Posted on 01/12/2006 7:19:11 PM PST by calcowgirl
For Immediate Release:
1/12/2006
For More Information: Contact Bernadette Del Chiaro (916) 446-8062 x 103
“Its official!” celebrated Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental advocacy group that has been pushing for a large-scale solar incentive program for several years. “It is about time California got serious about tapping into our abundant, homegrown solar power resources.”
Today’s decision adds $2.5 billion in rebate funds, available from 2007 through 2016, to the $300 million made available in December for 2006 and the $400 million already earmarked for solar power in the Public Goods Fund. The combined $3.2 billion program is the largest investment in solar power in the country. By increasing demand 30-fold, the CSI promises to cut the cost of solar by 50% within 10 years, creating a mainstream, self-sufficient solar market.
“With the high energy bills shocking California ratepayers this month, there is no better time to jump start an affordable solar power market bringing true independence from our over-reliance on natural gas,” praised Del Chiaro. “Today’s vote promises to ultimately eclipse dirty and expensive fossil fuels with clean and efficient solar power.”
Leaders of the solar industry also had words of praise for today’s vote. “The CPUC should be congratulated in creating a decade-long initiative that will drive the U.S. solar industry to invest in technological innovation and scale up manufacturing,” said Rhone Resch, president of the national Solar Energy Industries Association. “California will be a leader in the next great high-tech growth industry – solar energy.”
The California Solar Initiative establishes a 2006 rebate at $2.80 per watt and requires an annual decline by approximately 10%, in line with the expected reduction in the cost of solar power. The rebate program will sunset at the end of 2016, at which point it is predicted that the cost of solar will be cost-effective without a direct rebate.
The typical California home today installs a 2.5 kilowatt system. With today’s rebate level, the average $20,000 price tag for the system would be reduced by $7,000. In addition, over the next two years, homeowners can take advantage of a federal tax credit reducing the total cost by an additional $2,000. When combined with low interest loans, lowered electric bills and the ability to get a credit for excess electricity generated by the solar system, California homeowners could expect a return on their estimated $11,000 investment within the first month.
The CPUC anticipates it will fund the $3.2 billion program without raising electricity rates. Instead, the money would come from existing funds already earmarked for solar power and a small surcharge that the CPUC says can be absorbed into existing rates. According to a staff report prepared by the CPUC last summer, this $3.2 billion investment in solar could save California ratepayers an estimated $10 billion from a reduced need to build two dozen peaking power plants or to purchase expensive electricity during peak summer hours.
Other benefits of investing in solar power include cleaner air and more jobs. For every solar roof, at least one ton of global warming pollution is reduced each year. In addition, for every megawatt of solar installed, seven times more jobs are created compared with the equivalent in natural gas power plants. Environment California Research & Policy Center research estimates 15,000 new California jobs will be created from this new solar market.
The PUC program comes at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger and mirrors the bulk of the governor-backed Million Solar Roofs bill (SB 1), authored by Senator Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles), and broadly supported by the state Legislature. The other policy elements contained in SB 1, such as net metering and making solar panels a standard option on new homes, still require legislative approval in 2006.
Major Elements of the California Solar Initiative Program:
• The complete California Solar Initiative program will invest a total of $3.2 billion over 11 years for consumer rebates. This number includes the $300 million added on December 15, 2005 and the $400 million already available through the Public Goods Fund.
• All small-scale solar technologies will be eligible: e.g. photovoltaics, thermal, hot water, etc.
• The rebate will start at $2.80/watt and declines 10% per year. It will be phased out at the end of 2016.
• Low-income ratepayers up to 260% of federal poverty levels will not pay into the fund and 10% of the fund will be set aside specifically for low-income and affordable housing projects.
• The program will be administered by the CPUC with administration of a rebate program specifically earmarked for new construction run by the California Energy Commission.
• The fund will be created from a small surcharge on electric and gas customers within PG&E, Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and So. Cal. Gas Company territories. The PUC estimates the surcharge will be absorbed into existing rates without any discernible impact to energy bills.
---
Environment California is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization. Our professional staff combines independent research, practical ideas and tough-minded advocacy to overcome the opposition of powerful special interests and win real results for California's environment. Environment California draws on 30 years of success in tackling our state's top environmental problems.
Be VERY circumspect about manufacturer claims like that, among other things they are based on an unrealistic and unobtainable high illuminance (1,000 W/m2), while with the solar cells are artificially kept at 25ºC (by water cooling). The 12% value indicated in my table is a real-world value. However, if you have a particular model in mind and if you'd like, just send me the part number and I'll review it for you and let's see what the manufacturer says in the "fine print". (In engineering, we call hiding the bad news, "specsmanship"!)
I think you need to go back to the table and pay particular attention to the caution in note 11 at the bottom.
Keep in mind that ultimately it is YOU who is paying that subsidy to yourself via the utility fund established by your friendly legislature!!! (TANSTAAFL)
My prediction is that by the time you're through paying back the cost of the solar panels, installation costs, panel supports, wiring, inverter, building permits and especially the time value of the capital invested, that your solar cells will be dead from old age.
However, I don't want to rain on your parade (or your solar cells), so if you're hot to trot, go for it. Since I'll being paying part of your subsidy, I expect a cold brew from you, if we ever meet.
That's good thinking and as I prefaced the table I posted, "where your connection to the electric utility grid is either non-existent or problematic, solar cells can offer a practical solution". However, the system you're describing would need battery back up to keep you going at night during the outages and that gets very expensive (3x, easy).
If that new place will be in the mountains ("frequent power outages"), keep in mind about roof orientation, trees and hills and you should be alright.
Almost every one up in the mountains where I live have back up generators of about 3-5 kW capacity. They cost about a buck a watt and many now come with such good silencing systems, that you can barely tell when they're running. Check out Honda's product line, for instance. Anyway, give it a thought, it sure would be cheaper than going solar, especially with batteries. (And besides, you can easily take the generator with you when you move.)
thanks - simply brilliant
I met a couple in 1986 who were off the grid. It was rural Kentucky and prohibitive to pay for an electric hook up. I'm sure off-grid schemes and technology have greatly advanced in 20 years
They had the house wired with 12 volt marine fixtures and bulbs. Had a 12 volt TV. Had a propane refrigerator. Had a generator to run power tools now and then. Had solar-electric cells but I forget how big
Thanks Dennis.
Sounds like an ideal situation for solar.
More energy is consumed in creating a single solar panel than it will ever produce in its useful lifetime.
Only the truly retarded could believe this is an energy solution.
It's an energy NET LOSS.
I would guess $200 would be absolute max.
$200 sounds low?
Everything is already fabricated, all they have to do is unbolt it store it, and bolt it back in place. Shouldn't take 2 men more than a couple of hours each time at the most.
I'm afraid our Governor has gotten himself all wrapped up in the religious mysticism of GovernMental EnvironMentalism and is acting far more like a member of the Green Party that either a Republican, or Damnocrat!!!
Things are getting worse than they were under Gray Davis on an excellerated basis! It's compounding on a parabolic curve one can actually graph!!!
A few years ago, my homeowners association in Montana looked into a backup solution for our well (200 ft with a 3HP pump). Our outages are typically less than a day but longer than two hours, we're the eastern edge of BPA. We spent about three months studying the economics, and the battery/inverter solution won out. Inverters keep getting dramatically better every third year or so (not to mention cheaper), and AGM batteries last about 7-8 years. Given the surge currents involved in starting the pump [85A @ 208V], we were able to go with a 4 kVA inverter instead of a 10kW generator for about a 25% savings. Best part is that the inverter will also kick in a bit if there's a brownout, extending the life of the motor.
We haven't touched it since we installed it three years ago. It just works. No maintenance, no fueling, nobody has to go to the pump shed when it's -30F.
Perhaps you're thinking of alcohol, because I've never seen a study that claimed a negative energy balance for photovoltaics.
Isn't he great? Sure sheds a lot more light than heat on these scenarios, doesn't he?
Glad to see you here! Are you now beginning to see why we're gittin pist at this lame excuse for a Gray Davis replacement?
However, for a rural installation the owner installs himself, it can be a lifesaver. For instance, I designed a system where solar panels/batteries would back up both water (well pump) and enough auxiliary power to run my father oxygen machine should the main power fail. Without that he would not last long. We also have a 5KW generator backup in case of extended periods where the panels would not put out enough power.
Solar has great niche applications.
Good stuff my friend. I am really glad to read this. :-)
Please tell me this is pure humor.
I'm begging you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.