Nanosolar to the government: Set feed-in rates!

**Texas** · 02-06-2009

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/articl...ughs-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.

**Jason M. Hendler** · 02-06-2009

Texas,

I posted that story in this thread:

Link

**Texas** · 02-07-2009

Originally Posted by Jason M. Hendler

Texas,

I posted that story in this thread:

Link

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.

**pdt** · 02-07-2009

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.

**swimdad623** · 02-07-2009

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.

**Texas** · 02-08-2009

Originally Posted by swimdad623

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.

**Altazi** · 02-08-2009

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.

**Texas** · 02-08-2009

Originally Posted by Altazi

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?

**pdt** · 02-08-2009