be located near Sacramento, California. The projects will provide enough power for 13,000 homes. A power purchase agreement has already been signed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for 20 years.
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3...+%28EcoGeek%29
In Germany, Renewable Energy Surpasses Nuclear and Coal Energy For First Time
In 2011, Germany finally saw their renewable energy production top that of almost all other sources of energy, including nuclear, hard-coal and gas-fired power plants. The only other energy generation source greater than the renewable energy mix was lignite-fired power.
According to a report from German utility BDEW, renewable energy accounted for 20 percent of the country's total energy output, up from 16.4 percent last year. Lignite-fired output produced 24.6 percent of the electricity.
Nuclear power is dropping off in the country since Chancellor Merkel closed the eight oldest reactors this past year after the Fukushima catastrophe. Nuclear represented 17.4 percent of the country's electricity load, down from 22.4 percent last year and the country plans to step away from the energy source completely by 2022.
http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-po...+%28EcoGeek%29
Solar Grid Parity 101: How the Cross-Over Occurs
Solar grid parity is considered the tipping point for solar power, when installing solar power will cost less than buying electricity from the grid. It’s also a tipping point in the electricity system, when millions of Americans can choose energy production and self-reliance over dependence on their electric utility.
But this simple concept conceals a great deal of complexity. And given the stakes of solar grid parity, it’s worth exploring the details.
The following map shows the levelized cost of solar, by state, based on an installed cost of $4.40 per Watt, averaged over 25 years
Solar v. Grid Over Time
There’s one other calculation. Let’s say that in 2011 solar still costs just a bit more than the grid electricity price, but that the grid price is rising at a modest rate each year. In this case, solar may still be the right choice because the lifetime cost of solar (at a fixed price) will be less than the rising cost of grid electricity. We can use an accounting tool called net present value to estimate the savings from solar compared to grid power over 25 years, and we find that for every percentage point annual increase in electricity prices, solar can be ~10% more expensive that grid power today and still be at “parity.” We find that with electricity price inflation of 2% per year, solar grid parity shifts up two years using this method.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...id-parity-101/
That right there is probably one of the best analyses that I have seen.
The economics are shifting in favor of PV and other forms of renewables.
The most delicious part about this is that it puts the lie to the global warming Deniers most alarmist claims of vast harms to our economy if we take steps to limit our CO2 emissions.
That is clearly not the case.
But it's all a big fat conspiratorial lie, according to Repugs and their denier fellow travellers, Kock Bros-financed scientists, Darrin, WC, etc.
4 or so states have feed-in tariffs to stimulate commercial/residential solar/wind energy.
I figure oilco/Repug TX will never setup feed-in tariffs. They'd rather fight over nuclear and coal plant permits and financing, and ever-more scarce water for cooling to cool it all.
I was talking with an SA solar installer who said he expects SA CPS to introduce time-of-day pricing, so you pay a lot more in peak periods (noon to 6 PM in hot months) than at nighttime.
TX grid now operates with less that 10% margin in peak periods of hot days. 100Ks, or Ms, of residential solar installations would go a long way towards reducing peak demand from the grid.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-26-2011 at 07:37 PM.
Turbocharging Energy Efficiency 1: Utility Efficiency Program Budgets Double to $5.4 Billion
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...to-54-billion/
Time of Day Pricing in Texas
Time of Day Pricing in Texas
Quickly, the general news: “TXU Energy has rolled out a new three-tiered rate plan designed for customers who watch their household budgets and are willing to make some changes in when they fire up the dishwasher or do laundry. The power retailer also says its new plan is a sensible option for homes with solar installations or an EV in the driveway.
“Offering lower rates during specific periods – time-of-use rates – mimics the fluctuations in wholesale electricity costs that occur throughout the day. Perry said TXU has structured its new rate plan so over 90% of the hours in a year are nighttime or off-peak hours. And the difference between peak and nighttime rates is substantial: Compare peak rates (from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, May through October) of 21.9 cents per kilowatt hour to the discounted nighttime rates (10 p.m. to 6 a.m. all year) of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour.”
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/...eanTechnica%29
Don't stop there,TX, implement feed-in tariffs, watch residential/commercial solar explode, and 1000s of jobs added.
==============
The nationwide average now is 11.54 cents per kilowatt hour, the paper reported; in Texas, the average is 11.6 cents.
CPS residential customers paid an average of 9.3 cents per kilowatt hour this year, said spokeswoman Lisa Lewis, and 9.1 cents last year. That includes the fuel adjustment charge, which varies monthly.
The average CPS customer used roughly 1,100 kilowatt hours of electricity per month in 2010, she said, and paid an annual average of $1,262.
USA Today found the average American household paid $1,419 for electricity in 2010.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ene...#ixzz1hmFRtsU6
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ene...al-2421241.php
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-27-2011 at 05:35 PM.
On-Grid Solar: An Industry in Plight (Government-dependence perils)
by David Bergeron
January 6, 2012
“Without these subsidies … ‘On-grid PV,’ would be virtually non-existent. It only exists because the solar industry lobbied government officials to compel citizens to purchase this otherwise non-economic energy source.”
“Included in the list of failed solar companies is Solon of Germany whose corporate slogan was ‘Don’t Leave the Planet to the Stupid.’ Fortunately for taxpayers, it appears Solon will be leaving the planet.”
A recent Wall Street Journal article, Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector(December 27, 2011), surveyed the latest solar industry fallout, as well as overviewed the financial condition of the surviving companies.
But the article seems to mistakenly equate the fallout to viability as if better profits would mean sustainability. The industry is not viable, but this is unrelated to the recent fall-out. The industry was growing and profitable in the recent past and was equally non-viable then. The difference is that with profit-enabling government subsidies intact, many established U.S. and European manufacturers are now competing with China. And they cannot compete.
Risky Business
There is a measure of justice in this recent turn of events. The old adage “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” comes to mind. In this case, one might say, “the industry that lives by government intervention dies by government intervention.”
The U.S. solar industry has seen remarkable growth in the past six-to-eight years, principally on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers who have been forced to shoulder a significant percent of the cost of these solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to make them appear financially viable as on-grid resources.
The solar industry has amassed a ridiculous collection of additive subsidies, which total upwards of 80 to 90% of the total lifecycle cost. They have lobbied every conceivable legislative body to garner special handouts for installing the systems and production subsidies (Net Metering) for operating the systems.
This industry is artificial. Without these subsidies this market segment called “On-grid PV” would be virtually non-existent. It exists only because the solar industry lobbied government officials to compel citizens to purchase this otherwise non-economic energy source.
In fact, they did such a good job of creating an enormous demand, that it attracted the attention of manufacturers and governments around the world, governments whose only subsidy is perhaps favorable lending to those companies that wish to sell into this artificial marketplace.
Global Subsidies, Calls for Protectionism
So now those same solar companies, which lobbied so heavily to plunder the public coffers, are through some grand act of justice being forced out of the business by Chinese manufacturers, who can produce panels at much lower cost. This industry built on government intervention in the marketplace is now dying because of possible Chinese government intervention in the marketplace. I call that just deserts.
So what is the response of the U.S. solar industry? It’s mixed, but continues on the same self-serving path it has followed. Some panel manufacturers are trying to block solar imports from China, which leads me to believe they’re not really that concerned with green house gas emissions after all.
Solar installers are against the restrictions, because the cheaper panel prices are increasing the sales of PV systems and they’re as happy as ever to continue riding the subsidy gravy train. Both segments are guilty of participating in a massive plunder of public and private moneys.
It is almost comical watching manufacturers and installers fight over the import restriction policy. The manufactures want the restrictions so that they won’t have to compete against the low-cost panels from China, and the installers like the low prices so they have more business, thus showing little concern for the U.S. manufacturers who created the subsidies in the first place. Is there no honor among the plunderers?
The oversupply of panel production is the direct result of government subsidies for solar. The article, in part, credits the oil price boom for the investment surge, but solar is not a subs ute for oil. Installing solar panels does not reduce our oil imports. Solar PV offsets electricity and only about 1% of our electricity is made from oil, so I can’t believe investors invested in solar in response to high oil prices, nor for the reason of climate concerns, since solar is a very expensive means of reducing GHG emissions.
Reality Check Needed
It is far more reasonable to assume that investors invested simply based on a belief that subsidies and mandates would continue for many years. The subsidies created an artificial demand, which those investing in the industry surely understood was unsustainable. But apparently they did not correctly foresee the compe ion.
And fortunately for the taxpayers, who were helpless against the massive lobbying efforts of the industry, the Chinese manufacturers have come to the rescue. So if we’re being forced to buy panels, at least we can buy less expensive ones.
The best possible outcome for the U.S. taxpayers at this point is:
1) those companies most responsible for the solar subsidies lose interest because of the compe ion, and
2) there is a widespread realization that our utility mandates are accomplishing little except supporting the Chinese solar panel manufacturing industry.
Hopefully, these two outcomes will result in a shuttering of the political forces sustaining the subsidies and the subsidies will finally end.
PV Grid Parity: Still Illusory
One other point worth noting about this article is that the cost of PV is finally down to about $1/watt, which is the price many in the industry claimed was the price needed for solar to reach grid parity without subsidies. Well, $1/watt is finally here and solar is still far from grid parity. The truth is even if China could sell panels to installers for 1¢/watt, the systems would still be too expensive. Even with free PV, the cost of installation, mounting structure, inverters, wiring, etc. make the systems financially unsustainable.
The article concludes with the statement that “as technology advances and costs drop, solar-panel makers can supply power without a need for heavy government subsidies.” This leaves the reader some hope that on-grid solar PV will wean the world off fossil fuels, but this is wishful thinking. There is no guarantee that the prices will ever reach the point of grid parity without subsidies.
PV would reach grid parity if the total installed cost plus the net present value (NPV) of the operations and maintenance cost were at or below about $1/watt. But given that the PV panels alone cost $1/watt, and the total system cost for utility scale PV arrays is still $3.75/watt not including the NPV of O&M costs, I don’t see on-grid PV as a rational bet. Unless of course, one gets to bet with other people’s money and can ignore the moral implications.
Perhaps it will someday be necessary to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for reasons of supply limits or environmental issues. If that happens, normal market forces will rebalance both the supply and demand of energy in logical and rational ways. Till then we’ll just have to suffer through yet another economic bubble created by government intervention in markets.
Will we never learn?
As a final note, included in the list of failed solar companies is Solon of Germany whose corporate slogan was “Don’t Leave the Planet to the Stupid.” Fortunately for taxpayers, it appears Solon will be leaving the planet.
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/0...-solar-plight/
Energy Efficiency Lives! Devastating Debunking of Rebound Effect and Breakthrough Ins ute
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...ugh-ins ute/
"1) those companies most responsible for the solar subsidies lose interest because of the compe ion"
many US solar companies are thriving and innovating non-stop. And I thought you right-wing extremeist loved compe ion?
A huge problem is that China subsidizes its solar industry with $10Bs/year and holds its currency below market rate to gain advantage against US$ and Euro.
2) there is a widespread realization that our utility mandates are accomplishing little except supporting the Chinese solar panel manufacturing industry.
... see above.
A Wind Technician’s Perspective Helps AWEA Fight for Tax Credits
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/12/...eanTechnica%29
Mildly interesting rebuttal.
Short on details or supporting data, and demonstrably indicative of a rather limited knowledge of energy topics.
One would expect a bit more from someone with a masters in finance.
It does bring to mind the fact that the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing its solar panel industry.
The funny thing to me is that the more of these things we buy the more the Chinese are essentially subsidizing our energy usage.
The biggest failure of the article is the failure of imagination and conceptualization when it comes to viewing energy in a wider sense.
He is completely and provably wrong when he says "solar is not a subs ute for oil"
Battery technology will allow for electric vehicles, and that is already making for some interchangibility, and this will increase as technology improves.
The other sweeping statements he makes, such as dismissive "solar can only compete with all these government subsidies" are completely unsourced.
Oddly enough the only real article or source data that he did cite, turned out to be an op-ed written by.. .the same guy.
The guy is in the solar business, so I would put some stock in his expertise, but would be a lot more comfortable with some source data.
Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/ma...#ixzz1jGzd0I5j
We should be upfront and honest about the costs.
I wonder if he has solid data on areas other than Tuscon, which would seem to be to be almost ideal for solar PV.
Here is also a better bit by the same guy.
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...vs/#more-10300
He does elaborate a bit on why he claims solar will not subs ute for oil there, and that seems a bit more reasonable.
This one also is where he sources the data for his points. Nifty project for a lunch hour sometime in the future.
City of Austin Activates Largest Texas Solar Farm
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/12/...eanTechnica%29
CPS names two firms in mega-solar project
OCI Solar Power, whose parent is a South Korean chemical company, will build the solar farms using panels from a factory to be built here by Nexolon, another South Korean firm with close ties to OCI and a builder of solar cell components.
Both companies will open headquarters in San Antonio, part of their larger commitment to bring at least 800 jobs to town with a $38 million to $40 million payroll.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/...ct-2471016.php
San Antonio Utility Negotiating Another 400MW of Solar in Next 5 Years
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-...8Treehugger%29
The free market at work.
Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis….
Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more compe ive with coal.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...or-first-time/
==============
Economics Stunner: “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”
Natural Gas Damage Larger Than Its Value Added For Even Low CO2 Prices
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...ution-damages/
One paradox about unscrubbed coal burning vs natgas is that it dumps 1000s of tons of poisonous, greenhouse-warming into the atmosphere, including particulates which reflect solar energy back into space, contributing to cooling, but at the cost of 1000s of people dying from particulate pollution (eg, non-smoking lung cancer, etc). Natgas contributes to the pollution, but not with the reflective particulates, so allows more solar energy to reach earth.
Of course, the "costs of damages" above are all externalized from the carbon-extractors and energy-producers to the rest of us, who pay $Bs in clean-up, pollution for air, land, water, and with sicknesses and death.
Georgetown, Tx goes all-renewable:
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/...ewable-energy/A Central Texas city is waving goodbye to fossil fuels.
Georgetown’s municipal utility on Wednesday unveiled plans to abandon traditional electricity sources like coal and gas power plants, instead exclusively tapping wind and solar energy to meet all of its customers’ power needs. It is the state's first city-owned utility to make that leap.
The city announced a 25-year deal with SunEdison, the world’s largest renewable energy company, to buy 150 megawatts of solar power beginning next year. The company said it would build a solar farm in West Texas to meet the demand.
Last year, Georgetown signed a contract for 144 megawatts of wind energy through 2039. That electricity comes from an EDF Renewables wind farm 50-miles west of Amarillo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
