Last post took a look at the state of nuclear energy and nuclear waste in the U.S., as we enter into a new administration with a new hope for investment in clean, renewable energy. The last eight years have shown that our country is long overdue for a shift in how and where we obtain our country’s energy from, as it is simply not economically feasible for us as a nation to engage in future energy/resource driven conflict. This post will take a look at thus far the least used of the renewable energy sources, solar power.



With only .1% of our nation's energy production, (as of 2006) solar power remains an untapped part of the solution to reworking our nation's energy needs. Although current solar energy technology lags behind all other sources in terms of cost efficiency per kilowatt hour of power generated, it offers many advantages to the current leading energy sources (fossil fuels generate a whopping 85% of our energy needs with nuclear second at a distant 8% of total energy production) in the U.S..

As a starting point, solar power is an unlimited renewable resource that once it is online contributes zero greenhouse gas emissions (there are greenhouse gases produced in the production of solar cells, but this amount is 1/10 th as much as conventional fossil fuels produce, per unit of energy). The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. A typical solar or photovoltaic cell, currently lasts about 20 years before there is any decrease in production capacity. So then the inevitable question is why is only .1% of our nations energy generated by solar? Currently, the cost of building solar power plants relative to the amount of energy (or lack thereof) that they generate, the amount of land necessary to build a cost effective plant, and the energy needed to build solar cells are the three main hurdles to overcome. Due to the complexity of each of these problems, this post will focus mainly on the cost/efficiency issue.

The first problem is the cost of manufacturing, which can be solved through tax incentives that will make solar energy more appealing to energy investors. As a country that is consistently losing its manufacturing base, the U.S. must make itself more appealing for companies to build manufacturing plants, if it hopes to right itself from our current trade deficit. Our nation is simply too large to have shifted its entire economy to the service sector, and our recent financial collapse is a testament to that fact. As our manufacturing jobs decrease, outsourced to other developing nations where the labor is cheaper and there is more tax incentive to do business, our trade deficit continues to swell, and our economy continues to suffer, as the world's service demands are not rising at a pace consistent with the demand for manufactured goods. Consequently, it is the average American that suffers, as the dollar drops in value, and the government continues to try to plug holes in a sinking economy by bailing out failing financial institutions, not addressing our trade deficit and by simply borrowing or printing more money. Unfortunately this is the current state of our nation's economy, and as now President Obama has correctly identified, it is critical that we re-invest in our own country, start creating green jobs and in the high tech manufacturing sector (solar energy included), is an excellent place to start.

With recent developments in solar cell technology that allow solar cells to harness sunlight from any angle, it is possible that we could see an unprecedented boost in solar efficiency and energy output. What it will take however, is government investment in these technologies. Other countries such as Japan, Germany and even the Philippines have a head start on us as their governments have already recognized the potential in solar and other renewable energies and already many American companies have simply moved overseas to take advantage of tax breaks. In order for the U.S. to compete in the alternative energy sector, they will have to make it economically attractive for American business to stay here. Additionally, through setting new standards for the generation of renewable energy by existing companies, the legislature needs to take a leadership role in positively effecting the direction of our new "green economy".

One such example was instituted in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, when the state of California, already a leader in environmental regulation, created the Renewables Portfolio Standard which required 20% of its power to be generated by renewable sources by 2010. Subsequently Pacific Gas and Electric has responded by working on construction of the world's largest solar power plant (pictured above). This example shows that it is necessary to have an forward thinking legislature that will drive business towards a sustainable future. Although I do not agree that 20% is nearly enough to have a significant impact on our economy and foreign relations, it is at least a step in the right direction, and one that other states will hopefully follow.

When it comes to the long term financial and environmental health of a nation, renewable energy is one area where government intervention through tax breaks and credits is necessary. Anyone that still believes that we live in a free market capitalist society after the latest round of government bailouts is simply delusional. The short term financial windfalls of fossil fuels for energy companies only exist because government has yet to calculate the actual "cost" that they incur on the health of the population and our environment. It is time that the U.S. invests in itself, its industry and its future, and with the recent developments in efficiency (panels now pay back their investment in 1-3 years), solar is a good a place to start as any.