Solar industry on the rise

Photovoltaic cells produce electricity directl...

Image via Wikipedia

Via Slashdot Hugh Pickens writes:

According to Rhone Resch, the last three years have seen the U.S. solar industry go from a start-up to a major industry that is creating well-paying jobs and growing the economy in all 50 states, employing 93,000 Americans in 2010, a number that is expected to grow between 25,000 to 50,000 this year (PDF). In the first quarter of 2011, the solar industry installed 252 megawatts of new solar electric capacity, a 66 percent growth from the same time frame in 2010.

Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source (PDF) with the capability, according to one study, of generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures. There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes.

In the manufacturing sector, solar panel production jumped 31 percent. ‘The U.S. market is expected to more than double yet again in 2011, installing enough solar for more than 400,000 homes,’ writes Resch. ‘Last year, the industry set the ambitious yet achievable goal of installing 10 gigawatts annually by 2015 (PDF) – enough to power 2 million more homes each and every year.’

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Wolfman

I hope that solar energy becomes economically viable for many uses–without subsidies. One question–“is more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source” another way of saying that it is economically inefficient?

charlesH

One needs to calculate jobs/(investment + subsidy) to understand whether the jobs created are a net drain or positive for the economy.

ChE

Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source

Translation: solar is more capital-intensive than any other energy source.

ferdberple

“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source (PDF) with the capability, according to one study, of generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures.”
Imagine for one moment that it is 1908 and Henry Ford announces to the world that he has discovered a new car manufacturing process for the model T that creates more jobs per model T produced than any other technology available.
Wouldn’t that have meant the death of the model T? If Ford had required more jobs created to produce a model T than any other car, then how would Americans been able to afford the model T? Wasn’t the secret of Ford’s success to reduce the manpower required to build the model T and thereby reduce the cost so that everyone could afford to buy a Ford model T?
It seems that by taking the other route, by requiring the most workers per megawatt produced, that solar power is pricing itself out of the market. Why not simply hire people to turn hand cranks to produce energy. That would certainly create even more jobs than solar power per megawatt.

Jeremy

And all power to Solar. Advances in materials have made them cheaper and better. They’re now just getting below the cost/effectiveness zone that limited their use to only high-income hobbyists. If you live in California through Florida, I can see Solar as being quite worthwhile. Of course, all the labor costs of manufacturing those in the U.S. will mean we’ll likely be purchasing Chinese solar panels, but oh well. If I had a home, and the time, I

Rosco

Solar energy is certainly the green energy everyone can get behind – if only it weren’t so damned expensive.
I do not support inflated feed in tariffs though – this is a mechanism for unfair wealth distribution – and without these government subsidies solar makes no economic sense to the individual.

P Walker

Maybe , as long as the goodies keep coming :
http:masterresource.org/2011/07/federally-guaranteed-loans-for-clean energy-projects-are-nonsense

ferdberple

The Model T was introduced on October 1, 1908. … The car was very simple to drive, and easy and cheap to repair. It was so cheap at $825 in 1908 ($20,100 today) (the price fell every year) that by the 1920s, a majority of American drivers had learned to drive on the Model T.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
Can the same be said for solar? That the technology is so cheap and simple, and the price has fallen every year and that in just over ten years after introduction, the majority of American use it to power their homes? I believe that technology already exists. It is called coal. About 3 cent a kwh to produce as compared to solar at 50 cents a kwh.

This is an absolutely frightening statement, “Solar is creating more jobs per megwatt than any other energy source”. That is saying it is the most labor intensive source of power, not a good thing to be in a developed country.

P Walker
Dr A Burns

What is the average life of a solar panel ?
What is the cost of electricity over the life of the device, including installation, maintenance and degradation through dirt ?
How does the use of resources such as copper etc compare with power from coal ?
My feeling is that the economics of a device reflect the energy used in its contruction, including smelting of metals, labour etc . Solar panels use a lot. Is there any research on this ?

Steeptown

It’s a pity they don’t know that MW is power not energy. Do all these homespowered by solar only use energy during the day time?

If American consumers are forced to pay higher prices for solar electricity, as Spanish consumers have been forced to do, then the jobs are a very dangerous illusion. The Spanish experience will apply, that is, for every new job created in solar energy, between 2 and 3 jobs will be lost elsewhere because of reduced competitiveness. [Similarly if the solar energy is heavily subsidised by government.]
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
My link for the original paper http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf appears now not to work.
If the solar energy is truly competitive, then the jobs are genuine.

Michael Monce

How much of that installed capacity in in those little garden lights (I have 10) that recharge the NiCd battery and run the LED? Just wondering what the breakdown is in that so-called capacity in terms of large vs small production? At still 8-10% efficiency, solar makes no economic sense for house -sized installations.

richard verney

“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source” is in part an indicator of the costs of the industry, ie., it is more labour intensive (and henxce expensive) than other forms of energy production on a per mega watt basis.
Aggressive marketing is fine, however, the story may read differently in some years time when customers realise that their investment will not pay for itself, and they may feel that the aggessive marketing was in reality mis-selling on the basis of false assurances.
That said, I wish this industry well and potentially, it is far better than wind power provided one lives in a sunny climate and not at high latitudes.

Brewster

An accurate date for this study would be informative since one of the countries ‘premiere’ solar manufacturers, Evergreen Solar, decided to can its manufacturing in Mass., even after receiving a large tax break/credit and investing a lot of money in new facilities and hiring. I wonder if these stats reflect that.

View from the Solent

ferd berple says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source …
———————————————————————————————————————
That’s even before economics 101. They have just stated that solar is the least efficient of any other power source. And they claim that as a point in its favour?

ShrNfr

And when the credits are removed, I dare say it will go back the other direction. Do not get me wrong. I have a 10 KW plate solar system on my house, but even with cheap panels, things cost quite a bit if you want power 24/7. If you want to play grid tie boost when the sun is out, that is a different matter. But then you run into the old problem of what happens when the sun does not shine.

DJ

Most people I know already generate about 70Watts just sitting on their butts.
Seems like it would be more cost effective to just put the people in an array……

Mark Wagner CPA

Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source
This is the very definition of inefficiency.

Owen

If the price were low enough, I would install panels, batteries and inverter to power my home. Same thing with solar hot water heaters. In Georgia USA, the sun beats down hard most of the year, so here it makes sense. If I lived in Minnesota, I wouldn’t even think about it.
I haven’t researched to find out how many square feet of solar panel it would take to power the AC unit on one of these 100 degree Georgia days, but it is bound to lower the electric bill a good bit. I am looking to build a house on a farm plot and so far I can’t find any published plans that include straight roof lines to maximize the southern exposure with a ~33 degree slope. For some reason all the rage these days is for wrap around roofs with lots of outcrops.
I think one of the stumbling blocks for solar is battery technology. Storing excess daytime energy for use at night is limited by the paltry storage capacity and cost of batteries.

Manfred

There are a lot of issues with this article. Just a few points:
Across Europe, the solar subsidies kill much more jobs than they create due to the higher electricity cost
In Germany, 3% of electricity is now generated solar with the following consequences:
Cost for this for the consumers over the next 20 years are estimated at 100 billion dollars.
As the supply is not steady, ALL conventional power plant need to be in place, not a single plant is replaced.
Huge investments will be necessary to transport the electricity to consumers. For example, a town utility complained that it is obliged to use all its capital (millions) to invest in lines just to help a few people to make money (thousands) with subsidies.
At summer peak generation, there have already been negative electricity market values, meaning that even with as little as 3% mean power, the peak electricity cannot be sold and money has to be for consumption.
The generous German subsidies have attracted more than 50% of installations in this country in the last years. However, Chinese companies now dominate the market, and even in Germany 70% of cells installed today are now coming from China.
All that doesn’t mean, that solar is no option for the future. Particularly where consitions are much better as in the US deserts, or where air conditioning is common or particularly where solar thermal solutions are practical with heat storage overnight for 24 hours electricity generation.

RayG

Our local paper, the San Jose Merc., ran an article yesterday talking up how great it is that the new visitor’s center in Yosemite is the largest grid-connected PV installation in the U.S. national parks. The article went on to extol the claim that the installation will save the U.S.P.S. over $50,000 annually in electrical bills. All of this at a cost of only $4.4 million.
Let’s think about this for a moment. $4,400,000 divided by the $50K per year savings means that it will take only 88 years to recover the initial investment. This yields a ROI of 1.1%. I have read various numbers for the estimated life expectancy of the panels with most clustering in the 25-30 year range so they will have to be replaced twice before the initial installation cost has been recouped. Absolutely brilliant.
The bottom line is that the U.S.P.S. and, therefore we the taxpayers, would be better off continuing to buy the electricity from PG&E. Just one little hiccup with that idea. The installation was actually funded by PG&E which means that we, the PG&E customers in Northern California actually paid for this in our electrical rate. The taxpayers in the rest of the U.S. dodged a bullet on this one.

Luther Wu

When total system install costs can be recovered in a short enough time frame to make them an attractive financial investment, then we will have a lot of solar roofs.
Until then, subsidized solar install schemes are a tasteless joke on the taxpayers.

gnomish

comin up soon:
really really cheap surplus solar panels!!!
it’s just a niche market until a storage solution is found.
lolz – when they find a way to make coal from sunshine at a cheaper price than swamp ferns did, send me the line card.

Steve

Nearly all solar power is supported by heavy subsidies. An honest accounting of the economics of solar power would acknowledge that every dollar in subsidies represents more than a dollar mulcted from taxpayers. The private sector is much more efficient at allocating capital and creating jobs, but solar power requires stealing private capital, giving a generous cut to bureaucrats and politicians, and then picking one technology as a political winner.
As other comments have pointed out, trumpeting claims that “Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source” is a sign of astonishing economic ignorance, not something for boasting.
Rephrase it this way: “Solar power is draining more money from investment in private sector businesses than any other form of energy. Solar power is also responsible for more growth in government bureaucracy and taxation than any other form of energy.”

DirkH

“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source”
I disagree. Collecting camel dung is far superior.

DirkH

“According to Rhone Resch, the last three years have seen the U.S. solar industry go from a start-up to a major industry that is creating well-paying jobs ”
This is the chart for one of the PV companies in Germany. Hint: Don’t buy it.
http://www.comdirect.de/inf/aktien/detail/uebersicht.html?ID_NOTATION=47825310

Kevin Kilty

What can I add that people haven’t mentioned already? Increasing employment per MW of installed capacity means higher energy costs and subsidized jobs. We wish solar energy well, but please keep taxpayer money away from this.

dp

“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source …”
It means markets are created by law, and cost is hidden behind subsidies. The fraudsters behind it get credit for creating union-ready jobs, businesses get paid regardless of the efficiences and vagaries of the open market, and the tax payers get unreliable, inefficient energy whether they need it or not. Its win-win for almost everyone. /snark

Interstellar Bill

Dr. A Burns:
Your trenchant observation is very un-PC. Please don’t bring it up again, OK. We can’t have energy-balance realities intruding upon the Left’s gradiose socialist madness.
The AGW fraud is nothing but the Lefties’ usual economics-be-damned.
I’m rooting for the Indians who block the vast solar plants seeking to blight their sacred desert.
The only thing you can say for solar is that it’s not nearly as obscene as ethanol mandates, windmills, or CAFE standards, all of which have produced nothing but economic and ecological destruction, and lots of extra people-deaths too (no doubt privately cheered-on by the anti-human population-suppression lobby).

Bob Diaz

Solar photovoltaic has come a long way in the last 50 years with improved efficeny, longer life, and reduced price per watt, BUT I feel it needs another 20 to 30 years on improvements before it can become cost effective.

Lew Skannen

Wolfman and ChE summed up my initual impression on this one.
The question that Dr A Burns asks often arises and I have come to the conclusion that cost in monetary terms is a pretty accurate indicator of the energy that has gone into making something.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
To me it seems a justifiable, accurate and very convenient measure but I would be interested to hear any opinions on this.

kellys_eye

We need significant advances in ENERGY STORAGE than energy production. Solar-derived electricity is limited by its availability *only* during the day – when there’s basically no-one at home to use it. Energy demands rotate around mornings and evenings and until we can STORE power efficiently (cheaply) no ‘instantaneous’ electricity production system will be worthwhile (cost effective).

DirkH

Dr A Burns says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“What is the average life of a solar panel ?”
30 years for good quality modules. Early cheap Chinese stuff suffered from premature aging of the laminate. You will probably have to replace capacitors in the inverters several times as they dry out over time.
“What is the cost of electricity over the life of the device, including installation, maintenance and degradation through dirt ?
How does the use of resources such as copper etc compare with power from coal ?”
A lot of German studies allege that energy payback time is “1 to 3 years depending on insolation”; I don’t believe a word of that; i think they don’t account for any energy used but for the PV cell manufacturing itself. There is IMHO NO honest study.
“My feeling is that the economics of a device reflect the energy used in its contruction, including smelting of metals, labour etc . Solar panels use a lot. Is there any research on this ?”
Go by the prices. You get 1 Watt peak performance for 2.40 Euros (1.20 for the PV module, 1.20 for the inverter and the rest of the installation). At 800 sunhours per year in Germany this produces 0.8 kWh/year or 16 kWh over 20 years. At 5 Eurocent/kWh real value (before taxes and transmission fees are slapped on) this results in a value of 0.80 EUR.
So you managed to turn 2.40 EUR into 0.80 EUR and it took you 20 years.
The situation is of course slightly better in Portugal (2 times the insolation) or the Sahara (2.5 times the insolation). The situation will also improve with further drops in price; expect prices to half in 5 years. So, we’re 10 to 15 years away from calling it economically viable in Germany.

Mike M

Imagine how many more jobs there would be if we started driving nails into tires and breaking windows? Aside from putting these things on our roof tops, where else are they going to go?
Suppose the government paid so much, (i.e. we are forced to pay a lot more taxes), to subsidize them that they were basically ‘free’ to anyone who wanted them. Given that unlikely degree of “incentive”, everybody and his bother would be cutting down forests and covering up crop land to set-up ‘solar farms’ to reap huge profits.
You say that can’t happen but, consider an alternate path leading to a virtual parallel condition whereby a given government incentive ‘X’ is based on being some percentage of an assumed investment cost ‘Y’ but that cost suddenly drops WAY lower than anyone ever imagined? Suppose someone invents a new approach in material or manufacturing tomorrow that dramatically lowers the price and existing government policy will now result in 1000X more solar panels being installed than anyone ever dreamed?
So then what happens? Will the ‘greenies’ then flip and demand that the subsidies have to stop in order to save the forests and keep the poor fed? Or will they shrink away fearful of being blamed for laying-off all the new solar panel workers (now unionized of course..)?
I don’t about the rest of you but I do not want to be put into a position where I’d ever find out the answer to that question – having to rely on them to get us out of a problem they created in the first place.
Let’s not forget how the greenie push for bio fuel is working out…

Robert of Ottawa

“creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source”
That’s because it is inefficient….presuming you believe thesee numbers.

I am absolutely sure generating electricity by treadmills would create even more jobs per megawatt than solar. I hope no one will push such a policy in Europe though.
But America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave is another matter.
/sarc off

Robert of Ottawa

I suggest we use human powered-treadmills to generate electricity. That will create EVEN MORE jobs per Mwatt.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Brewster said on July 28, 2011 at 2:19 pm:

An accurate date for this study would be informative since one of the countries ‘premiere’ solar manufacturers, Evergreen Solar, decided to can its manufacturing in Mass., even after receiving a large tax break/credit and investing a lot of money in new facilities and hiring. I wonder if these stats reflect that.

It’s even worse than that.

Boston Scientific to build in China
Natick co. hiring 1,000
By Brendan Lynch
Thursday, July 28, 2011 – Updated 3 hours ago
Natick medical device maker Boston Scientific, which has received millions in state and local tax breaks for its facilities in Marlboro and Quincy, despite cutting its Bay State work force in recent years, said yesterday it would hire 1,000 workers and build a $150 million factory — in China.
“It’s disappointing that Evergreen Solar and Boston Scientific both decided to build in China and not in Massachusetts,” said state Sen. James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat. “It’s even more disappointing Boston Scientific did it, because they’re a successful company.”

Maybe the job loss will be offset by all those jobs building and servicing that offshore wind project that Ted Kennedy is no longer around to block.
Leave it to Massachusetts to have a governor who gladly points out “the upside”:


The Patrick administration saw a silver lining yesterday in Boston Scientific’s China expansion.
“When a locally based company expands and increases their sales in other markets, Massachusetts benefits,” said a spokeswoman for Greg Bialecki, economic development secretary for Gov. Deval Patrick, in a statement. “Having global life sciences companies headquartered here is one of the many factors that contribute to the commonwealth’s global leadership in this innovation sector.”

There’s a linked related article, Boston Scientific to eliminate up to 1400 jobs, same date.
Evergreen Solar is eliminating 800 Massachusetts jobs, Boston Scientific “…expects to shed between 1,200 and 1,400 employees by the end of 2013.” But it still benefits the state when the company is headquartered there.
Until the company realizes how much it will save in taxes by “moving their headquarters” to a post office box in the Bahamas. Oh well, that’ll only be temporary, it’ll only last until the anthropogenic global warming causes the seas to rise enough to eradicate the Bahamas and thus all the PO boxes. Wait for it. 😉

Darrin

I work in the semiconductor industry, there is nothing “Green” about the manufacturing process.

richard verney

Mike Jonas says: July 28, 2011 at 2:16 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////
The feed in tariffs were so generous that widespread fraud has taken place. Investigation has found that a number of solar farms use diesel generators to ‘top up’ electrity being generated by the solar farm and sold to the grid. The surveys suggest that this occurs at night, but there is no reason to conclude that the practice is adopted only at night since the cost of running a generator is far less than the subsidised tariff being given to the solar farm operator so why not use a generator day and night to max out on profit.
We all know that where there is a subsidised or false market there is a scam to be had. europe is seeing that in the carbon credit trade.

Dr. Dave

Solar is still pretty damn expensive. The cost of the PV panels are only part of the equation. About 8 years ago I became enamored of PV technology. I decided I’d make my own little system to power my laptop or my ham gear in the event of power failure. I bought a 55 watt PV panel, a charge controller, a glass pack deep cycle battery and a little power inverter. By the time I was done buying hardware, switches and wire, I was into this “little” project to the tune of about $500.
I could run my ham gear (at 5 watts output) pretty much 24/7. The laptop, however, drew 65 watts and had to be connected via the power inverter. On a sunny summer afternoon I could get about 2 hours of use before the battery had discharged too much. The $150 battery was the first component to fail.
You can apply solar in a variety of ways. One friend of mine lives in an “earth ship” that is wired for 12 volt lighting and appliances. Another has about half his roof covered in PV panels and he sells his “extra” electricity to the grid. I still think he buys more grid electricity than he sells and he has spent a fortune on panels, controllers and inverters. Another acquaintance of mine built his house in the middle of nowhere. He opted for solar because he couldn’t cost justify the expense of paying to get wired to the grid and then paying for grid electrons. He went full bore. He has three huge arrays, a shed filled with deep cycle batteries and heavy duty inverters. He also has a big propane tank, runs a propane refrigerator, propane heating and has a propane backup generator. It increased the cost of his pre-fab home by at least $50K. Ironically, about the time he breaks even vs. the grid, he’ll have to start replacing panels. Batteries get changed relatively frequently as they only have a 5-10 year lifespan. No matter how you slice it, solar is expensive and inefficient.

Colin Porter

Here in the UK, I woke up this morning to the sight of a new PV installation on the other side the road. Not only do I have to look at this ugly slab of technology, but I am forced to pay for it as well.

The TÛRANOR PlanetSolar Journey Around the World
The M/S Tûranor PlanetSolar, the world’s largest solar boat, began her journey around the world in Monaco on 27th September 2010. The mission is to demonstrate that existing renewable energy technologies are reliable and effective.
The project also aims to advance scientific research. The PlanetSolar project, founded by the Swiss Raphaël Domjan and based in Yverdon-les-Bains (Switzerland/ Canton Vaud), has made technological developments possible in different fields such as the production of composite materials and structures as well as the storage of solar energy.
For the tour, PlanetSolar can rely on technical data provided by Metéo France. A solar routing technology was specifically developed for the project.
Sailing under Swiss flag and measuring close to 102 feet in length and 50 feet in width, M/S Tûranor PlanetSolar is covered by a 5,700 square feet solar generator, using solar cells made by the California-based SunPower Corporation.
SunPower offers solar cells which are 50% more efficient than conventional solar cells. Within a sponsoring scheme, PlanetSolar main partners are the Swiss watchmaker Candino (www.candino.com) and the energy management company Immosolar (www.immosolar.com). The project is supported by many further companies and institutions, amongst those the Swiss Confederation as Official Partner.

ferd berple says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Why not simply hire people to turn hand cranks to produce energy. That would certainly create even more jobs than solar power per megawatt.

I started working on this before your comment, but wisely checked comments before posting. Here is my not-so-quick (but still-took-a-long-time) estimate on comparing solar power to bicycle power.
93,000 people to create 3,000 mega watts which powers 600,000 homes.
Why not hire the homeless to generate power through bicycles? At 75 watts per hour per bike (Pedal Power, Wilson, D. G., McCullagh, J., 1977 : Cited in EcoHearth, ““Pedal-powered appliances for home, business and leisure”, 2011) this would supply 61,101 mega watts a year, which would power 12,220,200 homes?
Since it would involve little skilled labour, and maintenance costs would be enormously decreased, it seems like a much cheaper option — not to mention giving employment to an underprivileged segment of the population while improving their health.
Of course, I’ve probably made an error somewhere along the line,

jae

“Solar industry on the rise”
Ahhh, an article heading that could be from the 70’s Jimmy Carter era. Nothing has changed, but the folks, folks.

Sal Minella

The article states:
“There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes.”
It should say:
“There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes, sometimes.”
I humbly submit that every solar panel connected to the grid ends up costing everyone more. The power is intermittent, meaning that it requires “spinning reserve” power to back it up and, when each home based panel generates more electricity than the home uses the local utility must buy it back from the homeowner. The unreliable nature of this excess power causes it to pop up on the grid and then, just as unpredictably, disappear. When this happens the excess power is just dissapated as all unused power is. It provides no benefit but costs the utility and all other power consumers some amount of money. As the number of these orphan (not known specifically to the utility in a way that the utility can rely on them) solar panels increases, the cost of all electricity will rise proportionally.
Another incredibly stupid idea being crowed about as though it were the salvation of man. A little education would go a long way for the people who write these articles. The technical IQ of America is shameful.

tobyglyn

Maybe someone has already posted this.
“An ambitious solar energy project on a massive scale is about to get underway in the Arizona desert. EnviroMission is undergoing land acquisition and site-specific engineering to build its first full-scale solar tower – and when we say full-scale, we mean it! The mammoth 800-plus meter (2625 ft) tall tower will instantly become one of the world’s tallest buildings. Its 200-megawatt power generation capacity will reliably feed the grid with enough power for 150,000 US homes, and once it’s built, it can be expected to more or less sit there producing clean, renewable power with virtually no maintenance until it’s more than 80 years old.”
” virtually no maintenance until it’s more than 80 years old” It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/

Rich Lambert

Since solar power is doing so great let’s stop the taxpayer funded subsidies. By the way, isn’t a lot of CO2 generated refining silicon dioxide in to silicon?