U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.
That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.
Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.
During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.
To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.
There had been hints of this happening.
In September, the G20 group of the largest 20 economies agreed to phase out the $300 billion spent worldwide in fossil fuel subsidies "over the medium term" to combat climate change.
But neither the Obama administration nor Congress has yet to take steps to comply with the G20 commitment.
For solar to have a shot, the world cannot wait, Resch told reporters at the Copenhagen climate talks this month.
"We either remove subsidies with oil and gas or create parity with solar," he said.
Almost a million jobs could hang in the balance.
Currently, solar contributes less than 1 percent of energy used in the U.S. and employs some 60,000 people. Increasing that amount to 15 percent would result in a total of 882,000 new jobs, the association said.
That's compared with a dwindling coal mining industry that employs 85,000 people, said Resch.
The solar ramp-up would also fight climate change. A 15 percent scenario would slash America's energy-related emissions by an estimated 10 percent, curbing national carbon dioxide output by 1.4 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons).
To get there, however, rooftop solar photovoltaic systems would need to grow massively — from today's 1,500 MW to 350,000 MW by 2020. Concentrating solar power, which generates electricity by focusing sunlight on giant mirrors on desert land, would have to leap to 50,000 MW, up from just 424 MW today.
It "won't happen naturally," Resch said.
Domestic policy provisions that favor renewable energy sources are needed now, the solar industry argues. Many of these would not cost the government "a penny," said Resch. In fact, getting to 15 percent solar would require a relatively small government investment of between $2 billion and $3 billion in total, he said. But, he added,
"The government will have to change the way things have been done."
The policies proposed by SEIA are contained in the association's "Solar Bill of Rights." They include: the right to connect to a grid with uniform standards; the right to new transmission lines to connect solar resources in the Southwest to population centers; and the right to equal access to public land.
The last one is vital for utility-scale solar power. The oil industry currently leases over 45 million acres of federal land, much of it on sun-blessed stretches of Southwestern earth. The solar industry has access to "zero" of that, said Resch.
Also vital is global warming legislation that creates a long-term price on carbon and a federal "renewable portfolio standard" that would ensure a chunk of the nation's electricity gets produced by green power.
We have to quit using
We have to quit using fissile fuels asap if we are to avoid the environmental wipe-out of the human race. I wonder when will the worlds governments realize this, because it sure seem that Copenhagen was not a wake-up call after all.
Fissile fuels?
Do you really mean fissile fuels, Mark, like thorium and uranium?
The endurance of subsidies
Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. The second sentence shows why the first sentence is just a theory: subsidies become entrenched and, once in place, are extremely hard to remove. The U.S. ethanol industry has been heavily subsidized for more than 30 years and shows no sign of being able to, much less being willing to, give up its subsidies.
Why isn't the solar industry calling instead for a carbon tax? Put a $50 or $100 per tonne of CO2-eq carbon tax on fossil-fuel emissions and then let's see which technology wins out.
Subsidies and such
Let me get this straight. Coal subsidies are 0.044c per kWh generated, while solar subsidies these days can go to 20c per kWh generated:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
Who is Mr. Resch trying to deceive? Removing the coal subsidies will not change retail electricity rates substantially (as they are about 10-11c per kWh, on average, these days):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
But solar (and Mr. Resch's job) only survive because of the generosity of the US tax- and rate-payer.
Subsidies and such
Your interpretation of the 2007 EIA data that you cited is errored and misleading. The number for solar is 2.4c per kWh generated. You also failed to mention that “refined coal” received over $2 billion in 2007 subsidies or 3.0c per kWh generated.
75+ years of taxpayer subsidies?!
Taxpayers have been subsidizing your "cheap" coal since 1932 while the mine owners grow fat off the proceeds. The whole point of federal subsidies is to help worthwhile industries become established so they can grow on their own and create a better future for the nation. Yet we're still paying extra for coal three quarters of a century later while it creates more environmental problems for us to pay for -- mercury contamination that contributes to health care costs, black lung and other respiratory problems in miners who have been taught to believe they could never have any choice but coal, not to mention all the side effects of climate change. Taxpayers for Common Sense breaks it down here: www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Energy/Coal/2009/Coal_subsidies_facts...
Dream on
Did the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) really say that the subsidies to fossil fuels provided by the U.S. government keep down fuel prices? If they did, they are wrong. Mainly they help the bottom line of the fossil-fuel producers, stimulating production by U.S. companies at the expense of increased market share by companies that are domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes, or from imports. These companies still sell their products at world-market prices, so eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies in the United States would have little effect on end-user prices.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is also making a pretty bald-faced appeal for special treatment, by asking for the same aggregate level of subsidies. There is no excuse for subsidizing fossil fuels. But current subsidies to biofuels, wind and solar energy are far higher than those to fossil fuels per unit of energy. If the principle becomes every industry should receive the same absolute amount of subsidies, no matter how much they make, then we should be providing several billion dollars in subsidies a year to beekeepers, some of which mold their bees' wax into candles.
Post new comment