Here are some snippets from the article:

"Currently, developing utility-scale renewable energy projects requires dealing with hundreds of private and public utilities all operating under strikingly different state regulatory requirements, and it often requires substantial upfront investments just to respond to requests for proposal."


"the set of feed-in rate price points could be set by (1) on-peak natural gas fired generation to (2) combined cycle natural gas ‚Air fired generation to (3) base load coal generation with an adjustment to reflect the cost of CO2 emissions.

Setting an initial feed-in rate at $0.15 per kilowatt hour for 20 years for solar projects, for example, would draw out multiple breakthrough technologies and greatly advance their market penetration."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/feeding-in-renewable-energy-breakthroughs-5556.html


Would it be such a bad thing to throw a 1/800 th of the stimulus package on this idea? Making it easier for alternative energy companies to get their products on the ground will help get the development moving along at a faster pace. Hey Obama, can you add this in and take out $1 billion of tax cuts? You know we are only going to buy Chinese products or pay off our credit cards with that money. This is a far better investment that will actually create jobs and move us to where we want to be. Batteries and alternative energy. Priority jobs. Let's get these funded and set the stage for adoption. Well thought out policies can go a long way.

Texas,

I posted that story in this thread:

Link (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2363&highlight=feed)

Texas,

I posted that story in this thread:

Link (http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2363&highlight=feed)





My bad. ;) I know we are on opposite sides of the fence on this. I'm for it, you are not. I think the Germans were brilliant for their solar adoption, you think they are idiots. I think Nanosolar has a great CEO who is asking for help to make it easier to at least get though all the different regulations and hoops needed to get some solar plants on the ground, you think it's fine - he's full of it. To each his own.

Vote Yes! to help make it more fair to get alternative energy systems build in the U.S. No, it won't cost us. It will generate more jobs and opportunities for when the globe goes green. I want that business! I want that development to move forward. Sitting back and seeing funding for alternative energy projects dry up because of the global meltdown (caused by energy problems - the high price of gas was the last straw that broke the mortgage bubble) is not wise. This is when we need to invest. If anyone feels good about the reduction in funding for alternative energy or that Americans are going back to big cars because gas is now cheap then I have to tell you that ignorance is bliss.

I think it would be better for the government to enact regulations that require a certain amount of renewable electricity and let technologies be chosen based on what delivers that energy at the lowest cost. If Nanosolar can do what they say they can do, they'll win big time in that scenario without the government setting prices. If not, then other technologies will win.

I don't think the government should choose technologies.

If you set a feed-in rate of $0.15/KWH, why can't a company then build a nuclear power plant, and use the same rate? Nuclear and solar have the same carbon impact, and the new-design plants being used in Europe and Asia are running at $0.04/KWH total cost of electricity - including all capital costs and interest!

The problem with fixed feed-in rates is it shifts the risk for reductions in cost and demand. Right now, the power provider takes that risk. Under Nanosolar's plan, that risk is pushed off to the electricity consumer (who has to pay $0.15/KWH even when there is no demand for electricity at that price). That combination would be all profit and no risk for Nanosolar, so of course they would push for it.

The part that I don't understand is the attraction for centralized PV solar power. It doesn't make any sense to buy land and put PV in the middle of a field, generate the most expensive electricity available, and then lose 1/3rd of it in distribution. Why not just put PV panels on the roofs of houses and flat-roof businesses (for example, Wal Marts) and then generate the electricity locally? That means no land cost, reduced distribution losses, and some 'green cred' for the business installing the panels.

As for Nanosolar, they should spend their efforts in ramping up their production line. If they can really produce panels for $1/peak watt, they won't have any problem selling everything they can build. Their CEO said on a recent interview that they've sold out their entire next three year's production. If that isn't a reason to build about ten more production plans, I don't know what is.

If you set a feed-in rate of $0.15/KWH, why can't a company then build a nuclear power plant, and use the same rate? Nuclear and solar have the same carbon impact, and the new-design plants being used in Europe and Asia are running at $0.04/KWH total cost of electricity - including all capital costs and interest!

The problem with fixed feed-in rates is it shifts the risk for reductions in cost and demand. Right now, the power provider takes that risk. Under Nanosolar's plan, that risk is pushed off to the electricity consumer (who has to pay $0.15/KWH even when there is no demand for electricity at that price). That combination would be all profit and no risk for Nanosolar, so of course they would push for it.

The part that I don't understand is the attraction for centralized PV solar power. It doesn't make any sense to buy land and put PV in the middle of a field, generate the most expensive electricity available, and then lose 1/3rd of it in distribution. Why not just put PV panels on the roofs of houses and flat-roof businesses (for example, Wal Marts) and then generate the electricity locally? That means no land cost, reduced distribution losses, and some 'green cred' for the business installing the panels.

As for Nanosolar, they should spend their efforts in ramping up their production line. If they can really produce panels for $1/peak watt, they won't have any problem selling everything they can build. Their CEO said on a recent interview that they've sold out their entire next three year's production. If that isn't a reason to build about ten more production plans, I don't know what is.






Don't worry, the reason you don't understand is because your facts are wrong. Let's clear some things up and that might help:


1) Nuclear energy is not renewable or sustainable. It does not qualify.

2) Your cost analysis for nuclear energy is wrong. It does not include all of the extra costs including government subsidies like uranium enrichment, nuclear waste disposal and security, government guarantees for any accidents because insurance companies will not cover private plants, etc. Additionally, there is also a huge CO2 cost for just the mining, refining, storage, etc. that is never discussed.

3) If you were correct about nuclear technology the adoption around the world would be very good. Right? The adoption rate is abysmal where only countries where the government can impose the power plants on the people is putting many in (China). Just Google how much new nuclear is being put in around the world and where. That's all that needs to be said.

4) Your distribution losses for solar are far to excessive. Losses on our grid are less than 10 percent for our high-voltage power lines. Google the line that is running along California for an example.

5) Centralized power stations in the desert utilize unused land that sees over 300 days of sun a year. It's almost consistent and of long duration. Large stations can be made very efficient in terms of grid connection as well as maintenance.

6) A large, specially designed inverter system will be more efficient and cost effective that thousands of small Sunny Boys.

7) When you put in a solar system on a commercial or private structure you have to worry about the transfer of ownership. For example, an individual buys a big solar system and is forced to move the next year. He loses a huge investment because that cost is not going to transfer over. That just the way it is right now in the housing market. Call your realtor and ask.

8) We will need both centralized and decentralized systems to make an effective smart grid. Decentralized systems make things more reliable and the large footprint can spread out to address cloud cover issues as well as the fact that it take the sun about 3 hours to pass the U.S. We want to grab those first rays as they hit NY and the last ones when they hit Hawaii.

9) Yes, Nanosolar has a low cost manufacturing process and they are building out new factories as fast as they can. Ten factories? I'm guessing they are thinking in the hundreds if not thousand of factories. It will all depend on what other technologies become available. Right now they have a great and improving technology. They are asking to clean up the regulations as well as make a set of good and fair policies to help the rate of adoption of alternative energy systems.

I think it's a good idea that allows the government to help set the stage and let companies compete. As a result, they help create make an environment where renewable and sustainable technologies are adopted. Getting off of fossil fuels or earth mined energy resources is definitely a good idea. Germany did something like this but with a much higher rate. They now have massive growth in solar energy as well as all of the infrastructure technology. There is a new solar factory going up in Australia (they also have a lot of solar activity) and the factory is going to be a pre-fabricated system from Germany. The global market is about to explode and they are going to be at the top of the chain. We should also be there. It just doesn‘t seem right that a small country like Germany is kicking our butts in this market. They don‘t even have the great solar resources as we do. They are continually evaluating the technology and lowering their feed-in tariffs until eventually none will be needed. I expect an amazing return on their solar energy investment (by becoming the globle leader in the technology). Thank you Germany!

If we don't do something we will just have much slower adoption rates than what are possible. I personally feel we should spend most of the money that is put into the energy solution on ways to reduce our petroleum usage. It is the biggest glaring crisis. We can still operate our grid using our existing grid mix (we have massive amounts of coal and good amounts of NG) but we cannot function if there is a supply issue regarding petroleum. I don't think there is even a choice to make. However, getting our solar and smart grid technologies moving along at a good clip is the smart thing to do.

Bear in mind that Texas is on record as being rabidly anti-nuclear. He does not want nuclear power to succeed, so he will not interpret any information supporting the use of nuclear power in a positive manner.

I, on the other hand, support the use of nuclear power. Instead of jumping in myself, I will instead suggest that you do your own research on nuclear power and come up with your own conclusions.

Just be sure to look at honest, factual data from reputable websites. Most people fear what they don't understand, and very few people understand nuclear power to any depth. Arm yourself with facts, not unfounded fears.

Bear in mind that Texas is on record as being rabidly anti-nuclear. He does not want nuclear power to succeed, so he will not interpret any information supporting the use of nuclear power in a positive manner.

I, on the other hand, support the use of nuclear power. Instead of jumping in myself, I will instead suggest that you do your own research on nuclear power and come up with your own conclusions.

Just be sure to look at honest, factual data from reputable websites. Most people fear what they don't understand, and very few people understand nuclear power to any depth. Arm yourself with facts, not unfounded fears.






I agree! Please do all the research yourself, especially about the low adoption rates. Is everyone around the world an idiot? I doubt it. Most people that did the 180 (hated nuclear but now love it) and now want to use the dated 2nd generation nuclear fission technology have a greater fear. They believe global warming is a far greater danger. They feel there is no renewable and sustainable solution. They would rather build 3,800 new nuclear reactors all over the world (including the Middle East, Africa, and other countries new to the technology) than have a weather issue. I call it the Al Gore Scare.

I however feel that nuclear power is a technology without a problem. Why deal with 1000s of years of nuclear waste (Who the heck are we to make all those future generations have to deal with that crap?)? These new nuclear power plants will also not generate any new energy for at least 10 years, if we start today.

Solar and wind with reasonable conservation will give us all the power we need until more practical electrical energy systems become available. It will take us decades just to get up to the 20% mix we can reach without needing any significant storage. We will also be putting in huge amounts of EVs to help with the storage.

No need for Nuclear! Period. Why generate the world's most deadliest substances for no reason? Better options exist today and will only get better every year. How advanced do you think batteries will be by the time that first new nuclear plant is turned on? I guess that's the technological bet.

Hey, when we are getting close to the 20 percent mix with solar and the grid is showing signs that the limit is close to being reached AND there is no electrical energy storage ready then I will be far more open to nuclear power options. I will still hate it but if people are going to be dying or real suffering will happen without those plants then of course! However, nobody is going to lose a wink of sleep if no new nuclear power plants get built. In fact, many will sleep better, especially the poor people that would have been forced to live near the plants or the storage facilities. No earthquakes, no human error, no terrorists... Well, punk. Do you feel lucky?

1) Nuclear energy is not renewable or sustainable. It does not qualify.

Just to be a little more precise, fission isn't sustainable. Certain types of fusion would be effectively sustainable if and when they are developed. Since fission is the only commercially developed, proven technology, at the moment nuclear power is not sustainable.


2) Your cost analysis for nuclear energy is wrong. It does not include all of the extra costs including government subsidies like uranium enrichment, nuclear waste disposal and security, government guarantees for any accidents because insurance companies will not cover private plants, etc. Additionally, there is also a huge CO2 cost for just the mining, refining, storage, etc. that is never discussed.

The CO2 production associated with nuclear power (from construction, mining, waste disposal, and decommissioning) is actually discussed quite often by a wide range of authors and it is relatively small (compared to standard coal and natural gas). See one estimate as an example:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/


5) Centralized power stations in the desert utilize unused land that
We'll see just how "unused" the land is when permits are sought for massive tracks of land. There will be legal battles.



6) A large, specially designed inverter system will be more efficient and cost effective that thousands of small Sunny Boys.

I've been trying to quantify this. Do you have any references that say how much more efficient and cost effective large inverter systems are?



7) When you put in a solar system on a commercial or private structure you have to worry about the transfer of ownership. For example, an individual buys a big solar system and is forced to move the next year. He loses a huge investment because that cost is not going to transfer over. That just the way it is right now in the housing market. Call your realtor and ask.

This is a good reason to not set prices. If solar is the most cost effective means to generate power, then the solar panels on the house could be purchased by the power company and they could lease the roof space from the owner. Power companies can handle long term investments. This type of arrangement is also suggested for the capital intensive ground loops needed for ground-source heat pumps (geothermal heat pumps). The power company can own the ground loop which will far outlive most owners.

Setting prices is not the only solution.



If we don't do something we will just have much slower adoption rates than what are possible. I personally feel we should spend most
The "something" doesn't need to be government setting prices.

5) Centralized power stations in the desert utilize unused land that sees over 300 days of sun a year. It's almost consistent and of long duration. Large stations can be made very efficient in terms of grid connection as well as maintenance.

I'd wager there's no such thing as "unused" land anymore. Some creature, however obscure, lives there. And the folks who care more about them than building solar arrays have an army of lawyers ready to fight.

I'm not passing judgment on who's right, just get ready for a long, expensive legal battle once the permits have been pulled.

I have seen "green" websites warning that there is as little as 12 years of uranium left - what rubbish. According to some studies done in the 1970's, we should already be out of oil :rolleyes:. Here is an article (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx) discussing the uranium reserves and number of years of uranium left. A quote from said article:


. . .there are the groups opposed to nuclear energy, who use these reserves estimates to argue that nuclear power has no long-term future anyway, and is therefore not worthy of significant investment.

If you do any research on the web, you will see all kinds of dire warnings saying just this.

Another good quote from the article:


In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power, or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs.

Note that the article lists some good source material as well.

Most of the "we're running out of uranium" websites fail to consider fuel reprocessing. Another source of readily available uranium is nuclear weapons - which contain highly-enriched uranium-235. This can be "cut down" to make suitable reactor fuel.

One website I ran across made a comment that uranium mining and extraction efforts are at the equivalent stage of oil drilling circa 1900. Again, don't get sucked in by information posted by people who have an axe to grind.

Not discussed in the article is the potential use of thorium as a reactor fuel. There is even more thorium available than there is uranium.

It may even be possible to extract uranium from seawater - there are technologies that have yet to be developed. Let's not give up because we listen to a bunch of Nancy Nay-Sayers.

Just to be a little more precise, fission isn't sustainable. Certain types of fusion would be effectively sustainable if and when they are developed. Since fission is the only commercially developed, proven technology, at the moment nuclear power is not sustainable.




Yes, that is true. Altazi also points out that we can use breeder reactors, reprocessing and the Japanese system with their high-flow ocean current uranium extraction system to extend the life of our current 2nd generation nuclear industry. However, there was no discussion of the cost and it still faces all of the problems I mentioned before. There are just better ways. About Fusion. I'm all for the research and development of 3rd generation fission and more importantly, fusion technology. It just might be very important for our future. For now, the earth has more than enough of the only resource that is actually coming to our planet - the energy from the sun. It will be very consistent right up to the point it's not. At that point, it won't really matter because all life would be extinguished, unless we figure out how to live in near deep space conditions - will get a tad cold.



The CO2 production associated with nuclear power (from construction, mining, waste disposal, and decommissioning) is actually discussed quite often by a wide range of authors and it is relatively small (compared to standard coal and natural gas). See one estimate as an example:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/


It's less than coal but more than making solar panels and wind turbines. The best CO2 bang for the buck would be solar, wind or biofuels, which also so happen to be renewable and sustainable. I think the only issue people worry about is that think because solar and wind are intermittent that they cannot fulfill our needs. If they feel comfortable that we can add up to 20% (which would take decades) and some good conservation (like better insulation, LED lighting, Energy Star appliances, passive and active solar design, Etc.) which would allow us to continue to have more productivity improvements and thus could continue to grow our economy then they would be all for solar and wind. This is what needs to be addressed. I mean what fool would choose 2nd generation nuclear fission over solar and wind if they both achieve the desired energy and CO2 goals? Correct. Every fool.



We'll see just how "unused" the land is when permits are sought for massive tracks of land. There will be legal battles.

Agreed. This is where the government helps to set the stage. We need to do this or something like this to facilitate the transition away from fossil fuels. It will make the Apollo program seem like spending an afternoon with your son building a toy rocket. It's going to be a massive project and if we get into real petroleum issues will demand more effort (and time) than we expended during WWII, just to keep our economy from collapsing.




I've been trying to quantify this. Do you have any references that say how much more efficient and cost effective large inverter systems are?[QUOTE]


Just Google the cost of new solar farms going up and calculate the cost per kWh (project cost divided by the size of the farm). Then call up your solar installer. You will see the big difference. It's just economies of scale. Imagine if we wanted to build thousands of thermal steam plants at each house. It's just easier to build one. The cost of home inverters today is outrageous. However, that should come down greatly once volumes pick up. Same for the solar farms. It will become just like standard grid equipment. In volumes there is no reason why they would not become much less expensive. No exotic materials or technology. It's proven and field tested already. I expect the Germans to have very good products as they already have many installed systems. Just another example of why it was smart of Germany to get in early - they needed to build out the whole industry of support equipment and software. Brilliant!


[QUOTE]
This is a good reason to not set prices. If solar is the most cost effective means to generate power, then the solar panels on the house could be purchased by the power company and they could lease the roof space from the owner. Power companies can handle long term investments. This type of arrangement is also suggested for the capital intensive ground loops needed for ground-source heat pumps (geothermal heat pumps). The power company can own the ground loop which will far outlive most owners.


Yes, there will be new business models that do just what you are suggesting - leasing roof space. If those contracts carry over when a private building is sold then it would work. Does it now? How will it work? Those are also questions that need to be addressed. Again, the government can set some policies to make this a reality. If businesses can reduce the risk of an investment they are more likely to do it. If they can reduce the initial cost and expense and can better justify their efforts they are more likely to do it. That's why the government needs to set up and streamline things to help achieve what is decided on with the Apollo Energy Plan. Are there many ways to get this done? Yes. Let's explore them all. Let's use different methods and see which ones work best.

Note: We need to address petroleum use first!

Of all of Texas' statements, my favorite is "Just Google XYZ". If you're going to state something as fact, provide some references that actually support those statements.

Of all of Texas' statements, my favorite is "Just Google XYZ". If you're going to state something as fact, provide some references that actually support those statements.





That's because it probably has been done a few times before but some posters are too thick to remember. I also use, "Just use the search button and type XYX".

How about if you are interested, which you are not even if I did provide direct evidence because would still find a way around reality, why not try to Google it. If you then find I am wrong or can't find anything then come back and let me know. I will then help you find the facts.

Is there anything specific that you would like to refute or did you just concede and wanted to say something like, "Well, my dad is bigger than your dad." If so, I understand.

That's because it probably has been done a few times before but some posters are too thick to remember. I also use, "Just use the search button and type XYX".

How about if you are interested, which you are not even if I did provide direct evidence because would still find a way around reality, why not try to Google it. If you then find I am wrong or can't find anything then come back and let me know. I will then help you find the facts.

Is there anything specific that you would like to refute or did you just concede and wanted to say something like, "Well, my dad is bigger than your dad." If so, I understand.

I wasn't refuting, I was trying to see if you had some information I was interested in. I now convert your "just Google" comments into what it really means: "I don't know".

I wasn't refuting, I was trying to see if you had some information I was interested in. I now convert your "just Google" comments into what it really means: "I don't know".


No! You are wrong! My dad is better than your dad. ;)

Texas seems to count on the assumption that most people will not check out his statements. Unfortunately, it may be a good one. :(

Texas seems to count on the assumption that most people will not check out his statements. Unfortunately, it may be a good one. :(



Another useless post by you Mike. Still trying to build that coalition of like minds?

Another useless post by you Mike. Still trying to build that coalition of like minds?

Case in point. Texas seems to think I am trying to build a coalition, or a "consensus". This is the second time he has made this assertion.

He has not informed me what "coalition" or "consensus" I am trying to build, so I can't answer whether or not I am still trying to build one.

Case in point. Texas seems to think I am trying to build a coalition, or a "consensus". This is the second time he has made this assertion.

He has not informed me what "coalition" or "consensus" I am trying to build, so I can't answer whether or not I am still trying to build one.





Well, the weak or the insecure usally do these kinds of comments. Let me teach you, since you are clueless. A person will try to say things like, "Yeah, don't you think so and so is wrong? I mean, really, what is he thinking? What a looser..." You are trying to feel out around you and also affirm different comments from others that agree with your position. Thus, when the following post was made:

Originally Posted by pdt:
"Of all of Texas' statements, my favorite is "Just Google XYZ". If you're going to state something as fact, provide some references that actually support those statements."


You followed with:

"Texas seems to count on the assumption that most people will not check out his statements. Unfortunately, it may be a good one."


You are agreeing with another poster so to strenghen your bond and position against me. A similar thing happens in highschool (are you still in highschool by the way?). Bullys or even loosers will gang up on an even weaker person to make themselves feel better or to fit into a crowd. Like let's say there is a child with no arm or something. You will say something like, "Hey no-arm, how do you wipe your butt? hahahahahha" You do this to sound like you are a tough and cool guy. So that you will be accepted by the other "cool" people that are mocking him out.

Mike, you really have no idea about this? It's basic human phycology. peer pressure and group formation. Why don't you Google it. ;)

"You are agreeing with another poster so to strenghen your bond and position against me."

I have a bond with PDT? I confess I do enjoy PDT's posts more than your's, and I have a peculiar feeling that I would enjoy PDT's company, but I would not be so presumptuous as to say we had a bond. I can explain my preference; PDT is polite and backs up arguments. You are arrogant and don't. It's an easy choice. But perhaps you could explain what our position against you is. I won't hold my breath though.

"You are agreeing with another poster so to strenghen your bond and position against me."

I have a bond with PDT? I confess I do enjoy PDT's posts more than your's, and I have a peculiar feeling that I would enjoy PDT's company, but I would not be so presumptuous as to say we had a bond. I can explain my preference; PDT is polite and backs up arguments. You are arrogant and don't. It's an easy choice. But perhaps you could explain what our position against you is. I won't hold my breath though.





Yeah, I have a peculiar feeling you would enjoy his company too. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. ;)

Texas,

One ironic thing from my perspective is that in this particular case, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I have tried to find information you implied that you had and I was asking where you found it (regarding the cost scaling with size for inverters). Another irony is that I actually agree with you in general on many, if not a majority of topics. We only have different views on some specific points.


Mike756,

It's funny, I've thought it would be interesting to meet you as well and have more extensive conversations on some of the topics we've discussed on the forum.