Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fraud of global warming continues to disintegrate - From Forbes:

...the collapse of Germany’s solar energy industry seems to be spreading downstream from manufacturers to distributors and installers.

On Friday, Gehrlicher Solar and Conergy, two of Germany’s leading downstream solar power companies, filed for insolvency....

Meanwhile, the collapse of Conergy comes after two failed efforts to close a new round of investment to support a shift in Conergy’s go-to-market strategy to focus on downstream solar project development and distribution....

Only a few weeks ago, Siemens SI +0.23%, the industrial conglomerate based in Munich, Germany, said it was shutting down its solar power division after enduring nearly $1 billion in losses over the past two years. Similarly, Bosch also recently said it was exiting the solar energy market after suffering significant losses....


http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/07/08/germa...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
In a related article, the German environment minister says the government will put a limit on solar power subsidies.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iz_8zhhJO...

BERLIN — Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry.

Peter Altmaier of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union had fought to set a ceiling of solar power capacity above which the government would no longer offer its financial backing.


That ceiling of 52 GW will be reached by 2018 or so. On the other hand, many of the cheap Chinese-made solar panels have such short useable lifespans, the replacement and repair business may be quite lucrative after 2018.

Also from the link:
Berlin "has so far invested 216 billion euros ($278 billion) in renewables and the biggest chunk went to solar, the technology which does least to ensure the power supply," said the head of industrial group Siemens, Peter Loescher, in an interview published in the business daily Handelsblatt on Monday.
-------------------------------------------------------

216 billion euros in investment, and they still need to build more lignite burners to provide constant power at night and in the winter. They are also forcing entire towns to relocate in order to mine the slightly combustible dirt under those communities.

http://www.dw.de/quest-for-coal-forces-resettlement-in-germa...

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
...the collapse of Germany’s solar energy industry seems to be spreading downstream from manufacturers to distributors and installers.

On Friday, Gehrlicher Solar and Conergy, two of Germany’s leading downstream solar power companies, filed for insolvency....


Germany spent more than any other country supporting solar and they are quickly losing all that grew from that. Except for the solar panels themselves, which will last for 15 years or so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Except for the solar panels themselves, which will last for 15 years or so.
---------------------------------------------------------

Or less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environmen...

LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.

Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.


Also:
"I don’t want to be alarmist, but I think quality poses a long-term threat," he said. "The quality across the board is harder to put your finger on now as materials in modules are changing every day and manufacturers are reluctant to share that information."

Most of the concerns over quality center on China, home to the majority of the world’s solar panel manufacturing capacity.

------------------------------------------------------

On paper, the cost of solar PV has come down a lot in the last few years. But if the mean time to failure is only a few years, the real cost is actually much higher than advertized.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
My wife and I are considering adding solar electric to our roof. I'm going to be very choosy about the panels I put up, if/when I do. There is reason to believe that quality panels can be highly productive for decades: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8386460.stm

"
Tests show that 90% of existing solar panels last for 30 years, instead of the predicted 20 years. According to the independent EU Energy Institute, this brings down the lifetime cost...Dr Ossenbrink says the institute's laboratory has been subjecting the cells to the sort of accelerated ageing through extremes of heat, cold and humidity that has long been a benchmark for the car industry. It has shown that more than 90% of the panels on the market 10 years ago are capable of still performing well after 30 years of life, albeit with a slight drop in performance.
"

Crystallized silicon cells have the longest history on the market...buying from a quality manufacturer like the US company Sun Power should give you an asset that will last a very long time.

Here is a paper describing continuous outdoor testing over more than 20 years:
http://pvevolutionlabs.com/pdf/JRC.pdf

"
However, despite the relatively immature module technology from the 1980s, the measured performance after long-term exposure is quite satisfying.
...
the maximum power degrades by about 08% per year (average value for all tested modules), or by 067% (excluding modules with total circuit failure), - the average annual degradation rate for all modules connected to the battery charger with maximum power capabilities is 1%
...
if we consider the initial warranty period that is 10% of P MAX after 10 years, more than 657% of modules exposed for 20 years exceed this criteria.
...
all indications from the measurements and observations made in this paper are that the useful lifetime of solar modules is not limited to the commonly assumed 20 years.
"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
if we consider the initial warranty period that is 10% of P MAX after 10 years, more than 657% of modules exposed for 20 years exceed this criteria.
...
all indications from the measurements and observations made in this paper are that the useful lifetime of solar modules is not limited to the commonly assumed 20 years.


This is *great* news. It means we can halt all solar power subsidies!

If you think this is information is accurate, you ought to prove your convictions by turning down solar power subsidies. After all, if your information is accurate, you'll be making lots of money by installing them.

Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Jim: "If you think this is information is accurate, you ought to prove your convictions by turning down solar power subsidies. After all, if your information is accurate, you'll be making lots of money by installing them."


What would happen if we simultaneously stopped the $523 Billion fossil fuels subsidies and the $88 Billion in renewable energy subsidies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What would happen if we simultaneously stopped the $523 Billion fossil fuels subsidies and the $88 Billion in renewable energy subsidies?

Here's the list of countries by fossil fuels subsidies:

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/23/iea-review-sho...

Iran $81 billion/yr
Saudi Arabia 44
Russia 39
India 22
China 21
Egypt 20
Venezuela 20
etc.

Egypt may have cut back, as they are now broke.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tests show that 90% of existing solar panels last for 30 years, instead of the predicted 20 years.

===============

You are causing much consternation for the pro-nukes who love to make all sorts of biased claims about the horrors of wind and solar energy.

Anything that shows wind and solar energy as cheap, reliable and safe will send pro-nukes into: alarm, amazement, anxiety, bewilderment, confusion, distraction, dread, fear, fright, horror, panic, perplexity, shock, stupefaction, terror, and trepidation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There are many stats that you can cherry pick to argue both sides of arguments concerning relative costs of energy subsidies.
The wiki summary seems to be a fair starting point for me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What would happen if we simultaneously stopped the $523 Billion fossil fuels subsidies and the $88 Billion in renewable energy subsidies?

Well, my own personal back-of-the-envelop WAG would be that you'd see a reduction in energy consumption overall, with a greater proportion of that energy being fossil fuels and a lesser proportion (perhaps a far lesser proportion) being renewables.

While fossil fuels might get a lot more subsidies in absolute terms (taking the above figures as accurate for the sake of discussion), fossil fuels represent a much larger proportion of the energy pie. In 2011, renewables represented only about 1.7% of world energy consumption, while fossils represented about 86% of world energy:

http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/stat...

Fossil fuel consumption was about 10.6 billion tonnes of oil equivalent, while renewables were about .21 billion tonnes of oil equivalent. So fossils get a subsidy of about $49 per toe (roughly $7 per barrel, if you're thinking of actual oil), while renewables get a subsidy of about $419 per toe (roughly $60 per barrel).

So we would expect that the impact to end-user prices to be significant for both fossil and renewable energy, but to see vastly more significant increases (as a percentage of cost) for renewables. That means less consumption of energy overall, and a significant shift away from renewables into fossil fuels. However, because the net impact on carbon depends on the relative magnitude of both these shifts, I have no idea whether this increases or decreases emissions.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can't square what I was just reading a minute ago with the bp cite. It looked to like RE was 17.8% of total production worldwide if I read it right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploying_Renewables_2011
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I can't square what I was just reading a minute ago with the bp cite. It looked to like RE was 17.8% of total production worldwide if I read it right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploying_Renewables_2011


It depends on whether you include hydropower as renewable. Do you know whether the info on the renewable subsidies included hydro?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Honestly? I just started reading this stuff because a case settled and I had time to waste. Like you, I assumed the difference lay in what was included in the definition of "renewable".

I was reading the IEA materials which obviously arrived at the opposite conclusion from yours, but I don't have enough knowledge yet to assess the relative costs of the subsidies, including the so-called externalities mentioned in the IEA materials.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My wife and I are considering adding solar electric to our roof. I'm going to be very choosy about the panels I put up, if/when I do. There is reason to believe that quality panels can be highly productive for decades: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8386460.stm

I had a new roof installed about 4 years ago. I checked into adding solar panels and the cost was astronomical at the time--which I couldn't afford. I also asked my roof repair guy about the installation. He told me that a regular roofer will probably do a very poor job of installing solar panels. That was his experience. He regularly goes to people's roofs to fix the problems around chimneys, vents openings, etc., because they don't seal them properly. He had even worked on a solar roof--trying to seal the solar panels after the roofers put the panels in.

I'm not discouraging you from doing this. I'm all for solar panels. I'm suggesting you get a good repair roofer to discuss the ins and outs of installing the panels.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
If you are interested in US-specific federal subsidies in the energy sector, the following link is worth a glance.

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

Table ES-2 has a compilation of subsidies given to various energy types, including a breakdown of what type of subsidies are provided (direct expenditures, tax expenditures, R&D, etc.) in fiscal year 2010.

Here is a summary:
Renewables: $14.674 billion
Natural gas and petroleum: $2.82 billion
Nuclear: $2.5 billion
Coal: $1.36 billion
Conservation: $6.6 billion
End-use: $8.2 billion
Total for FY2010: $37.16 billion

Hydro is included in Renewables, but the amount of subsidies is rather small ($216 million). For renewables, the largest chunk of money is from tax expenditures. For nuclear, the largest chunk is for research and development.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Pete writes: If you are interested in US-specific federal subsidies in the energy sector, the following link is worth a glance.

=============================

In inflation-adjusted dollars, nuclear spending averaged $3.3 billion over the first 15 years of subsidy life, and O&G subsidies averaged $1.8 billion, while renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.

Today, as we seek to move towards a more independent and clean energy future, the truth is that renewables - from a historical perspective - are if anything under-subsidized. This weak support is inconsistent with our nation’s own historical energy narrative ...


http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-D...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top