SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Summer sunshine isn't just a reason to play outside. It has a lot of people thinking about how to harness the sun's energy. One of the more exciting examples is the solar plane that took off in Arizona earlier this month — and kept on flying.
But, closer to home, a new thin-film solar manufacturing plant is bringing new jobs to an enterprise zone in Gresham. And the Solarize Portland program has been helping neighborhood coalitions to sign onto solar energy projects en masse so that a contractor of their choice can buy panels in bulk and, hopefully, pass the savings on. Since the program brings in one or two contractors for an entire city quadrant, some companies that haven't been chosen say the program is hurting their business.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Department of Energy has made some changes that reduce the tax incentives for people who use renewable energy in their homes. The reduced tax credits are temporary, but the department says they hope to make them permanent. This has ruffled some feathers among people who are trying to get more homeowners to install solar panels.
How do you use solar energy? Do you use it to generate energy for your home or business? Do you want to? Have recent changes in local and state incentives changed your thinking?
GUESTS:
- Shane Bemis: Mayor of Gresham
- Damoder Reddy: CEO of Solexant
- Andrea Simmons: Energy policy administrator for the Oregon Department of Energy
- Lee Rahr: Residential solar program coordinator for the city of Portland
- Andrew Koyaanisqatsi: President of Solar Energy Solutions Inc.
Tagged as: alternative energy · solar power
Photo credit: smlions12 / Creative Commons
-
rethomas:
A high tech structure with silicon solar panels cost 300 million dollars to allow 1000 cars to park in the shade.
For a similar opportunity cost, 100 million fast growing shade trees could have been planted throughout California streets, allowing millions of cars to park in the shade, neighborhood shady walks, leaves for mulch, wood for winter fires, nuts for squirrels, habitats for birds and enhancement to properties. Plus nothing ages as well as a heritage tree....I wish I could say the same for a 19 year old solar panel but it will probably end up in some dump just like the 1970's Era solar arrays.
15 year old solar technology goes up against 2 billion years of bio-photosynthesis evolution. Just because it is made by man and creates jobs, does not make it the best alternative. Would you rather have Silicon Forrests or Douglas Firs.
We are making a solar bubble.
-
Jacob you're comparing all the wrong things... I'm interested in shade and power... a tree won't give me power unless I regularly cut it down and recycle it into biomass-based fuel... say every 19yrs or so when fast-growth carbon sequestration curves start to level off as growth levels off.
Regardless, when it comes to KW/hr generated, the return on investment of a solar panel easily beats 2B years of evolution... even though it isn't as pleasing to the eye.
As to the cost... you're absolutely right, initially it's going to be bloody expensive, but like any other technology (computers, TV's, etc.) the cost drops with volume... so, yes the first maybe $300M, but the 1000th won't be and the millionth will be even less.
-
There is an insecure, smug tendency to build a free standing home 'off the grid.' Solar enters the equation because it can be scaled and sited to an individual home. You can't just put a windmill on your chimney or sink a geothermal well in your backyard or put a wave machine in your swimming pool.
But in rainy Portland, except in summers, your solar array will not be operating in peak efficiency. Therefore you have to overbuild capacity to earn enough to power your home. And solar companies are too happy to overcharge for the overbuild.
We want to live in our little home/ castle in a bubble--free and clear of the world's troubles. And solar puts us off the grid. But in the whole scheme of things it is just rampant consumerism fueled by survivalism . It is the equivalent of building a Bomb Shelter in the 1950's.
I propose that we think globally and act beyond our own backyards. Solar arrays in warm, sunny deserts are more productive than in cloudy, rainy, tree shaded, inner city sites in PDX. Commercial solar plants are more efficient than backyard systems. Southern California Cities are more populated than anywhere else on the west coast. Instead of exporting hydro power, we should finance and export solar arrays in Southern California, Arizona and Mexico. We all share the transmission grid. And helping desert dwellers to use solar power makes sense. And it is just as natural that Klamath Falls residents should use geothermal hot water.
We live on a whole interdependent planet ecosystem. China just surpassed America in energy consumption. If we help zero carbon power generation in China by sharing clean coal technology, we would make a greater impact on CO2 generation than the offset from world nuclear industry.
I would suggest rather than 'Solarizing' a northwest home, owners should first look into double insulating and triple glazing windows. Downsize to a right-sized home. Move closer to work, city center or to public transit. Participate in public utility green energy programs. And donate your grid to a family in a sunny desert climate. It may be more useful than a wave machine in Beaverton.
-
"But in the whole scheme of things it is just rampant consumerism fueled by survivalism . It is the equivalent of building a Bomb Shelter in the 1950's."
Dude, get a grip... all the folks I know who want to put solar, wind, home-grown methane or biofuels and anything else they can get their hands on to generate power are doing it because they either want to make a couple of bucks selling it back, want to contribute to energy independence, just like the idea of doing something to help or all three... besides survivalists aren't generally the types who read/listen/contribute to OPB... they only listen to the emergency channels (joke, sorry couldn't resist).
-
We have several 15 ft or taller trees in my back yard. We cut down a dying 30 year old tree Which gave us sun exposure for panels and a sunny place in my front yard for a veg garden. We live in 1000 sq ft for 2 adults. I work in the house, he works not 5 miles away. Rainy PDX has better sun than Germany.
I don't want arrays in a delicated desert eco-system.
Every place to be looked at individually.
Not black and white, all or nothing solutions.
Solar is not for everyone. It is a good plan for us.
-
Thank you OPB for discussing solar power generation for Oregon. I believe there is room for both large scale solar thermal generation and small scale PV or thin film generation. When talking about small scale PV however, you should consult with either Judy Barnes or Mark Pengily (Oregonians for Renewable Energy Policy - http://www.oregonrenewables.com/) who fought to get a European style financing structure (led by Germany since 2000) for renewable energy put into policy. HB3039 was the result of that effort. It is a pilot program to understand the effect of a Feed-in-Tariff or "FIT" (payment for energy generated from any renewable source). This pilot only covers solar production however.
Here are some facts about this method of funding renewable projects:
- Job creation (300K jobs in Germany in less than a decade with their FIT; 63k in solar alone)
- Mass deployment gets us off fossil fuels and "beyond coal" faster and enables economies of scale.
- Financing is easier since a FIT is a low-risk investment as utilities pay the homeowner enough to cover the financing. Eliminates the need for government tax credits at a time when governments are broke.
- Protects ratepayers from future rate increases tied to finite energy resources like fossil fuels vs. accessing clean energy sources like solar and wind that have NO FUEL COST.
- If Germany can become the world's leader in solar energy in 5 yrs with over half the world's solar production, with the same amount of sun as Juneau, Alaska, for a cost to the average homeowner of $5/month extra, then Oregon can certainly do as well for reasonable costs since in Oregon, including Portland, we get more sun than Germany.
- 63 countries, including Mongolia, now have FIT policies in place
- In Q1 of 2010 German homeowners and businesses installed 717 MW of solar because of their FIT policy that pays everyone to produce and sell energy to their local utility, which is more than the entire US installed in ALL of 2009.
- Sierra Club, state Solar Energy Industry Associations and now the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions have endorsed FITs as a superior policy for deploying renewable energy technologies.
-
There are nearly 700 homeowners in SW Portland that have signed up with the Solarize SW project. This speaks to the power of aligning tax credits and incentives and to the interest regular people have in generating their own energy.
While an individual's reasons for "jumping on-board" may vary you can't deny the demand for a democratization of the grid! Energy independence, reducing your carbon footprint and stimulating the local economy are all great reasons for solarizing Portland.
As one of the group that signed up in late June before the Oregon Dept. of Energy reduced the tax credit I made it in just before the door closed (I think!). It may be worth discussing how the reduction of tax credits may affect Solarize Portland especially for those who signed up but haven't signed a contract.
-
Hate to burst your bubble:
"There are nearly 700 homeowners in SW Portland that have signed up with the Solarize SW project"
But there are a million households in the greater Portland Area who have NOT solarized. And our state budget is operating in deficits never before experienced in history; tax breaks can ill be afforded unless there are means to pay for them. IF solar can be self supporting, perhaps it should exist without tax incentives. But there are people losing health care, students priced out of college, bridges that are in sore need of replacement, and roads that lack police enforcement.
I would wager there are more than 700 households in PDX who have lost their utility power do to nonpayment, deliquency or bankruptcy in the past month. And they cannot afford the $20,000 solarization costs. This is another example of the rich getting richer; they get all the tax breaks.
-
Dear Kaliuma,
I completely agree that the success of the "Solairze" projects
indicates just how much interest and eagerness there is out among "regular" people to be involved in producing electricity from renewable sources, whether the motivation is national energy security, ending wars for oil, reducing the effects of climate change or their own energy independence.
What the Solarize projects also show that the closer you come to covering a producer's costs (whether it be a homeowner/entrepreneur or a business) and the simpler and easier you make the process of becoming a renewable energy producer, the more solar will go up.
If we are to deploy renewables to the extent and at the required speed to begin to replace fossil fuels, we must stop depending on people's altruism and start paying anyone who can produce this most valuable of commodities what it really costs them to produce it.
And if we are to move in a massive way to break our dependence on fossil fuels (beyond coal?) then we certainly need to increase the pace at which we deploy all renewables.
We must also make it simple and easy to become a producer of renewable energy.
Funding mass deployment of renewable energy from tax incentives is not a sustainable financing mechanism. As our recent economic downturn has shown only too clearly, funding renewable energy with tax incentives is an unsustainable funding mechanism on a mass scale. That's because each tax incentive we grant is tax revenue we don't collect. Those are tax revenues that otherwise would have been used to pay for education, public safety and human services.
This puts funding of renewables in direct competition with funding for
teachers, police and home health care workers.
Funding any program on a mass scale with tax incentives is not sustainable because it doesn't actually bring us new dollars, but attempts to split a finite pie into smaller pieces.
Oregon's recent experience with the overwhelmingly successful Business Energy Tax Credits, with a tax obligation that then ballooned way beyond expectations is a case in point.
Tax incentives also pose the problem of disappearing in poor economic times when as the economy shrinks, tax liabilities shrink as well. -
A better model is a Feed-In Tariff policy funded by electricity ratepayers. Such a policy covers 100% of the cost of generation to a producer over time, and makes it simple and easy to become a producer of RE by removing the red tape.
Funding the transition to renewable energy with a small rate increase is sustainable because ultimately it creates stable energy prices for ratepayers that don't go up as the cost of finite fossil fuels does.
If constructed properly, FIT policies actually drive down the cost of renewables to where they are no more expensive than fossil fuels. Germany has accomplished this goal for groundmounted solar and expects the same for rooftop solar by 2013.
While not yet a genuine FIT policy, Oregon's new Solar Pilot Program, which launched on July 1st, is a move in the right direction. The 5-year pilot program will be funded by a small rate increase unlikely to exceed $1 per month extra on the average $100 per month electric bill (less than a 1% increase).
From this point on, applicants for "Solarize" projects will have the option to choose either the current "tax-credit plus
cash-grant-from-Energy-Trust-of- Oregon, plus net-metering program OR a net-metering plus production-based-incentive option under the new SPP.
Under the SPP homeowners and others will be paid a fixed rate over 15 years for each kWh they both produce and consume. The pilot currentrly limits the amount a homeowner or small business can produce and get paid for to what they consume and penalizes them if they conserve and produce more than they consume. How much solar energy could we produce if all Oregonians had incentives to produce as much energy as they can and feed the extra into the grid to meet the needs of those who cannot produce renewable energy?
Good FIT policies provide incentives for anyone to maximize production and minimize their consumption.
With good FIT policies for RE in place one can conceive of the day when 100% of Oregon's electricity needs are met from clean, limitless renewable resources. -
For the past six months I’ve volunteered my time to support the Solarize Southwest Portland program and because of volunteers like me these programs have far exceeded expectations. In Portland we’re still crunching the numbers, but if current trending holds, we’ll be adding about 1 Megawatt of clean and renewable energy to our neighborhoods by the end of this year. This amount of residential solar electric installation has never before been seen in the Pac Northwest for existing homes. This clearly shows the level of interest and demand for solar energy here in Oregon.
All of the good work we’ve done to support clean energy in our neighborhoods is now in jeopardy due to the recent action taken by ODOE on the RETC. Perhaps they didn’t consider the impact and negative consequences of this action on my neighbors who are in the midst of purchasing and installing solar electric on their residences. Changing the RETC rules in the middle of this program, without notice, explanation, or recourse, has caused a great deal of consternation and I’m being told that many of my neighbors will cancel their install as they simply cannot afford the out of pocket cost as a result of this ODOE action.
I assume this result was unintended, but it is a reality nonetheless.
If enough people make this decision it will have a major trickle-down negative effect on the resources we’ve put in place to support our plan to install hundreds of solar panels on neighborhood rooftops this summer and fall. The emergency ruling is a direct threat to the JOB CREATION that has resulted from these Solarize projects. It will also have a negative impact on the local economy because cancellations will hurt downstream local producers of equipment such as solar modules, inverters, etc… who have been hiring in Hillsboro and Bend Oregon in order to support this increased demand.
The last thing we need in Oregon right now is to add to the current unemployment condition due to this “emergency ruling” from ODOE.
-
I got a big kick out of the article in the 2010 July 18 Business section of The Sunday Oregonian "No More Give in the NW Power Grid". Wind power is too successful!
The problem is that the "Free Market" has proven to be a massive failure because it has not computerized the "Grid" and made other necessary modifications to keep up with and help in the transition to alternative and diversified sources of energy. The "Free Market" is preventing progress and has proved to be an anachronism.
What is needed is "Centralized Planning" by the government, just like that great Centrist Moderate Republican President, "Ike", Eisenhower did with the Interstate Highway System that brought us our freeways, our I-5s. We need government agencies like NASA and others to study out and plan how we ought to computerize and develop the total energy grid in order to turn small businesses loose and get ourselves out of our addiction to Oil and the other fossil fuels that are damaging our world and endangering humanity. We need to mobilize like we did to win WW2 and invest and build the Computerized Electrical Grid for the future.
The "Free Market" is keeping us mired in the past and we need to reject it and work together to build our future.
-
Dear Tom,
I agree the so-called "free market" policies of massive subsidies for fossil fuels are keeping us mired in the past while the rest of the world races past us in producing the renewable energy future with its huge market for new technologies and green jobs.
There is no such thing as a free market. Every marketplace there has ever been has had rules. The question is who makes the rules and who benefits from them. The power of Feed-In Tariff policies is that they establish rules for the renewable energy market that open up that market to millions of new players by establishing in law fixed prices that a local utility will pay for each kWh of renewable energy fed into the grid over a fixed contract period - usually 15-20 years. The prices are set in advance to provide a minimum of profitability to anyone who can produce renewable energy. FIT policies also guarantee RE producers a hook up to the gird, so they have a place to sell their energy. With this certainty of a price and a way to get your RE to market, the production of RE skyrockets as do green jobs.
We need a robust FIT policy in Oregona. We've got an opportunity with Oregon's new pilot but it will need improving. Seventeen other states have FIT policies somewhere in the legislative pipeline. Oregon is one of the first. but it will take citizens helping to get it right.
For example, it was just said on the show that the reason our PUC did not permit rooftop owners to sell excess enrgy to the grid is that didn't want to create little utilities. That's not quite accurate. They were hampered by a provision in federal law that prevents states from setting prices for wholesale energy. Volunteers are working to change this law. To learn more and help advocate for good FIT policies in Oregon, visit www.OregonRenewables.com .
-
When it comes to the track record of Germany's now wildly successful feed-in tarrif model, one fact leaps out: ratepayers pay, after a decade of involvement, about the cost of a latte per month more than they would without the program. Not bad for creating over 250k jobs and being the seat of the largest solar industry on the planet!
-
and no air polution
-
The primary reasons that Solar companies are heading to Oregon are: cheap electricity, a receptive nearby market, strong incentives, and a low-cost semi-technical labor market. This is another example of Oregon acting as the manufacturing arm of California.
Why doesn't the state incentivize technology development? All the solar success stories in Oregon are based on technologies developed outside the state. The state is paying up to $200k per manufacturing job (paying $60k per year) while technologists are heading out of the state due to inadequate funding and support for the solar entreprenuers in the state. Seems to be an example of politicians grabbing headlines rather than planting seeds for sustainable (pun intended) growth.
-
To be worth going solar the ROI must not exceed 2-years, just as with ANY other capital investment.
-
Two-year payback on a device that runs for 25 years?! Calculating economic break even is significantly more complex than a two-year rule of thumb. I'd wager the Bonneville Dam didn't pay for itself in two years...
-
Cool, I can pay off my house, my car, my college education in 2 years?!?!
-
Small scale Solar Energy Production, requiring no energy cost input (fuel) is no more then a machine carrying it's initial cost and maintenance. It is simply unrealistic to compare it to Bonneville Dam on scale alone.
Bonneville was designed to supply electrical energy to a region and speaking theoretically had the price of that energy been set to provide a ROI to the BPA that was based on a shorter cost neutrality, perhaps both business and public users would be significantly more efficient in their used of that power today; a completely ‘what if’ scenario. -
mver...
I live it. Can "you" do it? That "I" do not know.
-
Desolation~
It's not clear to me what you meant in your reply. But, Perhaps my attempt at humor fell flat. Please, Let me try again: Many capitol investments take more than 2 years to pay back. Some investments NEVER pay back, are still worth it. Sometimes the pay back is relative. Applying an absolute time line (of 2 years) to an investment might be ill-advised. Individual circumstances must be considered.
-
mver
I apologize you could not hear me laugh! Perhaps someday “they” will get that part of this medium fixed. Life is too short not to laugh! -
Interesting Reposting, appropriate:
I recently had a professional evaluation for a 1400-watt PV system (i.e., small system) on my home. The system would produce roughly $140 worth of electricity each year (that is about 15% of our home's annual usage of about $1000), and the complete system would cost ~$12,000 (including installation). After state and federal tax credits the residual cost would be ~$4,300, and the "simple" payback time (calculated at a rate of $0.08/kWh) would be 31 years (that's right 31 years).
Despite my sincere desire to install this system, it is really hard for me to justify an up-front, out-of-pocket expense of $12,000, for a system that will replace only 15% of my annual electricity usage, and which will require ~30 years to just pay itself back (fully, at today's rates). The tax credits (residential in my case) are nevertheless substantial, and "doing the right thing" has its own merit, but these considerations can only carry so much weight in a spending decision of such magnitude. I have reluctantly concluded that despite its environmental merit, solar technology remains more of a "rich man's toy" than a real solution for the majority of Oregonians. At today's price, it is inconceivable to me that solar can be more than a novelty to be enjoyed only by the affluent.
Will somebody please prove me wrong?
drydog — Tue June 9th 9:57p.m.
-
Agreed that Solar remains in the domain of the 'early adopters' for many markets. $8.50 for a fully burdened system is on the high end, I think. The price tends to drop off with larger systems since installation cost, integration to the home, and even inverters will drop on a per watt basis.
-
One of the biggest things missing in energy change is massive development of LED lighting. I don't understand why they have not been pushed and incentivized really hard.
-
Some years ago Berkeley CA implemented a program where a homeowner could finance their solar system through a community fund, and pay it back through the property tax bill. The loan was paid according to savings on the energy bill and the loan transfered with the property, so subsequent owners would continue paying. Is there such a program here? If so, could you describe it? If not, why not?
-
This is exactly the type of program the state/ city could step in and help on. Why not help finance home and community projects?
-
When things go down the route of lowest bidder you have to watch out for the things they do to make up for their low bid. In construction, often contractors will bid low to get the job and then charge outrageously for any changes and upgrades.
So you need to negotiate on changes before you sign the bid to protect yourself.
-
I support the awareness that the Solarize efforts have provided, however, I do not support the number of jobs allocated to one company. I would encourage the policy makers in future to increase the number of contractors per number of Solarize projects. Not only will this enable the winning contractors to better manage the quality of their installationss, it also will enable better customer service.
As regards a true feed-in-tariff, this is something that Oregon and the U.S. truly needs to continue incentivising renewable energy projects in light of diminishing state incentives. Public funds are not at stake in a true FIT. And, utilizing the existing roof space in Oregon is more practical and immediately accessible than setting up utility-scale systems "out in the desert."
-
I'v provided a link to the Berkeley website for the program I mentioned above. This would be an ideal concept for a grant from the Feds or from a major foundation. I can see why the utilities would oppose it as taking a slice of their pie, but it would be great for the public!
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580
From the site:
Berkeley FIRST was designed to solve many of the financial hurdles facing property owners who wanted to install solar systems. The advantages of the Berkeley FIRST program are:
- There is relatively little up-front cost to the property owner.
- The cost for the solar system is paid for through a special tax on the property, and is spread over 20 years.
- The financing costs are comparable to a traditional equity line or mortgage.
- Since the solar system stays with the property, so does the tax obligation—if the property is transferred or sold, the new owners will pay the remaining tax obligation.
-
This was a very brief discussion of Oregon's volumetric incentive rate that we are now implementing rather than the feed-in tariff. Andrea Simmons was correct that under the feed-in tariff the customer, that is, the rate payer, will be paid for generating electricity over a period of time. This OPB discussion though was greatly simplified for time I'm sure. The Oregon pilot project that is now being implemented is the state's first effort and it will require adjustment to be a feed-in tariff that works best for Oregon. An example of the current law that will need adjustment is limiting the VIR to the electricity actually used rather than that produced beyond what is used since we also want to encourage the cheapest form of electricity which is energy conservation. A true feed-in tariff encourages energy conservation also.
Also, re the development of LED lighting, reviewing the Northwest Sixth Power Plan shows that LED will be an important tool in meeting the goal of 85% of new energy needs through conservation.
DHenkels
-
If every city in the country has some gimmick on how to encourage this or that type of business what ends up being the point? Doesn’t it just all equalize in the end?
It would be more equitable to mandate solar, then to give tax incentives. Either there is evidence to say we need it and it is a good idea, or there isn’t. How are we to understand these indiscriminate tax incentives? Or because someone is in a position to benefit from the incentive they should receive it, but someone else shouldn’t? Really only homeowners can benefit from this incentive, don’t homeowners have enough incentives already? Perhaps single people, non-breeders, vegetarians and waifs should get incentives? Or people opening French macaron shops? Or H&M cause it brings joy to so many?
I am for solar power, I think it is a good idea, but this willy-nilly approach to everything in this country is really starting to suck. Really, the only way we seem to operate is on the principle of the lesser of two evils and by gaming our own system. We do everything backwards and in a roundabout way, but nothing directly. What a half-assed society we move around in. Oh here is a little incentive because we think this ‘might’ be a good idea, here is your gold star. Well I think a Miele washing machine is a good idea, it is durable, works well and lasts forever, where is the Miele incentive? We have to take a bigger stand.
-
I understand the sentiment, but I think you're missing the BIG PICTURE in the purpose behind incentives for clean and renewable energy. "Gimmicks" don't work!
-
Those responsible for the sudden tax credit rule change at Oregon Department of Energy have issued a blow that is uncalled for and serves no constructive purpose except to eliminate a significant part of the market of for those who heretofore could not afford solar. Since the residential solar tax credit program has long been considered revenue neutral there is no net budgetary effect to the state. It was stated that a million dollars would be saved, well, there will be a million dollars less income tax paid by Oregon solar companies and Oregon workers who will have to be laid off because installations will drop dramatically.
-
It was stated on air that the winning bidders on the Solarize Portland projects are forced to hire inexperienced people effecting lower installation quality. This is not true. Mr. Sun has hired six new electricians, all of whom have solar experience, and our installation quality is higher than ever. The very rigorous Energy Trust inspection dictates that all installations in the region fully meet and exceed the National Electric Code. What Portlanders are getting, really, is a “Nordstrom” product at a Wal-Mart price. Solarize Portland is the most significant development I have seen in my 30 years in the solar industry. As a result hundred of residential homeowners are able to put solar on their roofs. What use to be a technology only available to the wealthy has now become mainstream. These programs need to continue unbridled throughout every community in Oregon and beyond. They drive prices down making it more universally affordable. This is what we've needed all along.
-
If the Department of Energy is willing to make an exception for those who enrolled in a Solarize Portland project but haven't yet signed a contract, then all tax paying Oregon homeowners should get the same accommodation. It is evident that the Solarize participants already are getting a superior cost break on their installations. Those who aren't able to benefit from a Solarize project who also are "almost ready to sign on the dotted line", should not be exempted from special consideration. These are public funds that are supposed to be equally available to taxpayers statewide.
-
I absolutely agree! Many of us who've written to ODOE (including OSEIA, Mayor Adams, state legislators, et. al.) have requested an extension for ALL consumers and installers, not just those responsible for community projects like Solarize Portland, Pendleton, Beaverton, etc. Otherwise, we're creating the perception that these projects should be held above all others. As Andrea Simmons mentioned on the show, there needs to be some slight modification to the RETC, not a full stop on one of the key drivers to making solar affordable to many.
-
If we learn anything from recent Economic Bubbles, it is the lack of diversification of funding is a major risk. And when the tide goes out, we see who is not wearing trousers.
Up to 60-70% of Solarization cost are by government subsidy. Solarization is expensive, but tax rebates absorb most of the expenses for homeowers. Solar had a renaissance in the 70's and early 80's with similar rebates. When tax rebates were withdrew under Reagan, the industry collasped to the Dark Ages.
Can solar be self supporting without government subsidies? We are in fiscal crisis in government. NECESSARY expenses will be preserved. Fat will be trimmed. Solarization is not a necessity like education, food for pregnant women and children, healthcare, police and fire. Solarization will be CUT.
But can it compete on its own merit in the market? Right now there is a lot of self interests in a frothy field who want to preserve the status quo. You don't have to be Nostrodamus to see Bubble forming. Like the rest of the Economy. LEAN TIMES ARE AHEAD.
A Sustainable Energy, has to be Sustainable Economically
...or it will POP.
-
Jacob - Love the passion and your POV but things have changed mightily since those "dark ages" in solar as most other things. You are really missing the "big picture" my friend. Yes, subsidies cannot sustain an industry, and shouldn't need to once established, we're approaching that point in several years as places in America are close to "parity" on utility costs with where the cost of solar is headed. Technology is a key driver more than you think, or know. Do you compare anything created in the 1970s & 80s with what is available today?
~ Mac
-
http://solarflareblog.com/?p=929
If you'd like to get further insight from a solar advocate on this show / topic, take a look at this blog post and add your own voice to the conversation.
-
No one has a crystal ball. But we both agree that solar technology and other Green Energy Sources will be needed And you are very optimistic with the advancement in solar technology and effiiciencies and I am hopeful. And when it becomes, cheap and efficient, everyone will have it just by market principles.
How long should significant solar subsidies persist beyond 2010? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 7 years? A Decade? 15 years? 20 Years? A Generation? When your grandkid graduates from college? When You Retire? When your grandkid retires?
I think your answer is A LONG AS POSSIBLE-possibly a several score years. And my answer is next quarter. It seems the time line will be somewhere between 0 and 100 years. This cannot be a government financed boondoggle on a semipermanent status--We already have oil company subsidies!
Let solar compete on a level field and triumph. A marathon race is not fair if one competitor gets a 8 mile head start.
-
Comments are now closed.
One of the more brilliant applications of solar power was when California covered the Cal-Expo parking lots with solar panels... shade for your car, power to the people. I'd support any efforts to require that paved open spaces be shaded by solar panels... get the volumes up and the costs come down.
Personally I monitor the technology to try and judge the best intercept for my home and lobby my HOA to join the 21st century.