More energy from the sun hits Earth in one hour than all the energy consumed on our planet in an entire year.

In those terms, it is absurd that our federal government spends tens of billions of dollars annually subsidizing the oil industry, which pulls diminishing resources from underground, while the industry focused above ground on wind, solar and other renewable energies is derided in Washington.

Federal support for development of new energy sources is lower today than at any other point in U.S. history, and our government is forcing the ­clean-energy sector into a competitive disadvantage. To bring true competition to the energy market, ensure our national security and create jobs here rather than in China or elsewhere, we must level the playing field for renewable energies. In this presidential primary, Americans need to hear where the candidates stand on this critical issue.

Don’t get me wrong — we should not demonize fossil fuels. For more than 200 years, the United States has rightly invested in developing new sources of energy. From the land grants for timber and coal in the 1800s to the tax expenditures for oil and gas in the early 20th century to the investment in developing nuclear energy, support for energy innovation has always helped drive America’s growth.

Renewable energies, however, have not been treated the same way. When the oil, gas and nuclear industries were forming, federal support for those energies totaled as much as 1 percent of federal spending. Subsidies available to the renewables industry today are just one-tenth of 1 percent.

If our goal is to encourage competition in the energy marketplace, then the conversation in Congress shouldn’t be about attacking green energy or cutting all oil subsidies. The conversation should be about leveling the playing field so that renewables are bound by the same rules as fossil fuels. We must make it a national priority to clear the red tape and bureaucracy that puts renewables at a disadvantage. If the candidates running for president believe in energy independence as a matter of national security — regardless of whether they agree with the science behind climate change — then the issue of investing in renewable energies must be front and center in the campaign.

Instead of a simplistic and misleading one-word argument against green energy — Solyndra! — I’d like to hear from the candidates that government shouldn’t pick winners, as it clearly has with our lopsided subsidies. Instead of talking about one terrible green investment or, for that matter, any of the investments in fossil fuels that have cost billions, I’d like to hear them talk about how to make sure we properly vet all our investments to get a good return for the American people.

Federal investment is critical to the success of the renewable energy industry. That’s not a new idea. The same was true for coal, which would not have been economically feasible without tax exemptions and incentives. It was also true for offshore oil drilling, which was deemed unprofitable without royalty waivers and favorable packaging of federal leases.

Imagine what the renewables industry would look like if the federal government leveled the playing field and showed the same dedication we have in California. Our green sector is the brightest spot in California’s economy, having grown 10 times faster than any other business sector since 2005. Today, one in every four jobs in the U.S. solar industry is in California. One-third of U.S. clean-tech venture capital flows into our state. Nurturing the green-tech sector was the right thing for me to do as governor, and it is the right thing for the federal government to do.

I know from experience that it is frustrating for states to wait for the federal government to take action. Around the world, countries await treaties and international consensus. The United Nations convention on climate change is taking place in Durban, South Africa. The U.N. leadership on this subject has been great, but I don’t think we should just wait around. That’s why I am focusing on sub-national work; states, provinces and regions have shown that the time for action is now.

What our nation needs — for our economy, our national security and our environment — is more than a treaty signed by dignitaries. We need a level field on which the United States allows renewable energies to develop by the same rules as oil. If we can get there, the bountiful clean energy above our planet’s surface will compete well with the oil beneath it.

Source: The Washington Post

Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.

But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.

If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.

Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.

Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.

Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”

So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.

And now for something completely different: the success story you haven’t heard about.

These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.

But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.

This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.

And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.

But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?

Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.

So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.

Source: The New York Times

Despite surface appearances, all solar modules are not identical—they aren’t even manufactured with the same materials or in the same fashion. Ultimately, these differences in manufacturing and materials can lead to significant variances in the amount of energy generated over the expected lifetime of a PV system. The market is full of low-cost solar modules, but the lower upfront cost may be offset by lower long-term returns, and a higher risk for system underperformance or even failure. In the end, a higher quality module can minimize the risks of the project and maximize the energy generation and associated financial return.

Maximizing the return
So, what specific features should one look for when choosing a solar module that can provide a higher return on investment?
First, look at the nameplate power rating, a rough proxy for expected power output, and the associated power tolerance. The average crystalline silicon (c-SI) solar module has a power tolerance of +/-3%, indicating that the actual power rating received could be significantly less than the nameplate rating. Additionally, a wider power tolerance can lead to higher module mismatch losses and lower overall system output for a given nameplate rating.

Some manufacturers sell modules with only positive nameplate power tolerance, which provides higher system output for a specific nameplate rating. Higher output modules create more power, which ultimately generate more revenue. This can increase the module value per watt by up to 14 cents over the life of the system. Over a 25-year period, this equals a significant gain over a module with negative tolerances.

Another key metric is the module’s PTC (PVusa Test Conditions) rating. This rating indicates the measured power-output of modules under more realistic environmental conditions. When factored into the 25-year life of a PV module, a higher PTC rating can increase the initial value of a module by up to four cents per watt. PTC ratings are also used in many states to determine the amount of cash rebates. Choosing a module with a higher PTC rating can generate a higher return because of the higher rebates associated with higher PTC ratings, and the potential for higher power generation over the module lifetime.

Manufacturers of higher quality modules are more confident in their modules and, therefore, may back their modules with a stronger warranty. The average PV module manufacturer guarantees their product will degrade in output no more than 10% in the first 10 years, and no more than 20% in years 11 through 25. However, there are modules available that warrant less than three percent degradation in the first year, and less than half of that annually thereafter. This type of warranty structure can offer more power throughout the life of a PV system, making the “right” modules worth the search—particularly, from a ROI standpoint. A more reliable and durable module also reduces the risk of problems with the system and lowers the amount of maintenance required.

At the same time, don’t forget the old adage: “buyer beware.” Consideration should be made in terms of the history and stability of the company underwriting a performance guarantee. Some PV manufacturers have been in the market for a few years, providing minimal data to measure their products’ long-term reliability. However, there are several PV manufacturers who have a proven long-term track record.

Cost considerations
It’s easy to fall into the trap of choosing the lowest upfront cost solution presented when it comes to selecting PV components. But, with diligence and understanding of the values each component represents, system owners and operators can quantify the value that each unique manufacturer provides.

The financial community understands that investing in a PV system can provide a good return. In many states, these systems can generate strong IRRs and will have a positive cash flow in less than five years. Bear in mind, there are significant differences in the reliability, quality, and quantifiable return of different PV modules. It’s worth the time and effort to do a thorough due diligence exercise on PV system components being considered for a project.

The US solar market is accelerating because of a growing understanding that PV projects are sound investments. Financing a project with the lowest upfront cost will likely result in a quicker payback of the initial investment. However, financing a project that uses higher quality PV system components provides more certainty a project will generate the electricity it’s projected to produce, while minimizing the overall financial risk of the project.

Smart investors are putting their money behind projects that use higher quality PV modules because they provide a higher long-term return on the project with less risk.

Source: North American Clean Energy