CA: Solar-power subsidies a costly folly

OC Register ^ | 6/16/05 | Chuck Devore

[NormsRevenge]

Gov. Schwarzenegger is fighting the good fight, so we can forgive him when he occasionally misfires. His "Million Solar Roofs Initiative" to subsidize photovoltaic (PV) systems is one such error.

PV systems convert sunlight into electricity. This is great but for a few problems: the systems are costly; they rarely produce the electricity claimed; and, even with subsidies, PV does not pay for itself.

Senate Bill 1 is the legislative vehicle for the governor's initiative. It passed the state Senate on a 30-5 vote with only Republican opposition. The next stop is the Assembly, then the governor's desk.

California has about 12,000 PV systems producing 93 megawatts (MW) of power. The initiative aims to install 1 million PV systems by 2018 to produce about 3,000 MW (one unit at San Onofre produces 1,100 MW). Because PV costs $9,000 per kilowatt to install, several times the cost of other power sources, it requires what uber- Schwarzenegger economics adviser Milton Friedman would call a free-market-distorting subsidy just to make it attractive.

How much of a subsidy? The plan's supporters predict up to $2.5 billion over 10 years, while one utility estimates $7 billion. This taxpayer support reduces the cost of a typical residential PV installation from $27,000 to $17,205. If the system performed as claimed (a 2004 study showed PV operated at only 39 percent of capacity during peak demand), the residential PV system owner would save $371 a year on his electric bill - less than 2.2 percent of the subsidized cost, making a return on investment impossible.

--snip--

[NormsRevenge]

Chuck Devore is a Republican assemblyman from Irvine, CA.

[traviskicks]

Nice post. Reminds me of this:

'Hydrogen highway' bad route, group says
11/20/2004 Oakland Tribune - In a study that state environmental officials admit has some merit has thrown some cold water on Governor Schwarzenegger's much ballyhooed $75-200 million (partially taxpayer funded) 'California Hydrogen Highway Network' and on President Bush's bloated $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. A Libertarians think tank has reported that unless the Hydrogen is produced by wind, water, or solar power (which is currently unlikely) it will pollute MORE then regular gas powered vehicles! Michele St. Martin, spokeswoman for the California Department of Environmental Protection counters that hydrogen is still an emerging science with rapid advances, and it is expected to be cheaper and more efficient in the future. She doesn't mention that gas powered vehicles are becoming more and more fuel efficient and will also continue to do so. In fact, in 2003, two scientists from USC Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon came out with a paper published in the journal Science that argued: Improvements to current cars and current environmental rules are more than 100 times cheaper than hydrogen cars at reducing air pollution. And for several decades, the most cost-effective method to reduce oil imports and CO2 emissions from cars will be to increase fuel efficiency, the two scientists found. Further corroborating this line of thinking is an essay by ANOTHER Berkeley Scientist and a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle. But, rather then attack the arguments of the Libertarian study, a Sierra Club (environmental group) advisor said he is skeptical of findings by the Reason Foundation because of the group's ideological bias. I wonder if he would say the same about 2 Berkeley Professors? :)

Update 1/9/05 A slightly misleading piece in the Washington Post also claims: "No one has yet figured out how to generate large amounts of hydrogen without causing as much pollution as internal-combustion engines now create, or how to pay for a nationwide distribution network. And the vehicles are prohibitively expensive; if GM's Sequel were for sale, it would cost as much as a warehouse full of Corvettes. " This should read: "without causing more pollution".

[Publius6961]

Subsidies are just another means of denying reality; or at least making it invisible.

I just wish the share I have to pay of the subsidies were invisible...

[traviskicks]

I'd like to read the rest of this, if anyone has a password etc.. please leave it.

bugmenot
bugmenot

doesn't work this time. :(

[redgolum]

Problem with hydrogen is that you need to strip it from some sort of hydrocarbon first. You can use water and electricity, but that is very inefficient.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Subsidies are just another means of denying reality; or at least making it invisible.

Yes they are, and everyone pays for the subsidies. I got my first hot tub courtesy of Gov "Moonbeam" Brown's solar water heater subsidy. The tub was my reservoir, and it got so hot some days I had to turn it down to use it as a hot tub. But the cost of the solar panels was a tax write off, so I got a little of the governments largess. Sorry now, since I realize that I ripped my neighbors off on this, but if the government offers that is what will happen.

[BurbankKarl]

Yes, but this doesnt talk about the paint on solar technology being developed in Canada.

[BurbankKarl]

http://www.nanosolar.com/

[mvpel]

The plan's supporters predict up to $2.5 billion over 10 years, while one utility estimates $7 billion.

I wonder how many 3,000MW emission-free nuclear power plants they could build with that kind of money?

[GladesGuru]

"a Sierra Club (environmental group) SpokesThing said he is skeptical of findings by the Reason Foundation because of the group's ideological bias".

Let me make sure I understand the enviro-socialist correctly. He, a Sierra Club functionary, is accusing ANYONE of "ideological bias" ? ? ? ? ? ?

This has to be some sort of "Pot Calling The Kettle Black" world record. Would someone please get that thing's address so he can get his prize of Liberal Cheese to accompany his Liberal Whine.

[traviskicks]

lol - I couldn't believe it either.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1284737/posts?page=1

Verbatim from the Oakland Tribune:

V. John White, an adviser to the Sierra Club on clean-air issues, said he is skeptical of findings by the Reason Foundation because of the group's ideological bias. Hydrogen, he said, is only one part of a multipronged strategy to reduce emissions in California, and the hydrogen field continues to improve.

"The Reason Foundation doesn't accept we're living in a carbon-constrained world, and petroleum is rapidly reaching its peak and will soon begin a long decline," White said. "The alternatives to our addiction to petroleum are important to develop."


(somebody should show him the jumping estimation of petrol reserves from the 60-70-80-90s - they're finding more all the time, and he thinks it's 'carbon-constrained'. Just like Liberals think wealth can't be created and is 'constrained' so it needs to be redistributed.)

[calcowgirl]

If Gray Davis had been pushing this, instead of Arnold, I bet every Republican Senator would have opposed it. Instead, we have more (R)s succumbing to the left (and Arnold) than opposed this BS.

SB 1 - Solar Roofs - Senate Floor Vote

AYES

Alarcon
Alquist
Campbell (R)
Cedillo
Chesbro
Cox (R)
Denham (R)
Ducheny
Dunn
Dutton (R)
Escutia
Figueroa
Florez
Kehoe
Kuehl
Lowenthal
Maldonado (R)
Migden
Morrow (R)
Murray
Ortiz
Perata
Poochigian (R)
Romero
Scott
Simitian
Soto
Speier
Torlakson
Vincent

NOES

Aanestad (R)
Ackerman (R)
Battin (R)
Hollingsworth (R)
McClintock (R)

ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING

Ashburn (R)
Bowen
Machado
Margett (R)
Runner (R)

[SierraWasp]

Well... Devore is far too forgiving of idiocy!!! So are the other Repellicans voting for this. Poor Roy Ashburn is so embarrassed by this that he bugged out of voting altogether!!! (at least I hope that's the case)

Some Republicans in CA's legislature seem hard to embarrass these days... It's embarrassing and a miserable embarrassment!!!

[NathanR]

Try:
annoying
annoying

[traviskicks]

thanks, but someone was kind enough to freepmail me a copy of it.