Despite the fact that we spend a great deal of time talking about solar power here at EcoGeek, it's a very very young industry. It's extremely volatile. No one has any idea which technology is going to win out, or whether photovoltaic cells will ever be competitive with grid power.
Right now the solar industry is able to attract funding for research and development because a lot of countries have an interest in it being developed on their soil. They want to have clean energy and prevent the need for more coal plants. But they also want to get the tax money from these companies if they ever go ultra-profitable.
Unfortunately, a couple of changes in the policy have hit the solar industry hard in the last few months.
First, the U.S. has continued to refuse to fund the (relatively tiny) solar investment tax credit. This simply lets companies write-off money spent on solar projects. It's considerably smaller than our oil and gas subsidies. But congress has not been able to find a way to fund the tax credit (except by decreasing oil and gas subsidies, and Bush has promised to veto any such legislation.) The result is that the current tax credit is set to expire at the end of the year, and companies all over the country are considering pulling the plug on planned solar projects.
A similar situation in sunny Spain is exacerbating the problem. Their previous substantial solar subsidies are on the chopping block, and the uncertainty is making global waves.
The result has been a substantial drop accross the board for all solar stocks. The result of that is that solar companies have less money for research and expansion. And so, if these tax credits aren't extended, we should expect more than just a decrease in the growth of solar power, but also a delay of grid parity for solar power.
And that's something that I'm sure we can all agree is just foolish.
Hits: 11177
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Noah, July 18, 2008
If only they were doing as well as the rest of the stock market! >:(
-
- +0
-
-
written by I need to be annon, July 18, 2008
Do you think Big Oil and Electric company monopolies are going to let their livelyhoods slip away easily?
Solar on top of homes is the first DIRECT competition your electric company has ever faced. Remember the other monopoly; telephone companies? They fought their newfound competition too. I can't wait to be un-monopolized and un-tethered from cables and wires at my home. It is an ugly situation that will get even uglier. Pay attention to these greedy companies and you will be appalled at how ruthless they are.
Solar on top of homes is the first DIRECT competition your electric company has ever faced. Remember the other monopoly; telephone companies? They fought their newfound competition too. I can't wait to be un-monopolized and un-tethered from cables and wires at my home. It is an ugly situation that will get even uglier. Pay attention to these greedy companies and you will be appalled at how ruthless they are.
-
- +0
-
-
written by The Food Monster, July 19, 2008
http://thefoodmonsterblog.blogspot.com
Are there any solutions, to this other than cutting Gas and Oil subsidies. It seems as if Bush is having a conflict of interest.
Are there any solutions, to this other than cutting Gas and Oil subsidies. It seems as if Bush is having a conflict of interest.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Giezentanner, July 19, 2008
Have you ever stepped out onto the street barefoot in summer and had your feet scalded? The road is hot! Roads aren't very wide, but they are very long, and the fact that the sun's beating down on all that developed surface area every day gave me an idea -- why not build a very tall canopy over the road, open on the sides and supported at intervals by posts that would double as street lamps, and cover the top with solar panels? The canopy could be shaped to maximize efficiency for the panels on it, depending on the direction of the road. Since roads are land that's already been developed, there's no extra environmental impact of building a new power plant on agricultural or wild land. The access provided by the roads would make it relatively easy to install and maintain it, and it would provide another benefit -- shading the road during the hottest part of the day. Maybe it would be cool enough to occasionally turn off your air conditioner while driving, saving gas, money, and further preventing pollution, and the extra shade might make the city itself a little cooler and more livable at ground level. It probably wouldn't work on all roads, but with the huge amount of road surface area in any city surely there would be enough eligible road to power the city. Additionally, such structures could be installed over parking lots or other public spaces.
Is that a ridiculous idea?
Is that a ridiculous idea?
-
- +0
-
-
written by jake3988, July 19, 2008
Why do republicans (and most all of congress) insist on giving oil and gas huge subsidies? They make 90 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Subsidies were given to oil back in the 80s when oil was
Subsidies were given to oil back in the 80s when oil was
-
- +0
-
-
written by Monica, July 19, 2008
At first glance, I see two flaws in your plan to cover roads with canopies that have solar panels.
1. Most cities have taller buildings, which means that the amount of sunlight hitting the roads is significantly decreased, to the point where the energy spent building the canopies would be much greater than the amount of energy gained with the solar panels.
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I do think it would make more sense to do it in suburban areas. That way, if it truly was efficient, some of the extra power could go back to the city.
2. Where is the money going to come from? This entire article was about how solar projects won't be able to continue without funding, which keeps decreasing.
Like I said, I don't think it's a bad idea, I just doubt that the US government would ever make it happen.
1. Most cities have taller buildings, which means that the amount of sunlight hitting the roads is significantly decreased, to the point where the energy spent building the canopies would be much greater than the amount of energy gained with the solar panels.
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I do think it would make more sense to do it in suburban areas. That way, if it truly was efficient, some of the extra power could go back to the city.
2. Where is the money going to come from? This entire article was about how solar projects won't be able to continue without funding, which keeps decreasing.
Like I said, I don't think it's a bad idea, I just doubt that the US government would ever make it happen.
-
- +0
-
-
written by David M, July 19, 2008
Instead of depending on the government to help keep the renewable energy sector going, we should be concentrating locally or at the State level to help get this done.
If you don't think the electric companies aren't trying to cash in on the RE market, just take a look at Florida Power and Light. They own the largest wind farm in the US right now, 60 MW. They are also building 2 solar farms in Florida and selling the Green Energy to their customers.
If you don't think the electric companies aren't trying to cash in on the RE market, just take a look at Florida Power and Light. They own the largest wind farm in the US right now, 60 MW. They are also building 2 solar farms in Florida and selling the Green Energy to their customers.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Giezentanner, July 19, 2008
1. I can see that it probably wouldn't work in the core of a big city dominated by sky scrapers -- downtown Denver, for example, would be probably be out. But what about the highways leading to Denver? And I could see it working in nearby suburban cities, like Westminster or Boulder, where there are scarcely any buildings tall enough to cast a shadow on a 30 or 40 foot high canopy. If we make the switch to "bright green" ultra-dense communities, then the height of buildings might be prohibitive in any city, but there would still be the outlying highways (or rail lines, or whatever) connecting them.
In any case, this is something that could be done right now in a lot of places.
2. I would think that the money would have to come from A) power companies, who might build something like this instead of a new coal power plant, and B) local governments, whose cooperation, and probably financial investment, would be required to make it happen.
So maybe something like this could create the investment needed to make solar profitable... again, just a thought.
In any case, this is something that could be done right now in a lot of places.
2. I would think that the money would have to come from A) power companies, who might build something like this instead of a new coal power plant, and B) local governments, whose cooperation, and probably financial investment, would be required to make it happen.
So maybe something like this could create the investment needed to make solar profitable... again, just a thought.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, July 20, 2008
From what I have seen, most cities have buildings at approximately the same height. Rarely are there significant changes in adjacent buildings. Why not building the solar panels over the streets at rooftop level? You'd have to use the lighter types of panels due to weight and safety, but it might be possible.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mr Dupont, July 20, 2008
Too expensive. They would cost more than the roads. They would have to be built to code and be able to handle high winds, earthquakes etc.
I have always thought that medians and cloverleaf areas of highways and interchanges would be a good place to put freestanding panels. Maybe even the concentrators type systems would fit in clover leaf interchanges. Of course solar would have to be in political favor, IE: there has to be enough funds to contribute heavily towards the right campaign before any of this can happen. Right now all the money is in the oilman's camp, solar is their enemy.
Our only hope for solar is for the price to come down, the efficiencies to go up and the price of oil/coal to continue to escalate.
I have always thought that medians and cloverleaf areas of highways and interchanges would be a good place to put freestanding panels. Maybe even the concentrators type systems would fit in clover leaf interchanges. Of course solar would have to be in political favor, IE: there has to be enough funds to contribute heavily towards the right campaign before any of this can happen. Right now all the money is in the oilman's camp, solar is their enemy.
Our only hope for solar is for the price to come down, the efficiencies to go up and the price of oil/coal to continue to escalate.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gulag2008, July 20, 2008
The choice to go solar is a personal one.
I for one, want to be the one in control of my energy sources. Is solar expensive? Yes, but take a look at your electric bill, I have a feeling that as the prices of grid energy increase, solar will seem much more affordable. Your first step should always be finding ways of reducing energy use before investing in a solar system.
I for one, want to be the one in control of my energy sources. Is solar expensive? Yes, but take a look at your electric bill, I have a feeling that as the prices of grid energy increase, solar will seem much more affordable. Your first step should always be finding ways of reducing energy use before investing in a solar system.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Baschfire, July 20, 2008
Solar is only really expensive for the installation. I've been living in a solar home for 13 years. We've saved a ton of money from energy costs. It can be extremely efficient, but you have to build it right. Also, if you want to actually be able to save money, you gonna want to be living in that house for about... 6-8 years, depending on your energy consumption. You need to be willing to use more energy efficient products, but in the long run It'll pay off. I love living in my solar home, and we also have a windmill.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sam Crutsinger, July 21, 2008
There's not really any shortage of places to put solar panels. If you put them over roads, you have to build complicated trusses to suspend them from the edges. Putting them on rooftops is much easier.
Some companies are offering to install panels on your roof cheap and you pay them like you pay your current electric company.
Electricity is used in buildings. That's where the panels need to be. The further you transmit the power, the more gets lost. It's most efficient if you use it right there where it's captured.
Some companies are offering to install panels on your roof cheap and you pay them like you pay your current electric company.
Electricity is used in buildings. That's where the panels need to be. The further you transmit the power, the more gets lost. It's most efficient if you use it right there where it's captured.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rob, July 21, 2008
Let's not forget about the private industry's ability to fund solar startups with viable technologies and working solutions. This is what ultimately spurs on technological innovation and I think that will be the case here too. Fewer subsidies will make it a little more difficult, but it doesn't mean the game is over.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rob, July 21, 2008
Also, just because a stock's price moves down, doesn't mean companies lose money. Their balance sheets remain the same, while the investors in the secondary market are the ones that actually lose the money.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sustainable Home Design, August 05, 2008
It's up to the indiviual more than ever to take the steps needed for solar and other renewable resources to develope - where there is demand, there will be supply. Do your part.
Charles Precht
Sustainable Design
www.sustainablehomeplans.com
Charles Precht
Sustainable Design
www.sustainablehomeplans.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by Total Solar Energy, September 13, 2008
The US needs to follow the German lead with feed-in tariffs. It would then easily outstrip the Germans and Japanese then. It has huge potential.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
JUL 18
"The US needs to follow the German lead with feed-in tariffs. It would ..."
View all Comments