Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[Hersh]

They aren't, but somebody has to (even if it is you).  In terms of total costs and over all efficiency, it doesn't matter.  Realistically, if you are using roof top solar, you are over paying for electricity.  You are over paying for electricity as compared to a solar plant where you get electricity from the grid.  Somebody somewhere is  paying for that costs.

 

And I don't think that's ever going to change.

 

There is a costs associated for decentralization for most things.

 

Why doesn't everybody feed themselves with a garden in their backyard?  Why don't I pay people to come in and plant and grow crops in my back yard and then use that food to feed myself?

 

Because even with the pretty expensive costs of transporting food, it isn't as economical as centralized food production.

 

In terms of the dual plants, they are relatively new, but I'm talking longer term as older ones are replaced.

 

Compared to already built coal plants, roof top solar is surely inefficient.

 

And if you are going to pay money to build a new infrastructure to generate electricity cleanly, you are likely paying more money than you should if your solution is roof top solar.

 

 

The cost of my system will pay for itself in seven years (if I stay in this house) so upfront I'm paying more but not long term. If I sell, the system adds value to my house so I won't lose money on it.  

 

Another point: you are arguing that it's inefficient for power companies, except that they don't do maintenance on roof top, but now that doesn't matter in your argument? Why is that not important now?

 

In NC, I paid for my system. The power company loses some money up front by paying me a certain amount of money based on the size of my system. At some point, they get free energy production from me that goes onto the grid and they recoup any lost money. So what is the downside for the power company? That I'm not paying max price for electricity any more. Good for me and while it wasn't my motivation, I'm not concerned about them cause they are a monopoly here. What is the upside? I'm eliminating my footprint in the world and the general savings associated from a clean environment is significant.    

 

Your food analogy isn't sound cause it's comparing apples to oranges.

[Larry]

In NC, I paid for my system. The power company loses some money up front by paying me a certain amount of money based on the size of my system.

Pointing out that these two claims are mutually contradictory.

(I'm also rather surprised. You mean there weren't any tax credits involved, with your system?)

 

At some point, they get free energy production from me that goes onto the grid and they recoup any lost money.

Uh, no, they don;t get "free power". They get power which they are required to buy from you, whether they want it or not, at a price that's several times what it would cost them to generate it, themselves.

 

---

 

Now, I will point out:  I'm not opposed to either of the above subsidies I've pointed out.  I think it's a legitimate societal interest, to artificially affect the market this way, in order to promote the development of a technology which is in the nation's interest. 

 

(Although I think Peter is making some quite legitimate observations that maybe the nation's interest would be better served by focusing this technology in other areas.) 

 

I just feel compelled to point out that said subsidies do exist.  (And are quite large.) 

[PeterMP]

The cost of my system will pay for itself in seven years (if I stay in this house) so upfront I'm paying more but not long term. If I sell, the system adds value to my house so I won't lose money on it.  

 

Another point: you are arguing that it's inefficient for power companies, except that they don't do maintenance on roof top, but now that doesn't matter in your argument? Why is that not important now?

 

In NC, I paid for my system. The power company loses some money up front by paying me a certain amount of money based on the size of my system. At some point, they get free energy production from me that goes onto the grid and they recoup any lost money. So what is the downside for the power company? That I'm not paying max price for electricity any more. Good for me and while it wasn't my motivation, I'm not concerned about them cause they are a monopoly here. What is the upside? I'm eliminating my footprint in the world and the general savings associated from a clean environment is significant.    

 

Your food analogy isn't sound cause it's comparing apples to oranges.

 

I'm not saying it is inefficient for the power companies.  I'm saying for all of society it is inefficient.  With respect to the total economy of the US, it is probably inefficient.

 

With respect to Larry's comments, I suspect you got some tax subsidies.  National and state (there are NC tax credits for residential solar power based on I read on the internet).

 

Also, it looks like North Carolina also does net metering (they pay you for your electricity, and they don't pay the amount it actually costs to generate electricity, they don't charge you what they pay other companies they may buy electricity from, but they pay you what they charge consumers for electricity so essentially other electricity users are over paying for your solar power).  This shows up as a reduction in your bill, but realistically, they are over paying for your solar energy.

 

https://www.progress-energy.com/carolinas/home/renewable-energy/offset/nc-net-meter-toolkit.page?

 

So we have what you paid + tax subisidies + the net metering for everybody that has roof top solar in NC (and realistically in the country).

 

What I'm saying is with respect to the whole system, it would have almost more efficient to simply build a new solar (or combo plant) with that money.

 

We'd generate more (clean) energy, for more users, at a total lower costs if a new solar (or combo) plant had been built instead.

 

This is where something like a cap and trade on CO2 production would be more useful, better, and more efficient than all of these subsidies and "taxes".

 

You let the market figure out the most efficient way to lower CO2.  The market tends to more efficient than politicians making the same decisions.

 

**EDIT**

In terms of efficiency, it doesn't matter if the system would pay itself off in 5 years, if I could generate the same amount of electricity and deliver it to your home with a system (or part of a system needed to generate and deliver that much electricity) that would pay itself off in 2 years, my system is more efficient.

 

However, in terms of the length of time to pay off your system, you are over estimating its efficiency due to the various laws (e.g. tax subsidies and net metering most likely) that shift the costs of your system to other people (e.g .tax payers and other electric consumers)).

[twa]

cap and trade are taxes and subsidies....just new ones

 

and just like the present solar ones=higher rates for those poor working folk

 

but maybe climate change might not get their ancestors.....big maybe 

[PeterMP]

cap and trade are taxes and subsidies....just new ones

 

and just like the present solar ones=higher rates for those poor working folk

 

but maybe climate change might not get their ancestors.....big maybe 

 

1.  The nice thing about cap and trade laws that have been proposed is that we can give "rebates" to people at the bottom of the income poll.  This has been part of the the last two proposed cap and trade laws.

 

2.  Cap and trade laws are subsidies, but they are more general subsidies directed at a desired result (i.e. lower CO2).

 

3.  Realistically, at some level, every industry is subsidized, including the fossil fuel industry.

[twa]

1.  The nice thing about cap and trade laws that have been proposed is that we can give "rebates" to people at the bottom of the income poll.  This has been part of the the last two proposed cap and trade laws.

 

2.  Cap and trade laws are subsidies, but they are more general subsidies directed at a desired result (i.e. lower CO2).

 

3.  Realistically, at some level, every industry is subsidized, including the fossil fuel industry.

 

1we already subsidize bottom income light bills....thats one of those fossil fuel subsidies ya are talking about

 

2 perhaps they are better, but are undoubtedly going to raise rates for the working folk 

 

3 indeed, but solar has one of the highest needed at this point...depends on where ya wanna put your thumb on the scale I suppose

 

I think the money is better directed into advancing the tech before investing my hard earned dollars......of course like Hersh if ya put your thumb on the right scale I'll play.

[Hersh]

Pointing out that these two claims are mutually contradictory.

(I'm also rather surprised. You mean there weren't any tax credits involved, with your system?)

 

Uh, no, they don;t get "free power". They get power which they are required to buy from you, whether they want it or not, at a price that's several times what it would cost them to generate it, themselves.

 

---

 

Now, I will point out:  I'm not opposed to either of the above subsidies I've pointed out.  I think it's a legitimate societal interest, to artificially affect the market this way, in order to promote the development of a technology which is in the nation's interest. 

 

(Although I think Peter is making some quite legitimate observations that maybe the nation's interest would be better served by focusing this technology in other areas.) 

 

I just feel compelled to point out that said subsidies do exist.  (And are quite large.) 

 

Let me explain how it is in North Carolina since I know it's different from state to state.

 

I have to pay to full cost of my system up front. I certainly do get tax credits, but that doesn't mean I don't put up all the money initially. After the system is installed and the meter is put in, the power company sends me a one time check based on the size of the system. Regardless of how much power I generate beyond what I use, I don't get another dime from them.

It's based on avoided costs for the power company since whatever I provide helps them meet their clean energy requirement without them building the infrastructure.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly above.

[Hersh]

I'm not saying it is inefficient for the power companies.  I'm saying for all of society it is inefficient.  With respect to the total economy of the US, it is probably inefficient.

 

With respect to Larry's comments, I suspect you got some tax subsidies.  National and state (there are NC tax credits for residential solar power based on I read on the internet).

 

Also, it looks like North Carolina also does net metering (they pay you for your electricity, and they don't pay the amount it actually costs to generate electricity, they don't charge you what they pay other companies they may buy electricity from, but they pay you what they charge consumers for electricity so essentially other electricity users are over paying for your solar power).  This shows up as a reduction in your bill, but realistically, they are over paying for your solar energy.

 

https://www.progress-energy.com/carolinas/home/renewable-energy/offset/nc-net-meter-toolkit.page?

 

So we have what you paid + tax subisidies + the net metering for everybody that has roof top solar in NC (and realistically in the country).

 

What I'm saying is with respect to the whole system, it would have almost more efficient to simply build a new solar (or combo plant) with that money.

 

We'd generate more (clean) energy, for more users, at a total lower costs if a new solar (or combo) plant had been built instead.

 

This is where something like a cap and trade on CO2 production would be more useful, better, and more efficient than all of these subsidies and "taxes".

 

You let the market figure out the most efficient way to lower CO2.  The market tends to more efficient than politicians making the same decisions.

 

**EDIT**

In terms of efficiency, it doesn't matter if the system would pay itself off in 5 years, if I could generate the same amount of electricity and deliver it to your home with a system (or part of a system needed to generate and deliver that much electricity) that would pay itself off in 2 years, my system is more efficient.

 

However, in terms of the length of time to pay off your system, you are over estimating its efficiency due to the various laws (e.g. tax subsidies and net metering most likely) that shift the costs of your system to other people (e.g .tax payers and other electric consumers)).

 

In your edit:

Your system would be more efficient if I had access to a clean energy power plant in the way you mean. (If I'm understanding it right) However, I don't have access to that in North Carolina right now so in the meantime I have my rooftop system.

 

I'm not sure why you think I'm overestimating the efficiency of my system based on how North Carolina is. This was an interesting report from a NC sustainable energy group.

 

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.energync.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/Understanding_the_Impact_of_.pdf

[PeterMP]

In your edit:

Your system would be more efficient if I had access to a clean energy power plant in the way you mean. (If I'm understanding it right) However, I don't have access to that in North Carolina right now so in the meantime I have my rooftop system.

 

I'm not sure why you think I'm overestimating the efficiency of my system based on how North Carolina is. This was an interesting report from a NC sustainable energy group.

 

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.energync.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/Understanding_the_Impact_of_.pdf

 

But that isn't really (just) roof top solar (and I'm dubious of some of the claims there, but I'll let that go).

 

Well, I'm talking about not based on how NC is I'm talking about in reality.  Assuming you are talking about your tax credits and subsidies in paying it off in 7 years, in reality, it isn't going to pay off in 7 years.  The part you have to pay off is done in 7 years.  It'll really be longer to pay off the true costs because some of the true costs is being paid by other people.

 

And just looking at Duke Electric and what they operate in NC, I see a good number of solar farms.

 

https://www.duke-energy.com/commercial-renewables/solar-energy.asp

 

(I count 13.)

 

(and it looks like there are even more wind, and a couple of nuclear power plants.)

 

But I'm not talking about current efficiency.  I'm talking about what could have been done with the money.  The money (which doesn't just include YOUR money, but other people's with the subsidies) realistically, could have been better spent to build something to deliver you electricity in a more efficient manner.

 

If I'm a somebody that's creating policy to generate electricity through clean manners, one of the last ways I should be trying to make work based on what we can currently do is roof top solar.

 

And I'm not sure that'll ever change.

 

The climate change fight/plan has to be a long(er) term one.  What we can do more/most efficiently right now, should take a back seat to what we could be doing in 5 years, especially what we do right now affects what we will have money to do in 5 years.

 

If we had curbed subsidies for roof top solar 5 years ago and put that money into a solar farm, you probably wouldn't have roof top solar, but in totality more people would probably get more electricity from solar power for less money.

 

And that's  a rolling issue.  If we curb subsidies for roof top solar today and started to put that money to solar farms, in 5 years, fewer people will have roof top solar, but in totality more people will get more electricity from solar power for less money.

[Larry]

I have to pay to full cost of my system up front. I certainly do get tax credits, but that doesn't mean I don't put up all the money initially. After the system is installed and the meter is put in, the power company sends me a one time check based on the size of the system. Regardless of how much power I generate beyond what I use, I don't get another dime from them.

At least the way it is, every single place I've ever seen, yes, you do (get money back from them.) (Or at least, you do, if your system ever generates power that you don't use.)

When you generate surplus power, your electric meter runs backwards.

 

Now, no, you don't get a check from the electric company.  (Unless you generate so much electricity that you run a surplus for the entire month.) 

 

But, just to pull some completely fictional numbers out of the air, if your electric situation is: 

 

1)  You use one KWH.

2)  The next day, while you're at work, your solar cells generate one KWH more than you used.  (Your meter runs backwards by one KWH

3)  Then you use another KWH. 

 

Then you will get an electric bill, for one KWH.  (You used two, from the grid.  But you also put one, into the grid.) 

 

The reason why it's a huge subsidy is:  The electric company had to buy that one KWH from you, at retail price.  (The same price they would have charged you, for one KWH.) 

 

Now, the power company's cost for power, varies.  A lot.  Some of their sources of power may cost 4-5 times as much as their cheapest source of power.  When demand is low, then they just buy/generate power using the cheapest methods.  (Whichever generator they have, that's cheapest, that's the one they run 24-7.  Whichever source is most expensive, that's the one they only use when they absolutely have to.) 

 

But at least from what I understand, their average cost for power, typically is less than half od what they charge the consumer. 

 

That's not because they're gouging the consumer.  It's because they have lots of expenses, over and above just generating the electricity.  Like the cost of maintaining that grid, for example.  (What I refer to as the "shipping cost") 

 

What these "net metering" deals do, for the "generate your own power" people, is to demand that the power company must buy power from them, whenever it's convenient for them to sell it.  Typically, this means "at the times of day when demand is low".  (And, therefore, when the power company can generate it's own power, for the cheapest possible price).  And demands that they must pay the :"consumer" a price that double the power company's average cost of power. 

 

Analogy: 

 

Amazon buys widgets for 10 bucks a piece. 

 

They sell them for 20 bucks a piece, but the 20 bucks selling price includes the 10 dollar shipping costs. 

 

These "net metering" rules mean that, whenever you feel like making a widget, Amazon has to pay you 20 bucks for the widget (which they buy from the wholesalers for 10 bucks), and Amazon has to come to your house and pick it up.  (Amazon has to pay you for the shipping, even though Amazon is doing the shipping.) 

 

---

 

Again, I'm not opposed to these subsidies.  I'm just pointing out that there is one.  A huge one. 

[PeterMP]

1we already subsidize bottom income light bills....thats one of those fossil fuel subsidies ya are talking about

 

2 perhaps they are better, but are undoubtedly going to raise rates for the working folk 

 

3 indeed, but solar has one of the highest needed at this point...depends on where ya wanna put your thumb on the scale I suppose

 

I think the money is better directed into advancing the tech before investing my hard earned dollars......of course like Hersh if ya put your thumb on the right scale I'll play.

 

1.  And we can do so more if we think we need to.

 

2.  On rates, yes, but when you include health care costs and other climate change related costs, it isn't at all clear if they actually really costs more.

 

3.  Where do I put the thumb to take into account the subsidies the fossil fuel industry has been getting for over a century, and the associated military costs for keeping oil prices low?

 

For example, looking at the health care costs, the IMF says the fossil fuel industry is subsidized $10 mil/minute.

 

That's a lot of subsidizing.  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

And estimates put the fossil fuel subsidies since 1959 at 70% of all subsidies by the US government.

 

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

 

When it comes to costs of electricity, it doesn't make much sense to ignore these larger hidden costs and the effects of the longer term subsidies.

 

And in some areas, solar and combo combo plants are very efficient.  Certainly close to on par with fossil fuels despite the longer term disadvantage in subsidization.

[twa]

1.  And we can do so more if we think we need to.

 

2.  On rates, yes, but when you include health care costs and other climate change related costs, it isn't at all clear if they actually really costs more.

 

3.  Where do I put the thumb to take into account the subsidies the fossil fuel industry has been getting for over a century, and the associated military costs for keeping oil prices low?

 

For example, looking at the health care costs, the IMF says the fossil fuel industry is subsidized $10 mil/minute.

 

That's a lot of subsidizing.  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

 

 

Their math is rather slanted, but we can certainly do whatever we want till the money runs out.

 

what are the health/environmental costs of solar to the degree to make any significant change?.....crickets

 

what is the social cost of higher energy cost?

 

ya gonna tell me solar expands the pie?

[PeterMP]

Again, I'm not opposed to these subsidies.  I'm just pointing out that there is one.  A huge one. 

 

I will point out that there are arguments for net metering in terms of economics:

 

1.  The energy has "more" value in that in general it is being generated far from the primary source of electrical energy and generally has to be transmitted less far than the energy generated by the primary source so less is loss in transmission.

 

2.  The roof top solar results in less infrastructure to build because the power companies don't have to build plants to cover that electricity.

 

3.  Due to regulations and the fact that roof top solar counts as renewable energy, it has more value than electricity generated by fossil fuels.  Realistically, if not for roof top solar and the solar energy generated, the industry would have to either generate more electricity through renewable manners (which costs extra) or pay penalties and so there would be extra costs.

 

Now, I'm not sure how much I believe these things actually balance out to the extra costs.  One of the issues here is you have essentially one industry (roof top solar) making one set of claims (i.e. net metering doesn't hurt the big electric companies bottom lines/costs) and another one claiming the opposite (that they do).

 

(For example, with respect to #2, the large electric companies will tell you that #2 doesn't actually help them much because of roof top solars inconsistent nature.)

 

And I don't particularly trust either one.

 

And government agencies/academics haven't weighed in on the issue too much.

Their math is rather slanted, but we can certainly do whatever we want till the money runs out.

 

what are the health/environmental costs of solar to the degree to make any significant change?.....crickets

 

what is the social cost of higher energy cost?

 

ya gonna tell me solar expands the pie?

 

If I slash the US military's budget by 25% next year over the next 20 years and correspondingly massively dial back our involvement in the Middle East and put it to renewable energy, that'll make a big difference in terms of climate change and health.

 

(and that'll still leave us spending more than any other country in the world on our military)

[twa]

 

 

If I slash the US military's budget by 25% next year over the next 20 years and correspondingly massively dial back our involvement in the Middle East and put it to renewable energy, that'll make a big difference in terms of climate change and health.

 

(and that'll still leave us spending more than any other country in the world on our military)

 

 

certainly, but the notion much of our military spending is simply to protect fossil fuel ignores much.

 

If the public wants to scale back our involvement militarily in the world I'm all for it, but it will come at a different price according to history.

predicted savings there are rather ethereal imo, but I'm willing.....we can always destroy others economy to make a booming one here like after WWii.....if we are lucky

[PeterMP]

certainly, but the notion much of our military spending is simply to protect fossil fuel ignores much.

 

If the public wants to scale back our involvement militarily in the world I'm all for it, but it will come at a different price according to history.

predicted savings there are rather ethereal imo, but I'm willing.....we can always destroy others economy to make a booming one here like after WWii.....if we are lucky

 

I think you and I read history differently.

 

For example, my reading of history and the Cold War indicates that we wasted a lot of money as the Soviets never really had any desire to expand beyond where they were.

 

They were spending and building because they were afraid we were going to attack them.

 

Much of the Cold War military spending was just a waste.

 

And then despite all of our spending, we didn't stop 9/11 so what good did all of the spending do us?

 

None.

 

I don't see the pay out.

 

(And again, I'm still talking about spending enough that we'd still be #1 in the world.)

[twa]

as I said, I'm willing to risk it.

 

despite not believing the Soviets revisionist history.

[Hersh]

But that isn't really (just) roof top solar

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131226-utilities-dispute-net-metering-for-solar/

 

Another good article on the topic. Gives both sides.

 

SEPA is in a unique position, with members including both utilities and companies in the solar industry, and it has tried to seek a middle ground. Eran Mahrer, SEPA's executive vice president for research and strategy, notes that on the one hand, utilities believe net metering fails to put a proper value on the grid that solar households continue to rely on, for power when it's nighttime or cloudy, and to help manage excess power they produce during the day. On the other hand, the solar industry says utilities are failing to see the premium value of the renewable energy they provide, Mahrer says. "It's clean. It helps meet policy objectives," he says. "It lightens the burden on transmission. It reduces operating costs. It very likely delays the need to make new investments because the solar energy peaks in the middle of the day at the peak time for consumption."

SEPA's view is that electricity rates, as currently designed, don't show clearly either the value of the electric grid, or the value of solar energy, and aren't very transparent about other system costs and benefits. Because rooftop solar is going to be playing an increasingly important role in the energy mix, SEPA argues that utilities and other stakeholders need to collaborate on a new approach for utility billing to reflect the evolving power system. "Through collaboration the two industries can work to maximize the grid value of the solar resource while also continuing to drive down the costs," says Mahrer.

 

More at link.

[twa]

So what did SEPA decide? (i'm lazy)

 

any detail?

[PeterMP]

So what did SEPA decide? (i'm lazy)

 

any detail?

 

They've essentially said, we don't know because the situation is too complex/not transparent enough, but roof top solar isn't going to go away so figure it out a solution

 

Just as an aside, none of this is really making the argument that roof top solar is really an efficient investment over large scale solar plants.

 

They aren't arguing that if I have $X dollars to generate clean energy that it makes more sense to build roof top solar vs. a large solar farm.

 

Part of the calculus for the net metering is the fact that there are subsidies for alternative energy making that cheaper, but we can meet that "demand" different ways.

 

And realistically, this is where cap and trade is more efficient.

 

If roof top solar is (or becomes) the best way to do this, then some set of companies will figure it out.

[Larry]

BTW, just a little anecdotal tidbit, . . .

 

I recently rented a U Haul, to help a friend move.  I rented it at a self storage place.  Self Storage place had installed rooftop solar atop two of their storage buildings. 

 

in the lobby of the self storage place, they have a video display, continually scrolling displays which display the status of their solar array.  Things like a graph showing the amount of electricity generated for the last 48 hours. 

 

And one of the screens shows the total amount which the system had generated, since being installed, in the form of a neat picture as "energy equivalent to". 

 

Supposedly, this system had generated energy equivalent to 93 metric tons of coal. 

 

That seems really huge, to me. 

[twa]

 

 

That seems really huge, to me. 

 

it does 

 

One ton of coal is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 Kilowatt Hours of Electricity

 

20 solar panels)(DC Rating of 200 watts per solar panel) =  4000 watts

If you then divide this number by 1000 you can get kilowatts (kW), e.g., 4 kW. Kilowatts are necessary to compare with your conventional electricity bill.

[DogofWar1]

Some positive news on the solar front.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/utility-scale-solar-costs-down-by-half-in-last-five-years-alone/

 

And here's the report discussed in the article:

https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2014

[twa]

prices certainly dropped with China flooding the market....but

 

 This price includes a 30 percent investment tax credit, which is due to drop to 10 percent in 2017.

 

and of course they are not accounting for solars needed backup in their sales pitch

 

I won't even bother with the purchase mandate impact or other credits and subsidies

 

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/chinas-solar-panel-production-comes-at-a-dirty-cost/?_r=0

 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

Analysts also judge the impact of the energy used to make a solar panel by the amount of carbon generated in the production of that energy—a number that can vary widely. To do this, we give the energy a carbon-intensity value, usually represented as kilograms of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour generated. Places that depend largely on coal have the most carbon-intense electricity in the world: Chinese electricity is a good example, having roughly twice the carbon intensity of U.S. electricity. This fits with the results of researchers in Illinois at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University. In a report published this past June, they found that the carbon footprint of photovoltaic panels made in China is indeed about double that of those manufactured in Europe.

If the photovoltaic panels made in China were installed in China, the high carbon intensity of the energy used and that of the energy saved would cancel each other out, and the time needed to counterbalance greenhouse-gas emissions during manufacture would be the same as the energy-payback time. But that’s not what’s been happening lately. The manufacturing is mostly located in China, and the panels are often installed in Europe or the United States. At double the carbon intensity, it takes twice as long to compensate for the greenhouse-gas emissions as it does to pay back the energy investments.

 

 

 

but they can always make more Chinamen I suppose

[DogofWar1]

prices certainly dropped with China flooding the market....but

 

 This price includes a 30 percent investment tax credit, which is due to drop to 10 percent in 2017.

 

Always the pessimist on this topic.  Can't take any good news, no matter what it might be.

 

Next line in the article:

 

 

If costs continue to come down in the intervening years, however, this change may not have as dramatic an impact as it might otherwise.

 

 

Hopefully not posting too much of it, but here's the cost discussion portion of the article.

 

Meanwhile, the cost of the hardware and greater experience with maintenance have both dropped the cost of power produced from these plants. In the 2007-2009 period, the typical cost was about $6.3 per Watt of AC power; in 2014, that had dropped to $3.1/WAC. The lowest-priced projects (bottom fifth) are now coming in at $2.3/WAC. This price includes a 30 percent investment tax credit, which is due to drop to 10 percent in 2017.

If costs continue to come down in the intervening years, however, this change may not have as dramatic an impact as it might otherwise. But lots of projects are being put in the pipeline now to take advantage of it, which will likely drive a boom in solar installs over the next several years. Right now, the DOE expects the change to cut solar installs in half in 2017.

Regardless of the cause, the low costs have allowed power purchase agreements (PPAs) in the Southwest to reach unheard of levels: "Some of the most-recent PPAs in the Southwest have levelized PPA prices as low as (or even lower than) $40/MWh (in real 2014 dollars). At these low levels—which appear to be robust, given the strong response to recent utility solicitations—PV compares favorably to just the fuel costs (i.e., ignoring fixed capital costs) of natural gas-fired generation."

For a technology that was recently one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation on the market, it's a remarkable turnaround.

 

 

It's good news.  Yes, we're still a couple advancements away from it being a true superpower in the energy industry, and you can poke at its imperfections, but it's way better than it used to be.

Indeed, the solution might have been in the article you posted, a little ways down from your bit.

 

 

Of course, if you manufacture photovoltaic panels with low-carbon electricity (for example, in a solar-powered factory) and install them in a high-carbon-intensity country, the greenhouse-gas-payback time will be lower than the energy-payback time. So perhaps someday, powering photovoltaic-panel manufacturing with wind, solar, and geothermal energy will end concerns about the carbon footprint of photovoltaics.

 

[twa]

We are going in debt for higher energy prices and polluting China even more...great news 

 

So perhaps someday ...all my life

 

that they are getting better at losing money is a plus to some.