Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power
cleantechnica.com
cleantechnica.com
The question is, how much of this deal is government subsidy? If Macho Springs was not subsidized, how much would they have to sell the power for?
If they are heavily subsidized, the cost of that power is much higher than advertised, and the tax payer is picking up the difference, either via higher taxes, or through inflation (caused by government debt or QE), which is a tax on those who can least afford to be taxed: the poor.
From the original article:
"When you add in the incentives, the PPA value becomes more comparable to rates we’ve seen signed in California," said Kim.
Apparently nearly all of the difference between standard solar rates and this rate is due to government subsidy.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/interview-first-solar-ceo-ja...
one of the fun bits from the interview:
You will see people comment that the problem with solar is that you only have a 25 per cent capacity factor. And as a former utility guy, my response to that is when you have a demand curve that looks like a sine wave, something in the system has to have a capacity factor of 25 per cent. You don’t have square blocks of usage. So the question is not whether you have a 25 per cent capacity factor, it’s who can deliver the most cost-effective energy at a 25 per cent capacity factor. And when you look at it on that basis, even at relatively low natural gas prices we are competitive in peak portion of the curve.
Also has more information about incentives etc.
See here:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02...