As part of the SOTU hoopla, the Bush administration released some details of a major new initiative:
The President's Solar America Initiative.
The 2007 Budget will propose a new $148 million Solar America Initiative -- an increase of $65 million over FY06 -- to accelerate the development of semiconductor materials that convert sunlight directly to electricity. These solar photovoltaic "PV" cells can be used to deliver energy services to rural areas and can be incorporated directly into building materials, so that there can be future "zero energy" homes that produce more energy than they consume.
It strikes me as a bit of an Austin Powers "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" moment. The solar industry is unlikely to turn down the money, but let's face it: The total, not to mention the increase, is peanuts. It gets us back up to the level of R&D funding during the Carter Administration.
More to the point, what we need is not R&D, but deployment. California just passed a $3.2 billion program to put solar on 1 million rooftops in the next 11 years. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but if you take seriously the fact that global warming has the potential to destroy the foundations on which our current way of life is built, and we need to seriously reduce carbon emissions now, then this remedy is so pathetically inadequate to the problem that it seems more like an insult.
Comments
View as Threaded
sunflower Posted 8:27 am
01 Feb 2006
Apparently, global warming is too terrible for Bush to talk about, or for us to hear (not solving this problem soon will be the destruction of the living Earth, like the Permian Extinction).
So we instead listen to talk about PV solar building materials and ethanol from wood chips to drive our SUVs. There is no way near enough trees and corn cobs to replace oil with ethanol.
I have been developing new solar technologies since the Carter Administration and I am not a follower of PV (and not a leader in anything else). There is a better way. Follow the least cost path.
We heat our homes with natural gas, oil, and coal electricity. Washington State would be deforested in three years just to match the energy WA needs with wood. The solar resource, even in Seattle climate is far more powerful and with district heating plus seasonal storage can heat the city's homes 100% of the time. Home oil and gas can be diverted to transportation until better systems become available. Shut coal down. Coal is the enemy.
Solar thermal (heat) is lower cost than oil, lower cost than coal electricity. I live in a passive solar home that collects 20 kilowatts of heat while the sun shines. That is about three times the heat output of a wood stove. My favorite heat technology is the solar dish (about four times cheaper than oil). And when I put PV solar cells in the focus the power output is increased 1000 times, total system cost is less than $1/Watt electric. Solar Dish Concentrator Materials
It will take a trillion dollars to transition the USA from oil to solar and the return on investment will be very positive.
Bush "Zeroed out" the solar concentrator budget five years ago so the SOTU was just talk, a green cover to a very dark secret agenda.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:01 pm
01 Feb 2006
With concentration technology combined with solar heating/cooling, solar cogeneration can convert more of the available solar power to useful energy. It alters the economics signifigantly.
The design using compoind parabolic concentraion even produces usable electricity and heat from diffuse solar energy that comes through clouds.
By cooling the PV cells with liquid that collects heat, the electric power output of the PV cells can be maximized even on cloudy days and in early morning and evening light.
Can that one dollar per watt of generating capacity you mentioned be reached with mass production? Maybe, but even 5 dollars per watt would be economically feasible.
And by substituting solar heat for home heating/cooling less electricity is needed for those applications. Saving kwhs is the same as generating them from a cost perspective.
I am looking for some test results from liquid cooled PV cells exposed to concentrated solar energy. I have had an intertesting discussion on worldchanging blog, about a design claiming huge energy increases from PV cells using this design.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/25/1076505.html
It's kind of a screwy setup where the cells float in water. That seems kind of impractical.
I'm thinking of inexpensive, mass produced sheet metal assemblies that attach to roofs and walls instead, incorporating compound parabolic collectors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:10 pm
01 Feb 2006
Great rundown on concentrators for PV. It claims $3 per watt is possible. No mention of liquid cooled cogeneration though. 39% efficiency though as opposed to the normal 10% of flat plate collectors!
And look at this! Great design for roof top applications.
http://www.energyinnovations.com/sunflower250.html
It bears your nickname. Sunflower.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:21 pm
01 Feb 2006
This is much lower cost than 500 "nucular" plants.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:44 pm
01 Feb 2006
Even for home power though, without the megawatt scale I believe it would be competitive given mass production.
Take away that 15 billion per year in subsidies to oil companies and use it to subsidize half the cost of these solar systems for homeowners and small businesses and US manufacturing would be back in business! The solar business.
And of course the megawatt industrial scale systems are great too! But would not need subsidies to compete.
Too bad bush could not propose anything like this plan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
SolarAmigo Posted 8:28 pm
03 Feb 2006
Let's take a step back and think about what many of us thought when Bush took office-- all renewable programs might be completely zeroed out. Trust me, that was a real possibility. We have now reached the stage that, for whatever reason, political optics or otherwise, the Bush Administration is listening to the push from level-headed Energy Secy Sam Bodman and at least making a modest effort towards solar, bringing us the largest solar budget in 25 years.
I think that as a community of solar supporters and activists, we should run with this rather than dump on it. As a Democratic Washington energy "insider," if you told me 5 years ago that Bush would promote any energy initiative that didn't involve oil, I'd assume you were smoking crack recently. A solar initiative? You've been doing double time on the pipe.
$148 million in FY07 pales in comparison to military spending, or probably fuel for Air Force One & Two for that matter. But think about what a doubling of the federal solar budget does for the domestic PV industry (if you have any doubts as to their enthusiasm, check out the industry homepage at http://www.seia.org). Think about the possibility of additional funding opening up more private financing markets for PV because of short- to mid-term risk reduction. Think about the few cents/kWh that it may knock off the cost of PV systems that are already starting to penetrate certain high-value markets, such as Hawaii and New York, with considerable speed. And think about whether this Solar America Initiative will extend for another year, or two, or five. That could easily add up to $1 billion in a hurry.
And remember, compared to the California initiative, which I fully support and commend, this money is required by law to be cost-shared. Leveraged by law, this $1 billion could turn into $2 billion. All of a sudden, it's not peanuts. And I'm not being a bleary-eyed dreamer here -- this is the reality of Presidential initiatives and cost-sharing requirements. SAI could play a significant role in bringing a substantial federal R&D presence to the PV world -- the States (including California) simply don't have the expertise resident in our National Labs to do the R&D side-- hence the abundance of credits/rebates.
So for the good of all of us, please keep critiquing and pointing out how we can do more and do better. But don't forget to stop and smell the roses once in a while. Maybe something positive will come out of this after all.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:44 am
04 Feb 2006
silicon shortage
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/politics/03energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In Energy Work, One Hand Giveth and the Other Taketh - New York Times (requires login)
Earmarked new solar funds causing layoffs at NREL
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:16 am
04 Feb 2006
A shortage of silicon, one of the most plentiful, inexpensive elements on planet earth! It's in the sand and rocks!!
And no solar furnace powered silicon wafer fabs (cogenerating electricity and heat)in US deserts?
Government policy and industrial planning of the worst kind. Similar to war production in WW 2 Germany.
Our foresight and organization in war production was one of the main reasons we beat them.
We need that edge back to win these energy wars. The world will fight to the last drop of oil, while the solution to the energy shortage lies in the sand beneath our feet, and the sunlight from the sky above.
Consider this though... with your solar concentrator invention and others like it, less silicon is needed to produce more power. It's a gold rush, with Germany and other countries offering 55 cents per kwh for solar power.
Every square foot of silicon replaced with metal reflector surface is a huge cost savings, the pricier the silicon, the more profit possible on the reflectors.
Know any German venture capitalists? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:29 am
04 Feb 2006
Clearly, greed is still calling the shots from the White House. I suspect another big push to drill in the parks and the reserves will follow as the means to execute the Bush plan for energy independence (which has nothing to do with saving the Earth from reckless consumption).
a liberal in redsville
Permalink