Energy Department Aims To Slash Solar Costs 75%

[jpak]

http://blogs.investors.com/click/index.php/home/60-tech/2258-energy-department-aims-to-slash-solar-costs-75

Aiming to make the solar industry self-supporting without subsidies in a decade and more globally competitive, Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday launched an initiative to try to cut photovoltaic solar energy costs 75% by 2020. And he brought out SunPower(SPWRA) co-founder Dick Swanson to talk about efficiency gains made to date.

“In the 1960s President Kennedy launched the moonshot goal, to put a man on the moon within a decade. Today we’re launching what we call a SunShot race,” Chu said on a midday conference call with reporters.

“Right now the generation of solar electricity and installation requires help, requires subsidies,” he said. “But if we can get to, before the decade is out, one quarter of current costs ... down to this so-called dollar-a-watt target (for all costs), it means you’re generating electricity at a level comparable to or less than other ... forms of energy.”

Companies and the country that can do this could have a huge world market, he says, by undercutting the cost of other kinds of energy. And solar just “happens to be” a very clean option. At $1 a watt, costs come out to about 6 cents per kilowatt hour. In October, Americans paid almost 10 cents retail for their electricity, according to the latest data available from the Energy Information Administration.

<more>

[dkf]

1. It really beats me why we don't see more of this guy and why we haven't made more of a push sooner.

I always thought this was Obama's moon shot. I don't understand why it hasn't been front and center.

[txlibdem]

7. Thank Ronald Reagan

"Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

In early 1980, with the caucus in corn-rich Iowa upcoming, Carter called for $1 billion to stimulate ethanol production.

But Ronald Reagan, with his "morning in America" mantra, won the election. His administration soon began killing off many of Carter's energy initiatives.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget, according to Hakes. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Yet tax breaks for ethanol actually increased, prompting a surge in ethanol plant production.

Reagan's anti-tax, anti-government credo kicked into high gear during his second term. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. With oil prices dropping, more than half of the nation's ethanol producers foundered.

Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And, in the summer of 1986, the solar panels atop the White House were taken down.

http://liberallucidity.blogspot.com/2007/02/carter-and-reagan-on-engergy.html

Those of you with keen memories may recall that the energy crisis is not new. In 1977, Jimmy Carter called it the "moral equivalent of war." In the sort of speech a politician rarely delivers, he told a not-particularly-grateful nation that his energy program was going to hurt, but "a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy." The core of his initiative was conservation. Carter had earlier asked us to lower our thermostats and wear sweaters. He wore one himself.

Reagan, who succeeded Carter in the White House, wore only a smile. For him, there was no energy crisis. Whereas Carter had insisted that only the government could manage the energy crisis, Reagan, in his first inaugural, demanded that government get out of the way. Speaking of general economic conditions at the time, he said, "Government is not the solution to our problem." He went on to call for America to return to greatness, to "reawaken this industrial giant," and all sorts of swell things would happen. It was wonderful stuff.

To contrast the two speeches is like comparing the screeching of a cat to the miracles of Mozart. Yet today, Carter's speech reads as prescient. Most of his dire predictions — "It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century" — have generally come true, although not quite as soon or as calamitously as he had warned. The pity of it all is that in American politics, being right is beside the point.

It is not my intention to pummel the late Ronald Reagan for what he did or did not do back in the 1980s. It is my intention, though, to suggest that Reaganism — to which Republicans now swear allegiance — has outlived its very short usefulness and ought to be junked. This is not to say that government is the answer to all our ills. It is only to note that if you think the answer is private enterprise, then drive to the nearest gas station and admire the prices brought to you by private companies.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/who-got-us-in-this-energy-mess-start-with-ronald-reagan/

[customerserviceguy]

11. It was the falling price of oil

that made alternative energy economically unfeasible. If prices had continued to rise at the same rate in the 1980's as they did in the 1970's, we'd all be driving electric cars powered by solar energy plants today.

What made the difference? Peace. When you take Egypt's huge army out of the equation, it's folly for smaller Arabic nations to mount a war with Israel. It was the Camp David Accords that undid the Carter energy policy, in my view, it wasn't anything that Reagan did.

Now, we stand on the precipice of that deal becoming unraveled, are we ready for the oil shocks of the 1970's to return? It will be good for the solar power industry, though.

[txlibdem]

12. Good Lord. Please learn some HISTORY

Ronald Reagan went to Iran several times, had phone conversations with them long before the election, oil companies bankrolled his campaign. DUH!

Oh, it was the price of oil going down...

And who suggested that the price of oil go down far enough --and only long enough-- to kill off the companies making or promoting the viable alternatives to gasoline and oil?!? And, miraculously, as soon as all the Carter initiatives were removed and all the electric car companies went out of business... guess what... oil went right back up in price! Ta-Da!!!! It's a miracle!!!

Sheesh! It's like you were born yesterday!

LEARN HISTORY, PLEASE!!!

[Kolesar]

13. Old Bush conspired with the Saudis to set prices just below where the Soviets ...

... could make a profit. That ended the Soviets source of foreign "capital" and led to their downfall.

[txlibdem]

18. Wrong decade.

I don't think we're talking about the same decade. I'm referring to the lead up to the 1980 Presidential Election. What decade are you referring to???

You know, American hostages in Iran, instantly released as soon as pro-oil Reagan gets elected (they didn't even wait till he was sworn in as I recall). The Iranians wanted to control our politics, to control who the President of the United States of America was --and they got their man in the oval office with Ronald Reagan!!!

[msongs]

2. thanks to solar I have not had an electric bill for 18 months (except the "connect" fee gouge) of

$18/month for nothing really. We are going to do net metering this year so will probably get a refund in January of each year now!

[Gregorian]

3. Yay!

I can't wait to get solar. I just don't want to install it on a place I'm leaving. Next one, maybe.

Congratulations on your new installation.

[txlibdem]

8. What was the total cost and how many kilowatts in your array?

And what were the rebates that you got (and from whom)?
And what was the total out of your pocket expense?

[madrchsod]

4. good luck on that.....

the chinese control the world market due to lower labor and environmental costs costs. unless we decide to have a real indutrial policy in this country we will buy from the chinese not build our own industry.

[OnlinePoker]

5. Did I read that right?

Total investment in technology research through this program is only $7 million? That seems like nothing compared to money spent on other energy technologies.

[jpak]

6. The Chinese government is investing billions in China's PV industry

What we are doing is chump change

yup

[NNadir]

9. Really? By 2020? Wow...

Why do I have the feeling that I've been hearing this sort of thing for like, 40 years...

I mean I can't recall the number of years even on this website where I've heard that solar electricity will "soon" be competitive with grid based electricity.

The price of solar electricity is right now three times as high as grid based power, and that, of course, is not counting batteries.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/solar-electricity-prices

When is climate change supposed to become, um, a serious matter?

How is it that no one can discuss the solar miracle without wearing a turban?

[jpak]

10. LOL!!!111 Solar electricity in southern California is cheaper than electricity from natural gas

yup!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=273028

:rofl:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

14. "We" invested tens of billions into nuclear and now it has ground to a halt

Too bad we did not invest that much into renewal energy starting in the 1940s

[NNadir]

16. In what country and on what planet.

Nuclear energy is, despite much denial on the part of people who obviously never saw a number they could comprehend, the world's largest, by far source of climate change gas free energy.

This is true in the United States as well:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

In fact, nuclear energy easily exceeds all forms of so called "renewable" energy combined.

If one could comprehend numbers, then one would be able to grasp the fact that nuclear energy is the largest source of primary energy in the United States that doesn't depend on dangerous fossil fuels. One could also understand that this state of affairs exists in spite of 50 years of anti-nuke denialist blather.

One would also understand that the bulk of the bulk "renewables" industry, consists almost entirely of toxic combustion and the damming of rivers, and that solar and wind are a joke, especially with the tens of billions of dollars thrown down that rabbit hole.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

Lately the denialist bull coming out of the mouth of uninformed anti-nukes only suggests this picture:

[Kolesar]

17. what are you, ten years old?

[txlibdem]

19. I'm probably going to regret stepping into the middle of this... but...

You both are right. And you both are wrong.

We need to end the use of coal within 10 years. We need to replace all fossil fuel vehicles with electric or other alternatives within 20 years. We need to stop all the activities that put more CO2 into the atmosphere than they take out. There are global --and *fatal*-- consequences if we fail.

• We need all the nuclear power plants we can possibly build between now and 2050.
  
• We need all the huge solar power plants we can possibly build before 2050.
  
• We need all the mega wind farms that we can possibly construct as well.
  
• Ditto for geothermal power plants and wave power and tidal power.
  
• We need to use passive solar power anywhere and any time that it is feasable.
  
• We need to decrease the energy usage of our homes by putting in more insulation, caulking and sealing holes and leaks, replacing inefficient appliances and light bulbs, and so much more.
  
• And we need to bring down the cost of rooftop solar and rooftop wind generators so "regular" people can afford them.

If we do all of these things then we will survive this century.

If we do not... I don't know

[Kolesar]

20. that was polite...eom