There has been a tremendous amount of hoopla recently among solar analysts concerning the US energy bill's 15% renewable energy target. Will it pass? What will it mean?
Well, it now looks like it might well pass, and I personally hope it does. But while the exact details are still cloudy (at one point energy conservation was going to be counted as a renewable source, which seems like a good idea to me), one thing is fairly clear...Solar PV is left out in the cold.
First off, a quick look at the Department of Energy's 2006 electricity statistics show that we are already at almost 9.5% renewables...and that includes almost none from Solar PV. (A lot of hydropower, geothermal, some wind and landfill gas, etc.)
So, why will the next 5.5% look any different?
Barring any direct subsidy for solar panels (which there is none), it won't.
As long as the utilities can keep choosing their sources, they are going to choose the ones that are most reliable and cost effective.
But how can this be? Isn't this bill going to "bring a bonanza for solar and wind power" to use the words of the New york Times article from Dec. 1?
One presumes that a couple of NYT reporters on deadline didn't bother to research the economics of renewable energy. And yet the reporters are right, when you consider solar also means solar thermal. There are a lot of plans for new solar thermal plants in the southwest, and utilities are already signed on. Why? because compared to solar PV, large scale solar thermal plants are MUCH less expensive, and if placed in the proper environment, also more reliable.
