Japan’s Solar Panel Sales Rise to Record on Subsidy

[phantom power]

Is it a faux pas to refer to this as "Japan's Solar Give-away?"

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Japan’s solar-panel sales by capacity rose to a record in 2009 led by domestic demand after the government offered incentives to switch to renewable power.

Sales increased 21 percent to 1,387.03 megawatts last year, the Japan Photovoltaic Energy Association said today. The figure is the highest since 1981, when the group started releasing data. Domestic sales more than doubled to 483.96 megawatts, while exports fell 2.4 percent to 903.07 megawatts.

The federal government in April reintroduced subsidies to households that install solar panels to promote clean energy and help cut the country’s emissions by 25 percent from the 1990 level by 2020. In November, Japan introduced a feed-in tariff, which requires utilities to buy surplus solar power supplied to the grid by homes and businesses, and pay as much as double the rate they used to pay.

In Tokyo, subsidies from the federal and local governments together can amount to about 270,000 yen ($3007) for each kilowatt of solar capacity a household installs, according to the trade ministry and the city government. Installation costs between 600,000 yen and 700,000 yen a kilowatt, Yasuhiro Nomura, a spokesman for Tokyo’s environment bureau, said in July.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=avbxkfyJQgGQ

[Nathanael]

1. Amazing Return on Investment

Of course they received record highs. If you crunch the numbers investors will receive a 38.5% return on their solar panel investment. You would be crazy not to put one up.

[FBaggins]

2. Is this proof that solar power is not economically viable?

And if so, does that mean that me new tankless hot water heater was a mistake?


Just wondering.

[madokie]

3. I think our government should do the same here

I know we're getting a 30% tax credit on our new pellet stove which really made it affordable. We'd be looking at solar panels if the price was within reason but as it is now it isn't, to us anyway right now.

I really like the idea that they are going to implement a cash for clunker appliances even though we've pretty much, have upgraded all ours in these last few years to energy star rated ones.

[NNadir]

4. You mean it's a RECORD to produce capacity smaller than one gas plant?

I thought solar was going to "save us."

One of the world's largest economies, even with huge subsidies can only produce 1,387 Mega"watts" of a system that functions, at best, with 10 to 20% capacity utilization.

If I were a "solar will save us" guy, I'd be embarrassed by this, but then again, "solar will save us" guys are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad with numbers.

[PHIMG]

5. Nuclear will save us guys are very bad with reality

Like the fact that Wall Street has judged that nuclear power plants are too expensive to build yet alone operate AND WON'T FUND THEM.

How much new nuclear capacity has been brought online in the USA in the past 10 years relative to solar and wind?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

11. with 'tripe' he writes I doubt anyone would

2: nonsensical talk or writing trash, wish-wash, applesauce, codswallop]

[PHIMG]

14. Lies more like it.

I love how they act like the only solar technology is a photovoltiac solar panel.... CSP with heat storage hasn't been invented. They'll flat out tell you that there is no solar tech that is 24/7 and just exit the discussion when you provide proof that they are wrong. Above their pay grade?

[FBaggins]

8. Why would you post that on THIS thread?

A thread about solar needing significant government incentive to be financially viable?

[PHIMG]

9. All forms of energy have subsidies

Nuclear enjoys some of the biggest subsidies and pork thrown at it and it STILL is not viable. Meaning nobody is BUILDING IT.

Its kinda riduclous to smear a form of energy people are building out (Renewables) to advocate a form of energy (Nuclear) nobody is building out because it's too expensive, too risky (economically), too dangerous and too wasteful. That's Nuclear and that's the the industry that brings all the trolls to the yard.

Nuclear chearleaders - how many megawatts of nuclear has been installed in the past 10-15 years in the USA. I'm pretty sure the number is zero.

I'm 100% sure the number for wind and solar is greater than zero.

The wind and solar industry didn't need a sweet heart deal from the federal government handing over responsibility for paying to clean up the mess from the next nuclear plant explosion or leak.

Save no to power made from a Weapons of Mass Destruction (A nuke plant captured by terrorists) and yes to renewable Modern Power - no waste, no fuel, no emissions, no WMDs.

[FBaggins]

10. Then why use that as an argument?

Nuclear enjoys some of the biggest subsidies and pork thrown at it

Compared to solar/wind? No. Certainly not in a way that makes your argument.

to advocate a form of energy (Nuclear) nobody is building out because it's too expensive, too risky (economically), too dangerous and too wasteful.

Assumed facts not in evidence. There are plenty of other reasons why it might not be "building out"... not that least of which are the lengthly permitting process and irrational protests.

Nuclear chearleaders - how many megawatts of nuclear has been installed in the past 10-15 years in the USA. I'm pretty sure the number is zero.


Which you assume means that it's because it's too expensive?

What a convenient argument. Spend decades making it as hard as possible for a nuclear plant to be constructed and then use that obstruction as proof that nobody even wants to build one.


The wind and solar industry didn't need a sweet heart deal from the federal government handing over responsibility for paying to clean up the mess from the next nuclear plant explosion or leak.


Right... they just needed sweetheart deals from the government to pay for the plants in the first place... and then even BIGGER sweetheart deals where the government mandates that they be built.

That's not an economic argument that favors your position.

[PHIMG]

13. Yes yes...first rule of defending nuclear

All your arguments are backed up, and your opponents are all junk.

Said like a nice republican. Whatever i'm done feeding the Solar Bad/Nuke GOOD! trolls here.

Go look at all the Wall Street analyst reports in the energy sector telling thier loan orginators not to fund nuclear power plants b/c they are bad capital risks. But whatever that doesn't fit in with your world view, like also how solar can't be 24/7 even tho there are operating utility scale concentrating Solar-thermal plants with sodium storage that produce output 24/7 and can go days without sun and still keep producing.

Nuclear cheerleaders have can't win without lying.

I'd love to know how much nuclear, oil and coal spend on trolls to spread lies about solar and wind on sites like DU.

[FBaggins]

17. I didn't realize that your first rule was deception

or outright falsehood.

Please link to a SINGLE solar plant that can go days without sunlight and still produce 24/7 power. Just one will do.

The FIRST plant that even comes CLOSE (Solar Tres in Spain) HOPES to be able to store 14-16 hours worth of energy.

They only expect to be able to run 24/7 during the summer months (and then only when it isn't overcast for too long). They HOPE to get their capacity factor up to 65%.

Looks like it's quiet clear who "can't win without lying". Guess those mirrors will actually do you some good.

[Merchant Marine]

12. Here's a little professional analysis

"There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.

A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.

The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.

The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlook’s conclusion under this “advanced nuclear cost case” is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.

Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plant’s life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear power’s task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks."

As to your "last 10 years" thing, it's a little disingenuous. There hasn't been a nuke plant built since '96.

[PHIMG]

15. If nuke is so great why isn't anyone building it?

If solar is so bad why is it setting records? And don't say subsidies because nuclear has subsidies too, tangible and intangible.

[Merchant Marine]

16. Are you literate?

It's in the paragraphs above my single sentence.

We've got a surplus of baseload power in all states thanks to the expansion of fossil fuel power plants, which means low demand for new baseload sources.
Combine that with high capital costs and an uninformed public and you get a very toxic environment for new construction. Utilities would rather build "friendly" coal or gas plants and slap a "clean" or "green" logo on it than build evil babykilling nuclear power.

As to an example of the difficulty of nuclear plant construction, Diablo Canyon NPP in California took 6 years to approve and 5 years to build. Oh, and the cops only had to arrest ~1900 protestors over the course of construction. If I was a utility director in charge of building new plants, I'd be throwing up new smokestacks in a heartbeat.