The solar energy industry needs the electricity it produces to cost the same as electricity generated from fossil fuels
With Solyndra failing and solar technology being highly subsidised, how long to go before we achieve grid parity?
Karan Mangotra, via Twitter
There is little point denying that the renewable energy industry faces an uphill challenge in persuading both governments and consumers that it should be favoured over the fossil fuel industry when it comes to generating electricity.
The economic maelstrom that rages around us all at the moment means that everyone is concentrating on the bottom line. Nowhere is this focus more acute than with the cost of energy. It takes a brave politician - of which we seem to have very few - to stand up for any fledgling industry needing financial support in the way of subsidies. And the solar energy industry is a sector which is currently seeing any support it has received in the past fast withering.
For example, the recent announcement by the government that it intends to slash the feed-in tariff aimed at kick-starting the solar industry in the UK has caused much consternation across the renewables sector. And, in the US, the media and political spotlight is currently focused on the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and the details of the $535m loan guarantee it received from the US Department of Energy.
The solar industry would have a much easier ride, of course, if it could proclaim "grid parity": the moment when the electricity it produces costs the same as the electricity generated by fossil fuels. Just when this magical moment is due to arrive is, quite naturally, the subject of much speculation. And any calculations are made much harder when governments send out mixed messages to the industry.
Last year, these pages hosted a hotly contested debate between George Monbiot and Solarcentury's Jeremy Leggett. In the course of the debate, Leggett accepted Monbiot's £100 bet that Leggett's prediction that solar photovoltaic electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than "conventional" electricity will turn out to be wrong.
One year on, has there been any progress in the pursuit of grid parity for solar energy? One recent calculation, for example, predicted 2018 was a more likely date for grid parity in developing nations blessed with strong solar radiation, but not feed-in tariffs. Are the prices of panels falling? And, if so, will they continue to do so? Or has the pressure on subsidies pushed the arrival of grid parity further back?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Britain must lead the way in green technology
The only way Britain can get out of the economic crisis is to invest in the development of new technology, according to Simon Singh, one of Britain's most respected science writers.
By Matthew Bayley, Kerala
1:19PM GMT 17 Nov 2011
Simon Singh said that the study of pure science was hugely beneficial to the economy and urged the government to make the country 'world leaders' in green technology.
'The only way we're going to get out of this is investment,' he said. 'We could be world leaders in tidal energy research, wind power, solar cell technology. These are areas where someone is going to lead the way.'
Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival in Kerala - sponsored by The Daily Telegraph - the author of Fermat's Last Theorem and The Big Bang explained why government investment in scientific research could be justified at a time of economic turmoil.
'Pure science pays back,' he said, citing the example of the creation of the internet at the CERN particle physics research laboratory by British scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s.
Originally it had just been a way of helping scientists around the world communicate better, he said. 'Decades later it's changed culture, society and made economies more efficient.'
New medical scanning techniques to help pregnant women were developed from sensors built to look for minute particles in the same lab, he said. Yet the cost of building the £6 billion facility was equivalent to the whole population of Europe buying a single pint of beer each.
'Can you justify the cost of research?' he asked. 'Yes you can. We're humans. We're creative, we're curious. We have to continue to answer these questions. We also have to treat it well for society.
'A lot of kids get excited by this (cosmology),' he said. After doing research at Cambridge, Singh said he had gone into writing, while his colleagues had gone into engineering and banking, all of them contributing to the economy.
He cited figures that suggested that a graduate with a physics, engineering or computing degree was likely to earn on average 50 per cent more than other degree holders over their lifetime.
'These people at college are going off and adding to the GDP of the country.'
Singh praised David Cameron and his ministers for not slashing government money spent on science research by as much as had been expected.
'It's still a 10 per cent cut over five years,' he warned.
During his hour long talk about the Big Bang, Singh also suggested that Professor Stephen Hawking may never win a Nobel Prize for science because his ideas on black holes have still yet to be proven.
During his presentation Singh sketched out the major developments that led scientists to conclude that the universe had probably started from a single point, rather than exisiting forever in a 'steady state'.
To illustrate one point he played the Led Zeppelin song 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards to show the audience that if they listened hard enough it contained lyrics relating to the Devil, including the line 'There was a little tool shed where he made us suffer, sad Satan'.
He aso disclosed that the pop star Katie Melua had rerecorded a song specially for him after he publicly criticised her when the original version contained scientific inaccuracies, including the claim that the age of the universe was 12 billion years, and even that was 'a guess'.
13 billion years was the correct age, Singh said.
In one humorous moment he also explained a mathematical formula he had devised that he said proved the Teletubbies television show was 'evil'.
By Matthew Bayley, Kerala
1:19PM GMT 17 Nov 2011
Simon Singh said that the study of pure science was hugely beneficial to the economy and urged the government to make the country 'world leaders' in green technology.
'The only way we're going to get out of this is investment,' he said. 'We could be world leaders in tidal energy research, wind power, solar cell technology. These are areas where someone is going to lead the way.'
Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival in Kerala - sponsored by The Daily Telegraph - the author of Fermat's Last Theorem and The Big Bang explained why government investment in scientific research could be justified at a time of economic turmoil.
'Pure science pays back,' he said, citing the example of the creation of the internet at the CERN particle physics research laboratory by British scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s.
Originally it had just been a way of helping scientists around the world communicate better, he said. 'Decades later it's changed culture, society and made economies more efficient.'
New medical scanning techniques to help pregnant women were developed from sensors built to look for minute particles in the same lab, he said. Yet the cost of building the £6 billion facility was equivalent to the whole population of Europe buying a single pint of beer each.
'Can you justify the cost of research?' he asked. 'Yes you can. We're humans. We're creative, we're curious. We have to continue to answer these questions. We also have to treat it well for society.
'A lot of kids get excited by this (cosmology),' he said. After doing research at Cambridge, Singh said he had gone into writing, while his colleagues had gone into engineering and banking, all of them contributing to the economy.
He cited figures that suggested that a graduate with a physics, engineering or computing degree was likely to earn on average 50 per cent more than other degree holders over their lifetime.
'These people at college are going off and adding to the GDP of the country.'
Singh praised David Cameron and his ministers for not slashing government money spent on science research by as much as had been expected.
'It's still a 10 per cent cut over five years,' he warned.
During his hour long talk about the Big Bang, Singh also suggested that Professor Stephen Hawking may never win a Nobel Prize for science because his ideas on black holes have still yet to be proven.
During his presentation Singh sketched out the major developments that led scientists to conclude that the universe had probably started from a single point, rather than exisiting forever in a 'steady state'.
To illustrate one point he played the Led Zeppelin song 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards to show the audience that if they listened hard enough it contained lyrics relating to the Devil, including the line 'There was a little tool shed where he made us suffer, sad Satan'.
He aso disclosed that the pop star Katie Melua had rerecorded a song specially for him after he publicly criticised her when the original version contained scientific inaccuracies, including the claim that the age of the universe was 12 billion years, and even that was 'a guess'.
13 billion years was the correct age, Singh said.
In one humorous moment he also explained a mathematical formula he had devised that he said proved the Teletubbies television show was 'evil'.
Groups oppose clean energy funds for trash burning
Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — Environmental groups are pressing state regulators to reject a petition seeking renewable energy subsidies for trash-burning power plants, saying the incinerators are big polluters that destroy paper, plastic and other materials that should be recycled instead.
The Public Service Commission is expected to rule on Covanta Energy's petition at its meeting Thursday in Albany. Covanta, based in Morristown, N.J., operates 44 energy-from-waste plants in the United States, including seven in New York.
Covanta has asked the PSC to add trash burning to the list of renewable energy technologies eligible for state subsidies. At a news conference Tuesday, the New York Public Interest Research Group and several other environmental organizations said they've asked the commission to reject Covanta's petition, saying incinerators generate air pollution and toxic ash.
Covanta spokesman James Regan disputed the groups' claims, saying the company presented evidence to the PSC that waste-to-energy plants using the latest technology are cleaner than some sources of energy eligible for subsidies. The petition only applies to new plants, not existing ones, he said.
In a report released Tuesday, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, a coalition of environmental groups, said the incinerator industry is pursuing a strategy across the nation seeking clean-energy subsidies. The report said most federal energy subsidies that benefit trash incineration are intended to foster the development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and small hydroelectric plants.
The report said incineration is the most expensive form of energy production in the United States per unit of electricity produced, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration finding that the cost of building waste-to-energy plants was 60 percent higher than that of new nuclear plants, and the operating costs are 10 times higher than coal. Harrisburg, Pa., filed for bankruptcy last month because of $300 million in debt tied to a Covanta incinerator there.
In Connecticut, Covanta paid a $400,000 fine in July for releasing unsafe levels of toxic dioxin from its trash-burning plant in Wallingford. In 2009, Covanta paid a $355,000 fine for unsafe dioxin emissions from its Wallingford and Hartford plants.
"Waste-to-energy facilities create more air pollution and climate-altering greenhouse gases than coal plants," said Ross Gould of Environmental Advocates. "Investing in waste-to-energy projects undermines New York's renewable energy goals by diverting money intended for clean energy such as solar and wind."
In documents submitted to the Public Service Commission, Covanta said its waste incinerators in New York routinely operate well below their permit limits for air emissions, with all emissions except nitrogen oxides at least 55 percent below the permitted emission limits and some, including mercury, metals and dioxins, being at least 80 percent below New York's strict emission limits.
Covanta said a new trash-burning plant can generate up to 750 kilowatts of electricity per ton of trash, 14 times more than that produced by landfill gas-to-energy plants, which are eligible in New York for renewable energy subsidies.
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 18 states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, recognize municipal waste-to-energy plants as eligible for renewable energy funds.
New York's renewable energy fund, supported by a surcharge on utility bills averaging 25 cents per month, spends about $250 million annually.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — Environmental groups are pressing state regulators to reject a petition seeking renewable energy subsidies for trash-burning power plants, saying the incinerators are big polluters that destroy paper, plastic and other materials that should be recycled instead.
The Public Service Commission is expected to rule on Covanta Energy's petition at its meeting Thursday in Albany. Covanta, based in Morristown, N.J., operates 44 energy-from-waste plants in the United States, including seven in New York.
Covanta has asked the PSC to add trash burning to the list of renewable energy technologies eligible for state subsidies. At a news conference Tuesday, the New York Public Interest Research Group and several other environmental organizations said they've asked the commission to reject Covanta's petition, saying incinerators generate air pollution and toxic ash.
Covanta spokesman James Regan disputed the groups' claims, saying the company presented evidence to the PSC that waste-to-energy plants using the latest technology are cleaner than some sources of energy eligible for subsidies. The petition only applies to new plants, not existing ones, he said.
In a report released Tuesday, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, a coalition of environmental groups, said the incinerator industry is pursuing a strategy across the nation seeking clean-energy subsidies. The report said most federal energy subsidies that benefit trash incineration are intended to foster the development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and small hydroelectric plants.
The report said incineration is the most expensive form of energy production in the United States per unit of electricity produced, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration finding that the cost of building waste-to-energy plants was 60 percent higher than that of new nuclear plants, and the operating costs are 10 times higher than coal. Harrisburg, Pa., filed for bankruptcy last month because of $300 million in debt tied to a Covanta incinerator there.
In Connecticut, Covanta paid a $400,000 fine in July for releasing unsafe levels of toxic dioxin from its trash-burning plant in Wallingford. In 2009, Covanta paid a $355,000 fine for unsafe dioxin emissions from its Wallingford and Hartford plants.
"Waste-to-energy facilities create more air pollution and climate-altering greenhouse gases than coal plants," said Ross Gould of Environmental Advocates. "Investing in waste-to-energy projects undermines New York's renewable energy goals by diverting money intended for clean energy such as solar and wind."
In documents submitted to the Public Service Commission, Covanta said its waste incinerators in New York routinely operate well below their permit limits for air emissions, with all emissions except nitrogen oxides at least 55 percent below the permitted emission limits and some, including mercury, metals and dioxins, being at least 80 percent below New York's strict emission limits.
Covanta said a new trash-burning plant can generate up to 750 kilowatts of electricity per ton of trash, 14 times more than that produced by landfill gas-to-energy plants, which are eligible in New York for renewable energy subsidies.
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 18 states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, recognize municipal waste-to-energy plants as eligible for renewable energy funds.
New York's renewable energy fund, supported by a surcharge on utility bills averaging 25 cents per month, spends about $250 million annually.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press