From the Ventura County Star:
ROACH DRY LAKE, Nev. — Not a light bulb’s worth of solar electricity has been produced on the millions of acres of public desert set aside for it. Not one project to build glimmering solar farms has even broken ground.
Instead, five years after federal land managers opened up stretches of the Southwest to developers, vast tracts still sit idle.
An Associated Press examination of U.S. Bureau of Land Management records and interviews with agency officials show that the BLM operated a first-come, first-served leasing system that quickly overwhelmed its small staff and enabled companies, regardless of solar industry experience, to squat on land without any real plans to develop it.
As the nation drills ever deeper for oil off its shores and tries to diversify its energy supply, the federal government has failed to use the land it already has — some of the world’s best for solar — to produce renewable electricity.
The Obama administration says it is expediting the most promising projects, with some approvals expected as soon as this month. And yet, it will be years before the companies begin sending electricity to the Southwest’s sprawling, energy-hungry cities.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/sep/01/land-leased-for-solar-power-unused/#ixzz0yMLDZjM2
– vcstar.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are we really surprised?
Costs too much. ROI about 2% not including operating costs. Here’s a project http://www.wickedlocal.com/chelmsford/news/x1422850429/Chelmsfords-Crooked-Spring-solar-panel-array-running-by-October which will produce “500 kw per hour for an average of four to five hours per day” for $2.8 million. They didn’t mention that those figures only count for the summer months and doesn’t include cloudy days.
In http://www.uml.edu/Media/eNews/Chelmsford_Solar_Project.html they say 588 kWh per year which is $60k per year for almost $4 million.
Like most anything else, these companies/speculators are waiting for a guaranteed profit before they pop big bucks for construction. Land is cheap and can always be sold for some other purpose or to someone who’s willing to take the risk of development. Regardless of any public/political emotional attachment to solar, this is strictly business for these companies/speculators. The only green of concern is money.
Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere.
In each arena of human progress, there was a period where the business was unprofitable. Look at computers, look at aeroplanes, look at automobiles, look at anything: what you see is a period where things must be tried out, the key components identified and the means to optimise them automated. There is always a point at which things become mainstream.
Look at mobile phones. Until 1997, there were a niche item for rich guys and the handsets were large and unwieldy. Now, they’re light, fashion accessories with text message functions, access to the web and all kinds of other things. And the mobile majors cleaned up.
The technology still needs to get better. And it will.
So either you’re saying: ‘hold your horses before you go bigtime, we need another XXX iterations of Moore’s law before we’re ready to go’ or you say ‘we need pilot projects to work out the issues concerning long-term usage, outage issues etc etc’.
I don’t know which is right for the US, but that’s where the debate needs to be guys…..
Companies LOVE incentive packages that add to the overall profitablilty in multi-year contracts. Many countries are paying well above the current energy prices to get these projects established.
The technology still stinks for the actual amount of power being generated and the later maintenance costs.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables, Study Shows
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
Who would have thought that the government subsidies on fossil fuels are more than half a trillion dollars. Compared to this, subsidies for renewables are under $50b.
Not much to talk about subsidies on renewables then?
paulw,
You do know how ridiculous that advocacy study was don’t you?
They consider China and Brazil selling fuel cheaply to their citizens as a big part of the study’s “fossil fuel” subsidies, perhaps the majority. I don’t remember.
I don’t think they don’t factor in agricultural subsidies which were spent to produce biofuels.
But the big problem with the study is that they just add up dollars without considering dollar per unit energy.
Since renewables account for less than 1% of the world’s energy, that means they are subsidized at rates far in excess of 10 times that of conventional sources, perhaps double, triple, or more when calculated properly. I really don’t feel like looking it up right now.
Ventura, aka the City of San Buenaventura, is a lovely place, as is the county.
Currently, a 200 Watt solar panel costs about $500-600 and lasts for 30 years. It does not require much maintenance apart from the occasional cleaning with Windex :-).
If there is more effort and competition on solar panels, the price can definitely go lower. It makes sense to put these on your roof and sell the excess electricity to the utilities.
Hey Rhys
“Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere.”
But this is not a start. In fact there have been billions spent on solar projects around the world. If you want to check out the underwhelming results of solar and windpower look no further than Spain where you will find it rife with rorting of the subsidies and major failings to produce anything like reliable level of power. It just can’t seriously meet the challenge of base load power.
Here in Australia where we also have no shortage of sun we are struggling to get big solar projects off the ground. Why? Because they are not financially viable and the capital risk is too high. Having said that our socialist govt are trying to improve that situation by increasing taxes on non-renewable power bills. Up by 63% in this last year and expected to double again this year. They will make it competitive by manipulating the existing market. What they ignore is that price is still just one part of the problem. Reliability is the other.
The meme about subsidized fossil fuel production is ridiculous. According to the study referenced by paulw the amounts were $72 billion over a seven-year period for fossil fuel and $29 billion for renewables. That’s $29 billion or around 40% of the larger amount for an industry that generates a low single digit percentage of the total energy produced in the United States. Even then, according to that same study, the fossil fuel subsidies were targeted to “aid foreign oil production.” This falls into the category of read your own references before you quote them.
$3 billion is the approx subsidies that oil and gas companies take per year in the US.
Obama wants to cut these subsidies,
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tries-to-cut-oil-and-natural-gas-subsidies-again-2010-2
Shall we cut these subsidies?
The subsidy climate isn’t right.
Unless you have an iron clad contract for future years from government medling, massive taxing or whatever, what company really wants to do business if they may get hammered later?
Is the governing bodies trustworthy anymore?
Word of mouth is just hot air. 100% protected signed contracts are the future now as any litigation can be very costly.
There is too many other countries that will give these companies what they want.
So taking away the bait in subsitities….is it really a good idea?
To me it seems its really a matter of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, and clearly there’s no compelling evidence that coal, gas or oil generation are going to cause the planet to fry. Also, I don’t recall that computers, aircraft, automobiles and mobile phones had, nor needed Government mandated markets in order to prosper.
That’s not to say that genuine developmental research (not funded by green taxes) on renewables isn’t worthwhile. But long term, only if renewables can do the job better and cheaper while competing in a genuine free market will they have an enduring future – the man made warming scam won’t be around for ever.
Notwithstanding, it should be acknowledged that certain renewables do compete well in niche applications e.g. remote off grid power.
No mention of failure to use the land for drilling for oil. Just covering everything with solar panels. I wonder, what would be the side effects of that?
BTW, did you know coal can be refined into liquid fuel? Sure can, it’s called the Fischer-Tropsch process, and in results in cleaner fuel, because the coal is first converted to a gas, and the gas then used to complete the refining process. The gasification stage filters out contaminants found in coal and normal oil.
And at what costs? Glad you asked, Texas University just did a study pilot plant for Canada which concludes gasoline and diesel could be produced at less than $30 barrel equivalent to oil. Including plant costs.
And did you know, the Crow Indians in Montana on their reservation are actually building such a production refinery? Seems the EPA cannot run the reservations, entirely. Although they have been trying everything to shut them down. Why? Maybe they don’t want this spreading to other reservations?
Nevertheless, there are several coal refining plants being built in China ….
Gov Crist actually was pushing for solar plants to be built in Florida … I guess “hurricane alley” never occurred to our oblivious governor.
Remember, at what cost — First law of engineering, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Rhys Jaggar says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:09 am
“Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere.
In each arena of human progress, there was a period where the business was unprofitable. Look at computers, look at aeroplanes, look at automobiles, look at anything: what you see is a period where things must be tried out, the key components identified and the means to optimise them automated. There is always a point at which things become mainstream.”
I’m still waiting for my jet pack for the front coat closet and my flying car to park in in my garage. They’ve been available for decades, but they haven’t reached my price point ;o)
The main problem with solar right now is how inefficient the current panels are. I’ve been reading about breakthroughs in solar panel designs for a long time now; I have yet to see one come to market. Why? If I remember correctly, the best solar panel ever made was around 25% efficient. I believe production solar panels are under 15% efficient. It is the classic catch-22 really: solar adoption doesn’t take off because it is too expensive and too inexpensive but the only way make it more efficiency and less expensive is by mass production.
WUWT should cover thorium energy, which is 32 times as efficient as uranium energy, 4 times as plentiful, and 10 times as safe.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/
Think BIG! Solar energy is not for the faint-hearted.
See http://www.desertec.org for details.
Also, see THIS most-informative page on green energy in Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,713395,00.html
Sorry, german only. But lots of graphics. You will get the idea. To sum it up:
Worldwide, the green energy sector has become a thriving multi-billion-dollar enterprise with a rate of grow exceeding 30 percent per annum in certain markets.
In Germany alone, 500,000 people are working in the green energy-sector today, already. Re-calculated for the USA, an equally developed marked for green energy would put 2.5 MILLION people to work – in jobs, which CANNOT be outsourced, because they have to be performed locally, to be economically competitive: Like manufacturing, assembly, installation, maintenance…
Again: Once the power is installed, the raw material producing the energy is ABSOLUTELY FREE, IS GREEN AS-CAN-BE, and it is availlable in abundance for BILLIONS of years to come – because it’s wind and sunshine!
Everybody everywhere is rushing to secure his share of the green energy market – except in the USA. Makes you think, doesnt it…?
Paul,
The story you cite simply states the subsidies exist for traditional fuels but doesn’t go beyond that. Please explain what you are talking about.
Mike
paulW,
If the report you site was honest and factual you might have something to brush aside the complete boondoggle of alternative power.
But the report is not either honest or factual and you are brushing nothing aside.
Solar is a joke.
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 4:14 am
Shall we cut these subsidies?
Paul, What is the percentage subsidy per joule of energy delivered to end user for solar and oil? I am talking about energy delivered, not nameplate capacity on the generating equipment.
50 Billion dollars in subsidy is an enormous cost per kilowatt hour for a energy producing system that is so unreliable it requires 100% backup from other sources to supply base load power.
If 100% backup generating capacity is required to use solar, why even spend the money on it. Just go with the backup system and save the price of the solar.
The real problem is uncertainty on future government policy.
These renewable projects farm tax subsidies, rather than producing energy profits. If future policy is uncertain, there may not be any subsidies to farm in future years – and you will end up with a financial turkey instead of a swan.
Difficult to commit hard cash, in these circumstances.
.
And paul w,
Since you are now trolling this idea that oil companies receive ‘subsidies’, I took the time to read your link.
Here is how your scam link seems to define ‘subsidy’:
“#
Deductions for drilling cost
Credits for low-volume oil and gas wells
Manufacturing tax deductions for oil and gas companies.”
So the oil industry will no longer be able to deduct the cost of drilling, small producers of oil and gas, and operators of high cost will not be able to get returns, and tax deductions for manufacturing costs related to the petrochemicals we all-even green trolls like you- rely on will go away.
Not one of those, except possibly the tax credits for small wells, is a subsidy.
And the bogus article then insults the intelligence of the reader by asserting that somehow the government will ‘save’ money by ending for oil what every business does- deduct costs for developing and building things.
The solar and windmill industry are the ones that are subsidized. To attract any investors at all, solar and wind have to receive direct price supports, preferential pricing on the power they produce when the sun shines and the wind blows, and tax treatments for their investments that normal industries can only dream of.
So troll on with your false claims about subsidy for oil all you want. You only show that the finances and economics of AGW believers is as empty as their belief in a CO2 climate catastrophe.
Solar panels (and thermal solar power) are very sensitive to dust. Even a very thin dust layer will cut power production drastically. Ask the people who runs the Mars Rovers if you don’t believe me. That means that those power plants will have to be cleaned pretty frequently. With fresh water. In a desert.
Anybody seen any figures on how much that will cost?