Posted on 07/03/2007 1:32:27 PM PDT by P-40
Development of the solar energy industry in Texas would have a significant economic impact for consumers, the environment and workers, according to a study released by the IC2 Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Opportunity on the Horizon: Photovoltaics in Texas finds the benefits of nurturing the solar energy industry will stimulate the state's economy, reduce the cost of power for consumers and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
"Worldwide, the cost of converting sunlight to electricity is rapidly decreasing. The right public policies, combined with emerging and increasingly efficient technologies in solar power, would create a solid opportunity for Texas to build an economic engine on this non-polluting resource," Joel Serface of Clean Energy Incubator said.
The paper cites a recent University of California-Berkeley study that finds the solar industry produces seven to 11 times as many jobs on a megawatt capacity basis as coal-fired power plants and has a larger positive trickle-down effect than wind energy.
Estimates suggest Texas could generate 123,000 new high-wage, technology-related, advanced manufacturing and electrical services jobs by 2020 by actively moving toward solar power. It is predicted these jobs would be created across the entire state as large solar farms grow in West Texas, silicon plants develop along the Gulf Coast and manufacturing centers appear in Central Texas.
The report evaluates the competitive benefits Texas has in the worldwide market and compares the overall results of Texan efforts against other states and international competitors. The study notes that although Texas consumed more energy than any other state and has the best overall climate for producing solar energy year-round, it ranked 8th in solar adoption in 2006, producing just 1/100th of the solar energy of California.
Texans pay about 13 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. It is believed that the production of photovoltaics, like other semiconductors, would follow a predictable decline in costs. Analysts predict this cost decline will translate to between 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour as early as 2010.
In 1999, the Texas Legislature adopted a bill that introduced the retail competition in the sale of electricity and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to consumers. Since 2002, electricity-users in deregulated markets have been able to choose their power providers from a multitude of retailers. The legislation requires energy providers to increase the amount of renewable energy produced through a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro wave, tidal, biomass-based waste products or landfill gas.
To date, energy producers have chosen to focus on wind energy for a multitude of reasons, including federal tax incentives for producers, the large amount of wind resources in the state and the scalability of large wind projects. The report concludes that the legislation has brought many benefits to consumers across the state and can be used as a roadmap for the successful expansion of solar power across the state.
Worldwide, investors are confident in the future of solar power. The solar industry grew to $10.6 billion in revenues in 2006 and is estimated to be greater than $30 billion, with some analyst estimates as high as $72 billion for the entire solar value chain by 2010.
The report outlines several recommendations to strengthen the state's solar strategy. Starting with leadership to create the policies necessary for success, Texas could leverage its natural resources, skilled workforce, existing industries and entrepreneurial spirit to create a new energy industry, the report says.
Perhaps, but it's apparently due to a restriction in the ability to supply enough sufficiently-refined silicon. A situation a free-market economy would rectify in fairly short order.
You are correct. The cost has roughly doubled since 1999. I bought the parts for a 1000 watt system for $6500 in 99, and was looking into doubling it last summer, but just the additional panels would have cost $14,000.
more calls for illegal alien help and hb 1 visas? After all God forbid there might be jobs for Americans.
Nope, just political agenda via personal promotion.
And what political agenda would that be?
One can hope thorium will be the prevailing use of nucluer...for many reasons. Although waste disposal is more of cost rather than place...lol...if that makes sense.
I like alternatives and I think solar has a future, but storage is an issue as well. If they can provide cheap forms of storage (preferable at home), and solar reduces cost...which is likely...then good change will come through.
At one point they’ll likely become highly competitive. More so the solar plants, then the home versions.
“More concentrated solar power plants will be built in the Southwest, providing clean electricity for millions of homes and businesses around the region. According to Sandia National Labs, costs are predicted to fall to about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020, a price competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.”
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/solar.asp
Except when it’s night. That happens about once a day, last time I heard.
Out at my farm west of Lubbock, I’ve had a well running on solar power (4 x 85w BP panels) for almost ten years. They have been beat by no telling how many hail storms over the decade and they are not much the worse for the wear. They still work fine.
Nuclear power generating capacity is 105,585 MWs, THAT IS A LOT OF POWER.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
Solar capacity is a mere 397 megawatts:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table12.html
So nuclear power today is generating 300 times more energy than solar. Solar generation is miniscule, and as I mentioned only exists at all due to boondoggle subsidies.
Nuclear power is more cost effective, more environmentally friendly (less space needed), yet solar gets all the hype.
I am convinced that energy technology hype is inversely related to its actual utility.
“by 2050, we should have lead-bismuth fast reactors that can use up this stuff and burn it completely so there is zero real nuclear waste ove time.”
Interesting...did not know that. That should reduce costs...shouldn’t it?
“People are paid for solar because it is a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy. meanwhile nuclear generates 20% of our power”
I’ve heard people say nucluer is a taxpayer boondoggle as well. Not sure how the math works out on that, but it seems nucluer adds more to the system then it takes out...although I’m not quite sure what the truth is.
“With all the money we waste on ‘alternative energy’ and ethanol subsidies, we could redirect is on cost-effective nuclear power and end forever the ‘threat’ of global warming.”
Biofuels will likely be really important....especially algae biomass. I’d much rather congress award based on results ie if you meet a particular standard that’s competitive or semi-competitive to our current energy...you get capital.
I don’t think it’s in our interest to depend on foreign petro...but then again just throwing money at the problem isn’t the most efficient way of changing things. For some reason I’m not as worried about electricity than petro. Maybe because we have the means to survive on our resources.
I just don’t think the dems have the political capital to fight companies in that sense. We’ll have electrical energy at home...but the petro is another issue in itself.
Unless you're a troglodyte or a C.H.U.D. or one of the Mole People, 2000 ft, down in volcanic tuff is nobody's "back yard". The place is on the grounds of the Nevada Test Site. They used to light off atomic bombs right on the surface in that place. That is nobody's "back yard" unless you're The Atomic Kid.
““It is cheap, reliable, and waste-free.” Nuclear power can make that claim, not solar.”
” Huh? Yeah real safe[roll eyes] “
Let’s start by pointing out that in Three Mile Island nobody was killed or injured. Chernobyl occured using Soviet technology built to be unsafe that was always illegal in any wester country - they didnt have a containment vessel that every western reactor has (the containment vessel proved itself in the Three Mile Island accident, preventing excape of radioactivity).
The heavily-recuglated nuclear power industry has had a very good safety record in the US. When you compare other industries, nuclear is indeed safer (consider coal mining disasters in recent years, or refinery explosions or even construction accidents).
” Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.”
Yes, this is following very stringent EPA rules. What they *dont* mention is that most radioactivity is gone in the first 20 years, and by 300 years practically *all* the radioactivity of radiation products is *gone*. The materials is about 5 orders of magnitude less radioactive, ie loses 99.999% of its radioactivity in first 300 years - the used fuel after 300 years is no more radioactive than uranium ore found naturally... But the fact is that nuclear used fuel is a valuable resource that is radioactive partly because *it remains to be fuel*. It has Pu, Ur, and other actinide components that can and should be recycled into nuclear power plants. These actinides have long half-lives that make the remaining radioactivity, tiny though it is, last a long time. If we did recycle such fuel, the already small waste stream could be reduced by a factor of 60, and the radioactive waste would fall to background radioactivity levels within 300 years. I would prefer this method to the ‘once through’ method, but opponents of nuclear energy in the Jimmy Carter era mandated ‘once through’ just to be annoying and it stuck.
Despite all this, it remains that the entire country’s used nuclear fuel can fit into the size of a municipal waste dump... it’s a small, not big, problem:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62
“High energy means a small volume of used fuel. Every 12-24 months, U.S. plants are shut down and the oldest fuel assemblies are removed and replaced. All of the country’s nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation—some 50,000 metric tons—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about six yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end.”
Pledges by politicians are about as useful as the methane they blow out their a$$e$. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1986 set the framework for management of "spent" fuel in this country. A Presidential candidate can pander to the anti-nuke kooks all they want about Yucca Mountain, but unless the NWPA legislation is repealed or amended, the President can't unilaterally change the policy. There would be a court challenge and the President would lose.
If we were really serious about a constructive and practical solution to waste management, we would lift the ban on fuel reprocessing in this country and also implement full actinide recycle with the recovered Pu as fuel for LWRs. Waste partitioning alone isn't going to cut it. Partitioning with actinide recycle will.
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.