Arizona’s ‘Solar Industry Killer’ Bill Dropped (Updated Feb 25 5PM)

A solar industry-stunting bill moving through the Arizona legislature is withdrawn amidst a firestorm of protest. 

Whether it was the protests of the blogosphere, the ensuing Twitter storm, actions from the Az4Solar team, testimony from the likes of SunTech or appeals from SolarCity, the end result is the same: HB 2701 has been withdrawn by its primary sponsor.

Late this afternoon, according to OnEarth, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's office issued a brief statement saying that House Bill 2701 -- widely condemned by opponents who called it "the death knell of the solar industry" in Arizona -- had been withdrawn by its primary sponsor, Representative Debbie Lesko (R-9).

The full statement reads:

"Representative Lesko's wise and thoughtful actions today to withdraw HB 2701 should be lauded. This sends a clear and united message to employers around the world -- Arizona remains the premier destination for solar industries."

And SunTech issued this statement:

“We applaud Mayor Cavanaugh, Governor Brewer, and the entire Arizona leadership for their swift action this week to keep solar industry jobs in the state and to decrease uncertainty in the solar markets," said Steve Chan, Chief Strategy officer, Suntech. "Our team is eager to return to our efforts to open our Goodyear factory and get Arizona's people working with us to the continue the growth of the U.S. solar market.”

Way to go Arizona.

 

                                                  ***

There is a bill moving through the Arizona legislature that could pull the rug out from under the Arizona solar industry.

Rather than actually build out renewable energy sources, the Republican-controlled Arizona House Government Committee voted to simply redefine what renewable energy meant.  By redefining nuclear power as a renewable energy source, with one stroke of the pen, Arizona could succeed in meeting its renewable energy goal.  That's because APS, Arizona's biggest utility, already gets more than 25 percent of its electricity from a nuclear plant, the Palo Verde plant outside of Phoenix.   

Nuclear is a meaningful part of the U.S. energy mix and despite its many financial and technological issues, it's going to continue to be part of our energy picture.  But to define it as a renewable energy source seems arguable.  The actual wording in the bill expanded the term "renewable energy" to mean "renewable and non-carbon producing energy."  And that means nuclear qualifies. 

So, if the bill makes it to law, the utility is no longer obliged to add any more renewable power. 

The bill would make Arizona the only state that includes nuclear power in an RES (though Utah might be considering this, as well). The bill also sets up a new, challenging regulatory climate for solar firms and utilities.  Rather than being friendly to solar, Arizona would have more government regulation of solar business than any other state. 

The Arizona Corporation Commission’s Renewable Energy Standard mandated that utilities must generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025.  Arizona also had generous solar subsidies for consumers and tax credits for manufacturers. 

Which is why it was an important market for leading solar installer and financier Solar City.  And a very strong contributing factor to locating solar giant SunTech's new PV panel factory in Goodyear, Arizona

Solar City, SunTech, Arizona-based Kyocera and even APS, the utility itself, were against passage of the bill.  And now SunTech might reconsider locating to another state, according to The Phoenix Sun.

Lyndon Rive, the CEO of SolarCity had this to say: "Arizona sent a clear signal to the solar industry by creating its renewable energy standard, and the industry responded. Solar companies expanded here, hired local workers, built local facilities and initiated thousands of clean power projects. HB 2701 would change the rules after the fact. If passed, it would pull the rug out from under the solar industry, eliminate jobs and reverse the flow of investment coming into the state."

Polly Shaw, Suntech America's Director of External Relations wrote to me in an email, "One very important point to us and to many in the industry is Arizona’s commitment to meeting 4.5 percent of its RPS with distributed rooftop generation, and dividing that equally in half between commercial and residential rooftops.  That’s important -- siting renewable energy close to demand has proven, documented energy and cost savings benefits to utilities and ratepayers.  2701 removes the DG requirement and its benefits to ratepayers."

GTM Research considered Arizona one of the top states for utility scale PV deployment in the U.S. because of their state policy: an RPS with a specific requirement for solar power or distributed generation.  

 

What motivated these lawmakers to try to make this seemingly regressive change?  There was a small monthly fee that paid for the program -- less than $4 per month for residential customers.  The sponsor of HB 2701, Republican Representative Debbie Lesko, objects to the fee.  And evidently, conservative ideological opposition to government interference in utility affairs could win the votes.

Now, market forces might have to impel utilities to move towards renewables.  Or not.

Shaw of SunTech said, "We found a great reception to the solar industry today at the hearing of the Arizona House Committee on Government.  Legislative members signaled that they heard Suntech's interests and those of developers who are right now creating good jobs in the state.  Based on today's discussion, we think the Legislature will ultimately correctly see the value that renewable energy offers to Arizona's economic future."

That is a very diplomatic response to a very backward piece of energy policy.

The bill has to move on to the rules committee, so the battle isn't over yet.

50 Comments

  • Robert Bachrach 02/24/10 3:20 PM

    Nuclear Power Plants use a lot of cooling water, so it will be interesting to see how Arizona deals with this aspect.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/got-water-nuclear-power.html

    According to PNM (part owners of the plant), Palo Verde’s cooling towers rely on recycled sewage effluence. “More than 20 billion gallons of this water are recycled every year” for this purpose. Palo Verde is the largest Nuclear Plant in the US.

    Let’s hope Arizona has enough sewage.

    Reply
      • bill 02/24/10 4:03 PM

        Acturally Az has so much water they don’t know what to do with it. A large percentage of the Colorado river water is being moved to the southern part of the state and stored in salt mines. A lot of the excess water is being pissed away watering golf courses, grass and up north trees.

      • Linda 02/24/10 4:51 PM

        This State needs to be revamped, from the Governor down.  What is wrong with these people?  They need to wake up and start thinking for themselves, instead of being lead around like little puppets.  This State is very backwards and very slow about catching up, and they better wake up soon before it’s too late.  Having new business here, which would create new jobs, would be one of the best solutions to our own economy.  And these businesses run on solar energy - HELLO, this is Arizona where there is more solar energy per year than probably anywhere. Of course, government officials don’t really care about the “people”; they are selfish and greedy; it’s all about them.  We really need to have more say in what they decide, since they don’t know how.  How much longer for this Governor?

        And since we’re on the subject, our US government officials; Seantors, Representative and all the others, need to go after four years, and let new people act on our behlf.  After four years, they have had enough time to be bought, so it will take the large corporations a while to get their money into new hands; just my opinion.

  • SB 02/24/10 3:28 PM

    Why should solar advocates continue to support investment in the state? Unless something changes in the rules committee soon, I’m reconsidering attending the solar summit at the end of March due to this backward decision.

    Reply
  • harryscummer 02/24/10 3:28 PM

    Arizona does it again?
    They disregard Daylight Savings Time
    Fall short on acknowledging MLK’s holiday
    And now they redefine “renewable” to fit their selfish thoughts without any consideration for the potential economic gains their state can capitalize on.Not to mention the Solar companies that have already put money into the state.
    Shame on you Republican controlled House Government Comittee, you set avery bad example for the younger generation who will have to try to understand your mis-guided logic. You must sleep well at night. Stop taking the Ambien.

    Reply
  • Robert M. 02/24/10 3:28 PM

    Arizona Deniers 1, Arizona 0.

    Don’t you just love “C” students running the world! These politicians apparently weigh the “cost” of everything and the “value” of nothing, such as the unique benefits of their states sunny potential to produce clean power.

    Good luck paying for the “cost” of that nuclear power!

    Reply
  • Roger A Yolo 02/24/10 3:44 PM

    I like the concept of PV and wind having to meet market forces and not just being installed to get credits, grants, subsidies or green points. They have to grow up sometime. If PV can’t make it in sunny AZ without these, then there is no reason to have it.
    We have wind in the 70s which died when subsidies were dropped.  Maybe history will repeat.
    .

    Reply
  • Michael B 02/24/10 3:44 PM

    What do you expect from a state that produced John Mc Cain?  Clean and Renewable Energy from Nuclear? Give people a break.  I was told that the Arizona State GOP Party offered, and is willing to underwrite the Insurance Policies for the New Plants .! That is great news!  Is this true? Its good to see a party like the GOP back it’s talk with action! . Please also make it known that this means Arizona is also welcoming all the Radioactive Waste Product storage and disposal,  from our Nations Existing Reactors! That’s mighty nice of you fellows. I didn’t know you were so accommodating to your fellow patriots!  I suggest that you talk to Vermont’s Energy Commission where they are closing down the Indian Point Reactor that has been leaking Radioactive Tritium into the environment for Years. Why don’t you just contact Senator Sanders and see if he will donate the plant to be used as a monument to your State Controlling Party as a reward for your Forward Thinking Renewable Energy Policies!  Perhaps you can make arrangements to have the decommissioned plant shipped to Phoenix or Mesa to be put on display for your state legislature.  Since your Lobbyist funded, with no limits, and the GOP party says is so safe, You wont have a thing to worry about.

    Reply
  • John Barnes 02/24/10 3:44 PM

    So sorry about the stop of solar progress for Az.

    Other Republican legislatures are sure to try the same thing.

    Reply
  • Ken Ekstrom 02/24/10 3:45 PM

    Actually the vote was not on party lines. One Republican (and co-sponsor of the bill) voted against the bill.

    Reply
  • John Barnes 02/24/10 3:46 PM

    Sorry for the Az solar industry, that had been off to a nice start.

    Unfortunately other Republican legislatures will try this also.

    Reply
  • Michael B 02/24/10 3:49 PM

    Is it true that the National Republican Party has agreed to underwrite the hazard insurance on all the nuclear plants in the USA?  This is great news, if its true?  They have enough lobbyist funding to support it with no problem!

    Reply
  • Mike M. 02/24/10 4:06 PM

    It’s an interest display of bi-partisan pass the hot potato since even the Washington Democrats, led by Obama himself, is pushing nukes. Obama pledged about $8 billion in loan guarantees for reactor construction in GA and was quoted this week saying ,“In the near term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’ll have to make tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. We’ll need to make continued investments in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies, even as we build greater capacity in renewables like wind and solar, and we’ll have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America.,”

    Reply
  • Jace 02/24/10 4:12 PM

    These politics would be the reason I left the fine state of Arizona after graduating university.  It is the virtual surface of the sun, and they make it hard for solar deployments?????  REALLY

    Reply
  • Wall Street Change 02/24/10 4:28 PM

    What is truly shocking about this is Arizona probably ges as much or more intense sunlight throughout the entire year than 85% of all the states in the U.S.

    (sung to the tune of new york new york) If solar can’t make there, it can’t make it anywhere, new clear, new clear!

    Reply
  • Michael B 02/24/10 4:36 PM

    The only thing that the REPUBLICAN PARTY IS PATRIOTIC TO IS THEIR OWN WALLETS! Certainly not the environment, Jobs or America’s future.

    Reply
  • Matt A 02/24/10 4:51 PM

    Could be worse.  West Virginia plans to meet it’s Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard of 25% with sources including: “coal technology, coal bed methane, natural gas, fuel produced by a coal gasification or liquefaction facility, synthetic gas, integrated gasification combined cycle technologies, waste coal, tire-derived fuel, pumped storage hydroelectric projects, and recycled energy.” 

    http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb103 ENR.htm&yr=2009&sesstype=1X&i=103

    My favorite: Tire Derived Fuel.  Nothing obscene about calling that alternative energy.

    Reply
  • WOV 02/24/10 4:53 PM

    Last paragraph aside, the general tone of the article seems to assume the bill has already passed, which is quite far from the truth.  See http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html , esp. the portion where the bill is likely to “die in (Rules) committee”.

    Reply
  • Jay 02/24/10 4:57 PM

    Arizona has all the sun that they need and supply energy to the western half of USA. They also have abundant wind power. The only thing they don’t have in abundance is water. So if they are using effluent water to cool the nuclear towers. The place already stinks to heaven with all the corruption that is ongoing in building these “energy efficient” and “green” nuclear power plants. To boot now you will have the stink from the “effluent” water. Welcome to the Sunshine state and smell the success of the GOP!

    Reply
      • Chris 02/24/10 8:32 PM

        If nuclear power is so bad, why does most of Europe’s power come from nuclear plants?  They have coherent power grid rules and guidelines across the entire EU.  Wind is a small part of their overall strategy (larger than the US’s, but still a small piece of their mix).

        Interesting that nuclear power was shelved in the US 3 decades ago by the environmentalist lobby.  The unfortunate side effect of that political pressure DC - read as the Democrats - was to push forward with coal power for 3 decades.

        This is the unintended consequence - instead of 50% of our power coming from coal in the US, it could have been half that.  30 years of carbon emissions released that could have been prevented with a little more dilligence and foresight instead of scare tactics and knee-jerk reactions.

        If you are going to blame the republicans for everything bad today, at least understand how we got to where we are today in the energy sector.  It was - at least - a bipartisan effort.

  • Joel B 02/24/10 5:46 PM

    This was not a very well written piece of journalism.  One House Committee vote does not a law make.  Greentech Media ought to be a little more careful about the headlines they write and the journalism they produce.  Evidently they do not know the first thing about how democracy works in Arizona or the country for that matter.

    Reply
      • Eric Wesoff 02/24/10 5:51 PM

        Read the last line Joel B:  The bill has to move on to the rules committee, so the battle isn’t over yet.

      • Eric Wesoff 02/24/10 8:00 PM

        I’ve seen Schoolhouse Rock so am familiar with how a bill becomes a law.  I’ve edited this piece to better emphasize that this is not yet law.  Thanks for reading.

      • WOV 02/25/10 12:27 PM

        Meant to be more playful than outwardly sarcastic w/ the SH Rock reference - but the previous article was likely to cause more alarm than necessary- think the edited version far better captures the real situation….

  • William Reyes 02/24/10 6:05 PM

    I’m dissapointed to say the least about Arizona.  What I don’t understand is why republicans are so loyal to China. First they send all the manufacturing jobs over there and now they’re making sure China gets ahead of us in real clean energy technology like wind, solar, and electric cars. We’re gonna be wasting our time with “clean coal”, a theoretical technology at best, while wind and solar have been in practice for decades.  Next thing you know, those traitors will let Osama Bin Laden get away…oops!  Obama backed more oil and nat gas exploration, “clean coal” ,and nuclear energy because only through compromise can he get anything done. Those aren’t initiatives his administration wants.

    Reply
      • Scott Farley 02/24/10 8:25 PM

        I’m not sure I even follow this argument.  Selling out to China because of manufacturing?

        The US leads the world in installed wind.  China is no where close.  Last time I checked, Vestas, GE, Siemens, Clipper and others have US bases of operations and manufacturing.  Not Chinese.

        Clean coal developments have been in practice for decades.  Solar generation is still in its infancy.  Look at the installed generation bases for a comparison. 

        Obama backed more natural gas drilling because natural gas is cleaner than coal and can provide base load generation.  Solar and wind cannot provide base load generation.  Natural gas, along with nuclear and coal, can also provide generation close to the load centers.  The unfortunately reality is that the most viable solar farms are between Texas and California.  You cannot get that power to Boston, NYC, Chicago or other east cost cities. 

        Wind is from Texas north to Canada.  Still an incredible challenge to get that power to the east and the west coasts.  The timelines to install new transmission to get wind and solar to the load centers today is at least 5 years and likely 10+, and 100’s of billions of dollars.  And this still doesn’t include the cost of building the solar and wind farms themselves - which is another 100 billion dollars for the gigawatts of power needed to replace coal.

        Or we could build cleaner natural gas plants and clean nuclear plants for 50-100 billion - and they’d be close to where the power is actually needed.

  • Livid Resident 02/24/10 6:35 PM

    What a poor excuse of a country. Amerika… land of what???

    Reply
  • Kevin Christy 02/24/10 7:05 PM

    Lord, where to begin… the incoherence in U.S. energy policy is, not to put too fine a point on it, just a sight to behold.

    Reply
  • Tim 02/24/10 7:40 PM

    Republicans sure don’t know what the heck they want,..And BUSH!  Geezzzm,,The W was the worst president in my life time of 50 years..And sadly their own party knew it! They were just to busy banking billions on the backs of working poor people while singing “Trust us we know whats best for yall” and Dicky,..Cheny you better never run for office in the USA!! Thief! and lier….May God have mercy on your soul.

    Reply
  • Scott Farley 02/24/10 8:16 PM

    I’m baffled by the comments here.  Nuclear is the only technology that can fulfill base load power generation requirements - and it releases no carbon.  Solar and wind produce power about 30% of the time.  And in nearby New Mexico, most of the wind power comes at night, which is when power is needed the least on the grid. 

    A nuclear plant can produce power 90-100% of the time - and the outages are scheduled.  You cannot schedule wind and the sun.

    I don’t understand why they should be punitive to solar, but to consider nuclear as a “carbon neutral energy resource” is a no brainer.

    It is comical that the bulk of the comments are full of political trashing - yet are equally politically driven in their own right.  Unintentional irony.  Good stuff.

    Reply
  • Phil Manke 02/24/10 8:31 PM

    It must always be noted that nuclear derived energy is a massive global warming provider, asside from the impossible waste storage problem and leakage problems.  Current solar is the only way. Git-er-done with the sun!

    Reply
  • randydutton 02/24/10 9:59 PM

    Solar will succeed or fail on its economics, not subsidies..  Solar still is too expensive.  And solar requires more of a decreasing supply of rare earth elements (REE), which are monopolized by China.  Indium combined with gallium is a key component of futuristic new solar panels.  Let the technology mature and find its path. 

    For those who push for electric cars, not only are they more expensive, they require additional REEs.  A Prius requires 2-4 pounds of neodymium, and Toyota has had to purchase much of its supply from the Chinese black market.  China has declared that by 2012 it no longer would export many of the REEs, but rather would sell us the finished components.  Windmills can take up to several hundred pounds of neodymium.

    So the result of the green manufacturing is to shift jobs to China, not create them in the US.  And then the taxpayer subsidies get deposited in a Chinese bank, just in time to “maybe” loan us some more.
    Read http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/rare-earth-elements-endangered-list; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1; and the dangers of ethanol on the over 200 million open cycle engines in America http://www.opei.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1926.

    For all the progressives in this posting who don’t understand economics, or science, and decry conservatives, it is the conservatives who mostly create the private sector jobs in America.  It mostly is the progressives who create the financially dependent government jobs.  The government jobs are dependent upon the tax money support from the private sector.

    And for the gullible who believe the Republicans are paying the insurance premium for the nuclear industry - grow up.

    Reply
      • jim stack 02/24/10 11:14 PM

        Randy, I see you think solar is too expensive and electric are using too many resources. If solar should make it on it’s own WHY DO THEY SUBSIDIES NUCLEAR and have for over 30 years, yet it’s still too expensive along with unsafe, uses too much water and it’s fuel comes from Russia (Uranium). You may want to check but they still subsidies coal and natural gas too.

        So what are your solutions that don’t use resouces and are cost effective ?

        I ride a bicycle for most of my communts to and from work. I put in solar PV and solar hot water in 2001 before incentives and it already paid off. I made my home much more efficient with a radiant barrier and solar screen , solar tube lights and use LEDs. It really pays.

      • William Reyes 02/25/10 10:11 AM

        Actually, I would argue that fossil fuels are far more expensive. We are led to believe that coal and oil are cheap by their strong lobbies.  Oil and coal seem cheap because society has been bearing their massive costs for so long that most of us don’t even know it. Oil is extremely dependent on the US government to fight wars and conduct diplomatic and intelligence actions in oil rich and volatile areas of the world.  The defense department is over half of our annual federal budget!  We bear the costs of oil and coal in our ever mounting health insurance costs including respiratory illnesses and cancer that are growing in their effect on our society daily. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and other alternatives have been forced for decades to bear all of their costs which is why they’re deemed unprofitable.

  • Robert 02/24/10 11:12 PM

    Silicon is the dominant solar material, the 2nd largest percentage of the earth crust abundance. Rare earths are not used in solar. Rare earths are not required for electric cars.
    You should have a defeatist attitude for creating manufacturing jobs in the US, green or otherwise.
    Progressive: 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
    Why are you against progress?

    Reply
  • Bill Woods 02/25/10 12:46 AM

    I don’t understand all the fuss; as long as it’s carbon-free energy, it doesn’t matter whether it’s “renewable” or not. Why isn’t anyone suggesting that Arizona, in addition to switching to a more sensible definition of clean energy, also increase the mandated fraction to, say, 30%? I don’t think Arizona will get any new nuclear or hydro plants in the near future.

    Anyway, Arizona is still next to Southern California, where utilities have been struggling meet the state’s RES. Solar plants won’t have any problem finding customers, if they can deliver at a semi-reasonable price.

    Reply
  • Matt A 02/25/10 10:40 AM

    While I agree that solar energy is important to invest in further and in the end will be a valuable energy resource, Robert is mistaken when he says that rare earth metals are not used in solar or needed in electric cars.  Silicon, while plentiful, is currently very energy intensive to purify.  Most solar cells relay solely on this element, but thin film needs indium right now to work efficiently (as do all LCD screens).  Indium is a huge problem, because it is not mined directly, but only as a byproduct of zinc mining.  The only places where it’s found pure are on the bottom of the ocean near volcanic activity.

    But that’s not to say that this will remain the case.  Most major solar companies and even some broader technology companies are trying to find better ways to make solar cells.  IBM has had recent success making cells that only use highly available materials: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/14/ibm-sets-new-solar-cell-efficiency-world-record

    But you could frame this debate about any current technology.  The advances in fuel cells that the Bloom Box show could be a game changer just as the new low fuel use nuclear that Bill Gates is backing could. 

    We just have to work with what we have now that’s better than fossil fuels and work toward the advancements that will eventually beat them.

    Reply
  • Santiago Grijalva 02/25/10 4:39 PM

    Is nuclear power renewable?

    Reply
      • Eric Wesoff 02/27/10 8:31 PM

        Arguably low-carbon.  Certainly not renewable.

  • R Sweeney 02/25/10 6:39 PM

    Solar proponents need to get their hands OUT of their neighbors’ wallets to support their religion.

    If one believes in solar PV, buy it for your own house. And do it WITHOUT stealing tax money from your neighbors or sweetheat SREC or other high dollar power purchase agreements with your utility. Everything is available, it’s there for you at the push of an interwebitube button.

    Spend the $100,000 or more of YOUR OWN MONEY to get off the grid and feel the smug self-satisfaction that only green moral superiority can bring. And spend the $20,000 every few years to buy new batteries (don’t forget to recycle!). And make sure you replace your certified lead-solder free inverters before they fail from thermal cycling.

    And leave the rest of us alone.

    Reply
  • feckech 02/26/10 1:03 AM

    The damage is already done - way to go Lesko.  20 years of hard work undone in days. I can guarantee your opponent will win next election. Lesko the queen of solar mean!

    Reply
  • Jay 02/26/10 11:17 AM

    Debbie Lesko can wear a dunce hat and go around in Phoenix as the person who is more stupid than Sarah Palin. .. Affirmed by Regan Jr. ( Ronald’s son)

    Reply
  • Jim Bricklin 02/26/10 3:18 PM

    Sooner or later Solar power—the wimpyest, most worthless energy source in the history of civilization—will be forced to compete honestly with nuclear power.  When that happens, the Solar industry will collapse (yet again). 

    Perhaps far in the future, there will be another generation of technically incompetant citizens who will again get suckered into wasting billions of dollars on a next generation of useless, impractical solar gadgets.

    Meanwhile, the sooner we can kill off the current generation of solar idiocy, the sooner we can build a reliable energy infrastucture.

    Reply
  • JoeP 02/26/10 4:26 PM

    R Sweeney sounds like a goofball.    Do you even realize that you’re currently subsidizing oil, gas and electricity?    Every single form of energy has been subsidized to an extent and coal for example was almost entirely subsidized for periods of time.    What you’re arguing is basically that since solar is one of the newest technologies, they have to go out and run a 400M race from the starting line while coal and nuclear were subsidized halfway or more to the endpoint.  That’s just ignorant.

    Solar is only going to become more cost-effective as utility rates rise, one day, it won’t need subsidies at all which will be a great thing for a much cleaner and abundant form of energy.

    Reply
  • William Reyes 02/26/10 5:01 PM

    Ok they dropped it!!  Good job Arizona! Arizona not supporting solar is as dumb as Iceland abandining geothermal or Texas dropping wind.

    Reply
  • JoeP 02/26/10 5:28 PM

    “Spend the $100,000 or more of YOUR OWN MONEY to get off the grid and feel the smug self-satisfaction that only green moral superiority can bring. And spend the $20,000 every few years to buy new batteries (don’t forget to recycle!). And make sure you replace your certified lead-solder free inverters before they fail from thermal cycling.”


    Even without subsidies, you’re looking at $20-$50 for a solar system.  Also not sure where you got the $20k for batteries from(out of your rear end?)    By sending power to the utility, you completely take away the need for batteries.    As far as inverter’s go, the top ones have a 10 year materials warranty, so no worries there.

    No need to panic, go solar, one way or another you’ll have to.    Give it 10-15 years and solar will be a necessity, not a choice.    It’ll be fun to see folks like you kicking and screaming all the way there though.  I’m sure there were plenty of folks who fought against television, microwaves and the internet as well.  Good luck with living in the past!

    Reply
  • Tom Gearing 02/26/10 6:11 PM

    “Free maket ...”  “No subsidies..”  What a joke.  The American Oil Aristocracy has been in bed with Middle East terrorist supporters for decades!  Every time you squeze the nozzel at the gas pumps, some of the money feeds a madrasa that is training the next classe of attackers.  And some of the money goes to the Bushes and other right-wingers, hence their eagerness to destroy renewable energy initiatives to keep their (oil) cash cows flowing.  Enron alone (one now defunct part of the oil aristocracy) contributed $485 million dollars to political campaigns for a single candidate: George W Bush.  Read a little truth from the National Corruption Index:

    Profile Result
    Abdul-Rahman Salim al-Ateeqi
    Last Updated: May 01, 2008
    Abdul-Rahman Salim al-Ateeqi is Personal Advisor to the Amir of Kuwait, and formerly that nation’s Ambassador to the United States as well as to the United Nations.

    He’s also Chairman of a global conglomerate holding critical US Defense contracts, though founded by one of those on a seized list of Al Qaeda’s top money providers. Al-Ateeqi is the Chairman of Investcorp, a $10 billion multinational started by Ahmad Turki Yamani, one of the 20 financiers’ names on the Al Qaeda “Golden Chain” document, seized in a 2002 Bosnian anti-terror raid.

    Another Investcorp founder and director, Abdullah Bakhsh, fronted $25 million to bailout George W Bush’s failing oil companies (founded with the Bin Laden family) in the ‘80s, along with Saudi Royals’ banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, an even more notable Al Qaeda “Golden Chain” luminary.

    Wake up, America.

    Reply
  • Bob Jacobson 03/3/10 7:31 PM

    Nuclear is renewable, in the sense that exhausted nuclear pellets and rods make excellent heavy-metal armor-penetrating ammunition.  Of course, it’s still radioactive so it poses a slight problem:  radioactive waste spread over an entire battlefield with a half-life of 50,000 years.  Nevertheless, spent uranium ammunition is very popular with the US military.

    Among the solar firms located in AZ, Suntech is Chinese, I believe, but why begrudge them the presence?  It’s the world’s biggest solar manufacturer so a little reverse technology transfer might be in the works. 

    As for “clean coal”—an oxymoron—and natural gas’ purity, gimme a break.  Solar is by no means the be-all and end-all, but it certainly has a role to play in high-intensity sunlight regions like AZ.  Remember, however, just because it’s made here doesn’t mean it’s used here.  I live in Tucson and have yet to see more than an occasional building equipped for solar, even just a hot-water heater.  The local promotion of solar is so weak one wonders if perhaps our city and Pima County council members have their heads in the sand, of which we also have plenty.

    Reply
  • Radiant Barrier 03/25/10 11:56 PM

    It’s a shame that we are still prolonging the inevitable.  We need to push further than our current limitations into a more efficient tomorrow.  Or, we will be playing catch up which is always twice as hard.  At least if you can’t effectively use solar power, install a radiant barrier to lower your cooling cost.  I bought mine from http://www.insulationstop.com

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar
.