Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Solar Could Generate 15% of Power by 2020, If US Ends Fossil Fuel Subsidies
The Result: 882,000 New Jobs, 10% Drop in Emissions
Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.
Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says. (Image: SolveClimate)
That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.
Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.
During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.
To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.
There had been hints of this happening.
In September, the G20 group of the largest 20 economies agreed to phase out the $300 billion spent worldwide in fossil fuel subsidies "over the medium term" to combat climate change.
But neither the Obama administration nor Congress has yet to take steps to comply with the G20 commitment.
For solar to have a shot, the world cannot wait, Resch told reporters at the Copenhagen climate talks this month.
"We either remove subsidies with oil and gas or create parity with solar," he said.
Almost a million jobs could hang in the balance.
Currently, solar contributes less than 1 percent of energy used in the U.S. and employs some 60,000 people. Increasing that amount to 15 percent would result in a total of 882,000 new jobs, the association said.
That's compared with a dwindling coal mining industry that employs 85,000 people, said Resch.
The solar ramp-up would also fight climate change. A 15 percent scenario would slash America's energy-related emissions by an estimated 10 percent, curbing national carbon dioxide output by 1.4 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons).
To get there, however, rooftop solar photovoltaic systems would need to grow massively — from today's 1,500 MW to 350,000 MW by 2020. Concentrating solar power, which generates electricity by focusing sunlight on giant mirrors on desert land, would have to leap to 50,000 MW, up from just 424 MW today.
It "won't happen naturally," Resch said.
Domestic policy provisions that favor renewable energy sources are needed now, the solar industry argues. Many of these would not cost the government "a penny," said Resch. In fact, getting to 15 percent solar would require a relatively small government investment of between $2 billion and $3 billion in total, he said. But, he added,
"The government will have to change the way things have been done."
The policies proposed by SEIA are contained in the association's "Solar Bill of Rights." They include: the right to connect to a grid with uniform standards; the right to new transmission lines to connect solar resources in the Southwest to population centers; and the right to equal access to public land.
The last one is vital for utility-scale solar power. The oil industry currently leases over 45 million acres of federal land, much of it on sun-blessed stretches of Southwestern earth. The solar industry has access to "zero" of that, said Resch.
Also vital is global warming legislation that creates a long-term price on carbon and a federal "renewable portfolio standard" that would ensure a chunk of the nation's electricity gets produced by green power.
The industry hopes momentum from the utilities and the states will trickle up to the federal government. In 2009, solar accounted for 13 percent of all new utility announcements and filings, according to figures from the Electric Edison Institute. "There are orders right now for solar in excess of 10 GW from utilities," Resch said.
Assuming the solar industry returns to its pre-recession growth rate of 50 percent each year, electricity from the sun will be the lowest cost option in almost every state by 2018, the association said.
Copenhagen Plea
When SEIA presented the 15 percent accelerated deployment scenario at the Copenhagen talks this month, the U.S. trade group wasn't alone. Over 40 solar associations from around the world banned together to release a report summarizing surveys of the leading solar nations.
The main point was this: If the EU industry makes good on its pledge to get 12 percent of its electricity from solar by 2020, and if the U.S. can hit 15 percent in the same time frame, 6.3 million new jobs would flow. On top of that, China and India have each pledged promising near-term solar booms.
"Our message was clear," said Resch, "We are ready now to help solve the climate crisis."
Before the talks, solar representatives sent the UN secretary-general a letter, urging him to keep in mind that solar energy "offers a concrete way forward" in negotiations on how to curb and adapt to global warming. In the end, it didn't help. The Copenhagen Accord that emerged produced no binding commitments to slow climate change, and no hard signals to stimulate clean-tech investment.
But it appears the summit was not for naught for Big Solar.
"This is the first time in the history of climate negotiations that the global solar industry has gathered together with one voice," said Resch. It's also the first UN climate convention where the renewable energy industries outweighed the fossil fuel industries in "both in numbers and in influence," he added.
The key in the short term, Resch said, is not legally binding and verifiable carbon reductions but action in the biggest economies.
"If agreement has to wait until Mexico City or South Africa, fine, but we can no longer wait to star building the solar industry and making sure we have uniform policies around the world," Resch said.
- Posted in

25 Comments so far
Show AllOMG, who thought that one up? give him/her the nobel peace prize.................
"That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year..."
well, that was the OLD Obama....
Best start yet, eliminate subsidies, let price reflect true cost. Also, add the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq and the 6th Fleet to the cost of oil.
You are suggesting free market, something that has never been. Try ending capitalism.
The air might be fit to breath and the water fit to drink. Our children might stay healthy and we would all be glad to pay more taxes with the money we saved.
What is failed to be mentioned in this article, and the comments is where the money comes from to subsidize BIG Oil, and the answer to that is the unlimited-non-stop printing press called the federal reserve, money with no backing is supplying Big Oil and well as other evils, like, NAFTA and CAFTA and Obama's Middle East WARS.
You see, the obvious answer IS Solar and Wind and Other forms of Alternative fuel, no brainer, like duh.
But, what you all fail to realize is that BIG Business is in bed with BIG Government and with too BIG to fail and with the BIG Bad CENTRAL BANKS that fund all these evils.
What we need is NOT to subsidize ANYTHING, at least not via the government, which has NO Money except the worthless paper it keeps flooding the system with, which is not only going to cause an inflation in the money supply, hence a deflation in purchasing power, But it is also going to stop the private use of solar/wind etc from ever growing - namely because they have a vested interest in the status quo, and money for themselves and remaining in power, via thru career politician jobs or being CEOs of these companies or some conglomeration of these things.
We DO have to STOP Subsidizing Oil and Coal and WAR - but we have to do that by ending the federal reserve and the out of control backed by nothing printing presses. If they have no phony money, they can't play their OIL and WAR games. It would STOP overnight. End of discussion.
Then, Private industries, creative people and companies and scientists and technicians can be free to work on and create new forms of energy technology, without government bias subsidizes and backing of their friends corporations.
The ONLY way to End fossil fuels, have renewable energy, the only way to be truly green and care about the environment, and NOT just be some blind Gore ass-kisser, the ONLY way to END Obama's WARS in the middle east and the ONLY way to save healthcare and Americas financial woes is by ...
ENDing the FED and reinstating the rules of the Constitution and having a Sound Monetary policy, a responsible monetary system, without reckless spending ...
And all the woes would starve to death, via the lack of funds.
Then and ONLY then, can we start thinking of all the noble, bleeding heart ways to help humanity.
But, until this is realized, all we will have are paradigm fights between Left & right, Liberal & Conservative, Democrat and Republican etc etc etc
or end capitalism
A. There is no reason we should subsidize fossil fuel. Certainly no reason to subsidize big oil.
B. We don't need to subsidize any power generators and/or fuels.
C. Selling a subsidy for solar as an answer for Global Warming is like shooting yourself in the foot. Obviously from the latest polls thats an up hill fight.
It should be presented as a way to become energy independent and as sustainable energy that can provide cheaper energy going forward. A partial answer to our future energy needs.
A low-carbon future doesn't NECESSARILY depend on a change in government policy. All that is required is to develop a new, renewable technology that is MORE ECONOMIC--cheaper to build and operate, a greater availability (electricity when it is needed) with less environmental impact than the current alternatives.
We need Plan B = http://vortexengine.ca
If the Fed/EPA/FTA/etc puts up roadblocks to its development or construction here, it can be done in any number of other countries. EVENTUALLY IT WILL FIND ITS WAY BACK TO NORTH AMERICA--maybe after the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Russians or Iranians acquire the licensing rights first.
Now wouldn't that be "poetic justice"?
72 billion dollars? And these energy companies quack like they think they're doing us a favor, and that their record blasting profits are a pittance. The focus seems on stabilizing what has failed. If we fired those guys like Depends fired Letterman we could at least turn in the right direction. Do they think such a change can be made without massive inertial disruption? eg, by some clever plan? That's the same argument behind the surge in Afghanistan and the decision to take single-payer out of health reform. It wasn't this 72 billion subsidy which forced an end to $5/gal gasoline, it was the decision by millions to park their cars. Some of that 72 billion dollars went to fund Enron's theft. Some of it has gone for lobbyists to secure more of the same. One cannot stifle greed w/ bribes.
"Some of it has gone for lobbyists to secure more of the same."
Rob Peter to pay Paul to pay uncle sam to pay Peter to.....
Ending war subsidies would allow us to pay for free health care ,education, and just about every other social program. But when you hear a politician say we are protecting our interest that is code for corporate interests. Not your or my interest.
Why are we subsidizing poison? We are accomplices in the murder of ourselves!
Unfortunately we are taking the globe out with us.
The Bush administration didn't collect the royalties that the oil companies owed the federal government for drilling on public land, but we give the oil companies subsidies from our taxes.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you keep sending corporate rats to Congress and the White House! Then the few who are not directly influenced by corporate cash are so desperate to get any kind of reform passed that they willingly compromise away all the good portions of any reform bill that comes before the Congress!
It really is long past time to hit the reset button on the way things are done in this country!
$72 billion?
More like $3 Trillion!
$3 Trillion will be the total cost of the Iraq war which was waged to procure their oil fields for the sake of our multinationals.
Even though our Governor and citizens had done all the preliminary planning for a Smart Green Grid...
We got $0 from the Obama's feds....
instead ....
We got a new Drone Command Center at Cannon AFB
Arise register third party January 13 th
Be there or be a fool.
P.S. No Jobs from the current Shill in Chief....
It would cut into enlistments for endless wars.
"The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants."
Now there's a boondoggle. We burn coal to create heat to run turbines to create electricity. In this process a waste product (one among many) called CO2 is created. The waste product is dangerous. And to mitigate its existence (ostensibly by sequestration) will require the expenditure of energy that you will obtain from what source?
Please subsidize my research into a perpetual motion machine. I know it can work...
-30-
I have been thinking for a long time about a ‘Solar Energy CoOp’. As an average American I can not really afford to cover my home in solar panels but what if a group of people formed a coop where every one pitched in to a fund and from that fund put solar panels on homes and businesses? The homes and businesses would than put a third or so of the money earned by the surplus electricity generated. Federal law mandates that power companies have to pay for power put back in to the grid. I do not think it would take 10 years to reduce carbon by 10% or generate 15% of our power, but much less than that.
The problem with the plan is it looks like a pyramid scheme or ponzi scheme.
Thoughts?
Okay, it's this simple: What you want to encourage you subsidize, what you want to discourage you tax.
With this principle in mind recall that the atomic bomb went from theoretical principle to deadly reality in less than four years through something called The Manhatten Project. The US space program went from routinely being unable to get Vanguard or Atlas satellite-launching missles off the pad at Cape Canaveral to placing men on the moon and bringing them back in about 10 years.
So why aren't we discouraging the use of toxic petroleum and coal througth increasingly confiscatory tax rates and encouraging the development of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other renewable and non-polluting sources of energy through subsidization?
Very powerful and violent people are in charge of the toxic polluting technologies by which we power our world. They will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on the world economy and wealth.
Short of either torch-carrying mobs burning up their private propertry and facilities and executing their heirs or some "lone, crazed, gunmen" shooting up the boards of director's and shareholder's meetings, such people will remain in charge and things will keep rocking on as they pretty much always have.
Of course, when you fight violence with violence you then become what you are suppossed to deplore (which is the essence of what this country has become in the past 9 years of the "War on Terror") and you are right back where you started with "you" instead of "them" being in charge and responsible for the tyranny.
Poet
I am in full agreement with the facts of this article, however it is only looking at half of possibilities. It is looking down from the top; the view as seen by the powere brokers, and the corporate giants. There is another road.
I believe that every home built in the future, should be constructed with a solar roof. Contractors on every level should be encouraged to do this. Modest wind generators should also be considered. Apartments and condos should attempt to do this in a practical manner.
Every new dwelling should have two electrical systems built in. They should have the standard 120v which is necessary for large applinces, stoves, refrigerators, microwave, They should also have a 12v system which employs the the solar and wind. Technology should develop new appliances to adapt to this system, and to compliment the one that are already there. I would not have to use a 120v transformer to run my 12v keyboard.
Secondly bio fuel products should not have to be transported from a farm in South Dakota to be refined in a plant in Texas, and then marketed at exhorbitant profits, when they could be processed and used on the farm itself. We are not that far from the technology to do that. Heavens there was a truck driver who collected old cooking oil to run his diesel truck
The problem with both of these ideas is that they bypass the power brokers, and the industrial giants. They could be implemented and developed by the small American people, and by local American industry. The solution to this problem, is in your hands, fellow reader, and in your vote. This is where our discussion should start. Imagine if we would have incorporated these ideas ten years ago?; twenty years ago?; forty years ago? That would be 1970. Our present wiring system is over one hundred years old. Think of the technical progress in that time. What if every house built since 1980 had the option of solar power? ?
The solution offered in the article would simply take the power from the fossil fuel brokers and give it to the solar energy brokers, and in the end it would be the same people riding roughshod over us.
My statement to Barack is, "Hey give us little guys a chance to work out our solutions; give us the subsidies. We should be given the first consideration, not the last."
Come on, people...let's do this!!!
water and power companies would have been selling solar if only it could deliver electricity for more than single microwave
edweg
of all the ridiculous things I have read on this board that is one of the most ridiculous.
Duke Power of North Carolina
http://www.prx.org/pieces/41303
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090520/2-utilities-rent-rooftops-mini-solar-power-plants
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/duke-energy-to-rent-rooftops/
and living in North Carolina, Duke Energy is about Profit, they are doing it to make money, so not only is it feasible it is profitable.