With tight budgets, Solar Energy dying

[spuwho]

Fox News reports on the impact solar energy is having on federal and state budgets and to the utilities, who no longer want rate payers to subsidize solar users on the grid.

Solar subsidies dim, putting future of industry in doubt

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/cutbacks-in-subsidies-indicate-future-solar-may-be-dimming/#ixzz2KBfJZtGD


For decades, supporters of renewable power have been singing the praises about the possibilities of capturing energy from the sun.

The solar industry got a huge boost during President Obama's first term when the stimulus package threw billions of dollars in subsidies at solar power companies in hopes of dramatically increasing production. Generation has increased in that time -- but now federal, state and local incentives are being slashed, leading some to conclude the future of solar power in the U.S. is dimming.

"The fundamental problem is it's not economically sustainable," said Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, a think tank in Washington state.

Federal stimulus incentives have run out and are not being renewed. States are also slashing their solar power subsidies. Oregon recently cut its solar business tax credit by 99 percent. And utilities all over the country are complaining about lost revenue.

One major issue is that homeowners have been taking advantage of subsidies and the dropping price of solar panels thanks to cheap imports from China. But as those customers buy less electricity, utilities are being forced to raise rates on non-solar customers to pay for infrastructure. Southern California Edison will reportedly transfer $400 million in annual costs to people without solar systems.

The solar industry is keenly aware of the subsidy issue and acknowledges some incentives may need to be tweaked, but leaders argue that cutting too much runs the risk of throwing the brakes on a growing industry.

"The industry's cognizant that some of the subsidies need to be adjusted to reflect the decline in cost," said Carrie Cullen Hitt, vice president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "At the same time you don't want to have a hard stop on these, not just because you'd stop installations, but you'd impact that economic growth."

At the heart of this dilemma are what's known as net metering customers. These homeowners and businesses produce solar power which they use, but then they're able to sell power they don't use back into the grid. They're compensated at retail rates and can currently receive a check at the end of the year.

In Idaho, the largest utility in the state -- Idaho Power -- is trying to change the rules. And net metering customers like Courtney White are angry.

"We're insubstantial in terms of affecting other ratepayers," says White.

She and her husband put solar panels on their house last year and anticipate breaking even in 14 years, but if the Idaho Power changes go through, they may never recoup the $25,000 solar panel investment they made.

The utility wants to quadruple the monthly fee net metering customers pay for being on the system, and it plans on ending the practice of cutting checks at the end of the year. Instead, any benefit from leftover credits would be shared by all ratepayers. Idaho Power officials say it's about fairness. Because net metering customers buy substantially less electricity than other customers, they pay less for the utility's fixed costs.

Idaho Power argues that being forced to buy solar power at the more expensive retail rate amounts to a subsidy that is paid by all other ratepayers. The utility has plenty of support in the state legislature.

"To me, the test is how cost effective it is," said state Rep. George Eskridge, vice chairman of the Energy Committee. "When solar is more expensive than other resources, I don't think the other consumers in the system should have to subsidize that power resource."

While Idaho's solar generation is tiny, California is another story. The Golden State now has 116,000 net metering customers who are producing 1,200 megawatts of electricity. That's nearly half of the solar power generated across the entire country. New Jersey is a distant second.

Critics point out even with the growth in recent years, solar power is still by far the smallest contributor to the grid supplying just one-tenth of one percent of the country's electricity. Coal remains the biggest chunk at 36 percent, followed closely by natural gas. As for renewable sources, wind is at the top at 3.2 percent.

Germany, by contrast, has been held up as a solar leader. On some days, solar power has nearly met the country's energy needs by itself. Yet, even with 1 million solar systems in the country, they account for less than 5 percent of the electrical generation. The price of electricity is high in Germany, and the country just slashed subsidies paid to generators.

"Everywhere you go, solar energy requires massive subsidies, which eventually blow a hole in the federal or state budget, and then are dropped," said Myers. "Solar is a bad way to go."

[Dog Walker]

Another Fox news spin sponsored by the Koch brothers and the other oil interests.

The so called "subsidies" for solar are less than the cost of adding the same generating capacity by building new coal fired plants.  No bonds have to be issued to pay for the construction of central plants either.  Wall street doesn't like this. 

Volkswagen just brought on line the largest solar generating installation in the United States at it's North Carolina plant that produces the Passat model.  It is 36 acres of solar panels.

[L.P. Hovercraft]

Yeah, I'd definitely take anything Fox News "reports" on solar power with a Three Mile Island sized grain of salt.

[spuwho]

Disregard the source of the information for a second and think about the dyamics in place that impact solar deployments:

1. State budgets are tight and are cutting solar deployment subsidies
2. Chinese panel development have dropped the cost to acquire
3. The abundance of cheap natural gas is causing a cost shift in power generation

While the hyperbole on "dying" is probably a little over the top, the fact that solar costs more per kWh to produce than any gas, coal or nuke generation is what is causing the heartburn. The article questions the reasons why power regulators are requiring solar clients to be reimbursed for their capital at year end, when the reduction in costs due to reduction in load should be passed back to the clients of the utility.

Power generators have to recover their cost of capital to pay for the large investments needed to maintain their generation and grid. So a home solar outfit that gets a large rebate from the generator is in effect subsidizing a more expensive way to produce energy and making the other users of the grid (who don't have solar) pay for that.

I am all for net metering, (pay for what you use and credit for what you give), but if a solar user wants to stay grid connected, they should still assume some of those costs of capital as well. If one thinks that is not fair to the solar home user, then one approach would be to go completely "off grid" then your costs are completely self contained.

The VW plant you speak of is in Chattanooga, TN and is difficult to compare because the incentives VW got to locate in Tennessee were very broad. How much of those VW used to create a local grid for themselves isn't clear.  The fact that they did create one is fantastic as industrial electricity use is a huge issue in the hot summers and it fits with something noted in the article, Germany is a very large solar user, in this case a German auto maker brought that approach with them.

[Dog Walker]

And there are huge subsidies to the gas and oil industries in the form of a whole bundle of tax incentives, low lease rates, etc.

Nuclear power is by far the most expensive form of energy production when you take into account ALL of the cost of building, running and decommissioning the plants.

[fsquid]

FDR and Truman decided that the country was going to need a massive economic recovery after the Depression followed by WWII, and they felt that one way to achieve it (and/or they got talked into it by the likes of LBJ and Sam Rayburn) was to have low energy prices. The whole package - treatment of IDC, percentage depletion, the lease sale process, and many others - was put together to get gasoline and diesel to the pump cheaper than in Europe, and thus create a competitive advantage. It worked. Problem is, it worked too well. We got addicted to oil. And oil has a problem in that it truly is so much better than all the alternatives that it's hard to wean us off it.

[spuwho]

Kind of baffled because the US no longer uses oil to produce electricity.

Fuel Oil is used in the NE somewhat for heating purposes, but we stopped burning oil to make power years ago when coke, natural gas and later nuke power came along.

So what is the relationship between oil and electricity sources like solar?

[Dog Walker]

The same tax breaks and subsidies apply to coal and natural gas as to oil and they are used to produce electricity.

There is only one "subsidy" for solar power.  I get to take off $3500 dollars this year as a credit for the solar panels that were installed on my office.  I get credit for the power produced on my JEA bill at the same rate JEA charges me for it, but still have to pay all of the taxes and fees.

In most countries in Europe or in Gainesville, Florida and a few cities in California I would actually get more for my power produced than I would pay for it.  Doing the numbers for the interest on bonds and future fuel costs, these countries and municipalities have calculated that they are still ahead.  This is called a "feed in tariff".

People like me are adding to JEAs production capacity without them having to pay for expanding a plant or building a new one.

[Dog Walker]

Here is the latest nonsense from Fox News "experts" on solar energy:

"The industry's future looks dim," intoned host Gretchen Carlson at the beginning of the segment, which was preserved for posterity by the liberal blog Media Matters for America. She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."

Germany is sunnier than the US?  NOT!  Germany gets as much sun as Alaska.

Either the Fox News people are totally ignorant or they think that their viewers are.  Come to think of it they might be right on both counts.

Full article here:  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/fox-cedes-solar-industry-to-germany/192568

[carpnter]

Here is the latest nonsense from Fox News "experts" on solar energy:

"The industry's future looks dim," intoned host Gretchen Carlson at the beginning of the segment, which was preserved for posterity by the liberal blog Media Matters for America. She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."

Germany is sunnier than the US?  NOT!  Germany gets as much sun as Alaska.

Either the Fox News people are totally ignorant or they think that their viewers are.  Come to think of it they might be right on both counts.

Full article here:  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/fox-cedes-solar-industry-to-germany/192568

Actually Germany will have more daylight hours than most of the US during warmer months due to it being further north than a significant portion of the US.  In the winter they will have shorter days and fewer hours where the sun's position would be ideal for solar panels. 

[Dog Walker]

Here is the latest nonsense from Fox News "experts" on solar energy:

"The industry's future looks dim," intoned host Gretchen Carlson at the beginning of the segment, which was preserved for posterity by the liberal blog Media Matters for America. She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."

Germany is sunnier than the US?  NOT!  Germany gets as much sun as Alaska.

Either the Fox News people are totally ignorant or they think that their viewers are.  Come to think of it they might be right on both counts.

Full article here:  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/fox-cedes-solar-industry-to-germany/192568

Actually Germany will have more daylight hours than most of the US during warmer months due to it being further north than a significant portion of the US.  In the winter they will have shorter days and fewer hours where the sun's position would be ideal for solar panels. 

Look at the map in the article.  Germany doesn't get but a fraction of the solar energy than any state in the US but Alaska.  It's just too far north and the weather in northern Europe is cloudier too.  All of Germany is further north than the continental US.

[Lunican]