MITEI (MIT Energy Initiative) releases report on the future of solar energy

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/mitei-report-future-solar-energy-0505

[font face=Serif][font size=5]MITEI releases report on the future of solar energy[/font]

[font size=4]Report highlights enormous potential and discusses pathways toward affordable solar energy.[/font]

Melissa Abraham | MIT Energy Initiative
May 5, 2015

[font size=3]Solar energy holds the best potential for meeting humanity’s future long-term energy needs while cutting greenhouse gas emissions — but to realize this potential will require increased emphasis on developing lower-cost technologies and more effective deployment policy, says a comprehensive new study, titled “The Future of Solar Energy,” released today by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI).

“Our objective has been to assess solar energy’s current and potential competitive position and to identify changes in U.S. government policies that could more efficiently and effectively support its massive deployment over the long term, which we view as necessary,” says MITEI Director Robert Armstrong, the Chevron Professor in Chemical Engineering at MIT.

The study’s chair, Richard Schmalensee, the Howard W. Johnson Professor Emeritus of Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, adds, “What the study shows is that our focus needs to shift toward new technologies and policies that have the potential to make solar a compelling economic option.”

The study group is presenting its findings to lawmakers and senior administration officials this week in Washington.

…[/font][/font]

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Why the best place for solar panels may not be on your roof

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/06/the-best-place-for-solar-panels-may-not-be-your-roof-says-mit-study/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Why the best place for solar panels may not be on your roof[/font]

By Chris Mooney May 6

[font size=3]It’s hard to argue with the idea that solar is the energy source of the future. That’s partly because no other source can really match its potential to generate massive amounts of energy and power our society.

But how do you best ensure the spread of solar power so that it proliferates quickly, and thus helps reduce our carbon emissions?

A new report on the future of solar power from the MIT Energy Initiative argues that from a societal perspective, the most popular and visible solar deployment today — atop residential rooftops — may not be the most economically optimal one. “If the objective of deployment support policies is to increase solar generation at least cost, favoring residential PV [solar photovoltaic] makes no sense,” it states.

The reason, explains Francis O’Sullivan, director of research and analysis at the MIT Energy Initiative, is the way current subsidies for solar energy work in the U.S. The federal subsidy (or tax credit) is “investment based,” which essentially means that it focuses on dollars spent to install solar, rather than the amount of generating capacity installed.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

2. This part of the analysis is weak at best.

It doesn't take into account the pool of capital that is tapped into by the non-monitized value that many, many homeowners place on the idea of owning their own energy source.
It also produces an incentive structure that endeavors to preserve centralized control of energy (it is MIT after all). A very viable alternative approach would focus on incentives for distributed commercial, community and residential microgrids; getting the "utilities" out of the generating business entirely.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I think it makes perfect sense. It takes advantage of “economies of scale.”

But… then I already thought that.

If you want personal ownership, OK, that’s fine. Buy into a solar farm.
http://www.gocloudsolar.com/

[kristopher]

4. Scale and per unit costs are only a part of the picture...

...considered when purchasing decisions are made. I have nothing against taking advantage of it when it is blended into a larger set of values, but as I noted, there are other avenues where the "willingness to buy" and the localized profit motive are going to generate far more rapid growth than putting our eggs in the basket of entities that are dedicated to preserving the value of their existing investments in infrastructure. Just in case that isn't clear - that infrastructure would be the generating and transmissions assets presently in place.
No where is the economic effect of competition between centralized and distributed addressed. I'd argue that ignoring the existence of the industry's self preservation motive pretty much invalidates that entire section of the analysis and the complete lack of even acknowledgement of the existence of this dilemma - the premier topic currently affecting the shape of electric planning and policy globally - contaminates the entire paper.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I feel society’s goal should be generating the maximum number of kWh using solar.

Utilities are a good way to do this. I think that community-owned utilities and “cooperatives” are fine things. A neighborhood solar park? Yay! I like municipally owned utilities. If privately owned utilities will decrease our carbon emissions faster, more power to (er… from) them…

If you want to put solar on your roof, and can, go for it! If you want me to subsidize it with my taxes and electric bills, yeah… OK… But if there’s a way I can get “more bang for the buck”…

[kristopher]

6. That is the entire point Mr Contrarian.

The issue under discussion is the failure of the analysis to consider the implications of the effects of the conflict between centralized generation and distributed generation. They pay lip service to distributed generation and then make a policy proposal that is guaranteed to discourage distributed generation and protect the profits of the in place Fossil and Nuclear Generating Assets.
Now, maybe you have a belief that there is a magic wand buried in the idea of protecting utilities that will actually encourage them to strand their investors' assets, but I am quite certain that is as faulty a belief as your enthusiasm for hydrogen. Independent of your statements we know that in the structural sense, hydrogen and large scale centralized thermal generation are seen as complementary (not in spite of their wastefulness but because such inefficiency drives consumption to produce higher profits). Building on that, when we go by your epoxy-like affinity for both of these counter-factual ideas it is pretty evident that they are linked in your value system no matter your disclaimers of wanting a rapid transition.