If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Presidential Debate Highlights Differences Between Energy Philosophies and Government’s Role

White House angle treesWhile energy and the environment got relatively short shrift at the presidential debate, the candidates’ positions nonetheless came shining through. Case in point: the implicit reference to Solyndra, the failed solar company that got a federally guaranteed loan — and the role of new energies and cleaner fuels in the 21st Century.

The Democratic nominee said during the debate that the country could “deploy a half billion more solar panels,” underscoring her commitment to the New Energy Economy and toward defeating the negative effects of climate change. And while the Republican nominee Donald Trump had tried to say that he has never denied the existence of climate change — that is false as is he has called it a ‘hoax’ being perpetrated by the Chinese — he made a point of bringing up the failed solar maker without calling it by name.

“She talks about solar panels,” Trump retorted. “We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one. … Now, look, I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster.”

A disaster? Let’s look at the facts. The federal loan guarantee program has a total portfolio of $35 billion. The total number of defaults has amounted to about $750 million, which was mostly attributed to Solyndra that lost $535 million. But the loan program, which was never designed to turn a profit but rather, to enable promising start ups, has taken in about $810 million in interest payments. Therefore, it has made $30 million, says the US Department of Energy. 

The notion that investing in the solar market is a waste of taxpayer money is a popular one among those who espouse pure free market thinking — that markets will embrace those technologies and fuels that are proven and effective, as opposed to those that are propped up. Others will counter that the federal government has long been involved in energy markets and has provided both research and development as well as outright tax benefits and subsidies to all fuel forms.

To that end, the solar market is gaining traction. Just how big is it here? GTM Research says that more than half of all utility-scale solar plants in 2016 will be built irrespective of state mandates. Utility-scale refers to those centrally-located projects that aggregate thousands of solar panels and that must ultimately connect to the transmission grid, with the power most often being sold to other utilities.

According to the firm, the U.S. will install more than 6,000 megawatts of non-renewable portfolio standard utility-scale solar in 2016. That’s compared to the roughly 4,000 megawatts installed in 2015. Still, the growth potential for onsite rooftop solar for homes and businesses is also enormous, largely because of the falling price of solar panels.

GTM Research says that utilities are procuring green power because it has value. That is, it is fairly priced and it is displacing fossil-fueled energy at the most expensive time of the day, which helps offset carbon emissions. At the same time, power companies are able to lock-in prices over several years, which is also giving the project developers a guaranteed income so that they can build.

“More and more utilities have been procuring solar as a hedge against other fuel prices,” says Colin Smith, an analyst with GTM. “These are now largely voluntary procurements.”

The partisan divide over government’s role in energy markets is as bitter as ever, especially now that one candidate has planted her fate with lower-carbon fuels while the other is vested with the more traditional industrial economy. In the end, markets — and indeed, voters — will decide which direction they want to head.

Stormwater Management Programs: How to Integrate New Technologies to Improve Processes and Operations
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Six Steps to Navigating EHS & Compliance
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability

EHS Special Report
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

Real-Time Data as a Foundation to Drive Sustainability Performance
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions


2 thoughts on “Presidential Debate Highlights Differences Between Energy Philosophies and Government’s Role

  1. While I am a major proponent of renewable energy including roof-top and utility scale solar energy, we need to question if the Federal government should be in the business of making loans for solar energy. With the Federal government approaching $20 trillion in debt, the money the US Department of Energy is loaning out for these projects is money which the US Treasury must borrow. So even though the US Department of Energy has taken in and repaid the US Treasury $810 million in interest. The US Treasury’s average cost of borrowing money last year was 2.331% which means the $35 billion the US Treasury borrowed, cost the US taxpayer $815 million in interest payments. Another perspective on the US Department of Energy program is that it is meant to help deploy innovative energy programs, is solar energy in the innovative stage of development? The average homeowner can buy solar panel kits for their homes from Costco!!

  2. 2.331%!!….pull the other one…If Australian taxpayers serfs pay $1 Biillon/month on $40Billion borrowed from the puppet-masters that’s 30%…around the figures the deRothschild’s were charging America for taxpayer guaranteed loans prior to the British invasion, organised by the same ‘folk’ to punish America for refusing to renew the banking licence. I’d have another good look at what these loans actually cost in entirety…including up front money and delayed repayments.

Leave a Comment

Translate »