Posted on 07/03/2007 1:32:27 PM PDT by P-40
Development of the solar energy industry in Texas would have a significant economic impact for consumers, the environment and workers, according to a study released by the IC2 Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Opportunity on the Horizon: Photovoltaics in Texas finds the benefits of nurturing the solar energy industry will stimulate the state's economy, reduce the cost of power for consumers and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
"Worldwide, the cost of converting sunlight to electricity is rapidly decreasing. The right public policies, combined with emerging and increasingly efficient technologies in solar power, would create a solid opportunity for Texas to build an economic engine on this non-polluting resource," Joel Serface of Clean Energy Incubator said.
The paper cites a recent University of California-Berkeley study that finds the solar industry produces seven to 11 times as many jobs on a megawatt capacity basis as coal-fired power plants and has a larger positive trickle-down effect than wind energy.
Estimates suggest Texas could generate 123,000 new high-wage, technology-related, advanced manufacturing and electrical services jobs by 2020 by actively moving toward solar power. It is predicted these jobs would be created across the entire state as large solar farms grow in West Texas, silicon plants develop along the Gulf Coast and manufacturing centers appear in Central Texas.
The report evaluates the competitive benefits Texas has in the worldwide market and compares the overall results of Texan efforts against other states and international competitors. The study notes that although Texas consumed more energy than any other state and has the best overall climate for producing solar energy year-round, it ranked 8th in solar adoption in 2006, producing just 1/100th of the solar energy of California.
Texans pay about 13 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. It is believed that the production of photovoltaics, like other semiconductors, would follow a predictable decline in costs. Analysts predict this cost decline will translate to between 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour as early as 2010.
In 1999, the Texas Legislature adopted a bill that introduced the retail competition in the sale of electricity and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to consumers. Since 2002, electricity-users in deregulated markets have been able to choose their power providers from a multitude of retailers. The legislation requires energy providers to increase the amount of renewable energy produced through a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro wave, tidal, biomass-based waste products or landfill gas.
To date, energy producers have chosen to focus on wind energy for a multitude of reasons, including federal tax incentives for producers, the large amount of wind resources in the state and the scalability of large wind projects. The report concludes that the legislation has brought many benefits to consumers across the state and can be used as a roadmap for the successful expansion of solar power across the state.
Worldwide, investors are confident in the future of solar power. The solar industry grew to $10.6 billion in revenues in 2006 and is estimated to be greater than $30 billion, with some analyst estimates as high as $72 billion for the entire solar value chain by 2010.
The report outlines several recommendations to strengthen the state's solar strategy. Starting with leadership to create the policies necessary for success, Texas could leverage its natural resources, skilled workforce, existing industries and entrepreneurial spirit to create a new energy industry, the report says.
Plenty of studies already exist by whatever category one could want.
You continue to flog a dead horse. Nuclear used fuel is a non-issue and is only been used as an ‘issue’ by anti-nuclear activists to gull the uninformed into thinking there is a problem, where there is not.
Waste stream volumes are small, the methods to store it safely are known and used, etc.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62
court challenges are pretty much resolved, its going ahead:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=310
Again, we dont even need long-term storage. Nuclear used fuel could be recycled until there are no actinide elements at all.
Nuclear power does not have a bad rap, it polls very well.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/opinion-polls/nuclear-energy/two-thirds-support-nuclear-energy.htm
“Survey Finds Two-thirds of Americans Support Use of Nuclear Energy”
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=503
July 2005:
“Record-High 70 Percent Favor Nuclear Energy; Public Supports Planning for More Plants”
I think what sierraWasp is telling you is that you shouldn’t be peddling the discredited talking points of the anti-nuclear left. After almost 40 years of safe commercial electricity generation in the US, nuclear energy has gained a lot of credibility as an environmentally friendly, non-GHG-emitting, safe and economical source of energy. it can and should be part of our future energy mix, and people in the US agree with that view.
We can and we should increase our use of nuclear energy significantly in the future as we get beyond the fossil fuel age.
Thats my point, free Enterprise needs no study for it in itself has created the greatest, most powerful, most respected and most desired sovereign nation on earth.
It "ain't" so bad living in the USA!
Unless you want to prove me wrong, then perhaps we need a study. ; )
“You are talking ‘non-issue’ from a technical standpoint. I am addressing the political standpoint.”
See above post. it’s a non-issue politically as well, nuclear energy has wide support.
That would be nice — along with better use of coal and more drilling in Alaska and the Gulf (and such things as hydrogen from sea water, etc.).
It's safe, environmentally not intrusive, very efficient, and yet it is undesirable politically.
Go figure....
A mix?
How about what's best for us in total as a nation mixed or not?
123,000 jobs is a mere blip on the radar for the US, which will have a total population of 336 million by 2020.
In the areas where they want to put some of these plants, a company offering a hundred jobs would be a major employer. :)
Lest we let business take it's course independently and decide without politicians deciding instead for political reasons.
One shouldn't lose focus as to why life is good relatively speaking and why many want to be here in the greatest country known to mankind.
Point being, let business decide via sales via the public.
We know better and business will cater to us to survive.
That way, life will maintain it's status of being good.
And a requirement for survival in a free nation. ; )
Jobs are jobs, but in the grand scheme of things, the reason to go solar should not be tied to the number of jobs it creates. I am sure that we would create more jobs doubling or tripling the number of our nuclear plants.
We could easily cut back that much if we had to.
It "ain't" getting our needs or where we get them, it's why and who is behind it.
If you are so dead set on closing the market to domestic only without government regulation making it happen, I won't call you an idiot, I'll just consider you confused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.