The New York Times takes a cursory look at the state of interest in solar power, noting that solar power has captured the public imagination, but so far failed to capture much by way of significant technology advancements. The story itself, however, seems a bit lacking in imagination, at various points concluding that "there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge" and "[solar power] is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough". Vinod Khosla - and Silicon Valley in general - are mentioned by name, but there's no mention of the amount of money pouring into solar power R&D from the venture capital community. Over the past couple years it's amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars into dozens of companies. Not to mention the successful IPO/spinoff of SunPower, SunPower's acquisition of PowerLight, movement by talented entrepreneurs from "dot-com" tech into solar businesses such as SolarCity and Akeena Solar. All of this provides plenty of evidence that private companies - provided they're given a level playing field through government policy - can and will lead the charge. On that note, the article makes a good point: nearly three times as much federal money is spent on coal R&D than on solar. So it goes.
del.icio.usFederal tax credits are an important tool in making solar PV systems economically viable. For a long time these tax credits have been on-again off-again, never with long term guarantee of their availability. The current congress hopes to do something about that - extending the tax credits to 2017 - but Forbes has a short article on the subject with a kicker that shouldn't be missed. Not to spoil the ending, but the irony is that Democrats own "pay as you go" rules, introduced earlier this year, put up the main hurdle to getting this extension passed. In order to extend the tax credits, Dems will have to raise tax revenue elsewhere, or cut an equivalent amount out of the budget. Oh, how nice the Republicans had it.
I take issue with the author's closing statements. The tax credits are meant not only to help finance today's deployments of wind and solar, but also to provide incentive for R&D investment in new techologies that will lower costs for future deployments. Without a long term lock on these tax credits, many companies will not invest in new technology, manufacturing plants, etc. As for finding a way to carry on, there are dozens of industries that are where they are thanks to "an assist from Uncle Sam".
I take issue with the author's closing statements. The tax credits are meant not only to help finance today's deployments of wind and solar, but also to provide incentive for R&D investment in new techologies that will lower costs for future deployments. Without a long term lock on these tax credits, many companies will not invest in new technology, manufacturing plants, etc. As for finding a way to carry on, there are dozens of industries that are where they are thanks to "an assist from Uncle Sam".
The early promises of a solar energy revolution largely flamed out in the 80s when Ronald Reagan shelved the tax incentives for solar energy that were estabished by Jimmy Carter. In an op-ed from Colorado, Andrew Korfhage does some good ole fashioned cheerleading for solar energy, but with a point: call your elected representatives. Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007 (HR 550 and S 590) is sitting in front of the House and Senate, waiting to be adopted. It is critial to sustain the recent surge in solar energy adoption, but since it was introduced in January, it appears to be going nowhere fast.
In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm is on board, calling for state incentives for renewable energy technology. Sure, it can start to sound a little like Mad Libs: "We want to re-brand [insert state/city/municipality here] as the alternative energy capital of the world!", but who's to fault them for trying. Of course, there are critics, such as Diane Katz from the "so-called" group Mackinack Center, who appears either to be in love with the status quo or to misunderstand the role of net-metering in distributed energy production.
In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm is on board, calling for state incentives for renewable energy technology. Sure, it can start to sound a little like Mad Libs: "We want to re-brand [insert state/city/municipality here] as the alternative energy capital of the world!", but who's to fault them for trying. Of course, there are critics, such as Diane Katz from the "so-called" group Mackinack Center, who appears either to be in love with the status quo or to misunderstand the role of net-metering in distributed energy production.