by Arne Jungjohann.

This is the fourth and final post in a series on the United States and nuclear power. Read parts , , and .

Fukushima gave many Americans a sense of déjà vu: In 1979, a threatened
explosion at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania caused
by venting an explosive gas mixture was just barely warded off. Faulty design
and human error were to blame. Since then,
no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States (though some
that were already under construction were completed).

But the industry has soldiered on, trying to present the public with a
picture of nuclear as a clean, safe, and cheap energy option. In many ways,
it’s been successful: Nuclear power is now accepted as a firm element of the energy
portfolio by the American political mainstream, across party lines. Under President
George W. Bush, new loan guarantees were promised in 2005, and the industry
celebrated that promise as a turn toward a new age of building nuclear plants. President
Barack Obama has asked Congress to triple those guarantees to $54.5 billion.

Can we then look forward to a new renaissance of nuclear power in the
United States, as its supporters like to claim? Unlikely, for the nuclear revival
is on financially shaky ground. Exploding costs and cheap competition from
natural gas are grave problems for the industry. The Wall Street banks see the
new construction plans as too expensive and too risky. Even with billions in
federal guarantees, American businesses can’t afford the price of nuclear
power. Only a handful of new nuclear projects have moved ahead in recent years,
primarily at existing nuclear plant sites in the southeastern United States.

So anti-nuke activists are not afraid of any looming wave of new nuclear
reactors, despite the fantasies of the lobbyists and some politicians. But they
warn of a covert renaissance by way of 20-year lifespan extensions for dozens
of old power plants.

In May 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found many U.S. nuclear plants
ill-prepared to handle simultaneous threats like the earthquake and tsunami
that hit Fukushima. A little under one-third of the 104 U.S. reactors were said
to be .

Meanwhile, public support for nuclear power seems to be eroding. According
to a recent survey, 40 percent of likely voters in the U.S. oppose the building
more nuclear power plants, while 38 percent support it. That’s a good start.

In only a few years, the cost of renewable energy will drop to the point
of being fully competitive in the U.S. This country has gigantic renewable resources
that other countries can only dream of. Wind power in Texas and the Midwest,
biomass from the forests of New England and the Southeast, and solar power in
California and neighboring Southwestern states could bring America’s new energy
age into being much faster than predicted.

The nuclear lobby has been an ally in the fight for a carbon price and
stricter pollution standards. But progressives, the environmental movement, and
climate hawks in the United States will have to decide whether nuclear power
deserves to be seen as a pillar in a clean energy strategy. In the best case,
nuclear will be an unnecessary delay for a transition toward a renewable
energy-based economy.

Related Links:

…

Source: Is pro-nuke enthusiasm in the U.S. waning?.

LOS ANGELES - Two conservation groups and a California resident have sued to stop construction of a SunPower Corp solar power plant, saying the project would harm the rural area’s wildlife, air quality and natural beauty.

Sa…

Source: Groups sue to stop California solar plant.

by Adam Browning.

What do GE, Charlie Sheen, and the most promising bachelor on The Bachelorette have in common? They all are playing a role in bringing solar to New York.

The is an effort to bring 5 gigawatts of solar to the state by 2025. It’s the biggest solar campaign currently underway in the U.S., and GE is doing its part by joining a broad coalition of businesses supporting the effort. The global solar photovoltaic market is going strong—it surged from $2.5 billion in 2000 to —but all politics is local, and brand-name, hometown business involvement is key.

Charlie Sheen’s doing his part by dedicating all his free time to orgies, drugs, and general hedonism. This, in turn, lead to the abrupt and unexpected cancellation of his TV show, which freed up space on the CBS Super Screen in Times Square … making it available to a coalition of solar advocates for use as a campaign tool.

Thanks, Charlie. Your sacrifice will be remembered.

The Super Screen is currently running a (“When there’s a big spill of solar energy, it’s called a Nice Day … Solar: the Perfect Combination of Woodstock and Wall Street”).

Some of you may be thinking: “I could do better than that.” Well, some of you are in luck: There’s to get your mug on the Times Square billboard (1.5 million views per month) making the case for solar in New York. and give it your best shot.

Even solar executive —he of Bachelorette fame—is taking time out of his wooing schedule to help the New York solar campaign out. Think you can do better than ? Have at it.

Related Links:

…

Source: Bachelorette contestant, Charlie Sheen add wattage to NYC solar campaign.

A Spanish firm which once employed 130 people assembling solar panels in Otay Mesa has moved manufacturing to Tijuana….

Source: San Diego solar factory moves to Tijuana.

Summer is coming folks, and what better way to spend a hot day than to lavish in the shade sipping your beverage of choice plugged into this sweet solar canopy? Soon the folks at will offer a that produces power and can be custom designed for a multitude of applications. The robust thin film solar technology can produce power under many different light conditions and when the shade becomes a bit too tattered it can be completely recycled. can span just about anything in three different configurations and produce plenty of power for your daiquiri machine.

Read the rest of

|
Add to |

Post tags: , , , , , , , ,

…

Source: New Tensile Solar Shade by SMIT Will Juice Up Your Summer with Sun Power.

by John Farrell.

This post originally appeared on , a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s .

Using the tax code rather than cash incentives to support wind and solar power costs ratepayers significantly more. because project developers were selling their federal tax credits to third parties at 50 to 70 cents on the dollar. And a couple of months ago:

Along these lines, the Bipartisan Policy Center [in March] showing that simply handing cash to clean energy developers is twice—yes, twice—as effective as supporting them through tax credits.

The problem is that all but the largest renewable energy developers can’t capture the full value of the federal tax credits. So, prior to the economic collapse, a number of enterprising investment banks (and others) started buying up tax credits from developers to reduce their tax bills.

Banks took their cut, of course, which decreased the value of the tax credits to the actual wind or solar project.

This was great for big banks, but lousy for taxpayers and electric ratepayers. In fact, using tax credits instead of cash grants for wind and solar projects increased the cost per kilowatt-hour produced by 18 and 27 percent, respectively. (Wait, why not 50 percent? Because even though the tax credit is only half as good as cash, the cash payment only covers up to 30 percent of a wind or solar project’s costs. So cash in lieu of tax credits can only improve that portion of a project’s finances.)

Seen another way, if the $4 billion spent on renewable tax incentives in 2007 had been given as cash instead, it could have leveraged 3,400 megawatts of additional wind power and 52 megawatts of additional solar power. This would have increased incremental installed wind capacity in 2007 by 64 percent, and installed solar capacity by 25 percent.

The increased costs come from higher prices that utilities pay for wind and solar power (and pass on to consumers) as well as the the cost to taxpayers of passing half of the tax credit value to investment bank shareholders instead of wind and solar projects.

The problem isn’t solved, but has simply been postponed.

When the economy tanked, so did profits (and tax liability) for big banks. Wind and solar producers had no one to buy their tax credits and the entire industry was in danger of collapsing. The adjacent chart illustrates the idiocy of relying on the tax code for energy policy.

Congress stepped in with a temporary fix, allowing project developers to receive a cash grant in lieu of the tax credit. The temporary cash grant (currently extended through 2011) kept the wind and solar industry running during the recession and has saved taxpayers and ratepayers billions of dollars.

It’s also helped level the playing field, (such as the cooperative-owned Crow Lake Wind Project in South Dakota), rather than requiring complex tax equity partnerships. It’s meant more revenue from wind and solar staying in the local community. And this means a larger, stronger constituency for renewable energy.

The cash grant option will expire at the end of 2011, but hopefully the climate hawks and fiscal hawks in Congress will take note: we can support wind and solar at half the price with smarter policy.

(Hat tip to .)

Related Links:

…

Source: Cash incentives for renewables are twice as effective as tax credits.

Editor’s Note: This entry has been cross-posted from .

We commonly think that the sun provides free energy. That’s true, but photovoltaic panels and other equipment to harvest that energy aren’t free. The question is: how are they paid for?

U.S. residential and commercial solar system customers have historically paid the old-fashioned way: with cash. But the large upfront cash requirements can place solar energy systems out of reach for many utility customers. Financial markets are responding and increasingly providing solar customers with new options. Purchases can be rolled into mortgage refinances, and consumers can opt to lease solar equipment just as they can lease a car. Others are choosing power purchase agreements, in which homeowners host equipment on their roof or property. In these agreements, homeowners neither buy nor lease the equipment; instead they agree to purchase the power produced.

The growing list of financing options is exciting, but we don’t know much about what type of financing consumers are choosing, how often and with what results.

The two most robust data resources—the database and a survey conducted by the Solar Electric Power Association — provide interesting, though limited, insight. California’s extensive database indicates that third-party financing is on the rise for smaller-scale systems of 10 kW or less. However, trends in California may not mirror the rest of the country.

The survey provides more geographically diverse data. In 2007 and 2008, the association asked 600 people in six states how they paid for their residential solar systems. All respondents offset some costs with a utility- or state-sponsored incentive program. For the balance, two-thirds used cash payment, and another 21 percent chose a home equity loan. The remainder utilized mortgage refinancing (8 percent) or other loans (2 percent). However, conditions in the solar and financial markets were very different than today. Now home equity loans are more difficult to obtain, and leases and power purchase agreements, which were just being introduced into the residential market in 2008, are more popular.

So for now, the question remains: How are homeowners and businesses paying for solar energy systems? The answer is important. Knowing what works can help the industry and financial markets promote promising financing mechanisms. Additionally, understanding the financing structures available to homes and businesses will help quantify the true costs of installing solar equipment and help identify ways to cut that cost.

Solar energy still won’t be free, but we can make it more affordable and more accessible.

David Feldman is an energy analyst at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. To read David’s more detailed examination of this topic, see the .

UPDATE: Looking for more solar data? Check out the . State Government and the .

…