Record Cost Reductions in US Solar Power Spurs Growth, in Green Jobs Too

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The average cost of installing residential and commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the US dropped a record 17% in 2010 and they continue to drop in 2011, an additional 11% through June, according to a report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab's "Tracking the Sun" report.

Slowly but surely, the US market for solar PV power is growing and developing. Actually not so slowly. The US solar power market continued to grow at a record-breaking 66% pace in 2011′s first half. Domestic solar manufacturing rose 31%, while 1.1 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale solar power is under construction, according to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association's (SEIA) "US Solar Market Insight."

Green jobs are growing as well. Some 93,500 Americans worked in the US solar industry in 2010, and more than half of the country's solar companies are planning to expand hiring in 2011, according to

The Solar Foundation's "The National Solar Jobs Census."

"The solar power industry is the fastest growing industry in America. We are delivering strong economic returns and good jobs at increasingly competitive prices, as this National Lab report shows. This report is further proof of what Americans from across the country already know: smart solar policy creates jobs and economic growth for communities hit hard by the recession," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.

The drastically lower cost of solar PV modules has been a big, but not the sole, factor in spurring growth. Costs outside of modules, which make up a significant percentage of overall costs, have been dropping as well, the report authors note.

Government support and public-private collaboration have been key to the success. The cost of labor for installation, overhead, balance of systems and other non-module costs decreased 18% year-to-year in 2010. While module costs are driven by global supply and demand, non-module costs are "most readily impacted by state and federal policies that accelerate deployment and remove market barriers," they write.

"The impressive cost reductions highlighted in this report did not happen by accident. It took business innovation and market-building policies at all levels of government to achieve the necessary economies of scale," commented Adam Browning, executive director of the grassroots Vote Solar Initiative.

"There has never been a better time for customers or utilities to harness the sun for power. It's time to double down on our nation's investment in this job-creating, homegrown energy resource."

US solar power incentives are also delivering greater returns for investors, while government and industry incentives are falling, the researchers found. The average size of direct cash incentives from states and utilities, as well as dollar-per-watt value of the federal tax incentive "have both steadily decreased since their peak," according to the Berkeley National Lab's report.

Additional cost reductions in solar PV costs over the near-term are likely to be realized, given that current initiatives and support are sustained, the report authors conclude.

Germany has built the world's leading solar market and industry, both on the supply and demand side. At $6.9/Watt, average installed solar PV systems costs in the US is significantly higher than in Germany, where the average cost to install a residential or commercial solar PV system was $4.2/W. Germany's cumulative grid-connected solar PV capacity far surpasses that in the US — 17,000MW vs. 2,100MW.

The full report and supporting materials are available for download on the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab website.

http://cleantechnica...ontent=FaceBook

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Is that before Solyndra failed with all our money? They have to make up something like 1100 green energy jobs now just to break even from just that fiasco.

[kytwell 179]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/16/solyndra

The recent declaration of bankruptcy by the solar power company Solyndra and investigation into the circumstances of the company's loan approval has both the left and right in a tizzy. Republicans are attempting to use the incident to discredit any government investment in clean energy. Democrats are trying frantically to distance themselves from the decision altogether. As investigators sort out the murky details, it important to remember, the incident is ultimately a distraction from the actual task of building a strong solar industry.

Yes, $534 million is a lot of money, and 1,100 jobs is a lot of jobs, but Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of the Department of Energy's loan portfolio. America's investment in renewables, and particularly solar, lags behind that of many other G-20 countries as a percentage of GDP. Yet sheer investment isn't enough to ensure a robust renewable sector; it has to be smart investment. And that doesn't mean fussing over individual companies; instead of picking the right companies, we need to pick the right policies. We need to look at what's worked elsewhere, particularly in Germany, which continues to blaze the trail in solar innovation, production and installation.

In December 2010 alone, Germany installed 1,174 megawatts of solar -- more than America installed the entire year. Germany nurtured its industry through the 1990s and into the early 2000s by subsidizing rooftop installations, and by 2004 had installed 100,000 grid-connected photovoltaic systems. But the real driver of success has been Germany's use of feed-in tariffs, which the European Environmental Agency defines as "The price per unit of electricity that a utility or supplier has to pay for renewable electricity from private generators."

Essentially, Germany requires its utilities to purchase solar energy at a price fixed by the government for 20 years after installation. That ensures that anyone who invests in solar -- whether homeowners who put photovoltaic panels on their roofs or companies that develop industrial-size plants -- will get a return on their investment for years to come. The success of the policy in Germany has led to its widespread adoption throughout Europe, and while feed-in tariffs aren't a fail-safe solution -- if poorly designed, they can result in booms and busts, as happened in Spain -- on balance they're highly effective: Six of the world's top 10 solar installers use feed-in-tariffs or an equivalent approach.

For all their demonstrated effectiveness, feed-in tariffs are controversial in the United States because we object to the idea of "fixing prices" and "interfering with the free market." Of course, the idea that the U.S. energy market operates free from government intervention is laughable: The U.S. subsidized oil, gas and coal production to the tune of $72 billion between 2002 and 2008. At the same time we spent just $29 billion on renewable energy over the same period, with a huge chunk of that -- $16.8 billion -- going to corn ethanol, an inefficient energy source that contributes to deforestation but has been heavily advocated by agribusiness.

Still, most solar incentives take the form of rebates and tax credits, which reimburse individuals and businesses for a certain percentage of the cost of installation. The federal government offers a 50 percent tax credit for solar, and some states offer additional credits -- although up-front financing still remains a challenge in many parts of the country. As with any state-by-state endeavor, some states have great policies while others have none; perhaps unsurprisingly, blue states tend to have better incentives for solar than red ones.

Many states also have renewable energy standards, which requires them to obtain a certain percentage of electricity from renewables; to meet these standards, states tend to sign contracts with big companies for industrial-scale projects. Indeed, American investment in renewable energy has largely taken place on an industrial scale, with the government guaranteeing nearly $16 billion in loans to 15 solar companies.

By contrast, Germany's solar market is highly distributed: Since anyone with a solar panel on his or her roof can sell energy to utilities at the premium price, anyone can benefit from investing in solar, emphasizing small-scale, decentralized energy production. Yet despite the focus on a few big, high-visibility projects in the U.S., the hundreds of megawatts such projects produce are mere trifles in Germany, which puts thousands of megawatts on the grid annually, largely through rooftop systems requiring only a few solar panels each.

Of course, there are other important differences between the U.S. and Germany. Germany has a highly skilled labor force backed by strong unions, and a robust environmental movement with real political power, both of which are sadly lacking here. America's abundance of oil, coal and natural gas makes it extremely difficult for renewables to compete with fossil fuels without some kind of pricing mechanism that accounts for the costs of "cheap" energy to health and environment, yet the stranglehold of fossil fuel industries on elected officials makes it unlikely that we'll get such a mechanism any time soon. China's massive investments in solar and other renewables over the past couple of years may yet prove to be a game-changer for the industry as a whole. But Germany still offers a useful demonstration of how a developed world with a history of manufacturing power can build a new industry with the ultimate goal of transforming the entire energy sector.

Whether we learn from their example is another story. What should be clear by now is that we're not going to shift to a clean energy economy in a couple of years with a few hundred million dollars, especially when we're already so far behind. Right now we're fussing over the final moments of a multi-year deal that represents a tiny fraction of government investment in the U.S. solar industry and an absolute pittance in the global solar economy. There's a lot to talk about with regards to our solar policy, but Solyndra isn't it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good thing the Chinese are still mass producing cheap panels.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Any one figure out how this game is played. The government is paying the companies to make solar cells and it is paying people to buy solar cells. Then it is promoted about how cheap solar is to produce per kwh.OBAMA logic.....

[lostinblue 1,989]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Solar power is the way to go. The sun will be the only thing left after we destroy the rest of the earth, then it will fry the remnants like a Cajun making blackened redfish in a red hot iron skillet. All joking aside, I am all for solar power. With US made solar panels.

Edited September 17, 2011 by spookyturtle

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Solar power is the way to go. The sun will be the only thing left after we destroy the rest of the earth, then it will fry the remnants like a Cajun making blackened redfish in a red hot iron skillet. All joking aside, I am all for solar power. With US made solar panels.

Put some money in my account so I can go buy a few solar panels.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Put some money in my account so I can go buy a few solar panels.

PM me your bank account numbers and info.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

PM me your bank account numbers and info.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hey, Spooky! Are you going to the beer festival in Walpole?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Hey, Spooky! Are you going to the beer festival in Walpole?

Why would I do that?

[kytwell 179]

Any one figure out how this game is played. The government is paying the companies to make solar cells and it is paying people to buy solar cells. Then it is promoted about how cheap solar is to produce per kwh.OBAMA logic.....

We're subsidizing it, just like we do with oil, gas and coal...

The U.S. subsidized oil, gas and coal production to the tune of $72 billion between 2002 and 2008. At the same time we spent just $29 billion on renewable energy over the same period, with a huge chunk of that -- $16.8 billion -- going to corn ethanol, an inefficient energy source that contributes to deforestation but has been heavily advocated by agribusiness.

BO wasn't President then...

The Land Grant Colleges

Perhaps no legislative act has had greater consequences for America’s educational system and leadership in agriculture and technology than the Morrill Act, which created the land grant colleges. First championed by Vermont Senator Justin Morrill in the 1850s, the Morrill Act was a complex legislative feat to create a system of state schools funded by large federal grants of land. Justin Morrill was a Republican

The National Highways

A second critical American accomplishment was the creation of the National Highway System. In 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower, who had experienced first hand the difficulty of moving an army across America along the Lincoln Highway (the first cross country road) as a young Lieutenant Colonel — and then contrasted it with the autobahns he had seen in Germany — committed his administration to building a national highway system. Eisenhower was a Republican.

The Hoover Dam

The Hoover Dam is rightly considered one of the great engineering wonders of the world. Engineers had to divert the Colorado River to build the dam and its construction literally opened up much of the American southwest for development. An extraordinarily complex political feat as well that involved the cooperation of seven states, the project was nurtured by Herbert Hoover who as Secretary of Commerce brokered the final water-sharing deal that enabled the dam to move forward. Dozens of companies cooperated on the project. The project was hardly bereft of problems, and over one hundred people died in the course of construction, yet it was completed two years ahead of schedule. Today, the dam provides much of the electricity in the region, and the country’s largest reservoir, Lake Meade at the top of the dam, irrigates vast portions of the Southwest. Approved 1928 Hoover was President, a Republican.

The Internet

The U.S. role in the creation of the Internet is well known. Originally financed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and then the National Science Foundation (NSF)

I am not for big government. And this goes against my free market principles, but private industry today is driven by greed and profits NOW, not in 100 years. So these above Republican Presidents had a vision to improve our infrastructure to improve our country for the future benefit of all. And we were a leader in Education and national infrastructure. Now we need to repair and upgrade our infrastructure so that we can get back on top and put Americans back to work at the same time. I don't agree with 97% of what our current President says, but when he talks about infrastructure improvements, I tend to agree with the idea.

I posted above Germany is heavily investing in solar and is the world leader. A country of 82 million is kicking our butt. We are America, the greatest country? We shouldn't be second in anything then... So you may not agree with solar because of big government central planning etc...but all of the above things were centrally planned and funded and were vital to making USA what it was up through the 90's.

We also built railroad system and many many many other crucial projects for infrastructure throughout our history and all helped to make us into who we were. Being against all things now, is thinking for yourself and not worrying about the future viability of our country.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why would I do that?

To drink beer.