I read an article that talked about solar use in the USA. They said that Germany utilizes more solar power in just one month than the entire USA does in a year. They said the USA is seriously behind in solar energy and overall in energy efficient practices.

Why does the USA lag behind in that category?

At least part of it is subsidized fossil energy costs in the US. We need to charge more for energy (and return the money elsewhere).

Two reasons:

1. What jonr said.

2. Germany has made the decision that they want to make renewable energy a major contributor to their grid, and that they are willing to pay for that decision with very significant subsidies for solar (and probably also wind). At one time, they were paying homeowners and other suppliers the equivalent of about $1.00 (U.S.) per kWh supplied to the grid by solar. It may be lower now.

The solar insolation in Germany is significantly lower than in most of the U.S., especially in winter, so that makes their decision all the more interesting.  Germany has been so succussful with adding renewable energy to the grid that they now have problems in balancing the grid for the variable nature of the contributions from solar and wind. 

To address that problem, they have a major project going on currently called ADELE (http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablo...-ADELE.pdf) that uses pump storage of the solar energy by running compressors to pump air into an underground salt dome, but with separate storage of the heat of compression thermal energy.  Then at night, or whenever they need to add energy to the grid, they use the compressed air to drive turbines, but also use the stored heat of compression to add to the air before it goes through the turbine.  Objective is to raise the storage efficiency for pumped air from about 50%, whiich it is for underground storage of compressed air without saving the heat, to 70% or more by adding the heat back in.  This approaches the efficiency of pumped storage of water that is more commonly used, and has an efficiency on the order of 80%.  Pumped storage of air without thermal storage is currently used at one plant in Alabama and one in Germany, neither associated with alternative energy production.  I think those two systems both use coal plants for generating the electricity.  (All efficiencies are approximate -- look at the link for more accurate values.)

The original post seems to rest on the unsupported assumption that more increased use of solar energy is better than fossil fuel energy.  That is not necessarily so. 

While certainly, all else equal, we could all agree that solar energy is preferable to fossil fuels, all else is NOT equal.  There are costs to solar, and those costs detract from production in other (non-energy) areas of the economy.  Spending more on solar might result in less available resources for agricultural production, cancer research, entertainment, electronics -- whatever.  Gov't interference in economic matters always (or very nearly always) leads to reduced prosperity, so I would not classify Germany's intereference as a positive. 

That being said, one could argue that all of the costs associated with fossil fuels are not captured in the retail prices.  If so, that's an economic failing that should be corrected, as well.

Without evaluating these factors, I don't think the US can be determined to be "lagging" behind in energy matters to a country that dumps a lot of its resources into gov't-preferred energy sources.

Spending more on solar might result in less available resources for agricultural production, cancer research, entertainment, electronics -- whatever.

I'm wondering about the particulars of that statement. There are huge tracts of land not suitable for "agricultural production" that are ideal for the production of solar energy.

Cancer research? That's a new one for me. Do tell.

Electronics? Do you mean that we might have to pay "more" for Playstations?

Evidently the current electricity costs and expenses of solar panels are at a point where few consider them profitable without subsidies. These subsidies have to come from somewhere.

> all of the costs associated with fossil fuels are not captured in the retail prices.

Exactly. Damage to the environment, deaths (say from coal smoke), depletion for future generations, wars, etc. Cover these items in the price and the free market will purchase alternatives.

Posted By jkieffer on 09 Apr 2012 12:23 PM
...snip...

Gov't interference in economic matters always (or very nearly always) leads to reduced prosperity, so I would not classify Germany's intereference as a positive. 

...snip...

We have moved on from using whale oil for illunination.  We just spent $1,000,000,000 on a war to try to achieve a more favorable outlook for future petroleum supplies.  We have probably spent a similar amount toward developing nuclear energy for power generation, and we still have not solved the problem of what to do with spent nuclear fuel.  The "government" just represents the cooperative efforts of individuals to solve various problems that are not practical to solve on an individual basis.  (You built any nuclear reactors in your garage lately?)  The cooperative efforts coordinated by the government are similar in some ways to the cooperative efforts of this forum to swap ideas on energy-efficient, environmentally friendly building techniques, and you will note that many of the references provided here and software used were developed by our federal government.     

If you want to live true, competitive, independent living without any goverment interference, you need to find a cave a long way away and turn the clock back a few tens of thousands of years.  You know, Afghanistan has a small, ineffective government and lots of caves...   

Germany is cutting its subsidies of solar power because, as der spiegel reports, the program has turned into a "mass money pit." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

The Cliff notes: the program was too successful. Solar developers were earning returns of 11 to 13 percent by collecting artificially high gen rates that were paid ultimately by power consumers. According the slate article, solar development in a single year added $260/yr in the average annual German power bill.

Jonr has the right idea. If coal and oil generation were to pay its true cost, including air and water cleanup, we'd have a rational power grid. Natural gas from shale deposits is driving U.S. electric rates lower although it remains to be seen how much subsidy is built into lax environmental control.

The German feed-in-tariff is too high primarily due to the dramatic drop in PV costs. PV would be more useful in some parts the US than in Germany due to the peak-shaving aspects during high air-conditioning loads. (A common peak load in parts of the US, if rare in Germany.) The lifecycle cost per kwh of PV is well below spot-market price during air-conditioning peaks, and the marginal cost is FANTASTICALLY low, so PV can pretty much under-bid all other generators (except wind power) for those precious peak kwh, leading to (surprise!) lower average cost to the ratepayers, if you get the mix right. The marginal cost for wind power is on the order of 1 US cent per kwh, but the marginal cost for PV is a bit higher. Peak demand pricing to grid operators can be more than 30x the cost of the marginal cost of power to these renewables, so they can easily under-bid fossil plants & nukes for peak power and still be making well over their nominal lifecycle per-kwh cost.

At some fraction of the grid mix the relative value of PV as a peak shaving on air conditioning loads falls off and net grid costs start to rise, but that crossover point is well into double-digit fractions of the grid total for places like Las Vegas or Phoenix, maybe not so much for Juneau AK or Cariboo ME.

Lee: IIRC even 3 years ago the typical feed-in-tariffs offered in Germany was on the order of 25 Euro-cents, and that was

A: BEFORE NanoSolar set up a their utility-scale printed PV panels, with an assembly plant in Germany, and

B: Before the spectacular crash in silicon PV pricing due to heavy Chinese investment in silicon & silicon PV production coming online.

I haven't looked, but I can't imagine the feed-in-tariff price was ever $1USD/kwh for very long, but should by all rights be under 25 US cents/kwh for new installations now.

The per kwh cost of PV will almost certainly be below the lifecycle cost of fossil plant kwh before 2020, and the economies of scale are few. Widely distributed sub-10kw systems can do a world of good in some parts of the US.

Posted By toddm on 09 Apr 2012 05:23 PM
Germany is cutting its subsidies of solar power because, as der spiegel reports, the program has turned into a "mass money pit." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

The Cliff notes: the program was too successful. Solar developers were earning returns of 11 to 13 percent by collecting artificially high gen rates that were paid ultimately by power consumers. According the slate article, solar development in a single year added $260/yr in the average annual German power bill.

Jonr has the right idea. If coal and oil generation were to pay its true cost, including air and water cleanup, we'd have a rational power grid. Natural gas from shale deposits is driving U.S. electric rates lower although it remains to be seen how much subsidy is built into lax environmental control.

*edit* I quoted the wrong person.  I menat to quote Lee Dodge.

Lee, 

With all due respect, gov't is not the collective will of the people.  It is the coercive will of the majority in power -- which is absolutely nothing like this forum.  The free market is the collective will shown by individual choices.

As for the Afghanistant comment, you're just wrong.  I mean, with with all due respect, please read a good book on economics, like Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (there are others, but this one is the best for non-economists, I think).  A capitalist society and anarchy are far, far different things.  Goverment in a properly functioning capitalist society protects our rights (esp. property rights) without unduly limiting our freedoms to live our lives as we choose.  Without enforceable property rights, capitalism cannot work because the person with the biggest stick will always win.  With enforced property rights, the person with the best ideas, most ingenuity, or best work ethic will win.  Needs will be provided for, and prosperity will grow.  Afganistan's poor government does not enforce property rights and, therefore, is not a good example of a properly functioning capitalist society.

Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever produced sustainable prosperity over the long term.  Collectivism and central planning always detract from wealth and prosperity in the long run.  Western Europe is a pretty good example of the ills of central planning via well-intentioned social programs and a good degree of crony capitalism, too.  It all adds up to economic stagnation, chronically high unemployment, and reduced prosperity.

Telling people who sound the warning bells to go live in Afghanistan is a poor method of rational and intelligent debate.  But, if you insist on the "move somewhere else" mantra, then perhaps you should suggest Singapore or Hong Kong as the closest examples of proper Capitalist societies (no one has hit it on the head, but the US was pretty close in the 19th and early 20th centuries -- although methods of enforcement of property rights were still lacking during that time).  Or, I could reciprocate and suggest that you move to Europe, since they have already realized the collectivists-in-capitalists-clothing dream.

I tend to agree; somewhere in the next decade, solar prices will drop, fuel prices will rise and fuel subsidies will decrease. All leading to PV solar being a reasonable $ investment in the US.

Posted By Dana1 on 09 Apr 2012 06:40 PM
...snip...

I haven't looked, but I can't imagine the feed-in-tariff price was ever $1USD/kwh for very long, but should by all rights be under 25 US cents/kwh for new installations now.
...snip...

I was traveling on business in Germany back in maybe 2002, and was surprised at all the solar panels that I saw.  I asked the engineers that I was working with there what was behind the large number of solar panels, and they said at that time that the German government was paying about $1 (U.S.)/W for solar power supplied to the grid.  I never verified that number, but I had bought solar panels myself from BP in 1999, and they were very expensive compared to today's prices.  (Those panels still work fine, having survived a number of hail storms, but I wish I could test them for actual performance under standard conditions.)    

Current subsidies in Germany are much lower than the figure quoted above.  From http://news.yahoo.com/germany-cut-s...03065.html 
"The subsidy system is staggered to give smaller installations stronger backing, and will continue to be so, with the guaranteed price per kilowatt-hour set to fall from currently 24.43 cents to 18.15 cents by January. Facilities with a capacity of more than 10 megawatts will no longer be subsidized."  Of course, the base price for electricity in Germany has always been higher than in the U.S., partly due to subsidies of conventional electricity in the U.S.  "German retail electricity prices are between 21 and 24 cents per kWh," from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...-subsidies of which about 4.6 cents is the solar subsidy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany). 

The measured cost for electricity from three solar systems that I am tracking here in Salida Colorado (a favorable location for solar energy) after including subsidies vary from 6.4 to 8.2 cents per kWh when amortized over 25 years, including an assumed 0.65% degradation per year.  This does not include costs to balance the grid for the variable nature of the energy provided.  The cost for conventional electricity is 10.3 and 13.0 cents per kWh for the two utilities that serve different parts of this area including the subsidies for the conventional energy sources.  See http://www.residentialenergylaborat...stems.html for all assumptions, details, and measured energy output. 

I would credit the Germans with addressing the energy storage problem associated with wind and solar with their ADELE system that I mentioned above, and also with helping to establish a market that has dramatically reduced the cost of solar PV panels.

Nice analysis Lee. Very roughly, it looks like complete PV solar systems need to cost in the $2/Watt range to be a break even deal for consumers.

Dramatically reduced the price of CHINESE pv products. If I were German I soul be particularly unhappy that my power bills are supporting development in China and the European countries supplying (fossil fuel) power on (frequent) cloudy days. German solar bankruptcies are repeating the us boom/bust nature of energy subsidies.

Thanks jonr. The $2.00/W to $2.50/W installed cost for complete PV systems makes them cost competitive with current electricity costs from conventional sources in areas of the U.S. with relatively high solar insolation levels (much of the western U.S.) in those cases where electricity costs are in the range of 10 cents/kWh to 13 cents/kWh (typical average cost in U.S). For the three systems tested, the solar insolation level for ideally oriented panels was about 5.78 kW/m^2/day or 2110 kW/m^2/year. In the eastern U.S. the PV cost might need to be less due to less solar insolation, but then again, electricity costs in New England are much higher than average U.S. prices.

At higher penetration rates, there would be an additional inefficiency associated with solar PV to balance the grid. As more utilities switch to time-of-use (TOU) billing, the solar PV gets more competitive since it's production curve is similar to, but slightly leads, the peak demand curve. I think peak rates in parts of California with TOU billing might be 55 cents/kWh, making solar PV very attractive depending on how the net metering is billed.

Posted By toddm on 10 Apr 2012 10:17 AM
Dramatically reduced the price of CHINESE pv products. If I were German I soul be particularly unhappy that my power bills are supporting development in China and the European countries supplying (fossil fuel) power on (frequent) cloudy days. German solar bankruptcies are repeating the us boom/bust nature of energy subsidies.

As Thomas Friedman reminds us in "The World is Flat," we do live in a global marketplace with all the advantages of the economies of scale.  The manufacturing jobs tend to go to the places with the cheapest labor that can provide the technologies necessary, and to survive in such a world with a higher salary, you need to keep working your way up the innovation ladder.  The commercialization of CdTe solar cells by the American Harold McMaster (in what was to become First Solar) indicates that at least some folks in the U.S. are still able to climb the innovation ladder.  First Solar did move some of its planned production facilities from the U.S. to Germany since that was where their biggest market was. 

I live in mining country in Colorado, so there are many local examples of boom/bust cycles that preceded energy subsidies.  A more consistent energy policy would help smooth out the economic development of energy technologies.  First Solar is switching their business model to a utility company rather than a panel manufacturer, partly due to the variable nature of solar subsidies. 

I guess your tolerance for govt bungling depends on whose ox is getting gored. Biodiesel producers got themselves a handout in the form of supports paid to refiners to market biodiesel blends. Trouble is American car buyers continue to shun diesel. So now refiners collect it by shipping biodiesel blends to Europe. Soy to diesel producers are going broke anyway.

Look around your neighborhood, Lee. If you dont see PV collectors on every block in an environmentally conscious state with excellent incentives, then maybe the right role for govt is not to substitute its wisdom for your neighbors'.

American car buyers continue to shun diesel

IMO, this is mostly due to 1) low energy prices, 2) the US emissions standards that apply to diesels and, in some cases, the ridiculous $ premiums for diesel engines (as seen in US pickup trucks)

Posted By toddm on 10 Apr 2012 01:43 PM
...snip...

Look around your neighborhood, Lee. If you dont see PV collectors on every block in an environmentally conscious state with excellent incentives, then maybe the right role for govt is not to substitute its wisdom for your neighbors'.

When I look around my neighborhood, I see a solar PV system on my next door neighbor's house.  Right across from my neighborhood, I see duplexes with both solar PV and solar thermal.  When I look around town, I see two different generations of solar systems.  There are lots of older solar panels that I think must be solar hot air systems.  The newer systems are mostly solar PV, and include both residential and commercial applications.  In one development with larger lots, there are a bunch of tracking PV systems.  There are a sprinkling of wind turbines in residential and commercial applications.  So the local, state, and federal governments are doing an excellent job of working with the utilities to allow the residents to help demonstrate real energy indepedence and generate their own power and heat. 

In the next valley south, the San Luis Valley where solar insolation is even better, there are several utility-sized solar systems, and an even larger one planned.  Among the existing and planned systems are the following.  The first facility to go into operation was a SunEdison 8.2-megawatt photovoltaic plant in 2007. A second, 17-megawatt photovoltaic plant built by SunPower Corp. has started operation, and a third, 30-megawatt plant was built by Iberdrola Renewables Inc. and is in operation.  A $150 million, 30-megawatt plant by Cogentrix, using technology that concentrates the solar energy on solar panels, was announced in August. All these plants have purchase power agreements with Xcel Energy. (from http://www.denverpost.com/business/...z1rfMGXq5R)
A 200 MW concentrating solar thermal system that generates power with a steam generator has been recently approved, although there is currently no agreement with a utility for the power (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...uis-valley). 

Boulder started up its own utility so that it would have freedom to expand the use of solar PV in its mix.  So yes, Colorado iis an environmentally conscious state that is definitely working to bring renewable energy on-line.  Global heating would have an adverse effect on the ski resorts which are a big economic contributor here.  That environmental consciousness is one reason that I moved here. 

In my state (MA) it's becoming a zoning issue, where neighbors are objecting to the aesthetics of PV, (particularly of ground-mounted PV on mid-sized commercial arrays going in next to McMansion developments.)   At current incentive levels the rate PV installation is skyrocketing here, despite having a much crummier solar resource here than Lee.  At the moment production credits from small arrays here can be bundled and sold to the utilities. The supply for certified lo-carb production has yet to keep up with demand from utilities, who are incentivized to buy more lo-carb power.  At the current cost of installing PV that market may saturate by Y2020 taking some of the profit out of it, but for now buying PV is a pretty good investment, even without the golden feed-in tariff approach used to kick start PV installation in Germany a decade or so ago.

This is also an expensive-electricity market in general (for many reasons), and the lifecycle cost per kwh of PV is well below the retail-residential base rate, if still above the marginal rate of combined cycle gas central power stations.  But even here the peak shaving benefits of PV should have a stabilizing effect on the standard rates due to seasonal & diurnal correlation between peak PV output and peak air-conditioning loads.

PV is great and all, but the bang/buck is still pretty lousy compared to efficiency improvements at the load.  At $2.50/watt a $5K investment in PV produces ~2500kwh/year in my neighborhood, whereas the same $5K spent on ductless heat pumps in homes currently heated with resistance electricity (of which there are surprising many- I have three in-laws in that boat) would save ~8-10x that amount.  Even if you assumed the life cycle of the heat pump is only 10 years, it's still a much better deal than $2.50/watt PV that last 30, and it shaves the air-conditioning peaks by nearly as much as the PV would.  And that's just the frost on the tip of the efficiency iceberg, (and not even the best ROI on efficiency measures available.)  While I'm happy enough with the local PV boom, I'd still rather that capital be spent on building-efficiency first, where the well is both deep & cheap.  PRODUCING your way into a greener grid with PV/wind/micro-hydro etc, is far more expensive than cutting the load by half with efficiency measures, at which point the size & cost of the green-grid sources for the remaining load are more tractable.