Q & A

Couple of good questions after my last post:

"to power the entire country with solar, we would only need about 10,000 square miles of solar panels."Any idea what the cost of that would be?I heard somewhere that a nuclear power plant costs $10 billion to build. How many nuclear plants would it take to power the whole country?Just wondering about the economics as they stand right now.

First of all, let me say that I don't know what exactly 10,000 square miles of solar panels would cost, but it would probably be in the ball park of $7.5 trillion (I just crunched some EIA stats, I didn't just whip that off the top of my head, I promise) But that's irrelevant, because it's not going to happen. Solar has a lot more potential as distributed generation. I brought that figure up to show how much potential energy there is in sunlight.

As for nuclear, it's hard to say how much it costs because you could build a 10 megawatt plant or a 50 megawatt plant. I couldn't even give you a figure of what it might cost per watt, but I guarantee you that if you google it, whatever cost you find won't factor in how much it costs to cart the radioactive waste around the country to find a place to bury it. And if the whole country was on nuclear power, that'd be a mess.

Here's another good question:

Is there any expectation as to how long state and federal financial incentives to go solar will last? As hybrid cards have become more popular, federal financial support (in the form of tax rebates) is being phased out, after only a few years. Is there a fear that the same thing will happen with solar power incentives?

This is actually a great question. Yes, New York State is going to be putting less funding into solar next year. (This information isn't public yet. But it will be, and when it is, remember where you heard it first) The rebates should remain where they are, but with a smaller piggy bank, some jobs might find themselves on hold until the following year.

Which is stupid, but the reason why it's stupid requires a bit of explanation.

Contrary to what some people think, it's not the government's job to make solar a slam dunk. It's the industry's job to make solar a slam dunk. It's the government's job to support the industry, and that's what the rebates are designed to do. If the rebates aren't effective, then it creates conditions where solar is overly-dependent on the incentives. And that's not sustainable.
Let me give you an example:

The best success story for solar energy is in Japan. The government put some aggressive, hefty incentives in place - rebates, net metering, and low interest loan financing. The package was sufficient enough to drive the industry towards economies of scale, and the incentives slowly tapered off. But only after they effectively stimulated enough economic growth to drive the cost down. A few years ago, the incentives finally tapered off altogether, and now the price of solar is actually cheaper than standard electricity. No one even misses the incentives, they don't need them.

That's what a government should do.

For another example, take a look at California. You can say what you want to about Ah-nold, but Schwarzeneger got it right. He campaigned on a platform that included a powerful solar law, and he delivered. The state put together a 10 year, $3 billion incentive plan, with the rebates slowly tapering off over the course of the ten years. It includes rebates, expanded net metering, and even a mandate requiring newly constructed homes to present solar power as an option to buyers (It'll go in the brochure right next to the marble countertops).

It's a great plan. For the incentives to be effective, they need to stimulate the market towards economies of scale, then slowly taper off. And that's what California's plan will do.

New York's incentives, while decent, haven't been massive enough to warrant tapering off already (Our incentive funding is about $5 million - California's is 600 times more). The industry isn't close to being competitive with standard electricity. For the rebates to contract now would make them a band aid over the last few years.

But installers aren't bumming yet. It's not a dead issue, a lot can still change. Plus, the incentives are still good enough that the market will be fine next year.

But if we're thinking down the road... then yes...we're bumming

If you're a homeowner contemplating going solar, now's the time. Grab the rebates while you can.

Don’t Take My Word For It

“Don’t Take My Word For It” is a feature I’m going to include at the end of every post. It’s a link to a credible, scholarly source, for those of you looking for more info

Click here to read about California's new Million Solar Roofs Law