PV-tech.org reports:
“The climate change debate became polarised and emotionalised…For the solar industry the strategy is not to emphasise on climate change, focus on finance – that is what I would do,” Decker told PV Tech.
PV-tech.org reports:
“The climate change debate became polarised and emotionalised…For the solar industry the strategy is not to emphasise on climate change, focus on finance – that is what I would do,” Decker told PV Tech.
To make it a level playing field, you have to eliminate the subsidies. Only left -wing governments perpetuate subsidies,
On an economy of scales, subsidies kill enterprise.
I know when rich folk get solar the backup baseline costs get passed on to the poorer and the apartment dwellers hence the high electricity costs.
The solar subsidies do make solar look god to a typical upper middle class earner though. It is market distortion – in fact it looks good to me as well if I ever install air conditioning. I would rather pay the 18 cents per kWh for the solar with subsidies that. The 26 cents I have to pay now.
I love mixed metaphors.
I think the “booming” is the sound made when a bird is struck by one of the blades.
Howdy marque2
You know exactly how it would look for solar users without the rents: terrible. Indeed, “unsustainable.” And you’re paying those rents with the 26/Kwh on half of your power. Don’t you feel lucky now?
Well with all the federal and state subsidies, and artificial increase in power costs, it does become reasonable if you don’t consider that the utility still has to maintain baseload power.
In CA you can, after all the rebates and subsidies get the power for about 16 cents per kwh, The cost of electricity for me is 26 cents per kwh from the utility for everything over 450Kwhs per month, and 20 cents below that. For perspective 450kwh is about 1/2 the energy a typical home uses in a month. Yes it is outrageous in CA. So for a typical person in LA or San Diego, the solar doesn’t look bad. But then I don’t know how it would look if you took away the subsidies, and forced owners to pay for the baseload backup.
I find it ironic that Solar Inc, having ridden the global warming hoax for 25 years, should claim now that it’s really about finance. Especially since solar fails totally financially.
Solar for niches: yes. Running the ISS on diesel generators would be tough at best; running a power cord up to it would really be quite a project. There are other potential niches; military deployments come to mind as a possibility.
But if the solar industry wants to talk finance, then yes, they’re going to have to talk storage and distribution first if they want to fit in with coal, methane, hydro and nuclear.
“Solar in the US is booming”
Why read further?
There are certain laws that govern the evolution of all things, from microbes to landscapes to technology. One is the Law of natural selection: when two or more competitors for the same niche have practical differences, the one which operates most effectively within that niche will have advantages over the competition which the laws of cause and effect cannot ignore. Whether the niche demands drought-tolerant protozoa, frost-hardy vascular plants, or high-density demand-ready power supplies, any competition unable to meet the demand will suffer.
And there are plenty of legitimate off-grid uses. It is a real and useful technology if applied properly. If you try to make it a panacea, well, you’ll fail.
A sensible comment. The biggest obstacle for solar is it’s difficulty as baseload power. I’d focus research on the storage side of the equation. Without the ability to store off-peak generation for use at any time, the solar industry will remain uncompetitive except for niche uses.