MIT report "The Future of Solar Energy"

[DanKegel]

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2919134/sustainable-it/mit-says-solar-power-fields-with-trillions-of-watts-of-capacity-are-on-the-way.html

http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/MIT%20Future%20of%20Solar%20Energy%20Study_compressed.pdf

356 pages.

Excerpts:

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.
...
Pricing systems need to be developed and deployed that allocate distribution network costs to those that cause them, and that are widely viewed as fair.
...
Drastic cuts in federal support for solar technology deployment would be unwise.
...
Policies to support solar deployment should reward generation, not investment; should not provide greater subsidies to residential generators than to utility-scale generators; and should avoid the use of tax credits.
...c-Si systems likely will dominate the solar energy market for the next few decades and perhaps beyond. Moreover, if the industry can substantially reduce its reliance on silver for electrical contacts, material inputs for c-Si PV generation are available in sufficient quantity to support expansion to terawatt scale.
...
Firms that manufacture c-Si modules and their component cells and input materials have the means and the incentive to pursue remaining opportunities to make this technology more competitive through improvements in efficiency and reductions in manufacturing cost and materials use. Thus there is not a good case for government support of R&D on current c-Si technology.
...
Unfortunately, some commercial thin-fi lm technologies are based on scarce elements, which makes it unlikely that they will be able to achieve terawatt-scale deployment at reasonable cost.
...
to increase the contribution of solar energy to long-term climate change mitigation, we strongly recommend that a large fraction of federal resources available for solar research and development focus on environmentally benign, emerging thin-film technologies that are based on Earth-abundant materials.

[sensij]

Drastic cuts in federal support for solar technology deployment would be unwise.
...

On this note, while they recommend support be maintained, they would prefer to see it steered more towards improving the grid infrastructure to better support DG, and less toward the residential generators.

[solarix]

I agree with getting away from the tax credit incentive as it leaves out a huge chunk of people that can't use them (without getting suckered into a lease). I'd like to see the German model or Vermont model of axing the local permitting process. That would save as much on installation costs as the tax credits do and have very little downside in installation quality. Installers have had enough "oversight" now in the early years of solar, that they are well versed in how to do quality installs. They're licensed, bonded, insured, certified, etc - let them do their job without all the micromanagement. I'm not even opposed to being inspected, but these lengthy, burdensome paperwork processes - we can do without. Repeat after me - Sunshot initiative!! The ITC incentive is just a government funds transfer to thousands of building departments and to the back rooms of solar installers who would much rather be out installing solar than shuffling paper.

[J.P.M.]

I agree with getting away from the tax credit incentive as it leaves out a huge chunk of people that can't use them (without getting suckered into a lease). I'd like to see the German model or Vermont model of axing the local permitting process. That would save as much on installation costs as the tax credits do and have very little downside in installation quality. Installers have had enough "oversight" now in the early years of solar, that they are well versed in how to do quality installs. They're licensed, bonded, insured, certified, etc - let them do their job without all the micromanagement. I'm not even opposed to being inspected, but these lengthy, burdensome paperwork processes - we can do without. Repeat after me - Sunshot initiative!! The ITC incentive is just a government funds transfer to thousands of building departments and to the back rooms of solar installers who would much rather be out installing solar than shuffling paper.

FWIW: I'm of the opinion that using the tax system or any other means to promote any agenda, solar, nuke, oil, family planning, farm subsidies, etc., is bad policy.

In the case of solar, it only weakens the robustness of the product and allows weaker players to survive on subsidies that are actually/mostly for the benefit of manufacturers and vendors who benefit from the ability to jack up prices.

To believe those savings get passed on to consumers/users means I need to take those folks who have skin in the game at their word to believe. Based on experience, that's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make.

[Sunking]

We all know MIT track record on solar from the panel manufacture company they started. It lost close to about 1 billion of tax payers dollars and swindled hundreds of investors and millions of stock holders out of money. No one even remembers Evergreen Solar. Chi-Coms now own the technology.

[pleppik]

FWIW: I'm of the opinion that using the tax system or any other means to promote any agenda, solar, nuke, oil, family planning, farm subsidies, etc., is bad policy.

I totally agree.

Unfortunately in this country, we seem to have found ourselves in the weird political circumstances where it's easier for politicians to spend money through the tax code (through tax credits and incentives), and tax through the code of federal regulations (through user fees, permit fees, etc.).

I would much rather have a system where the subsidies are honest and straight-up payments for whatever is being subsidized and the taxes are a straightforward means to collect the money to fund government operations. It's silly to subsidize something (whether solar power, oil depletion allowances, or living expenses for poor single mothers) and pretend that it's a tax cut. But that's what we do.

(As long as I'm visiting fantasy land, we should also stop pretending that the federal liability cap for nuclear power plants is anything other than a straight-up subsidy for nuclear. This is really just the federal government saying it will pay to clean up after a major disaster, in other words, insurance. Lloyd's of London would never write that policy for free.)

[SunEagle]

http://www.computerworld.com/article...n-the-way.html

http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/MIT%20Future%20of%20Solar%20Energy%20Study_compressed.pdf

356 pages.

Excerpts:

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.
...
Pricing systems need to be developed and deployed that allocate distribution network costs to those that cause them, and that are widely viewed as fair.
...
Drastic cuts in federal support for solar technology deployment would be unwise.
...
Policies to support solar deployment should reward generation, not investment; should not provide greater subsidies to residential generators than to utility-scale generators; and should avoid the use of tax credits.
...c-Si systems likely will dominate the solar energy market for the next few decades and perhaps beyond. Moreover, if the industry can substantially reduce its reliance on silver for electrical contacts, material inputs for c-Si PV generation are available in sufficient quantity to support expansion to terawatt scale.
...
Firms that manufacture c-Si modules and their component cells and input materials have the means and the incentive to pursue remaining opportunities to make this technology more competitive through improvements in efficiency and reductions in manufacturing cost and materials use. Thus there is not a good case for government support of R&D on current c-Si technology.
...
Unfortunately, some commercial thin-fi lm technologies are based on scarce elements, which makes it unlikely that they will be able to achieve terawatt-scale deployment at reasonable cost.
...
to increase the contribution of solar energy to long-term climate change mitigation, we strongly recommend that a large fraction of federal resources available for solar research and development focus on environmentally benign, emerging thin-film technologies that are based on Earth-abundant materials.

Hard to argue with that logic.

I would have hoped the thin-film technology would make a breakthrough in either much lower production costs or higher output efficiency.

I would also like to see less federal subsidies for RE (and fossil fuel) and using more of those funds to combat environmental issues.

[bberry]

It does seem unlikely that in twenty years the primary solar form factor will be the relatively heavy weight panels of today. I think the only way the current form factor persists is a large improvement in efficiency that is best implemented in the current panel form.

As far as tax credits, to me the issue is carbon. If carbon is a pollutant, then it needs to be either priced, or incentives to alternatives to stimulate alternatives. 'The market" doesn't naturally account for pollutants unless regulated or priced. If carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, then let the market decide.

[russ]

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades. To what purpose? Do you have any idea how much land that would require? The rooftop thing is eye candy for fools.
...
Pricing systems need to be developed and deployed that allocate distribution network costs to those that cause them, and that are widely viewed as fair. Depends on the point of view - fair to the green lot means free for their desired user
...
Drastic cuts in federal support for solar technology deployment would be unwise. Pardon? Stopping to throw money away would be unwise?
...
Policies to support solar deployment should reward generation, not investment; should not provide greater subsidies to residential generators than to utility-scale generators; and should avoid the use of tax credits. If it worked subsidies wouldn't necessary.

...c-Si systems likely will dominate the solar energy market for the next few decades and perhaps beyond. Moreover, if the industry can substantially reduce its reliance on silver for electrical contacts, material inputs for c-Si PV generation are available in sufficient quantity to support expansion to terawatt scale. Then let government labs lead the way - that is what they are for
...
Firms that manufacture c-Si modules and their component cells and input materials have the means and the incentive to pursue remaining opportunities to make this technology more competitive through improvements in efficiency and reductions in manufacturing cost and materials use. Thus there is not a good case for government support of R&D on current c-Si technology.
Bull**** -

...
Unfortunately, some commercial thin-fi lm technologies are based on scarce elements, which makes it unlikely that they will be able to achieve terawatt-scale deployment at reasonable cost. Based on what projection?
...
to increase the contribution of solar energy to long-term climate change mitigation, we strongly recommend that a large fraction of federal resources available for solar research and development focus on environmentally benign, emerging thin-film technologies that are based on Earth-abundant materials.

The last statement is pure eye candy and nonsense - mixed with wishful thinking

[SunEagle]

It does seem unlikely that in twenty years the primary solar form factor will be the relatively heavy weight panels of today. I think the only way the current form factor persists is a large improvement in efficiency that is best implemented in the current panel form.

As far as tax credits, to me the issue is carbon. If carbon is a pollutant, then it needs to be either priced, or incentives to alternatives to stimulate alternatives. 'The market" doesn't naturally account for pollutants unless regulated or priced. If carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, then let the market decide.

Carbon dioxide is not really a "pollution" unless you are breathing it in a small non ventilated space. It actually helps plants and trees to grow better.

It is the other components (Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead and mercury) from burning fossil fuel that are much worse to someones health.

Also don't forget the large amount of methane that is released from natural and animal sources. That is a green house gas much worse than CO2.

[russ]

It does seem unlikely that in twenty years the primary solar form factor will be the relatively heavy weight panels of today. I think the only way the current form factor persists is a large improvement in efficiency that is best implemented in the current panel form.

As far as tax credits, to me the issue is carbon. If carbon is a pollutant, then it needs to be either priced, or incentives to alternatives to stimulate alternatives. 'The market" doesn't naturally account for pollutants unless regulated or priced. If carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, then let the market decide.

1) What new is on the horizon to replace today's panels? Nothing I have read anout is close - close meaning 20 years

2. Price pollutants - that is a silly concept - nothing except an Al GOre type can price pollutants - price them so he can cash in.

[Amy@altE]

The problem with investing in R&D is that not all ideas being researched and developed are viable. So if the government backs the wrong horse, and not 100% of projects move forward, then they are forever dragged through the mud for "wasting tax payer dollars". Not all investments are winners, and unless people can accept that some will succeed and some will fail, investing in R&D will be a target. Curt Shilling got a $75M loan guarantee for his video game company, that ended up going bankrupt. Yet I never hear anyone condemning the video game industry like you hear about the solar industry. And yes, I remember Evergreen Solar very very well. They were from my home town, I knew a lot of the engineers, I sold a lot of their panels, and lost a bit of money in their stock. But I don't judge the whole industry because their innovative panels couldn't compete with the heavily gov't subsidized Chinese panels that flooded the market.

[russ]

R&D is a project for the government - both through government labs and their support for the universities. No reason for the feds to support industry R&D costs as it is too easy for the companies to cheat.

No way the feds should pick winners and losers - they have proven to be totally incapable

[J.P.M.]

The problem with investing in R&D is that not all ideas being researched and developed are viable. So if the government backs the wrong horse, and not 100% of projects move forward, then they are forever dragged through the mud for "wasting tax payer dollars". Not all investments are winners, and unless people can accept that some will succeed and some will fail, investing in R&D will be a target. Curt Shilling got a $75M loan guarantee for his video game company, that ended up going bankrupt. Yet I never hear anyone condemning the video game industry like you hear about the solar industry. And yes, I remember Evergreen Solar very very well. They were from my home town, I knew a lot of the engineers, I sold a lot of their panels, and lost a bit of money in their stock. But I don't judge the whole industry because their innovative panels couldn't compete with the heavily gov't subsidized Chinese panels that flooded the market.

Risk nothing - be nothing. Fortune often does favor the bold.

I thought that one of perhaps several original purposes of gov. research was to look into stuff that industry wouldn't/couldn't because it was a long shot.

I believe that most of that concept morphed into bureaucratic white collar welfare, but the idea seemed sound the first time I heard it. A BIT more selectivity in the choice of where to spend assets would perhaps help.

[russ]

Risk nothing - be nothing. Fortune often does favor the bold.

I thought that one of perhaps several original purposes of gov. research was to look into stuff that industry wouldn't/couldn't because it was a long shot.

I believe that most of that concept morphed into bureaucratic white collar welfare, but the idea seemed sound the first time I heard it. A BIT more selectivity in the choice of where to spend assets would perhaps help.

Such as keeping Stephen Chu out of it - political choices what I saw

Goverment research should support what no sane company will go after. NASA has spun off more goodies than probably any other company in history