Rewarding results: how should we support the development of renewables?

In 1913, Lord Northcliffe, who owned the Daily Mail, offered £10,000 to the first men to fly the Atlantic from North America to Ireland or England in less than 72 hours. The prize was won by John Alcock and Arthur Brown, who flew non stop from Newfoundland to Ireland in June 1919 on a modified Vickers Vimy bomber. Later on, in 1927, Charles Lindbergh flew non stop from New York to Paris, collecting another prize for the result. Awarding prizes is a good way of stimulating technological development, with the added advantage that you pay for success and not for failures. Should we use the same strategy for renewable energy?

Bill Gates has recently stated in an interview that

The irony is that if you actually look at the amount of money that's been spent on feed-in tariffs and you properly account for it--tax credits, feed-in credits in Spain, solar photovoltaic stuff in Germany--the world has spent a massive amount of money which, in terms of creating both jobs and knowledge, would have been far better spent on energy research.

This opinion is fairly often heard when discussing renewable energy. But would it really be a good idea to spend public money financing research on renewables? Would it produce breakthroughs, jobs and new products, or would it just create more "welfare queens in white coats?"

The way scientific research is managed by governments is by means of "research grants." Governments decide the themes on which research should be performed and invite scientists from academia or private research centers to apply for funding by presenting proposals. In many cases, research grants contain provision that should insure that the results of the research are aimed at obtaining some kind of marketable product, which is also the way of creating jobs. But that is a very difficult task. Not that scientists are not good at what they do. They are - usually - hard working, competent and dedicated. The problem is that awarding grants to scientists is a little like voting for politicians: you pay for promises, not for results.

Scientists may not be so bad at maintaining their promises as some politicians are; but the way to be sure to keep a promise is not to make it or - at least - to word it in such a way that you can always say that you have kept it. In the case of research grants, that means that the objectives are always very conservative. That makes both awarders and awardees happy, since neither one wants failure. But it is not the best way to obtain breakthroughs or innovations of the marketable kind.

In addition, the mentality of scientists is not normally directed to market. They pay great attention to their internal pecking order; something that they establish by means of arcane procedures which have to do with "impact factors" "citation indexes" and the like. The scientific community is akin to those societies that anthropologists have termed as "gift-giving;" that is, societies where your social worth is determined by how much you give away for free. That's what scientists do all the time: they gain prestige by giving their papers for free to the community. But, in a world where there holds the "publish or perish" rule, you can see how difficult is to be a scientist and an entrepreneur at the same time. As a scientist, you are supposed to give away your results for free. As an entrepreneur, you want to keep them for yourself and make money from them. Intellectual property can be managed, but this contradiction can never be completely solved.

So, if you want to get something that works and that can be sold; well, creativity is not something that money can buy so easily. Think about the first plane; the one made by the Wright brothers in 1908. It was the work of a couple of inventive men who used their own money for the project. And that while university professors were still debating on whether planes could actually fly. Today we are seeing something similar with high altitude wind energy, which could be a real breakthrough in renewable energy. The researchers working at the kitegen project have applied several times for research grants from the European Commission. Their requests have been systematically turned down. The grant system is not just conservative; it is actually innovation-averse.

All that doesn't mean that public money spent on research on renewable energy would be wasted, it is just that it is hard to think that it would produce breakthroughs or really innovative new products in ways proportional to the effort. So, if we need, and we do need, better renewable technology, we should select appropriate ways to promote real innovation in this sector. So, why not learn from aviation? There was a period, during the first decades of the 20th century, when a lot of progress in aviation was made using the "prize" system. That is, some well meaning individual would offer money for the first one who would accomplish a specific task: crossing the Atlantic Ocean, fly non-stop from New York to Paris, and the like.

As far as I know, there are no quantitative studies about the efficiency of this system but, from what we can read, it did stimulate people to work very hard on getting the prize - Charles Lindbergh is a good example. Working for a prize stimulates people who are naturally competitive, and they can express themselves much better than when they have to follow the pre-laid Gannt chart of a typical government sponsored project. And, from the viewpoint of the awarders of the grant, there is the obvious advantage that they pay for results, not for promises. They pay only for success, not for failure. And success speaks for itself; you don't have to set up checks to see how the money has been spent.

So, it would be thinkable to organize research on innovation in renewables by offering prizes. Say, the government will award 10 million dollars to the first research lab which succeeds in developing a solar cell with a demonstrable EROEI = 50 (about the EROEI of petroleum in the golden days). Or it will award the same 10 million dollars for the first GWh consistently produced by a high altitude wind power system. Maybe the target is too high, and nobody will succeed in getting the prize, but if that happens, it is at no cost for taxpayers. And think how much money the governments could save dismantling the overblown bureaucracy needed for selecting grant applications and checking that the money is spent according to the promises.

Now, why is it not done? Well, I think the reason lies in those lines that I just wrote. The main purpose of all bureaucracies is to perpetuate (and enlarge) themselves, so a reform that would get rid of a large number of government bureaucrats is almost inconceivable. Maybe there are other reasons that make it difficult to stimulate research using prizes, but I do know that there are cases in which public money has been used to reward success: it is the case of feed-in tariffs for renewables.

In the early times of PV, governments would support renewables by paying a fraction of the cost of the plants. That was a mistake: if you give people money for the plant, that will be no incentive for the plant to be efficient. Actually, it will be an incentive to buy oversized plants and to pay too much for them. That period saw some considerable squandering or public money, at least for some cases I know of in Italy.

Instead, think about the feed-in tariff. The government pays you in proportion to what you produce; that's a tremendous enticement to be efficient, to use the best technology and to bargain to get the best prices for the plant. It is, in a way, a prize. The government pays for success - if your plant is no good it is bad for you, but not for the taxpayer. And success speaks for itself: the government doesn't need to pay people to check that your PV panels are real panels and not wood planks painted in blue.

So, I believe that the feed-in tariff, so much criticized by Gates and others, has been an excellent idea; a rare case, nowadays, on the part of governments. The rapid development of renewables - both in total power installed and efficiency - of the past years has been the result of this idea. Of course, the level of support has to be carefully weighted: if the tariff is too high then the market is distorted and plenty of problems arise, as it has happened in Spain. But, on the whole, we are doing very well and we should think twice before we try to fix something that works.


Ugo, I like your idea of a prize for success!

I am less convinced that more and more feed-in tariffs is the way to go. It seems like these need to be set with a way of phasing them out - say .05 cents per kWh subsidy to market rates in year 1; .04 cents per kWh subsidy to market rates in year 2, .03 cents per kWh subsidy to market rates in year 3; and so on instead of a fixed feed in tariff.

It seems to me that we are likely to get huge distortions to the system, when we try to combined two methods of payment. Also, if feed-in tariff promises are too high, they are likely to be difficult to keep in the future.

One recent prize for energy innovation has been the $10 million Progressive Automotive X-Prize (see the current standings; I personally was rooting for the 4-seater Seven from Illuminati Motors, which achieved 182 mpg highway). While not renewable energy, it sharpened the pencils of many engineers and entrepreneurs in a quest for a marketable 100+ mpg car. There have been many entries, some not quite ready for prime time, others are not far from being production ready.


XPrize competitors

In terms of renewable energy systems, EROEI is certainly one measure, but so is reliability, serviceability, longevity, cost/kW, and a number of other factors that determine a product's true quality and value. It would be hard to have these goals quantified in a short timeframe such as contests normally take.

Quite frankly, the carrot and the stick would be one of the best ways to approach it;

- feed-in tariffs as the carrot, and

- carbon taxes (with a compensatory lowering of income taxes) could be the stick.

Gail,

look at the very successful feed in system in Germany. Every year (and this year already twice) the tariffs are reduced (in July 10%). All based on progress in the previous year.

Germany is market leader for solar installations. and drives the costs for solar energy down.

As mentioned by Janos73, the german in-feed system triggered a new industry and rapidly fallin prices - this was its aim.
As long there are no potential buyers, nobody is encouraged to invest in production and research.
Science alone can and does provide excellent fundamental results. These results have to be turned into "market ripe" products. Normal, profit-oriented companies lead by skilled entrepreneurs know how to do this. It is the combination of both. As far as I can tell, the results of the publicly fund scientists is published worldwide (please correct me if I am wrong) and can be accessed by anyone. It is the company's task to use these results and and/or improve them in order to provide a better and more effective product (more efficiency and lower prices).
Small companies with only a small market cannot do this. A basic and reliable market must exist which will become larger and larger by lower and lower prices.

PRESS RELEASE 07 Sep 2010
(Todd's statement: I do not work for Oerlikon.)
Oerlikon Solar Breaking Two World Records: Lowest Module Production Cost and Highest Lab Cell Efficiency

Oerlikon Solar introduces ahead of its technology roadmap the new production line “ThinFab”

Press information (http://www.oerlikon.com/solar)

Valencia (Spain), September 7, 2010 – Oerlikon Solar launched today the new production line “ThinFab” for manufacturing of thin film silicon modules, which will achieve record breaking production costs of € 0.50 (Todd's note: this is about 65 US cents) per Watt peak (Wp). Furthermore, Oerlikon Solar developed a new champion Micromorph® lab cell in cooperation with Corning Incorporated with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency confirmed by the honorable U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The two world records boost the competitiveness of Oerlikon Micromorph® thin film silicon technology and demonstrate its future potential. ”Our achievements could become a breakthrough for thin film silicon technology,” says Michael Buscher, Oerlikon Group CEO. “We are proud that our new ThinFab offers a highly competitive production line to the solar market and that we could verify further potential of our technology.”

The new ThinFab incorporates a wide range of improvements ahead of the Oerlikon Solar technology roadmap.

“Our extraordinary competencies are embedded in our new ThinFab and will change the perception of thin film silicon technology. The 10 percent efficiency of our non-toxic, environmentally friendly modules, combined with the lowest production costs ever, provides the solar industry with completely new opportunities. On top of that our new champion cell with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency demonstrates even further potential of the thin film silicon technology”, states Dr. Jurg Henz, Oerlikon Solar CEO. Furthermore “our technology offers the lowest energy payback time compared to other crystalline technologies and is not based on limited resources.”

Oerlikon Solar’s existing customers can as well benefit from many technical improvements. Oerlikon Solar will gradually introduce upgrade packages, enabling better performance, higher output, and improved efficiencies of their existing production lines.

The Oerlikon Solar ThinFab was presented to the public with the kind support of Robby Naish, who won his first windsurfing world championship in 1977 at the age of 13. Thereafter he led the world championship for 23 years in a row due to his extraordinary competencies and his innovative drive.

You will find us at the 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) in Valencia in hall 2, on level 2, booth B8.

For more detailed information about the new ThinFab visit www.oerlikon.com/solar/thinfab or contact:

Brunhilde Mauthe
Manager Public Relations Oerlikon Solar

Tel. +41 81 784 8040
Fax +41 81 784 6544
brunhilde.mauthe@oerlikon.com

Burkhard Böndel
Head of Corporate Communications
OC Oerlikon

Tel. +41 58 360 96 02
Fax. +41 58 360 91 93
burkhard.boendel@oerlikon.com

It seems like these need to be set with a way of phasing them out

Correct, FIT should be for the early adopters, and their primary use to build volume (and do some distributed vs large node displacements)
FIT need continuity, and reflex adjustments are not good for steady growth.
So, a curve at the time they are implemented is a good idea.

Gates: The irony is that if you actually look at the amount of money that's been spent on feed-in tariffs and you properly account for it--tax credits, feed-in credits in Spain, solar photovoltaic stuff in Germany--the world has spent a massive amount of money which, in terms of creating both jobs and knowledge, would have been far better spent on energy research.

Here, Bill Gates is a little confused. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor competing.

FIT allows you to build manufacturing volumes, and move that R&D to actual product.
R&D is a useless orphan without volume production.

Bill is a SW guy, someone from Intel, would not have made that mistake!
Being a SW guy, Bill thinks once R&D is done, you can ship millions overnight!!

Real manufacturing is quite different. You have complex plant, with yields, and a lot of experience and infrastructure.

allow solar and wind to be a 179 deduction.

That's not bad.

I now find myself as the Landlord of 4 apartments, and all of which have heating provided as part of the rent. It should be a complete no-brainer that we have Solar Heating on both buildings, and yet right now, we'd have to Amortize them as 30 year equipment. (IIRC)

We can't quite get over that hump just yet.. though we want to.

Another incentive I've thought about would be akin to the 'Sweat Equity' that Habitat applies to people helping build other Habitat homes to 'pay back' for the Habitat home that they will receive/buy-subsidized.

Doing a similar project with a lot of basic Solar heating installations would give people meaningful work to do, it's been a great program (Habitat, that is) for building community connections, and growing good infrastructure.

An average family uses 200 therms of gas per year for hot water heating.
Typically a solar hot water system is sized for 50% of annual use or 100 therms savings per year, $50.
A system in the Northern USA would take up about 100 sf
and cost $10000, making about 3 Mwh of heat per year.
If you save $50 per year in gas, it's a 200 year simple payback.

By contrast a PV solar array covering 100 sf would also cost $10000 but produce around 1 Mwh of electricity per year. If you connected it up with a heat pump waterheater with a COP of 3 you'd get the same 3Mwh/year heat out(but it would cost a bit more).
If you save $100/year in electricity back it's a 100 year payback.

You grab a bunch of generic stats and come up with a 100 or 200 year payback.

DSHW is regularly shown to have around a 10 year payback, if payback is what you're looking for.

What's your point? Eager to debunk stuff with a bunch of statistical guesses?

If you know about the Northeast, you'll also know that Natural Gas can come close to critical supply levels in Wintertime, when it's being used for both heating and electricity, not to mention what might happen to the prices of it. Of course, like some 80% of Maine, we use Oil for both Home and Water heating, and are very eager to get off that, but not by bringing in just another combustible to poison our air and send our cash out of town.

I'm sure your numbers are WAY off.. but I don't have the time to make the case.

Bob

Hi Johkul,

I live a lot farther south of course, but I am finishing up a perfectly satisfactory system for around a thousand bucks in materials and about sixty hours in labor.

If I had bought all the materials at retail new this summer, it would have cost about two grand for a system that promises to save us at least two hundred kilowatt hours per month, average.Anytime the weather is good , we will have the luxury of a hot soaking bath for less than a cents worth of circulator pump juice.With two hundred fifty gallons of well insulated storage, we will have ample hot water for showers and kitchen use for at least three or four days before I will need to turn on the breaker controlling the electric water heater.

If the weather is cold, and we have a fire, the auxiliary backup heater loop that passes by the wood stove will kick in with the flip of a conveniently located switch , and the colder it gets, the hotter the water will be, up until the system hits it's high limit switch.

And I am almost certain that I bought a seriously oversized primary pump-it draws about eighty watts.I can probably trade it out for a smaller one later.

Any reasonably competent handyman with a shed full of tools could easily replicate this system, or one equivalent to it.

I'm so proud of it I'm gonna have to learn how to post pictures. ;)

You'd better post some pix! I'm very eager to see it, and pleased that you've pulled it together so quick!

We've been pushing hard for a couple years and have a little one, so I haven't had the chance to go whole hog with a homebuilt, as I'd sorely love to do.. my wife is also a little anxious about our Insurance Co or the City taking exception with an improvised setup on the roofs (and I'm a good handiman.. but she's got veto in such things..) .. so for now I get the parts built down in the shop and wait for opportunities to take some steps forward.

She does believe it's important, but needs me out on the town, getting jobs.. I did build my own cellulose blower, and have been gradually getting the old Plaster Walls in these two buildings stuffed up better.. doing some foam fills around the Rim Joist at the Top of the cellar, etc..

Good for you, Mac!
Bob

(There's my Solar Hot AIR collector, on the other house. It's got to come down for now, and the old Chimney Holes properly patched over.. http://s831.photobucket.com/albums/zz240/Ingto83/?action=view&current=IM... .. it blew a good stream of hot air throughout Dec>Mar.. now I just need a dozen more! PV runs the fan and the control circuit)

hope you don't mind my posting this--I was curious and a bit baffled by the glass tower and thought it would make more sense to all if we could see it while you gave us a bit of a play by play. If you'd rather not have the pic posted here let me know and I will edit it right out.

That's all right. Thanks, Luke.

The 'Turret' is a temporary access-point to the roof which also covers the chimney-shaft. I left some windows in it for other Solar Experimentation, and you can see that up behind the PV panels on that south-turret Roof is glazing on the North-side of the roof. That is in anticipation of a tracked Mirror for sending a constant beam of sunlight down the chimney-shaft to work as daylighting through the three floors and basement.

The Collector Box is Glazed with Black Felt inside, and draws indoor air through that felt to collect the heat and return it to the house. Over the last two winters, when it was teens or single digits outside, I'd get 3-4 hours with it bring 70 degree air up to 110-115 at the output, and this is with all the losses of those somewhat insulated ducts on the roof.

The silvered 'Barndoors' work to help bounce a bit more sun in when they're open, and close down easily to shade the box and prevent overheating when the system isn't being used.

I'm happy to answer other questions about this setup.. sadly, I haven't got a useful CFM or delta Temp measurement to calc the real KWH take on this rig.

Bob

Thanks for the rundown jo,

Mirrors are probably one of the more under utilized energy saving old technology out there. Decades back I had to lay out a hallway system which eventually was walled with mirrors that reflected a resort condo complex attic's (it was being converted to the owner's family quarters) fine view of Green Bay to offset rooms at the other end of the building around a hundred feet away. That was a bit of fun and gave me oh such much sway with the subcontractors as my plumb bob and axes directed all.

I'm guessing the difficulty of properly cleaning mirrors is one reason we don't see more of them in public buildings theses days--but that difficulty may be disappearing as materials change and mirrors may well come back in style in a big way. If I recall correctly some mountain valley town in Italy has a huge outdoor mirror that redirects the light to an entire main street...or at least there were plans for such.

[Some time back I signed a few of my posts identically to the way you just signed yours but decided Luke is just a cooler name... hard to get much cooler than jokuhl ?- )]

Doing such shifts the 'getting' of the panels by the consumer (shift in mindset)
Having your own power supply allows you to be resilient.
This forces the grid move towards a grid with many independent producers.
The spending in the now keeps providing in the future.

Lottsa win, all it takes is the wave of a pen to allow it to match the REST of tax law. :-)

The Saltire Prize Challenge

The Saltire Prize, Scotland's £10 million challenge to accelerate the commercial development of marine energy, is now open for applications.

Scotland is particularly well-placed to do this given its history of technological innovation and its vast reserves of renewables potential. Scotland boasts 25 per cent of Europe's tidal power and 10 per cent of Europe's wave power.

The Challenge

£10 million will be awarded to the team that can demonstrate in Scottish waters, a commercially viable wave or tidal stream energy technology that achieves the greatest volume of electrical output over the set minimum hurdle of 100GWh over a continuous 2 year period using only the power of the sea.

Is it just me, but prizes feel more like publicity stunts rather than real progress. I think they have their place, the public certainly likes the drama, and perhaps that will bring some into the fold who would otherwise not have come. I think prizes are best left to private foundations.

You need research managed by different methodolgies. We have the ponderous but rigorous grant system, and we have entrepreneurs working in secret to generate and own results to breakthroughs. We also need some grants to smart and dedcated researchers which come with few strings "we know you are good at your job and it is worthwhile investing in your time". This later type of funding probably has to be from private corps, one example is Googles support for energy startups. I would hope we would have some general research grants that are pretty open ended, but that have the stipulation that any breakthroughs are public open source technology, that way a researcher can do what he likes -say twiddle with the efficiency of a particular kind of PV, then all the manufacturers can simply take up the advance and run with it, without having to worry about expensive and time consuming negotiations for the right to use his stuff.

We want to avoid creating predatory intellectual property firms: teams of lawyers who seek to buy up or create fairly obvious patents so that they can extract rent from anyone/everyone trying to manufacture a product. We have a lot of nuisance patents in software, often for things that any competant programmer could invent before breakfast. And a lot of effort is spent on defensive patents -things that are only meant to avoid a predator from patenting the same simple but essential idea. For years the computer industry worked by a gentleman's agreement, company X would overlook Y's patent violations, and in return Y would overlook X's. We would like to avoid as much of this sort opf wasteful overhead as possible.

We have a lot of nuisance patents in software, often for things that any competant programmer could invent before breakfast.

If patents are being issued for obvious inventions then there is a problem in the examination system, because there is a standard for obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art.

From the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2143:

With regard to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner must provide evidence
which as a whole shows that the legal determination sought to be proved (i.e., the reference teachings establish a prima facie case of obviousness)is more probable than not.

"EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to
known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for
another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar
devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known
device (method, or product) ready for improvement to
yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may
prompt variations of it for use in either the same field
or a different one based on design incentives or other
market forces if the variations are predictable to one
of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."

Bill:
The USPO, U.S. Patent Office, has been profoundly brain-dead for the past twenty years.
I made my way in this world by crawling on my mind: My inventing actually fed me, and all of my dogs.
Like any other government office EXCEPT Social Security, they are there to simply not answer the phone.
(As a corollary, then, It does not matter who you elect: The actual action remains the same.)
John

I have never had the honor of dealing with the Patent Office. I am sorry to hear it is in sad shape.

Let me ask you. If another guy patents a software routine he made up in a short time, and he gets by the USPTO and actually gets a patent, how does he know that anybody was infringing on him? How would he know what was inside your computer program? Also, if it was so easy to make the "obvious" invention why would it not also be easy to get around it? Or is it that what makes it a "nuisance"?

If another guy patents a software routine ... how does he know that anybody was infringing on him? How would he know what was inside your computer program?

This is the pragmatic question that few in the anti-patent movement "get it" about.
More to the point, how does the patent holder reverse compile your object code?

Truth is that generally they cannot.

Now this business about what any competent programmer "could have" done before breakfast, two things:

1. Number 1: he didn't
2. Number 2: Most inventions "could have" been done the day before and by another person. But the other person did not have the insight that he "should" do what the inventor did. "Could have" and "should' are two entirely different things. How many times do you see a clever simple invention and you kick yourself with disbelief that you didn't think of it first? But you didn't do it first and you didn't kick yourself --that is, not if you didn't have the handy dandy kick-it-to-yourself invention pictured to the right. ;-)

Thanks for the reply. I am trying to understand why you call them nuisance patents. The original complaint seemed to be that a guy would scratch down some uninsightful code before breakfast, patent it, and now you have a nuisance. Since no one can tell what your machine code translates back to, and since the patent is unenforceable, (unless the subpoena your program with comments in it) how is it a nuisance?

If the guy had an insight, that would certainly be non obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. But you seemed to imply that routine code could be patented (a bad thing) and then cause you a problem. Just curious.

I have been involved in credit and grant-funded, private sector research in Canada for a while. The best program IMO is the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SRED) tax credit. Application is made after the work is done, and submitted with the company's tax return. If the project meets the relatively loose guidelines, a refund of up to 30% of the project costs are applied against the bottom line tax bill. The reporting requirements are not overwhelming, and there is no large bureaucracy apart from the already large Revenue Canada.

SRED has the advantage that a company can conduct the research that it decides will most benefit its operations, and requires no government 'initiative'. It doesn't necessarily reward success, but because it is not a 100% refund the company puts some of its own after-tax profit at risk and so usually has an idea that the research will pay off.

In the 1980's there was a transferable tax credit. This allowed other companies and individuals to sell tax credits to a research company in exchange for shares. The program was stopped when governments decided they needed the tax revenue themselves. The transferable credit could easily be reinstated, and research fund raising could literally be done by going door-to-door at tax time.

I think this kind of grass-roots research funding has the best chance of success, and government has no business picking winning technologies. If tax revenues fall again, governments can print money to pay for basic program spending.

When all will be accounted, the excessively expensive renewable investments allowed by feed-in tariffs will reveal themselves as costly for European countries (especially Germany) than the subprime business. This is misallocation of resources on a large scale : When the yearly additional cost is in the ballpark of 10 billion euros per year, we are talking 100 billion euros order of magnitude present value here.

Between the HFC23 scams and the monetization of feed-in tariffs (sorry, I should have said "Renewable Projects Structured Finance"...), so called "Green" Bankers have been doing more harm than good by far. Seeing them explaining that they understand more than Bill Gates how to benefit from technological research, and labeling hard working scientists, mostly employed in precarious positions, as "welfare queen in white coats" shows that there is no limit to chutzpah !

"expensive renewable investments allowed by feed-in tariffs will reveal themselves as costly for European countries (especially Germany) than the subprime business. "

You really have to show both sides of this over time to make your point, Free.

Maybe the financial instruments used were screwed up or cooked, but the installations are still out there generating a regular supply of energy.

Does anyone have any of the Actuals on their costs and returns?

the world has spent a massive amount of money which, in terms of creating both jobs and knowledge, would have been far better spent on energy research.

Well the proof is in the pudding:
The fact that the PV is meanwhile capable to produce below $1/W is thanks to the feed-in tariffs and not thanks to energy research (PV research is probably 50 years old but prices haven't changed for over 40 years until feed-in tariffs were introduced).
The same is true for wind energy: The wind power industries which lead the world market originate from countries which first introduced feed-in tariffs.

The government pays for success - if your plant is no good it is bad for you, but not for the taxpayer.

Actually, the rate-payers (not the taxpayers) pay for the relatively small feed-in tariffs (EEG in Germany) and if they want to reduce their electricity bill, they can simply use their electricity more wisely or buy a connector strip or effcient light bulbs or efficient appliances etc.

http://polderpv.nl/EEG_impact_BRD.htm

In Germany the expectation is that the feed in component will be maximum 0.035 kWh and after that it will go down again. Costs about EUR 10 per month for each household.

And this for the most successful energy transition in the world!

Foundational are the differences between basic research, applied research, design, demonstration, and commercialization.

Bringing the price down requires RD&D to get the technology breakthrough, and then commercialization to bring sufficient volume, with "priming the pump" as needed, to bring the price down.

I always appreciate the erudite and well-considered responses to TOD discussions and, like many others, I hesitate to enter the conversation with my own, un-schooled, thoughts. That said...

Speaking as an American, seemingly surrounded by fellow citizens who prefer to believe that scientists are Godless, shady characters, or "welfare queens" or worse, I don't think marketplace ideas for R&D or, heaven forbid, tariffs and taxes are the place to start.

It seems that all we understand here anymore is war (and many would argue that we don't understand that), and Mandatory Renewable Energy as a strategy in the War For Energy Independence would make more sense (if you can call it that) as a way to garner support and get results here in the land of gas guzzlers and teapartiers.

Once you have convinced the electorate that their patriotic duty is to fight back against the "evildoers" by burning less fossil fuel and that they can support our troops by supporting energy research, it should be possible to dress this "war" in the clothing of the "Space Race" with something like NASA on the frontlines. At that point, you can fund grants, add tariffs as you wish, and tout it all on the Nightly News as battles fought and won. Gosh, maybe even Glenn Beck and God would join in?

Justpassingthrough

A freedom-tax on energy would also be an option. (And at the same time a reduction of middle class income taxes).

The prize approach is unlikely to work, since meaningful industrial scale advances in energy are very likely to take sums of money far in excess of what could be offered as a prize.

University research grants should be limited to basic research on principles and fundamentals.

Large-scale industrial breakthroughs require industrial labs (e.g. Lockheed Skunk Works for design of advanced aircraft) or government labs (e.g. Los Alamos and Sandia for design of nuclear weapons).

How were the industries related to integrated circuits, magnetic discs, liquid crystal displays, television, deep sea drilling, oil and gas pipelines, etc. developed?

It's been my observation that almost all basic and applied research breakthroughs (both in government and private industry) have been achieved with funds allocated for other purposes, without the knowledge or approval of management (the "PHBs").

Offering large prizes would no doubt stimulate real research by making available additional funding to be diverted.

I would have tended to agree with the position that prizes are not likely to get world class results until the college team from Stanford (IIRC) built a car capable of driving itself with few resources except enthusiasm and brain power.

Speaking as a mechanic, I feel quite safe in saying that the early aviation prizes were won mostly by simple if extensive modifications to the planes-the sort of modifications that are successfully and routinely made to cars by hobbyists.

I will offer this thought:prizes need to be awarded in bite size chunks so that smaller organizations and even individuals can have a worthwhile shot at competing.

For instance in the pv power bracket, there should be a prize for the best racking system based on standardization of components, materials, and labor procedures involved in manufacturing , delicvering and installing the racks;another for the best new design for plugs of the type needed to attach wiring;another for the most efficient and durable inverter design;and so forth.

And somehow I think that in a world moving as fast as the one we live in, the patent period meeds to be shortened considerably-say to perhaps ten years.

I don't know how much this would affect corporately funded research, but my gut feeling is that it would be a huge plus for society overall

Perhaps a mandatory liscense structure and fee system could be applied if the time frame remains the same, with the fee based on a percent of gross revenues or sales of the liscensed product..

I’m not a student of such things, but ‘challenges’ do not have a remarkable success rate. I’m sure there have been successful programs; the three that I’m aware of are the Manhattan Project which resulted in the nuclear bomb; the British clock challenge that resulted in Harrison’s H4 and H5 clocks and NASA’s space program.

All three targeted specific goals: harnessing nuclear energy, keeping accurate time and space travel. I don’t see where ‘renewable’ energy provides such a specific target. In fact I think ‘renewable energy’ is more of a political statement than a scientific endeavor. If I’m correct, then the ‘renewable energy’ challenge would most likely result in political rather than scientific outcomes.

What we actually seek is dependable, long term sources of clean, inexpensive energy. Renewable energy has been a successful attempt at misdirection which has narrowed our focus to three implausible technologies: land based wind, solar and biomass. All of these technologies combined have the capability of providing only a very small fraction of our current energy requirements and show no promise of long term growth at affordable prices and with an acceptable impact upon land usage. Indeed, rather than solve our energy requirements, our current direction attempts to persuade us to revert to subsistence levels of existence.

Much more promising is to promote the development of sustainable nuclear energy. An initial focus upon the construction of nuclear power plants to replace coal fired baseline plants and natural gas fired peak energy plants. This would satisfy our current energy requirements at a reasonable cost and provide for future energy needs.

Simultaneously, a program to develop methods to further reduce and reuse nuclear waste offers us a much brighter future, sooner and with much less impact upon our livelihoods and our environment.

I agree completely.

Perhaps we need a national contest of some kind to reward innovation in nuclear power. Parameters could be defined in terms of cost, safety and sustainability objectives. The prize could be to reward the winner with a multi-billion contract to provide X units to U.S. Gov't installations (military bases and the like). Government support should also include a commitment to re-vamp the NRC regulatory structures along with public underwriting of the type-certification process. I believe the regulatory factors to be the biggest impediment to private capital getting involved: why put your millions / billions on the line if the government can destroy it with a stroke of the pen based on politics or at the behest of some lawyers driven by a collection of protest groups? That would have to change for anything revolutionary to happen in nuclear tech.

Just think of the potential for energy substitution if intrinsically safe, plug-n-play truck-transportable modules (few 10s MWth) could be popped off assembly lines and operated for a decade or two, 24x7, on one initial fuel charge the size of a toaster-oven. Exhausted modules would be shipped back and refurbished with spent fuel swapped-out and recycled. It is this type of approach, blending safety, flexibility, and cost optimization through standardization and mass production that will allow us to actually shut down the use of fossil fuels without going into a massively disruptive societal power-down.

Continuous on-demand electrical power, process heat and commercial / industrial / residential district heating WILL BE ESSENTIAL for any large-scale substitution to occur. I think the modular nuclear approach has the best chance of success with the smallest possible environmental footprint and smallest life-cycle cost.

I disagree.

The DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous vehicle was a disaster the first year. The second year was much better because I think all the players were super-motivated, both from an ego standpoint and from the competitive streak.

It was so bad that after the first year, everyone thought it may be impossible, but after the second year, everyone realized that it was quite doable.

2004 Grand Challenge --
The first competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge was held on March 13, 2004 in the Mojave Desert region of the United States, along a 150-mile (240 km) route that follows along the path of Interstate 15 from just before Barstow, California to just past the California-Nevada border in Primm. None of the robot vehicles finished the route. Carnegie Mellon University's Red Team traveled the farthest distance, completing 11.78 km (7.36 miles) of the course. The red team won that year.

2005 Grand Challenge --
The second competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge began at 6:40am on October 8, 2005. All but one of the 23 finalists in the 2005 race surpassed the 11.78 km (7.36 mile) distance completed by the best vehicle in the 2004 race. Five vehicles successfully completed the race:

I agree that we need to pursue nuclear power. Regulated/Controlled through NRC and the Price Anderson Amendment Act. For central planners, this seems like an obvious solution to green energy with manageable waste as a get around to a non-marketable industry.

I don't believe in grants for studies about anything that can be market driven such as alternative fuels for transportation. If the government could put down the politics, they could replace the income tax with a tax on electricity,gasoline and diesel oh and cut spending first. People would demand electric hybrids. End of story. No need for magic pills, special grants, prizes or government paid research.

"clean, inexpensive energy"

You guys never really change, do ya. How far back was it that we heard the promise that nuclear energy would be "too cheap to meter" and absolutely and perfectly safe.

I'd like to think that "we won't be fooled again," but I'm not optimistic.

Well, history is clear that humans in general have a hard time learning from past errors. The "failures" (ok, maybe that should be phrased as "non-success stories they claim to be") of certain energy sectors like nuclear are well documented (even though much is kept behind closed doors), so current decisions could be made intelligently and with the knowledge of history... But, unfortunately, intelligence and learned lessons from history are out the door as soon as vested interests and short-term politics come into play.

absolutely and perfectly safe.

I do hope you don't commute if that's your standard.

Safety is relative, and well designed nuclear plants are pretty darned safe.

Now, if someone proposed building a carbon-moderated, metallic-sodium-cooled, land-based reactor with what we know today I would call them insane. As far as I know, nobody has seriously suggested such a design since long before Chernobyl burned (even in Russia).

I'd rank power generation safety as follows (in terms of risks I know including fuel production):
PV Solar/Direct thermal solar
Run-of-stream Hydroelectric
Wind
[gap to HP steam and fast moving parts, safe fuel or small quantities of hazardous fuel]
Solar Thermal Electric
GeoThermal (Icelandic style)
Natural Gas
Nuclear (PWR)
Big-Dam Hydroelectric
[gap to large quantities of hazardous fuel, major safety issue]
Oil
[gap to large quantities of hazardous waste in addition to all the above risks]
Coal

I'd swap NatGas and Nuclear if I were weighing environmental impacts higher than short term safety concerns, and there are Nuclear designs that might be safer in operation than any steam turbine based system, but I don't know enough about those to rate them.

"Safety is relative, and well designed nuclear plants are pretty darned safe."

Based on what? They're own record keeping? You were probably one of those that trusted that BP got the spill rate right at 1000 barrels per day, too.

This is one of the most secretive industries of all time. Do you really think they fully investigate and disclose all long and short term ill effects of every leak, spill accident...?

Until last night, the leaky natural gas pipe in San Bruno, California was also "pretty darn safe"

I suppose the fine citizens of San Francisco feel safer that they don't have a nuclear plant in their backyard instead of volatile chemicals.

The reason that our country is suffering is because of the lack of support for research and development. It should be noted that the Space Program was highly successful because of the amount of energy, time and money spent on research and development. Back in the old days, small companies and individuals were given grants to try new ideas out. Some were successful and some were not. For example, the technical innovations that went into the space program, today, reap large rewards and benefits for all of us. Others, like the internet were sponsored and developed internally by the government. As with all research and development ideas, some will succeed and some will not. The concept that the government will only pay for "shovel ready" projects is absurd since private business and corporations will not fund fundamental or applied research unless there is an immediate revenue source. This is the big failure of our venture capital/business knows better system. An example is a company called Genesys, LLC, www.genesys.co, which has an innovative technology, that is scaleable and ready to demonstrate its usefulness to produce inexpensive hydrogen from a variety of water sources. It is sad and amusing at the same time, that a solution to global warming and a direct replacement of fossil fuels is at hand, but it is equally difficult to convince the energy policy makers that a unconventional technology, not sanctioned by the government, can be successful.

What we should be rewarding is population reduction. This is seriously the only viable solution to our situation. Of course, none of us wants to stare that beast in the eye because we all know what it means for us, so we keep talking about renewable energy in hopes the beast will go away, or at least be lulled to sleep.

The beast is not going to go away. We are well into overshoot and the only two remedies for overshoot are population reduction or expansion beyond our finite earth. I doubt we have the time to expand beyond this planet before the other remedy is forced on us.

Renewable energy seems like a great idea, and it would be if not for the population problem, but if the population problem is not solved first then renewables are just another method we will use to rape the earth. It may be a more gentle rape than our fossil fuels addiction, but rape nonetheless. We will strip-mine for rare metals, deface the lands and affect wind patterns with massive wind farms, destroy desert ecosystems with solar farms, dam up vital rivers and flood canyons and valleys for hydro and pumped storage, etc. We probably do not even understand all the harm we could cause with these "solutions"; solutions inevitably create more problems.

You may not agree, which means that you have your blinders on. Please take them off, and don't let any conversation about "sustainability" occur without staring the population beast in the eye. Don't stop talking about renewables, but also don't adopt tunnel vision that excludes the real problems. If we adopt renewables at the scale required to support our population then we are just prolonging the time to the crash and making it that much worse as a result.

Still don't agree? All it takes is some basic math and logic. This man can help you:

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_vid...

DD

Ugo, thanks for your post. I am in fact benefiting from the fed-in tariffs for solar PV systems in Spain since year 2006.

I perhaps agree that if Bill Gates believes that fed-in tariffs are not good, like they have been proposed and implemented in Germany (today with almost 10,000 MW installed power) and Spain (today almost 4,000 MW and second country in the world in installed power with 3 percent of the electricity consumed from this origin) and that is better to prize ingenuity, he has plenty of opportunities to promote prizes for innovations and original, breakthrough ideas.

But life is not so simple. Spain has experienced, first the steepest ramp up in installations in 2008 (over 2,500 MW installed in one single year), to be almost frozen in 2009 (between 32 and 80 new MW of installed power).
The reason? It is not simple. There are many.

First is that the government planned initially 400 MW of solar PV program from 2004 to 2010 and by mid 2007, this amount had been reached and the government did not know how to stop all investors that had already applied for credits and had started installations (over 1,000 MW), before the 400 MW deadline was completed and because the Royal Decrees released did not make clear the stop procedure.

So, they decided to “extend” the program, first by keeping the tariffs up to a given date (September 2008) for those installations that by this date had already been obtained the connection into the grid and were delivering energy, but WITHOUT CLARIFYING, again, what would be for the promoters after September 2008.

That made all the investors to participate in a crazy run to reach on time before the deadline: then module, inverters or trackers prices skyrocketed and were not available in the market. Powerful financial investors had already realized that the fed-in tariffs, granting the tariff at 5.75 times higher than the prevailing electric public tariff for the next 25 years, were, in fact, like a royalty or almost a life dukedom. Theoretical Return on Investments (RoI) were in the range of 20 percent and Return on Capital Equity (RoCE) were even much better, as banks provided credits with over 80 percent of leverage. At the end, they were sure that investments under these conditions were going to be recovered BY LAW in five to 10 years, with a net profit for the next 15 years and more. And greed, financial greed, much more than interest in technologic development, were powering the new installations.
And it happened that the government started to fade when it realized that the “green” experiment by 2008 was costing them in premium tariffs some 7 percent of the electricity national bill, but with just one percent of solar PV energy in the electric mix.

In the middle of these reflections, the fossil fueled government, serving a fossil fueled society, just collapsed in mid 2008, pushed by the financial crisis that masked the problem of peak oil and the huge spikes of oil prices of these days. Be for the financial crisis or by the peak oil and its repercussions in the fossil fueled world, the government found itself committed to pay 2.5 billion euros/year in premium tariffs in a long, very long term commitment, that besides, it was growing like mad every passing year.
So, they decided that new installations will have 30 to 40 percent lower tariffs and limited also the new installed power to 500 MW more per year and some 125 MW per quarter. And they were linked for update, not to a percentage of the public electricity tariffs (575 percent until then) , but rather to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which was expected to grow, much slower than the electric tariffs, as it effectively happened in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

It implemented complex regulations to previous enlisting, that had, besides, to be supported with bonds. And Spain died of success: from 2,500 MW in 2008 to 38 MW in 2009. Credits were closed (banks did not give a single Euro to anybody). And many manufacturers, with the brand new high capacity production lines were found themselves creating dust on them and having to support payrolls with the fold worker’s arms.

Another factor was that electricity consumption also decreased with the financial crisis, changing all the previous forecasts of the last decade, when Spain grew much more than the average of the European Union and the growing demand of electricity justified the government expectations to cover part of it with renewable.

Another more factor was that the regulations promoting and establishing fed-in tariffs, did not take into account the extra costs of properly networking the electric grid, to sustain this BOTTOM UP new supplies, once they became something serious in penetration percentage and were not only Micky Mouse Greenish games. This specially to the stochastic wind energy, covering already 13 percent of the annual electricity demand, with peaks over 50 percent of the punctual demand.

Another more factor was that the gas fired combined cycle power plants had been installed in recent years (from 2002 to 2010, they grew from zero to cover the 31.4 percent. It is easy to blame gas fired combined cycle power plants owners, in retrospective, and conclude that they should bear the consequences of having developed so much a fossil fuel source of power. But the fact is that they made that decision, in one of the most coal powered countries in Europe, immediately after the government had committed to reduce CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and replacing coal with gas in highly efficient combined cycle plants was an excellent and fast way to avoid penalties for Kyoto. Besides, we had a good access to Algeria with a gas pipe crossing Gibraltar Strait and another one under construction and were the first European country in regasification ports (six or seven) and in LNG vessels.

The government did not matched the parallel growth of the subsidized renewable and the growth of the gas fired combined cycle plants. And it happened that the boom in renewable constructions directly affected to the gas fired plants, that had been designed just a couple of years before, to work about 5,000 hours a year. With wind growing so fast and solar PV as well, they reached to a point were the gas fired plants were working 2,500 hours a year, thus taking to this generating sector to almost bankruptcy.

The paradox is that gas plants could neither be closed, because they were the punching box of the renewable in calmed days for wind or cloudy days for solar. They are the ones helping to stabilize the stochastic generations of wind and solar (Nuclear and coal are not good in this and hydroelectric is not always available on demand). And besides, nobody recognized (and even less was willing to pay for) that key mission.

So, dear Ugo, I hope that your country, Italy, that is now between 1,200 and 1,500 MW of installed power and growing at a pace of about 500 MW, following a similar scheme than those of Germany and Spain, will learn from the above that solar PV plants are today subsidized by the surplus money (that is surplus energy or net energy in excess, at the end) of a fossil fueled society. And that if this society collapses or degrades in the prosperous way down, it is going to be very difficult to fix the thing.

And I am very sorry if I contradict a little bit to Gail: Germany is in fact number one with almost 10 GW of solar PV installed power and has set up fed-in tariffs better than Spain, but this is a non extrapolating luxury that can only be afforded by a country with a lot of financial surplus (which is, at the end, an energy, fossil fuel mainly, surplus). If we want common sense, these installations in a country with 30 percent less irradiance than Spain may give a horrible EROEI figures. But who cares here about EROEI? The game in Spain –and in Germany- with respect to wind and solar PV energies is basically financial, not energetic. And it is also a game of green fashion in some or many cases. Perhaps, I may admit that is a game to subsidize national industries to develop faster and sell technology to third countries later in a Business as Usual mode.

Spain provides public, accurate annual statistics of how much generates every year and every few months. This is precisely made through the monthly invocies of all solar PV electricity providers invoices to the operator, that have to be in line with what really was generated and registered in the digital meters by quarters of an hour, throughout long periods and kept in the internal memory for inspection and supervision. How is in Germany doing in this respect?

By the way, this is another problem: the public entity responsible for the national network stability, Red Eléctrica Española, says it has no control of solar PV generation and it is the only generation system without remote control and management(wind can be now also controlled; control meaning the ability to remotely manage and impose production or switch off decisions in less than four seconds, if the network so demands it, to be kept stable. While the solar PV penetration was negligible, this was not important. Now, with a 3 percent of the electric demand form solar PV origin, it is starting to be a problem to care for the network manager. And has no immediate solution, as it will require a very complex communication network in each of the about 60,000 individual installations with sealed on/off remote capabilities at the disposal of Red Eléctrica Española.

Thanks for your detailed explanation of how things went wrong in Spain's push to go renewable: not so simple, not so technical, but highly financial. I wish the way things developed in Spain would become common knowledge.

(Germany is in fact number one with almost 10 GW of solar PV installed power and has set up fed-in tariffs better than Spain, but this is a non extrapolating luxury that can only be afforded by a country with a lot of financial surplus)

Actually Germany has over 13 GW and has managed fine and again feed-in tariffs are paid for by the rate-payers and not the taxpayers:
http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany...

And the PV-industry in Germany pays more taxes than what they indirectly receive in feed-in tariffs (which are again paid by rate-payers who always have the option to use their electricity more wisely if they want to reduce their electricity bill).
http://lohnsteuer-kompakt.de/redaktion/steuereinnahmen-der-solarindustri...

Given the experience in Spain I find it incomprehensible that we should find ourselves heading in the same direction here in Ontario, Canada this year. Under our Green Energy legislation, the government was offering a 20 year FIT of 80.2 cents per KWH for Solar PV installations of 10KW or smaller in size. That's a FIT almost 20 times the current market rate for power. No limits were placed on how many applications would be accepted. The expectation was that these would be rooftop installations but earlier this year the government discovered that the majority of applications were for ground mounted installations that would be more efficient and give the applicant a much higher return on investment than had been expected. The government announced a lower FIT for applications for ground mounted installations that had not yet been processed. After intense lobbying by special interest groups, the government backed down and agreed to provide the original 80.2 cent FIT to all applicants. By then the number of applications had grown to over 19,000. New applications for ground based installations will now receive a lower FIT but rooftop installations still get the 80.2 cent rate. There are still no limits on how many applications will be accepted.

I find Ugo's post quite appropriate.
The feed-in tariffs are the only practicable way to support renewable energy and nowadays are the "standard" at least for small and medium-size power plants in the most advanced countries in this specific field such as Germany, Spain, Italy, as well as Greece and others that, even if a bit in delay, are very well provided with potential renewable resources (sun, wind).
Italy may represent a study-case with some interest.
The funds to cover the feed-in tariffs are drawn from every electric bill - about 7% - which amounts to about 3 billion Euros per year. Only about 30% of such money are spent as feed-in tariffs every year due to the "diversion" of the remaining part to (basically non-legal) support to the so-called "assimilate" power sources - waste tar from refineries, non-biomass urban and industrial wastes etc - which has been censored by the European Union and are now being phased-out.
The plans for Italy foresee about 29% electric consumption covered by renewable sources in 2020 and it is predicted that about 3,000 MW of PV power should be working at some time during 2012, covering about 1,5% of total electric consumption, while in some areas such percentage shall be much higher (around 700 MW of installed PV power - 5% of regional electric consumption in Tuscany, my Region).
About the grid stability, it's worth noting that the European Union strongly support an effective restructuring of the grid towards the "smart grid" and the latest PV feed-in tariff bill, just published and entering into force starting January 1st, 2011, offers a 20% additional "prize" to the same feed-in tariffs to PV power plants provided with a "predictable" exchange profile with regards to the grid, i.e. if you communicate to the public entity managing the grid how much energy your plant shall put into the grid every hour the day ahead with a 10% maximum error, you'll get increased tariffs by 20%, which is precisely what Ugo meant about the effect of such support scheme with regards to the successful innovation!
Of course, this should go along with a massive governmental investment on the grid restructuring, yet this is another tale (partially going on, at least).

Francesco

First is that the government planned initially 400 MW of solar PV program from 2004 to 2010 and by mid 2007, this amount had been reached and the government did not know how to stop all investors that had already applied for credits and had started installations (over 1,000 MW), before the 400 MW deadline was completed and because the Royal Decrees released did not make clear the stop procedure.

That's just a good example, of bad policy design.

Sadly common in politics, is a blind inability to think things though; to imagine how the response to policy, might differ, and to forget an off switch....

That mistake should not taint all FIT plans : Since you reward early adopters, you implement a FIT curve, and adjust it as needed, but not in large steps.

Do we have feed in tariffs for weapon systems. No, we are perfectly capable of spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on questionable systems and other questionable defense expenditures, thank you. All for things that will be destroyed as part of their use.

What is the goal? To cause the proliferation of solar PV to the maximum extent feasible. Do it. Recognize that it is in the national interest to transition to renewable energy. Turn the whole enterprise over to the federal acquisition structure; establish the required performance specifications; contract to the lowest responsible bidders who can meet those requirements and then provide solar PV and other renewables directly to the people at whatever discount is required to implement the goal. Set the goal at a certain percentage of households for each year and then take the necessary steps to see that this goal is reached.

Will there be waste? Of course. Will it be as wasteful and as pointless as our expenditures on defense? Not a chance.

What we want in energy systems is efficiency.

Feed in tariffs encourage efficiency by allowing more profit if you can beat the tariff.

As long as the tariff is revisited at well defined intervals (and likely reduced at each interval), I think it is a great idea.

Thank you, Pedro. Very interesting story; governments are usually unable to manage anything well. PV is no exception, and the Spain story has to teach us something. Italy, I must say, may be doing better. The subsidy is small enough that we seem to be avoiding the mad rush at PV building that was seen in Spain. And the government seems also to have been able to continue the program maintaining a certain degree of balance. The law on the next round of feed-in tariffs has been recently approved; there will be a strong cut in the subsidy, that should be able to keep in check the growth of PV, but not kill it. Personally, I think the time of subsidies for PV plants should be phased out in a few years; they have done their job in builiding a strong PV industry that can deliver efficient products. As I said in another post, some PV cells have now reached an EROEI of 40, which is enough for what we need and now our challenge is to integrate PV power in the grid. That will need government intervention and it is there that we need subsidies. As a commenter said, we need both the carrot and the stick: subsidies for renewable energy and taxes for carbon emissions. We have a narrow chance to be able to move to renewables before it is too late.

"governments are usually unable to manage anything well"

Well, this is of course the conservative meme. And of course everybody can point to a failed government project or flawed government agency.

But the US and UK governments did a fairly good job of winning WWII largely with command and control economies and rationing.

Most European government health care is far superior to the chaos of the US (non-) 'system.'

Gov builds and (usually) maintains roads, bridges, canals, locks, damns...that we all use or depend on every day.

Some of the most dramatic failures, such as Katrina and the Minneapolis highway bridge collapse, happened under administrations (Pres. Bush II, and MN Republican Gov. Tim Paulenty) whose central motto was that government couldn't do anything right--a self-fulfilling philosophy in these cases: Paulenty had turned the running of the highway department, always before run by an engineer, over to a political hack with no knowledge of engineering--only an ideology that government shouldn't spend any money on nearly anything, even fixing a bridge that everyone in the department needed a major overhaul. And of course George "no one could ever have anticipated that the levees would break" Bush sent a horse show judge, Mike "heck of a job" Brown, to oversee the rescue of the drowned city of New Orleans...

I can't tell you how many times conservatives have held that these up as examples for how government doesn't work. Do they even listen to themselves or think about the contradictions here for half a second?

Do government programs always work? No.
Do private companies programs always work? Definitely no.

The main problem with the federal government now is that it is controlled by incompetent private criminal corporations, particularly the big banksters.

To rephrase some Reaganisms:
Why can't corporations just get out of the way and let government do its work?
Corporations aren't the solution--they are the problem.

Ugo, few last comments before the article is closed.

First, for a person who believes that peak oil is imminent, if not passed, that peak gas is coming within 2010 and 2020 and peak coal about 2025, the European programs aiming at getting some 20 percent of the demanded electricity from renewable sources for 2020 is something like a joke.

It is not a game to substitute a small percentage of the electricity in a decade in a bunch of advanced countries, with apparently a surplus of economy (hence a surplus of energy) to devote to these games. It is a much more serious question on how to find a solution for the whole 7 billion world facing a steep decline of a available primary energy, amounting many orders of magnitude the present renewable programs of a bunch of privileged countries, with financial and energy surpluses to spend in this (I admit that always better than spending this energy and financial resources in wars or military).

We will have to face, from NOW onwards and not later and not for an uncertain future, the challenge on how to replace dwindling fossil fuels, depleting at a rate of 6.7 to 9 percent per year for oil. Gas is usually depleting even faster, even if the foreseen peak is a decade later. If we put all the fossil fuel energy that is going to be lost every passing year and we observe the plans for renewables, we cannot conclude that countries, like Italy, that are installing at a rate of 500 MW per year (more or less than Spain after the solar PV crunch), are doing better than Spain. Even the highest rate at which Spain was installing in 2008 (about 2,579 MW) or Germany is doing in the last years, is ABSOLUTELY insufficient to fill the “growing gap”

Needless to say that we are building solar PV plants with a fossil fueled society and that there are no forecasts to get rid of this fossil fuel energy inputs in a foreseeable future. This means that we have to manage to build more and more renewables (in this case, solar PV) with less and less available fossil energy that solar PV installations demand today.

And with respect to the EROEIS of 40 in solar PV plants, be them of thin film systems or HCPV systems, let me continue seriously doubting the figure very much, as well as the procedures commonly used to calculate these EROEIs and the EPBT’s.

My analysis are that EROEI is lower than 5 in all the several approaches in a very sunny country like Spain and for the global installed power throughout 2009. That is, in real life, rather than in labs. I can not imagine (in fact I can) the EROEI in Germany, with an averaged 30 percent less irradiance than Spain; the resulting figure is even below the value assigned by Charles A. S. Hall in his “Balloon Diagram” (about 5).

So, in this subject, the swords are still up and drawn.

And that of EROEI and/or EPBT in real life it is an important question to analyze in detail. It is too important to leave the EROEI calculations only to a bunch of uncontested experts (Knapp, Alsema, Fthenakis, Raugei, etc.), because if EROEI is well below 5 (what Hall considers the minimum EROEI to keep a civilization up and running), I am afraid it is not worth it to spend any fossil fuel energy in that type of renewable energy, to try to preserve our present standard of living. We should, in that case, spend the remaining fossil fuel energy in saving as much energy as possible (paradox) and transforming our society to a non consumerist one. Less movement, less actions (more thinking and reflection (almost energy-free, even brain spends 20 percent of the metabolic energy of the body), power down, decroissance, decrecimiento.

Bests.

No doubt those most concerned with AGW will take great heart from your proclamation

and peak coal about 2025

But that peak has been declared more than once in the past.

Lets just look at a couple coal resource bar graphs for a second

Now granted the 3600 BILLION metric tons in the western arctic is currently classified as 'hypothetical' but no one doubts that it is there. It just hasn't been worth the effort to go out and actually map, drill and properly define just yet.

No doubt that coal will never have the ERoEI of the coal being now ripped out of the hilltops of Kentucky and West Virginia but that by no means guarantees that it will not someday (god forbid) be extracted at a far, far faster rate.

Deep water, North Sea and North Slope oil all have much lower ERoEI than those first barrels that sloshed up those Pennsylvania wells but oil production did/will not have peaked until we tapped those much harder to reach lower ERoEI sources.

Declaring peak coal about 2025 is either 'wishful thinking' (from an AGW point of view) or just plain talking through your hat.

It is the Energy Watch Group forecast about coal, rather than my hat talking through. What probably is wishful thinking is the hype of hypotetical resources "that are there" mentioned here as almost infinite.

Besides, this misses my point. If it is just oil and gas passing peak within a decade (and also if it is within two decades, or three) the amount of lost enery every passing year from that makes already the task of renewable energies a gigantic task that will make the effort of Spain or Germany in Solar PV ridiculous to catch up. Do you get it?

Oh I get it. You just don't get how much coal there is, how low an ERoEI might still produce a profit and keep the giant machine humming--at least around the Pacific side. Where the hell else is China going to spend all of its dollars?

It seems the downgrading of Germany's reserves from 23 billion ton to .183 billion tons in 2004 gave the home boys of the Energy Watch Group quite a shock. All of their projections on use of lower grade coals are merely extrapolated from historical use. Of course historical use had lots of other plentiful and cheap high quality fossil fuel sources constantly coming on line in greater quantities. Not what happens with a peak oil/gas scenario--that is my point. Peak Coal predictions are made with a very unrealistic set of assumptions and are very likely to far less accurate than even the most cursory cataloguing of the world's 'unproven' but very much real coal reserves.

I don't expect PV to fill the gap either--a far lower energy use lifestyle just may fall out of the sky but its likely it will just seem 'the sky is falling' instead.

Just for fun I will throw this out cute little comparative GDP map:

The US GDP currently just about 10% less than that of the entire EU. As energy hungry China already has a GDP over a third that of the US and India about a quarter that of China's, unless something else does fill the energy gap the coal is there and waiting to shovel us all to hell.

the give-away, work for profit paradox looks like a tough one. I also wonder just what size prizes would actually work--OFM's bite size chunks and patent suggestions would seem worth considering--but such might be difficult to implement in the real world.

On a lighter note, I had an opportunity work at the world's largest terrestrial acrtic research station (adding a true winter facility) this summer. Plenty of the science people there worked a standard twelve hour day and often times more for short stints. They were great people to be around as they truly love what they do. And the pick up music in the evenings was top notch. The people were so great to be around that I almost felt bad that the mostly construction crew soccer team won the Toolik Cup.

The grant system certainly shapes what is being studied--but at least most of the science is being done sincerely.

Interesting that the Wright Brothers did not reach for a prize when they built their first flyer in 1903. Later airplanes like the one demonstrated in Paris in 1908 was there to capture a prize. The brothers put in several years of research on aerodynamics by building one of the first wind tunnels. They discovered that the "experts" were way off about lift to drag ratios. They put in two years of experimentation of 3-axis control while the experts were simply putting engines on kites.

What Alcock and Brown did in 1919 was to apply technology already developed during WW I. They claimed a prize by using the scientific research the British taxpayers had already paid millions to acquire. Lindbergh was a mail pilot using other people's money in a plane with an experimental airfoil developed by the Ryan aircraft company.

I find it hard to believe that any prize would motivate any group of investors to risk their own money on any renewable energy device. The best the government ought to do is to purchase the renewable energy from the most cost effective providers for its own use or for resale in the marketplace. By being a guaranteed customer the investor money would flow as competitors for being the most cost effective would result in innovations we need if such innovations or breakthroughs are even possible. Most of what we know about all forms of energy production is based on what was discovered in the 19th and early 20th century. All the money thrown at fuel cells has improved very little on what was known 150 years ago. Fusion energy has been 10 years away for at least the last 40 years in spite of tens of billions in public and private spending. Progress has been incremental and slow.

thomas deplume -

Those are my sentiments exactly.

Furthermore, I don't think it is sufficiently appreciated that not all segments of the energy field lend themselves equally to scientific breakthroughs. For example, R & D is far more likely to be fruitful when directed at better and cheaper ways to store electrical energy than it is at designing a better wind turbine. The former poses some thorny scientific and engineering challenges, while the latter is by now a largely mature technology in which improvements are likely to be only slightly incremental. One has to carefully hedge one's bets in directing R & D resources.

As to government-sponsored R & D, while there are certainly worse ways to spend government money, based on the outcome in some other areas, I would not be terribly optimistic about how productive it will turn out to be. This whole process of bestowing government grants for R & D projects to academia and for-profit contractors has a way of eventually degenerating into kingdom building, wherein the objective becomes not to solve the problem, but rather to 'colonize' it for as long and as expensively as possible.

I'm all for continued energy R & D, but I don't think that the limiting thing to the build-out of renewables is a lack of new technology. We aren't doing enough with the technology already on the shelf, most of which is already quite well developed.

By the way, I too have been fascinated by the Wright Brothers and have read quite a bit about them. While they are often portrayed as bicycle mechanics who hit it lucky, they were true scientists in every sense of the word (as you suggested with mention of their wind-tunnel work). What is remarkable is that neither one completed high school, and they were entirely self-taught. What also struck me in reading some of their collected works is their excellent command of the English language ..... far better than some college English majors I have known. I think that might say something about public schools then versus now.

I worked in the academic biochemistry research system in Australia for a few years and left out of disgust at the perverse bureaucracy that permeates it. You are spot on about it having degenerated into a system of kingdom building. I frequently observed researchers consciously or unconsciously avoiding looking for answers to questions that would potentially sink their pet topic and reveal that the promised for applications would not be viable. The main focus is on writing incremental papers, massaging grants and networking to play the peer review system.

As I see it the biggest problem with the current system is that it is makes researchers incredibly risk averse. They need to apply for a grant where they clearly spell out what they will achieve, then respond at the end to say how many papers they published. If a researcher does work that achieves no positive results and leads to no publications in a 3 year funding cycle their volume of publications steadily drops and their success at securing more grants rapidly declines. This means scientists can now only attempt to solve problems where they are 1) confident of getting a result (i.e. incremental science) and 2) capable of doing it in 3 years (i.e. trivial science).

This is probably mostly a symptom of a simple dearth of funding for the system, made worse by an excess of PhD students fighting for a small pool of relatively secure positions. The golden age of science is probably over. The only thing I can see partially replacing it is a new age of tinkering and empiricism starting up in the developing world. For genetic engineering this is probably the best way to go since it is starting to look like it is beyond managing with simple theories.

While at Toolik I sat in at a NEON presentation and found myself wondering how they would ever manage a continuous 30 year program considering funding vagaries. I still remember when Reagan was going to shut down funding for the JPL's Voyager mission way before either satellite was halfway to the edge of the solar system. I actually wrote Ronnie a letter to ask him to keep the program alive intimating that space exploration might have some military potential. I doubt he ever saw the purposefully quaint piece of mail (I believe I offered him a hunting dog or asked him out elk hunting or some such in it) but low and behold his famed 'Star Wars' speech came a couple months later...always made me wonder if my little 'hunting dog' letter may have been partly responsible for that debacle ?- )

recommendation to everyone: try do some research on your own time if you have the motivation. Work outside the system.

For genetic engineering this is probably the best way to go since it is starting to look like it is beyond managing with simple theories.

Back up from genetic engineering and look into ecological diversity and many of the researchers are finding that the simple models seem to works just as well as the most complex. This is a very interesting article illustrating this effect : Mechanisms in macroecology: AWOL or purloined letter? Towards a pragmatic view of mechanism

Simple models are the best!
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/09/hydrogeology-for-dummies.html

Funny you mention that idea- it is exactly what I am preferring to do. I split my spare time between collecting and breeding hardy field crops, biochar soil improvement and exploring the vast convoluted plain of cellular automata mathematics. It is amazing how much fun research is when you don't spend most of your energy grovelling to a bureaucratic machine (it gives me an insight into the golden age of science when most scientists were independently wealthy elites or had stable patrons).

Access to academic publications is a bit limiting though, but then again studies have shown most of what is published now is corrected or retracted in short order (and most papers are incremental).

Would a good follow up camp fire thread be on possible mechanisms to preserve knowledge through a civilisational collapse/simplification/etc? Most printing is on non-archival paper, and digital formats might become inaccessible in a worst case scenario.

The idea of a wiki style project to summarise and organise the most important scientific concepts for publication in an archival acid free text and/or microfiche format has been hanging around me lately.....

Well it looks like you have sufficient motivation.

As to your other point, I can't envision a scenario where we lose the ability to decode information, whatever the medium is.

Yes, prizes make sense only when you have a mature technology that you can stimulate - the technology needs to be there already, otherwise the cost of running for the prize will be escessive. That's why it was possible to use the method to stimulate aviation development in the years between the world two wars - the money for the basic development of planes had been already paid by the military. And, as you correctly say, it would make no sense to put a prize for - say - "the first fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes." Fusion technology is just not there. But, as you mentioned fuel cells, that is a mature technology that has been around for a century or more. There, governments (especially the European Commission) have squandered a lot of money in research programs, getting nothing useful out of them. In that case, it make sense to say that the traditional grant system makes no sense and one would need to move to some different form of stimulation. Prizes? Perhaps.....

To say that Feed In Tariffs have been successful is a bit disingenuous. Large PV install volumes in Germany are not evidence of some breakthrough in energy policy. They are the direct result of subsidies, or put bluntly, investors earning double digit returns at the expense of the ratepayers. Getting closer to a PV based energy mix might be a noble goal, but you have to weigh the cost as well. Germany has some of the worst insolation in the world, and thus adding PV is extremely costly relative to just about every other option. When you consider the levels of profit margin being earned by the manufacturers and project developers under the FiT schemes, it looks even more outrageous from a cost perspective.

Feed in Tariffs are government mandated and thus incredibly slow to adjust to market prices of PV components and other sources of electricity. Thus they ultimately end up transferring wealth from taxpayers/ratepayers to the PV industry. They are not magical. They are nothing to brag about, especially if you're Germany.

For every product there price will be reduced with the volume. More production lower prices more R&D better products, higher efficiencies etc. etc. Without production, the research wil not come out of the laboratories.

Because of the German FIT's the prices of PV-systems have reduced in 10 years so much that in the Netherlands in 1-2 years the pay back time will be about 15 years without any subsidies. Without any support we would not have reached this point.

Nations always have subsidised and supported all kinds of energy systems, including nuclear power, coal power, why not support solar power. And yes, this transfers money from consumers or tax payers to producers, but as long it is for a limited time I have no problem with subsidies.

In Germany the reductions in FIT are very aggressive, which keeps challenging the industry to improve and to make better products.

A lot of the costs are by the German and Spanish ratepayers and the rest of the world will profit.

Why not cut out the excess profit streams and give the necessary R&D money directly to the manufacturers? Why not wait until the efficiencies and costs have been improved to start installing panels en masse? Don't forget that Germany is one of the worst countries for PV. Even if you believe someone should be kickstarting manufacturing with subsidies, it probably shouldn't be Germany.

One other thing to think about is how hard drives, semi chips, etc got incredibly cheaper while at the same time more efficient and powerful WITHOUT government subsidy. Subsidies aren't always the way forward.

To say that Feed In Tariffs have been successful is a bit disingenuous. Large PV install volumes in Germany are not evidence of some breakthrough in energy policy.

I consider myself a big fan of early subsidies to spur development of important technologies, but these FiT have clearly been massively too generous, leading to serious abuse. Renewable enegy credits are probably better, but they need to be reasonably priced (say under $.10 per KWhr), to not be objectionable to ratepayers. I see substantial roof based PV popping up in my neighborhood, and we have no RECs of anykind. Excess power on an annual basis over use is $.081 per KWhr, so noone is going to get rich overbuilding. But still they are going up.

Those who think feed-in tariffs are a good idea should explain why large hydro doesn't receive it; after all it is low carbon. Really the prize is billions of dollars in (unsubsidised) electricity sales. The only requirement should be low CO2 intensity, say less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. The customers are out there waiting. Then there will be no need for feed-in tariffs, quotas, green certificates or whatever.

A problem with multiple layers of support is that of conflicting objectives. For example combined cycle gas fired electricity may produce 50% less CO2 than pulverised black coal but it won't meet renewable targets. Who cares? The aim should just be low CO2 which should bring wind and solar into contention as the CO2 cap progressively tightens to very low levels.

Back to feed-in tariffs. Surely once the economy-of-scale effect for wind and solar has been demonstrated the FiT is no longer needed. With residential PV we have wealthy households showing off their rooftop solar panels. Meanwhile in the next suburb poor folks get to pay higher sales taxes or electricity prices for someone else's middle class fashion statement. I'd also like to know why the German nuclear industry has to fund offshore wind building; is it some kind of sour grapes because nuclear is economic but unsubsidised wind power is not?
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_a_cash_cow_for_Germanys_pla...

Who paid all the dams when they were built? Who paid the nuclear power plants? In France the nuclear power plants are built by a French state company.

In Finland the new price increase for the new nuclear power plant will be paid by the French or the finish tax payers.

The goal for renewables should be to be realized without subsidies, in the Netherlands within 2 years! Soon after that there should be a stop on subsidies. But also no subsidies on other forms of electricity production!

Those who think feed-in tariffs are a good idea should explain why large hydro doesn't receive it; after all it is low carbon.

Your argument is based solely upon direct emissions reductions. The main argument for subsidies is to incubate potentially valuable technologies which otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain enough scale to operate on their own. I don't see how subsidizing a few large hydro installations would open up a new competitive area of energy generation. Besides, emissions from hydro can in some cases be larger than from fossil fuels. It is highly site dependent of course, but the decay of the drowned ecosystems can generate methane.

Back to feed-in tariffs. Surely once the economy-of-scale effect for wind and solar has been demonstrated the FiT is no longer needed.

You get no argument from the there. I would prefer a FiT (or REC) whose value depends upon project date, and which gradually decreases to zero. Hard sharp cutoffs are undesirable, and lead to all sorts of gaming as people try to (barely) get in ahead of the cutoff. If we wish CO2 emissions savings to be rewarded as well (in lieu of a politically tougher carbon tax), then the ReC could include that. This component shouldn't be decreased with time, but that is another thing altogether.

...Say, the government will award 10 million dollars to the first research lab which succeeds in developing ...(whatever)

The problem with this approach is that research labs must already exist because of some other need. I cannot imagine that anyone would be successful in floating a IPO to create a research lab with the avowed purpose of competing for government sponsored prizes. Could there possibly be several competing research labs, all funded with venture capital? Surely a cheaper way to extract taxpayer money from the government treasury is to hire lobbyists to schmooze the legislature.

But if the government did offer prizes, the criteria for winning would have to be legislatively defined. So the game would really be lobbying for wording that gives one lab a special advantage at winning, or wording that puts a competator at a disadvantage.

Offering prizes is a game that is best left to individuals who have significant personal fortunes, e.g. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc.

Awarding prizes is a good way of stimulating technological development, with the added advantage that you pay for success and not for failures. Should we use the same strategy for renewable energy?

Prizes have many other advantages too :

They create publicity, motivate the bright, and generate public awareness.

I think the best way to help out renewables would be to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and jack up the tax rates on them to include the externalized costs. Renewables in most cases are inherently cheaper than fossil fuels so all that's needed is to get over the hump of economies of scale so that they can compete with the fossil fuel alternatives which have had 100 years of market domination to maximize "efficiency".

Hey, here are the solutions. They were invented decades, even centuries ago --- electric vehicles and heat pumps. Bam, right there, the vast majority of all of our fossil fuel needs could be eliminated with no loss of quality of life. We don't need any new bright ideas by inventors, we already have the ideas and the solutions. What we need is good companies to bring these items to market at a competitive price. Magic hydrogen cars are for the dreamers and contests and should remain there.

jack up the tax rates on them to include the externalized costs.

What would be the tax rate on oil to cover the military that exists to enforce, say, the Carter Doctrine?

$500B per year, divided by 10B barrels of oil imported per year: $50/barrel.

Now, what about CO2 costs?

OK, this is an area where I have some practical knowledge - and I can tell you prizes aren't the solution to most of the problems.

The reason why there is a 3000 to 1 reduction in 'workable ideas' > 'profitable product' is gaps. The process doesn't join up and tends to be concerned with 'picking winners' at each stage - usually losing the best concepts at each stage.

Let's suppose you have a go ahead scientist with a bright idea. Firstly they need the funding to investigate it - wages, equipment, etc. The prize idea immediately falls down since where are these supposed to come from? 99% of the best concepts will never get over this initial gap in prize paradigm.

Next, the time to investigate a truly innovative idea is higher than a perturbation to an old idea. Therefore in a competitive funding environment focused on outcomes the perturbation is both faster (cheaper) and less risky to select. The 'senior' manager is often not going to understand the new idea, and have no incentive to fund it.

Assuming this scientist does find funding, and can make the required breakthrough. They come out the end proudly demonstrating something that is miles from an identifiable product to a bunch of funders who look at the requirement for 10x the funding for the next stage and balk.

Even if they do want to go ahead, the critical bit is that they want to take away the baby of this scientist and give it to someone else to 'commercialise'. Not only is this second person not invested in the concept - its taking away the scientist's hard work without any payback or control. Is it any wonder the scientist is focused on keeping it at the bench level for as long as possible? They actively have to fight to have their baby stolen from them.

And finally, if they manage to get a commercially viable product out the end, they need VC money to scale - and a bigger set of short term fixated crooks you couldn't hope to avoid.

If you want to fix this so good, innovative, scalable, renewable ideas get to market fast, may I suggest:

  • Fund a large cadre of scientists, not particular projects, and tell them to do great stuff in the renewable domain. There are less good scientists than there is money, if you prioritise properly.
  • Monitor and support those scientists with assistants who can feed marketplace realities back into the research process and help guide away from the 'neat but impractical'.
  • If they come out with something that needs to be commercialised, provide them with a commercially aware engineer and team to work along side them, taking up as much of the work as the scientist feels willing to give up. Funded and free.
  • If a commercially viable product results, act as VC for the resulting company, with the scientist in a senior role, and only require 3x the investment back whenever they feel able, no interest.
  • Scientist owns the patent and at least 33% of the resulting company.
  • Shoot any and all individuals that quote 'ideas are worthless'

That would get fast and effective output, and all for less than you will pay for 1/100th of a financial 'industry' screwup.

For thorough scholarship about subsidies in the US energy sector, see http://www.earthtrack.net/. I recommend searching the most frequently requested publications.

PV is a well understood phenomenon, explained by one the three revolutionary papers presented by Einstein in 1905 (photoelectric effect). At present we are in the commercialization stage where process improvements will further lower costs. Given sufficient profits the industry should continue to attract top scientific talent.

Because of the low cost of competitive processes, like nat gas combined cycle, PV will need government protection.

As for a revolutionary breakthrough coming from research, I think we are asking for miracles. Very little science is unexploited nowadays.

Look at the great experiments in history. Electricity and magnetism were linked using a compass, a battery and some wire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted

The constancy of the speed of light was measured with rotating and fixed mirrors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

And the charge of the electron with a microscope, a light source, a high voltage charge, a perfume atomizer and some oil:

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

Hertz’s study of electromagnet waves used simple coils, wires and metal plates to confirm Maxwell’s theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

and pave the way for radio:

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture6/hert...

Today we spend billions for particle accelerators and as of yet have not gotten the same return as any one of the above four experiments, none of which had significant cost.

The return on science is diminishing, unless we have truly overlooked something fundamental, as in a 1917 Einstein paper that led to the laser, and more importantly, fiber optic communications, several decades later.

The return on science is diminishing, unless we have truly overlooked something fundamental, as in a 1917 Einstein paper that led to the laser, and more importantly, fiber optic communications, several decades later.

Perhaps, for the 'big discoveries', but there is plenty of return on Engineering, and the optimize of moving the Science basics, into USABLE volume products.

Solar Cell efficiencies have improved Solidly, across all nodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff%28rev100414%29.png

There is talk of Quantum Dot jump (does that jump count as Science? )

Wind power moves to multi-MW sizes, and dispenses with gearboxes, and adds Superconductor to lower weight and losses...

LEDs have advanced considerably in the last decade, much higher efficiencies, and lower costs, which promise to slash lighting energy costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#Efficiency_and_operati...

PV is a well understood phenomenon ...

Not when it comes to disordered materials such as amorphous Si and organics.

If it was well understood, I wouldn't be able to do analysis in my spare time and characterize transport behaviors that have not been modeled adequately before:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/05/characterizing-mobility-in-diso...
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/05/fokker-planck-for-disordered-sy...

Case in point. Try to figure out why the Einstein relation relating diffusivity and mobility is way high in amorphous materials. (You were the one that mentioned Einstein. Deal with it, Einstein :)

PRESS RELEASE (Todd's statement: I do not work for Oerlikon.)
Oerlikon Solar Breaking Two World Records: Lowest Module Production Cost and Highest Lab Cell Efficiency07 Sep 2010

Oerlikon Solar introduces ahead of its technology roadmap the new production line “ThinFab”

Press information (http://www.oerlikon.com/solar)

Valencia (Spain), September 7, 2010 – Oerlikon Solar launched today the new production line “ThinFab” for manufacturing of thin film silicon modules, which will achieve record breaking production costs of € 0.50 (Todd's note: this is about 65 US cents) per Watt peak (Wp). Furthermore, Oerlikon Solar developed a new champion Micromorph® lab cell in cooperation with Corning Incorporated with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency confirmed by the honorable U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The two world records boost the competitiveness of Oerlikon Micromorph® thin film silicon technology and demonstrate its future potential. ”Our achievements could become a breakthrough for thin film silicon technology,” says Michael Buscher, Oerlikon Group CEO. “We are proud that our new ThinFab offers a highly competitive production line to the solar market and that we could verify further potential of our technology.”

The new ThinFab incorporates a wide range of improvements ahead of the Oerlikon Solar technology roadmap.

“Our extraordinary competencies are embedded in our new ThinFab and will change the perception of thin film silicon technology. The 10 percent efficiency of our non-toxic, environmentally friendly modules, combined with the lowest production costs ever, provides the solar industry with completely new opportunities. On top of that our new champion cell with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency demonstrates even further potential of the thin film silicon technology”, states Dr. Jurg Henz, Oerlikon Solar CEO. Furthermore “our technology offers the lowest energy payback time compared to other crystalline technologies and is not based on limited resources.”

Oerlikon Solar’s existing customers can as well benefit from many technical improvements. Oerlikon Solar will gradually introduce upgrade packages, enabling better performance, higher output, and improved efficiencies of their existing production lines.

The Oerlikon Solar ThinFab was presented to the public with the kind support of Robby Naish, who won his first windsurfing world championship in 1977 at the age of 13. Thereafter he led the world championship for 23 years in a row due to his extraordinary competencies and his innovative drive.

You will find us at the 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) in Valencia in hall 2, on level 2, booth B8.

For more detailed information about the new ThinFab visit www.oerlikon.com/solar/thinfab or contact:

Brunhilde Mauthe
Manager Public Relations Oerlikon Solar

Tel. +41 81 784 8040
Fax +41 81 784 6544
brunhilde.mauthe@oerlikon.com

Burkhard Böndel
Head of Corporate Communications
OC Oerlikon

Tel. +41 58 360 96 02
Fax. +41 58 360 91 93
burkhard.boendel@oerlikon.com

production costs of € 0.50; 11.9 percent percent stabilized efficiency

Good numbers, another milestone...

"Science alone can and does provide excellent fundamental results. These results have to be turned into "market ripe" products. Normal, profit-oriented companies lead by skilled entrepreneurs know how to do this. It is the combination of both."
That has certainly been my experience as a development engineer and manager. The universities and national labs do the fundamental science that takes years - way too long a time horizon for a company that has to get competitive products out, and the companies take useful results and insights from those and run with them to get a product out before their competitors do. You definitely need both. If you try to make professors into cost-driven entrepreneurs (as has been done to a further extent already than many realize), no one will do the long term fundamental research that brings deeper levels of understanding and new insights, as they will be too busy trying to develop something to quickly bring to market, or fix problems with the products they have developed. LiFePO4 batteries were researched and demonstrated in the U.S. in the 1990's, but no U.S. company picked it up and ran with it. Chinese companies did, and that is why I had to purchase these batteries for my electric car conversion from China. The university did it's job, private companies did not. They didn't see an immediate big demand and large profit margins, so they didn't act. Many see private industry as the answer to everything. I've seen to many dropped balls, poorly informed decisions, and intracompany politics to believe that.

You know, I'm not nearly as certain as some of the commenters here seem to be that production incentives are the wrong way to go. Sure, a lot of the places that have strong incentives to actually build, not just research and develop, renewable energy are facing debt and other economic problems, but these investments actually do generate a return - quite a substantial positive return, actually, over the long run. And lots of places are in debt, not just those with renewable energy incentives. It's really a question of how prepared we want to be as fossil fuel use inevitably declines, due to both supply and ecological constraints, and fossil fuel decline, especially net energy, is a big contributor to the current economic crisis. Renewable energy, not so much. Would we rather say that we had the ability to build solar panels but we just didn't bother because we found it too darn expensive compared to the stuff that was already running short and devastating the global ecosystem?

Finally, the biggest problem with incentives, like the production tax credit in the U.S., is when they evaporate, not when they are in place. Regulatory and financial uncertainty have killed many a project that otherwise could have produced benefits - we have to get business culture looking beyond the immediate short term here and see the kind of investments that will benefit jobs and avert an energy crisis over the medium to long tern. Plus fossil fuels are subsidized too, so if you are willing to subsidize a polluting and finite energy source, why not those with much lesser impacts and which won't deplete and then run out sooner or later? Let's not even get started on nuclear power and the level of support from governments it takes to keep that running (or how we might deal with monitoring closed-down plants and nuclear waste if indeed we are facing an imminent energy collapse).

We need to build a new energy system with technology already largely available, a lot more than we need breakthroughs. Remember economics of scale too: bringing new technologies into serial production has the largest effect on bringing down the cost, not discovering the technology in the first place. If it were up to me, I would double all the renewable portfolio standards and extend all the tax credits indefinitely. And kudos to Spain, Portugal, California, Denmark, Germany and all the other places who have gone out front and taken the lead on renewables as well as the other infrastructure needed to make them work like smart grids and electric rail. They'll be glad they did so over the long run, of that I'm certain.

Unless, of course, the demagogues and debt chickenhawks decide for us that it's not worth it and we end up scrapping the whole project. Then we are in for a world of sh*t indeed. I don't think we ought to be putting too much stock in what Bill Gates has to say on the matter, quite frankly. Energy isn't his game.

The Germans installed more PV in 2009 than we in America
have in 50 years.

Rate impact about $10-15 B. This is what you can do
if you aren't fighting two wars.

They aren't investing so much in PV, as in PV price
reductions.

Some FIT programs have been poorly designed, but the good news
is that a FIT in the sunnier parts of the U.S., given the current solar tax incentives, might be very attractive to investors at about 1/4th of the prices being paid in Ontario, or roughly 18 to 20 c/kwh, maybe less.

Sure as hell beat what you are earning in a money market account.

They aren't investing so much in PV, as in PV price reductions.

Not to mention domestic production capacity. One of other key points to keep in mind is "if we don't do it, someone else (usually China) will."

PRESS RELEASE (Todd's statement: I do not work for Oerlikon.)
Oerlikon Solar Breaking Two World Records: Lowest Module Production Cost and Highest Lab Cell Efficiency07 Sep 2010

Oerlikon Solar introduces ahead of its technology roadmap the new production line “ThinFab”

Press information (http://www.oerlikon.com/solar)

Valencia (Spain), September 7, 2010 – Oerlikon Solar launched today the new production line “ThinFab” for manufacturing of thin film silicon modules, which will achieve record breaking production costs of € 0.50 (Todd's note: this is about 65 US cents) per Watt peak (Wp). Furthermore, Oerlikon Solar developed a new champion Micromorph® lab cell in cooperation with Corning Incorporated with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency confirmed by the honorable U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The two world records boost the competitiveness of Oerlikon Micromorph® thin film silicon technology and demonstrate its future potential. ”Our achievements could become a breakthrough for thin film silicon technology,” says Michael Buscher, Oerlikon Group CEO. “We are proud that our new ThinFab offers a highly competitive production line to the solar market and that we could verify further potential of our technology.”

The new ThinFab incorporates a wide range of improvements ahead of the Oerlikon Solar technology roadmap.

“Our extraordinary competencies are embedded in our new ThinFab and will change the perception of thin film silicon technology. The 10 percent efficiency of our non-toxic, environmentally friendly modules, combined with the lowest production costs ever, provides the solar industry with completely new opportunities. On top of that our new champion cell with 11.9 percent stabilized efficiency demonstrates even further potential of the thin film silicon technology”, states Dr. Jurg Henz, Oerlikon Solar CEO. Furthermore “our technology offers the lowest energy payback time compared to other crystalline technologies and is not based on limited resources.”

Oerlikon Solar’s existing customers can as well benefit from many technical improvements. Oerlikon Solar will gradually introduce upgrade packages, enabling better performance, higher output, and improved efficiencies of their existing production lines.

The Oerlikon Solar ThinFab was presented to the public with the kind support of Robby Naish, who won his first windsurfing world championship in 1977 at the age of 13. Thereafter he led the world championship for 23 years in a row due to his extraordinary competencies and his innovative drive.

You will find us at the 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) in Valencia in hall 2, on level 2, booth B8.

For more detailed information about the new ThinFab visit www.oerlikon.com/solar/thinfab or contact:

Brunhilde Mauthe
Manager Public Relations Oerlikon Solar

Tel. +41 81 784 8040
Fax +41 81 784 6544
brunhilde.mauthe@oerlikon.com

Burkhard Böndel
Head of Corporate Communications
OC Oerlikon

Tel. +41 58 360 96 02
Fax. +41 58 360 91 93
burkhard.boendel@oerlikon.com

Todd;
That does sound like really good news, but posting it once is enough.

Bob

Please accept my apologies, Bob, but it seems this press release is the final proof that PV is cost-effective, it can be produced without rare elements, it delivers very good energy-return-on-energy-investment, it shows that all the public money poured into PV R&D (not much really, we spend more on new fighter bomber planes) has delivered what it promised....and if it is scaled up fast, it will solve all our electricity needs and then some. The surplus can go to charging hundreds of millions of electric vehicles in the middle of the day.

All the dooms-dayer debates in this forum are over for my part, and if we simply embrace what already is there that we know works, it will be a happy ending. Very clean, very easy, non-toxic, emission-free, water-free, very reliable and very renewable energy is there for the taking at prices that we can afford.

I will therefore not be coming back to this debate and it will be a long time before I come back to this forum, which is now in the process of recycling 3, 4 and 5 year-old essays that seem to be stuck in time.

Please do me however a very big favor. Spread the word. We now have Oerlikon amorphous silicon thin-film PV and First Solar CdTe thin-film PV, both for about 75 US cents/watt (peak). Balance-of-system adds $2-3/watt (peak). It will probably get even cheaper as these industries extract real economies of scale fast. Maybe some of the other PV technologies will catch up and competition will work its wonders once again.

Peace and hope to you all.

Todd

I share your enthusiasm, tho' I think we have to wait to see how this product does in full-scale production. For me, I'll continue the discussions as part of my world.. but I know what you mean. They do rehash a lot of familiar material.

Your interpretation of this makes the results sound a little too good to be true.. as with so much of this, I guess we must wait and see. I kind of hope that we don't end up with a 'Superabundance of Energy' again. I think we do a little better if we're kept a little bit hungry. Being overfed makes us behave badly.

In any case, I'll keep listening for Oerlikon's developments, as the process matures.

Best of luck on your next web travels.
Bob


yup all the problems are solved. PV electricity will be so cheap we will be able reconfigure the molecules of our trash and mining minerals will be a thing of the past. No need to even consider Pebble mine or a myriad of equally undesirable mining sites--many yet undiscovered--world wide. Right...

In an ever more electric powered world you think we might just need the 50 billion pounds of copper that is inconveniently located under part of the headwaters of the world's last wild salmon fishery...Norway had lots of wild salmon once didn't it.

Cheap PV is a good thing but its only a small part of what needs to be addressed on this runaway train. Two things certain--cheap oil and easy choices are both gone. Upper Talarik Creek (above) just won't look the same with a hundreds of feet high tailing pond dam impounding most of the water now flows into it. Of course that volcano in the background does indicate the region could be just a tad seismically active. What could possibly go wrong?

Oerlikon were famous a long time ago for their guns which were used by many navies around the world. Since I don't know much about them, I did a search in on the Financial Times website and all I got was a lot of bad news regarding their financial situation.

Here is an extract from the most recent article

Oerlikon, the troubled Swiss engineering group controlled by Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, revealed weaker-than-expected 2009 results on Thursday, with losses rising to SFr592m ($564m).

The results followed a SFr422m loss in 2008 and highlighted the scale of the task facing the group, which makes specialist equipment for industries from textiles to solar power, in restoring confidence and profitability.

New orders dropped by almost 30 per cent to SFr3bn, while orders in hand declined by more than 13 per cent to SFr997m, reflecting weak markets and the group’s problems convincing customers, often placing contracts with long lead times, about its long term stability. Sales last year fell by almost 38 per cent to SFr2.88bn.

The results came as the group, which is 45 per cent controlled by Mr Vekselberg’s Renova holding company, confirmed it had reached agreement with creditor banks and Renova, on a crucial financial restructuring plan...

Obviously, I hope the financial side of things does not damage what they seem to be trying to accomplish

Actually, I think the way this will ultimately be resolved will take everyone here by surprise. And I can see it beginning in earnest very shortly, possibly within a couple months, maybe a year.

As engineers or technically minded people I think we all have looked at the energy situation and scratched our heads as to why we as a society are not changing. On a fundamental level switching to renewables would not be at all difficult, it is just a transition that would take a few decades. But we do nothing as a society, rather we make it even worse.

Here is why. Gold has been kept artificially cheap for decades because it was being used to buy cheap oil from oil producers, notably Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia a while ago decided wisely that it did not want any more of the worthless paper US dollar notes that is was being offerred for its oil, and instead demanded gold. Of course our leaders obliged, and our part of the deal was to use the big banks to illegally manipulate the precious metals markets to suppress prices. This has two goals: one, it destroys public confidence in the metals and forces people to revert to worthless fiat currency as a store of wealth, and two, it keeps the metals cheap for the commodity producing nations to slowly accumulate.

The deal was that we get cheap oil and the Saudis get cheap gold. The problem is that now the whole scam is about to explode. This is because the bankster manipulators at Comex and LBMA have no more silver for physical delivery (after decades of price suppression, mining production has not increased to compensate) and the rumour is spreading quickly around the world that it is all a paper scam with 100:1 leverage. It will only take one big player to blow up the market, then all hell will break loose. Gold will skyrocket and silver will rise even more, with possibly astronomical appreciations in the order to 100 to 200 times. This will destroy the dollar and most western fiat currencies. China will pull out of its Treasuries, the whole system will come crashing down, gold will be revalued to what it should be, and oil will also be revalued much more expensively. In other words, the Black Swan could well be triggered by a blow up of the silver market in the next couple months. Then alternative energy sources will suddenly seem much more palatable.

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/

http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another1.html

http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com/

https://marketforceanalysis.com/articles/latest_article_081310.html

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/3/30_Andre...

From Another:

"There is only one oil state that counts! Only one! They have made it very clear how important gold is to them. If they had started buying outright, gold would have gone to $5,000+ in days. And only a very few million ozs. would have been purchased! The message has been for some years, "we will accumulate thru the back door, using paper deals if you keep the price at or below the cost of production". Do this and oil will remain THE driving force of the world economy!

FAIL THIS AND WE WILL PRICE GOLD IN DOLLARS AT THE TRUE VALUE OF OIL TO THE WORLD!"

Null ,

Some night I am going to come back to your links and read them for any insights to be gained from them.

Many years ago when I was reading a lot of science fiction, which has all to often turned out to be mundane reality,some economies had currencies based on bushels of wheat being interchangeable at fixed rastes for various other commodities;the govt maintained a Ft Knox of wheat silos.

The more I read and understand, the more fascinating it becomes. It is like a mystery novel unfolding in reality right before my eyes. Someone tried to kill Andrew from the King World News article above, the day after he did it. The world used to not make much sense to me. Now it is all starting to come together.... I'd also strongly suggest buying physical gold and silver ASAP.

The German government’s plan to extend the phase-out of nuclear power risks hampering investment in offshore wind turbines, a technology that may provide much of the country’s renewable energy by the middle of this century.

Utilities including E.ON AG and RWE AG may cut their investment in the industry to compensate for a tax of 3 billion Euros ($3.9 billion) a year they will be charged that will go to advance renewable energy deployment by financing feed-in tariff. The levy targets nuclear-plant operators to force deployment of renewable energy.

It’s probably detrimental for offshore, keeping that much nuclear power online means electricity prices will be stable and maybe even with some downside potential. That suggests less investment in wind energy.

Under Chancellor Angela Merkel’s nuclear extension plan, an extra 12 years of renewable energy support tax amounting to an additional 36 billion Euros will come from nuclear power production.

Without this continuing funding steam, the German government would need to raise income tax rates and VAT taxes.

Expanding renewable energy deployment requires expanding renewable energy deployment incentives. Nuclear energy being the low cost power producer in Germany is an ideal place to get the expanded renewable funding.

This nuclear power production extension enables the renewable development levy beyond a legally-mandated phase-out by 2022 and will help the nation of 82 million make a transition to renewable power at an affordable price. The final plan on the nuclear extension will be presented to Merkel’s cabinet on Sept. 28.

The nuclear power industry has contributed 12 billion Euros to date for renewable power support via this tax and this extension will keep this money flowing to renewable energy development by the government far into the future.

The German power companies must not let this tax expansion discourage their development efforts in private renewable power investment.

“The decision is step backward to the energy technology of yesterday,” said Hermann Albers, president of the German Wind Energy Association. “The government is squandering the potential for wind energy.”

To all who criticize the German feed-in tariff policy: The goal of this was to build a world-class cluster of PV manufacturing, installation and research organizations, and hope that the winning technologies and solutions will come out of the industry/R&D cluster. Germany has mostly succeeded, and they now will commercialize this to sell to the rest of the world. First Solar, the low-cost leader in PV panels, has a sizeable German stakeholder share, and is poised to drive the uncompetitive technologies and manufacturers out of business, while First Solar continues to lower the cost of their products. The production cost of a First Solar PV panel is about 76 CENTS/watt and FALLING. Mounting, installation and balance-of-system electronics cost about $2/watt, so it is in fact the balance-of-system that is the main cost burden of the PV installation. The costs of BOS are also falling fast.

You have to look at it on a price/mWh basis, or LCOE. First Solar modules are cheaper, but less efficient.

Rational,
He DID give a price/watt. Maybe the competition is just as good.. got some links?

Well, I know how NOT to do it, thanks to the immortal article "On the Folly of Hoping for A while Rewarding B."

That is, look at the ethanol program and figure out why it's eating us alive (or, more precisely, helping starve us out) and then avoid those things.

To wit, only pay for NET renewable energy gain, not wholesale power transformations.

That is, just as ethanol should only be subsidized on the fraction, if any, produced at an energy profit from renewable energy -- in other words, no laundering coal to get liquid ethanol and calling it "renewable energy," electric renewables should be subsidized only on the fraction of their output that actually involves net energy return on the energy invested, so that the weak sisters die quicker, instead of being propped up and made bigger, the better to suck down subsidies.

Noticeable advances have come from both private enterprise and from Government contracts.
In the competition between the R100 airship built by Vickers and private enterprise and the dud R101 built by the Socialist government of the time Nevil Shute Norway describes clearly the advantages of private enterprise.

To my mind however, the winning combination is a pool of money and a hands off approach by the bean counters. Errors will be made by the engineers and they need room to correct them without suffering penalty.

This is the tried and trusted evolutionary design principle.

Oh, one more thing -- what is needed is not to have people guessing what the right number is for feed-in tariffs.

What we need to see a lot more of is an auction type system, where rather than putting a fixed number out there, people are allowed to propose the number THEY need, which might often be much less than the agency making the offer for the feed-in tariff would guess.

That is, the agency should open an auction where they use an e-bay style service and they kick it off saying "We want to buy X MW(e) through our feed in tariffs by (date). Anyone interested in getting in on the action, submit your bid at this website: enter how many MW(e) you are offering, and at what prices."

And at the website, you can even let people create a time-of-day profile for their bids.

Good idea,

But for home systems it is a bit complicated and if I indicate that I would like to built with a FIT from 0.xx there is still a chance that i don't execute (specially for roof top systems)