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
Michael Schaefer says:
September 2, 2010 at 5:14 am
Everybody everywhere is rushing to secure his share of the green energy market – except in the USA. Makes you think, doesnt it…?
Yes, it makes me think the whole “green energy” concept is a scam, and so far, anyway, we haven’t fallen for it. So-called “green” energy is expensive, unreliable, and in many cases has damaging environmental effects rivaling or exceeding the energy sources it is meant to replace. The one big selling point? Low “carbon” emissions, which itself is a huge scam.
Follow the money.
Other than the fact that solar can only deliver energy a few hours a day, only on days with no clouds, at enormous cost, you mean?
Even were they cost-competitive, solar and wind both have one glaring problem – no efficient storage method currently exists which could take any theoretical excess they might produce, and output it to the grid for the huge sections of time when they produce absolutely no output. Intermittent unpredictable output is not a good idea for an electrical grid.
“The world” is using solar on feel-good vanity projects, not as a serious replacement for anything.
Solar is a perpetually infant technology which has held out great promises of less costly, more efficient technology for the last 30 years. I have a suggestion, when it becomes reality we will build it. Until then, keep it in the lab.
Nuclear can clean the air hundreds of times more efficiently at less than 1/5 the cost with 90% online efficiency, requires no fossil fuel back-up. the waste can be recycled making it renewable. the capital cost is 1/3 less expensive than wind and has an operating cost (both per kwh) 1/3 less than wind. Wind or solar plants have a 20 year life, tops. Nuclear 60 and counting.
Paulw,
I am against most subsidies although some do provide benefits. However, your use of dollar values is clouding the picture. As jeez stated you need to look a units of energy. When viewed this way renewables get 6x the subsidies of fossil fuels in the US. This is based on DOE numbers. Gives one quite a different perspective.
Archonix says:
“September 2, 2010 at 6:03 am
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.”
Not one of which was subsidized with tax money.
Jon says:
September 2, 2010 at 7:08 am
Solar is a perpetually infant technology which has held out great promises of less costly, more efficient technology for the last 30 years. I have a suggestion, when it becomes reality we will build it. Until then, keep it in the lab.
My position exactly. I have no problem with research *subsidies* if a technology has promise. But, let’s quit trying to put low efficiency devices in service. It’s a waste of money and time.
HR>
“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)”
To be fair, we might finally see them at a reasonable price soon – the flying car that is. It’s noteworthy in this context that it took a totally new way of thinking about the concept to make it viable, though – see Parajet’s website for more info, but basically, it’s a big paraglider. Must have been a bit of a ‘doh’ moment for all the other skycar manufacturers: ‘we’ve been barking up the wrong tree for fifty years’.
Rhys Jaggar says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:09 am
Ok, I can agree with that. The big difference here, is government subsidies. If you’re rich, go ahead with all the solar power/renewable power you want, just don’t expect the low-middle income to pay for anything they don’t want/can’t afford. Don’t force me to double my energy bill for the same consumption. To go with your analogy, I’m forced to get a cell phone in 1997 costing me $140 a month, when I’m quite happy with hard wired service for half the cost.
Wind and solar are supplemental to fossil fuel. They are expensive and discontinuous. They actually make work for the stable power sources by requiring throttling back engines, penstocks, reactors, and boilers to accommodate the few hours/day the alternate sources contribute.
If sufficient numbers of unreliable alternate sources chip away at profits and efficiencies of scale in the reliable services the operations become unsustainable financially. That’s when the power companies go on the dole along with the alternate energy sources. That, in fact, may be the objective.
Hey Rhys
“Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere.”
___________________________________________________
Solar cells have been around for over one hundred years. The first genuine solar cell was built around 1883 by Charles Fritts My boy friend’s company was selling solar cells way back in the 1970’s. During the same time period computers took off, microwave ovens took off, Cell phones took off and so did many other products because they work and because of a good ROI (return on investment) for their manufacture.
Solar Cells are limited by the maximum energy input from the sun and the storage of energy problem. Both wind and solar have the erratic power problem and therefore are not really well suited to commercial production without some fancy finagling. Because of that, I am sure investors are waiting for government money to become available before doing anything. It is all about making money off the back of the American taxpayer and not about a viable commercial energy alternative.
“Ventura, aka the City of San Buenaventura, is a lovely place, as is the county.”
I spent 4 months in Camarillo on a project a few years ago. Beautiful area. Would move there in a heartbeat if I could afford it.
paulw @ur momisugly 6:28 am says: “Is the world wrong . . .”
In a word “Yes”. That is not to say there are not locations and instances where solar is a good fit. There are. Here, then, is a deal for you. I live in a rural area and have several acres available for solar panels. You can lease my land and install a solar system for the share of the electricity needed to power my (100% electric) house. You will also have to pay the local public utility district for power when your solar system isn’t doing the job. You will also have to get your project approved by all local, regional, and national authorities, pay for permits, pay taxes, maintance, and so on for the life of the project. Required mitigation for fish and wildlife (think salmon) will also be your responsibility. There is more, I think, but you will have to pay my lawyer to examine all the issues and develop a legal instrument for us to sign that will protect my interests and the interests of future owners of the property, as I don’t expect to be around another 30 to 50 years. I have a sister that lives in a nice house in a restrictive neighborhood. Once you have all the details worked out for me, you can start on the process of developing a solar system for her. Thanks, for your help.
Jon says:
September 2, 2010 at 7:24 am
I didn’t say that. I quoted that to argue against it.
Seems that some things have to happen for solar or wind to be remotely viable:
1. Whatever ‘grid’ they are feeding needs extremely dynamic management/distribution systems (and a breakthrough in transmission efficiency), or;
2. Solar/wind can’t be viewed as primary, real-time contributors. Rather, they would be used to pump water uphill, get flywheels going, or somehow ‘fill’ a source that could be tapped at any time. This is not unlike telecom network providers’ uninterruptible power supply systems, where they run off the batteries–which are constantly being fed by ‘the grid’/other.
3. We stop looking at solar/wind as ‘the answer’ and instead identify those niches where it can or will shortly efficiently displace carbon-based sources.
Society can’t be expected to change its energy consumption patterns to match the fickle production schedule of solar and wind. Thus, we need to more intelligently harvest and manage them, and temper our expectations of them (which means a certain vocal group needs to stop preaching solar/wind as ‘the answer’).
My 2 cents.
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:27 am
“Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables”
There are a whole host of countries that heavily subsidize electricity rates.
The price Saudi Electric utilities pay for Oil is 46 cents/MBtu. The global price for oil is closer to $13/MBtu. So in effect the Saudi’s are ‘subsidizing’ domestic consumption at the rate of $12.54/MBtu.
Whether or not the Saudi’s subsidize fossil fuel use is their business and as far as I’m concerned not a reason to subsidize solar projects in the US.
Perhaps the WWF and other green groups should spend some of their hardly-earned cash on these kinds of projects instead of outright lies about Polar Bears and the like.
Michael Schaefer says:
September 2, 2010 at 5:14 am
…………Everybody everywhere is rushing to secure his share of the green energy market – except in the USA. Makes you think, doesnt it…?
_____________________________________________________
So why is Spain near to going bankrupt and cutting solar power income?
Spain May Cut Income 30% for Operating Solar Plants (Update1)
New York Post: 2010: The year of bankrupt gov’ts
From National Public Radio
“FLATOW: ….Germany, Spain, Portugal, they’ve all beefed up their clean energy production. Is this something that we could emulate in this country, or do they have special situations that make it very difficult for us to follow them?
Dr. BORENSTEIN: Well, actually, I think that Germany, Spain and Portugal stories get presented in two different lights. And after reading quite a bit on it, I think the more negative light is probably the more accurate one. They have thrown huge subsidies at these technologies at a much earlier stage, in some cases, of the technology maturation. It’s been extremely expensive. It started to drive up rates. And as these economies took a hit in 2008 and 2009, they moved away from these policies. As a result the new building of renewable energy there has been really very much curtailed. “
THAT last tidbit is a bit of a shocker….
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 6:28 am
…is solar futile?
Sure looks like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower (yeah I know wiki isn’t a source, but it does give a good overview)
If you want to use solar for your energy source, why not look to the updraft towers?
Designed to work today, not at some hoped for point in the future.
Don Shaw sees through the green charade and understands the game playing with words to define what a subsidy is that Obama is doing.
As for subsidies, below is link to DOE numbers:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
Fuel………………….subsidy per MWH
….
Coal…………………..0.44
refined coal……….29.81
Nat gases……………0.25
Nuclear………………1.59
Biomass……………..0.89
Geothermal………..0.92
Hydroelectric……..0.67
Solar………………….24.34
Wind………………….23.37
Landfill gas………..1.37
Municipal waste…0.13
(renewable)………..1.65
Then there is the “green jobs”argument. Spain already tried and failed. For every job “created” (it is artificial), two jobs are lost. I don’t have the study here, but it is easy to find.
How many coal fired power plants have been eliminated as a result of wind and solar? I’ll venture to say none and in fact costs more and creates more “pollution” to operate. Wanna bet?
refined coal is synthfuels. Although a highly subsidized commodity, it still yields a net gain in electricity output. Wind and solar are net losers. I don’t think refined coal should be subsidized either BTW.
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:27 am
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
Beware of misleading reports. To people such as these, a “subsidy” includes tax write-off for equipment and business costs similar to any other business writeoffs that any business is elegible for so it should hardly be called a subsidy. Also if you consider the taxes and royalties paid by these companies to the profit they make, you would see the government makes far more per year (with a few exceptions) for oil and gas we use than the people who find it, get it, and bring it to market. What hypocrites.
Michael Schaefer:
“Everybody everywhere is rushing to secure his share of the green energy market – except in the USA. Makes you think, doesnt it…?”
It would make me think that maybe the USA isn’t as dumb as these other countries – if it is true. But the reality is the USA has the highest installed wind capacity of any country in the world.
And the only reason that others are “rushing” in to the ‘green energy’ market is because of a) massive government subsidies that are b) extracted by compulsory tariffs from the pockets of consumers. In the UK, Renewable Obligation Certificates compel utilities to purchase renewable energy at way above wholesale prices, and the new Feed In Tariff ensures anyone can earn 45p per KwHr from solar panels on their roof. Remove the compulsion and the markets will collapse.
And these so-called renewable sources are anything but when you factor in that they need spinning back up, consume enormous resources to contruct and install, and wear out at an alarming rate. The last point is more than academic – in Denmark, they have had to replace the gearboxes of wind turbines that are supposedly lifed for 20 years, every 5 years on average. Even if they lasted the full twenty years, so what? You then have to build new ones all over again.
The fact that countries are ‘rushing’ in speaks more about the gullibility of a credulous political class than it does about good business management.
“”” Rhys Jaggar says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:09 am
Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere. “””
I would recommend that you start at about 1 kW/m^2 or 100 W/ft^2 maximum peak projected area for the actual interception area, and maybe about 8 hours daily max (average) ; so long as you provide for about four times that total area, because of self shadowing of one collector by another; amd I wouldn’t bet on more than 12-15% efficiency for Solar to grid AC conversion; unless you go steam turbine conversion; which likely takes even more area but somewhat better efficiency.
That’s where I would start; and then it goes downhill from there.
“”” harrywr2 says:
September 2, 2010 at 7:59 am
paulw says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:27 am
“Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables”
There are a whole host of countries that heavily subsidize electricity rates.
The price Saudi Electric utilities pay for Oil is 46 cents/MBtu. The global price for oil is closer to $13/MBtu. So in effect the Saudi’s are ‘subsidizing’ domestic consumption at the rate of $12.54/MBtu.
Whether or not the Saudi’s subsidize fossil fuel use is their business and as far as I’m concerned not a reason to subsidize solar projects in the US. “””
What on earth is the relevence of this piece of information.
If I own a vineyard that produces table grapes which I sell on the open market; at market rates; what does it matter, that I give a few to my Mother-in-law for next to nothing.
If Saudi Arabia, suddenly had some real competition from an alternative energy technology (fat chance); they would have to bring their market prices into line; and the lost revenues would force them to charge themselves a higher price than they do now.
Did I remember to put an “IF” in there somewhere ?
The bottom line is that the total fossil fuels business cannot be supported through subsidies (paid for by what technology; if you don’t mind me asking ?)