German Vilimelis heard about Spain’s solar gold rush from his brother-in-law in 2007.
Across the plains around Lerida, the northeastern Spanish town where they spent weekends, farmers were turning over their fields to photovoltaic panels to capitalize on government solar- energy subsidies. Vilimelis persuaded his father, Jaume, who made a living growing pears on 5 acres (2 hectares) of land in Lerida, to turn over a portion of his farm for the project, Bloomberg Markets reported in its November issue.
Vilimelis, 35, a procurement manager for a consumer goods company, pooled his family savings and mortgaged his apartment to obtain a loan of more than 400,000 euros ($558,500) to cover the investment. Within nine months, the family’s 80-kilowatt generation unit — 500 solar panels on seven racks angled toward the sun — was feeding power into the national grid.
Solar investors such as Vilimelis were lured by a 2007 law passed by the government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero that guaranteed producers a so-called solar tariff of as much as 44 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity for 25 years — more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price of about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour paid to mainstream energy suppliers.
Thanks to the incentives, the family met the monthly cost of the loan and even earned a small profit. Once the debt was paid off in 2018, Vilimelis looked forward to making even more money during the 15 additional years of subsidies guaranteed under Spanish law.
‘You Feel Cheated’
Now Vilimelis and more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster as the policy makers contemplate cutting the price guarantees that attracted their investment in the first place.
“You feel cheated,” he says. “We put our money in on the basis of a law.”
Zapatero introduced the subsidies three years ago as part of an effort to cut his country’s dependence on fossil fuels. At the time, he promised that the investment in renewable energy would create manufacturing jobs and that Spain could sell its panels to nations seeking to reduce carbon emissions.
Yet by failing to control the program’s cost, Zapatero saddled Spain with at least 126 billion euros of obligations to renewable-energy investors. The spending didn’t achieve the government’s aim of creating green jobs, because Spanish investors imported most of their panels from overseas when domestic manufacturers couldn’t meet short-term demand.
Stark Lesson
Spain stands as a lesson to other aspiring green-energy nations, including China and the U.S., by showing how difficult it is to build an alternative energy industry even with billions of euros in subsidies, says Ramon de la Sota, a private investor in Spanish photovoltaic panels and a former General Electric Co. executive.
“The government totally overshot with the tariff,” de la Sota says. “Now they have a huge bill to pay — but where’s the technology, where’s the know-how, where’s the value?”
U.S. President Barack Obama highlighted solar energy as part of his plan to create green jobs this month with a decision to install photovoltaic panels on the roof of the White House. The government also approved the first large-scale solar-power projects on public land. Dublin-based utility NTR Plc and Chevron Corp. will build plants in California generating enough electricity between them to power about 600,000 homes.
Sun Surplus
At first glance, Spain appears to be the perfect incubator for a solar-energy revolution. Thanks to its location in southern Europe, the country’s land mass receives 900,000 terawatt-hours ofirradiation from the sun each year, according to the European Commission — more than 3,000 times the power used annually by its citizens. In contrast, Germany, Europe’s largest economy, receives less than half that amount of irradiation. (A terawatt-hour streams enough power to run 1 billion washing machines for 60 minutes.)
The challenge for Spain was to transform that free resource into an industry that made economic sense and attracted investors. The first problem lawmakers encountered was price. Solar power, like wind and other renewable-energy sources, can’t yet compete on price against electricity generated from natural gas or coal.
Power from the most-efficient photovoltaic plants costs utilities about $275 per megawatt-hour to produce compared with about $60 for a coal-fired plant, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The cost of electricity from coal is held down in part by a plentiful supply of the mineral from established mines.
Miscalculation
Spanish policy makers reasoned that generous subsidies would help the country meet its goal of 400 megawatts of installed solar power by 2010 as well as spur the development of a manufacturing industry.
The feed-in tariff proved too successful in luring investors. By the end of 2007, solar installations had exceeded the government’s target, three years early, and the following year, investors pumped 16.4 billion euros into Spain’s solar industry, quintupling power capacity to 3,500 megawatts from 700 megawatts.
“They underestimated the technology — how cheaply panels could be installed and how quickly they could be installed,” says Jenny Chase, Zurich-based chief solar analyst at New Energy Finance. “When you have 40 megawatts of photovoltaic panels, you don’t think that if you get it wrong, you’ll end up with 3,500 megawatts.”
woodNfish says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:30 am
Governments can only be depended on for three constants; they will
1. lie,
2. cheat, and
3. steal.
and
4. enforce with extreme prejudice….
Psst – dbs. Of the two, Founder is the MORE correct.
[Reply: Which is what I said to Jim Turner above. And that is my final word on the subject. ~dbs]
>>Mr Osborne confirms £1bn funding for a carbon capture
>>and storage project.
But nobody has yet said what they will do if you have a Co2 blowout.
Can you imagine a Gulf of Mexico disaster, with CO2 gushing to the surface. Wherever the cloud drifted, everyone would die.
Do these Greens know what they are dealing with?
CO2 blowouts do happen, and do kill plenty.
Certain lakes in Africa are deep enough cold at the bottom, and they
have CO2 sources. At some point, the lake reaches 100% CO2 saturation at
all depths.
Then something happens to disturb the lake. Cold, saturated water from below
rises up; the CO2 is no longer stable at the lower pressure, and gas forms. That
moves more water, and the process goes exponential in a few seconds. A few
cubic km of gas gets released, and any mammals nearby cannot breath.
Solar subsidies are market perversions. But which electrical market is not
already perverted? Here in SoCal, with current prices, panels pay for themselves
in about 5 years — even with out the California state subsidy. This is because
the electricity rates are so high.
Americans may be interested in Obama’s solar energy plans.
This is from today’s Telegraph:
21 Oct 2010
America’s 240-acre sun farm
Charles Laurence
The Wild West’s new pioneers are harnessing the billion-dollar potential of solar power.
To one side of the fence, a herd of bison grazes against a backdrop of low mountain peaks, the unmistakable landscape of America’s West. To the other, a workforce in yellow construction helmets and orange safety vests is bolting solar energy panels to steel tresses in rows several hundred yards long…
————————————————
note: A nuclear power station in this area will cost about $1 billion to build. That’s four times the cost of this scheme but it will generate 35 times as much electricity, reliably.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8075872/Americas-240-acre-sun-farm.html
Why is it that we see today just about zero discussion of solar power satellites?
Back in the 1970s and ’80s, those of us in science fiction fandom (the true moral and intellectual elite of humanity; the rest of you are just goddam mundanes) were focused sharply upon what rocketry expert and SF writer G. Harry Stine referred to as The Third Industrial Revolution (1975, and Jeremy Rifkin’s johnny-come-lately misappropriation of the expression be damned), in which the concept of solar power satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) figured very large.
For those unfamiliar with then-contemporary thinking on the subject will find at http://tinyurl.com/22u34wg a brief 1980 article by Stine on the subject.
From Barry Goldwater’s introduction to the first edition of The Third Industrial Revolution:
The “limits to growth” Luddites – like Jeremy Rifkin – hate the hell out of commercial space industrialization, and have done their best to kill all progress toward that end by way of restrictive government prohibitions impairing capitalization and operations.
Not only would high-capacity solar power satellite systems deliver real renewable electrical generation capacity at levels sufficient for an expanding industrial civilization, but the establishment of genuinely economically viable space transportation systems would enormously facilitate the exploitation of microgravity resources and the production of materials which can most efficiently be created only in environments with effectively none of the spacetime warping that cannot be escaped at the bottom of a planet’s gravity well.
And pushing ahead with the real third industrial revolution (instead of this namby-pamby substitution of hydrogen gas for petroleum distillates as engine fuel) would make Jeremy Rifkin’s head explode with pure rage.
Don’cha wanna see that happen, folks?
—
21 percent of the Spanish population is in poverty
Read more: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_27604.shtml
Power companies in Spain say that the 4.8% proposed increase in electricity prices for domestic and small business users from October 1 is not enough. Consumers’ organizations have already criticized the price hikes which mean that electricity will cost 30% more than it did in July 2007, but the power companies say more is needed as there is greater use of renewable energy.
Read more: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_27290.shtml#ixzz131r7hgLI
Unemployment above four million again in Spain
Read more: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_27290.shtml#ixzz131r7hgLI
In total at the end of June there were 4,645,500 people out of work, 508,000 more than a year ago, and taking the percentage to 20.09% and a new 13 year record.
Read more: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_26888.shtml#ixzz131uflaXH
etc
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
October 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“Solar photovoltaic power has a dirty little secret. It’s Energy Returned on Energy Invested is 0.48. Solar photovoltaic power is unsustainable.
Wind Power is worse at 0.29.”
Call me unsporting, but I checked out EROEI on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
Yes, I’m well aware of the biases there. Anyway their EROEI for wind power in N America and Europe is 20. Charles, either you or Wikipedia is off by more than 1.5 orders of magnitude. Do you have measurement data to back up your claim?
R. de Haan says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“No it’s true.”
He gave
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/09/wind-not-power-iii/
as his first link. I went to that home page, and there was not a single mention of the EROEI acronym. It’s very possible that EROIE is discussed in one of the chapters, but I was not inclined to do any additional fishing.
Bah-Humbug Larry’s observation: People who make sweeping claims often fail to provide measurement data, solid links, or the reasoning behind these claims. All too often, they parrot BS ‘factoids’, which reinforce their prefab worldviews. I say: More data, more analysis, and less sloganeering.
Did a little looking on google and the graphs I found give wind about double that of hydro, that has to be a lie, even allowing for the limited use that wind is it is no less an engineering feat than a hydro station, however I doubt there will be many wind farms using the engineering groundworks that there are in hydro (go to niagra, there are victorian works still usable, I suspect the 100 year old generators, if still about would work) wind farms? I doubt they will still be upright in 50 years, the off shore ones ?? I do not see why we consider either wind or solar for main generation, they are great in isolation but useless and spasmodic for real power. The industrial revolution was not enabled by windmills, they had been around well before but it was water power that drove the mills and then the foundries that lead on to steam.
Ontario now third largest SOLAR PV market in North America after Cali and NJ. Our FIT program modeled after Germany’s 80.2cts /kwH for 10kW and under rooftop solar and 71,2cts for 10 to 250kW sized plants. 21,000 applications already submitted and 10,000 of those backlogged 3 months. Big commercial rooftop owners like Loblaw’s grocery stores, are installing, and IKEA. It certainly is kick starting a solar industry here (for now), but our COLLECTIVE electricity rates have gone up $300/YR already.
Consider the “optics” of this:
The single mother of 2 kids shopping at Loblaws (owner Galen Weston III, $6BIL net worth) for her groceries gets to contribute to the Green revolution by paying $300 more a yr for her electricity- while IKEA’s store manager gets to report to Sweden his $200,000/yr FIT windfall and Loblaw’s promotes themselves as Green (you bet with a 14% ROI on their $1.5MIL solar array!)
Solar Panel Debentures. $100> rate: 8%, 20 yrs. Payable by Loblaw’s.
Perhaps a better idea to allow those mothers to at least say they are on the same Green roof as Galen Weston- The President’s Choice.
After buying her apples, she can scoot over to IKEA and slum around on their solar rooftop,
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/10/07/con-ikea-solar.html
regards,
Stu