Tag: solar industry

Quo Vadis Germany?

The failed Thermoselect waste treatment plant in Karlsruhe’s Rheinhafen is being demolished after causing roughly 400 million euros in losses; demolition has been underway since late July 2026 and is scheduled to finish by May 2027.
A family in the Pinneberg district (near Hamburg) had their electricity contract terminated by the green provider Grüüün after installing a heat pump and buying an electric car, which pushed their annual consumption above the tariff’s limit.
After 26 years of EEG- based solar subsidies in Germany, the industry faces a potential crisis as fixed long- term feed- in tariffs for new small systems are set to end.

A dark and moody landscape featuring a stone monument inscribed with 'QUO VADIS? GERMANY,' in the foreground, a German flag, and a skyline with tall buildings and the Cologne Cathedral in the background under a stormy sky.
AI generated by Grok

The failed Thermoselect waste treatment plant in Karlsruhe’s Rheinhafen is being demolished after causing roughly 400 million euros in losses; demolition has been underway since late July 2026 and is scheduled to finish by May 2027.

Thermoselect was a high- temperature gasification technology intended as an environmentally advanced alternative to conventional waste incineration. It aimed to process household and commercial waste (planned capacity around 225,000- 250,000 tonnes per year), generate gas, electricity, heat and leave a usable granulate residue.

The plant was built in the late 1990s (construction cost alone about 144 million euros) by Badenwerk (later absorbed into EnBW) and entered operation in 1999.⁠

It never worked reliably.

Persistent technical problems (including equipment failures, leaks, and inability to consistently meet emissions targets), underperformance relative to design capacity, and declining waste volumes made it uneconomic.

EnBW shut it down in 2004 after total project losses of around 400 million euros (some contemporary estimates were slightly higher). The facility then stood idle for more than 20 years as an industrial ruin and “lost place”⁠.

Demolition (Rückbau) began at the end of July 2026 with internal strip- out work, followed by heavy machinery removing the distinctive, red- roofed structure.

As of late October 2026 (SWR reporting), significant parts of the building had already been taken down. The process is expected to remove more than 50,000 tonnes of concrete and 5,000- 6,000 tonnes of steel, including the high-temperature reactors and foundations, with completion targeted for May 2027.

Demolition costs are estimated in the low single- digit millions of euros. The cleared site is planned as a preparation, storage and logistics area supporting further development of the adjacent Rheinhafen- Dampfkraftwerk (RDK) site, including a potential hydrogen- capable gas power plant (RDK9).⁠

This matches the headline details and the cited SWR coverage from 27 October 2026 (with earlier July 2026 reporting on the start of works).

The plant is a well- documented case of a 1990s “prestige” waste- to- energy project that became a major financial and technical failure for EnBW, Badenwerk.

A stone monument with the inscription 'QUO VADIS? GERMANY' in a rural setting, surrounded by solar-powered houses and electric cars, with wind turbines in the background and a factory emitting smoke in the distance.
AI generated by Grok

A family in the Pinneberg district (near Hamburg) had their electricity contract terminated by the green provider Grüüün after installing a heat pump and buying an electric car, which pushed their annual consumption above the tariff’s limit.

What happened

  • The six-person household switched to a heat pump (replacing gas heating) and acquired an EV, causing their yearly electricity use to rise to roughly 23,000 kWh.
  • Their Grüüün contract capped consumption at 20,000 kWh per year. Exceeding this by about 15% triggered an extraordinary termination right in the contract terms.
  • The provider gave only six days’ notice in October 2026.
  • The family quickly found a new supplier offering a discounted heat- pump tariff and avoided falling into the more expensive basic supply (Grundversorgung).⁠

Context and wider issue

Many electricity tariffs (especially cheaper or green ones from smaller providers) include hidden or explicit annual consumption ceilings.

Crossing the limit can allow the supplier to terminate the contract.

Limits vary widely:

  • Grüüün: 20,000 kWh in this case.
  • Some larger providers (e.g., Vattenfall or local utilities) set higher thresholds.
  • Others (such as certain EnBW commercial tariffs) can be as low as 10,000 kWh.⁠

The case illustrates a practical side- effect of household electrification (heat pumps and EVs): higher consumption can clash with older or restrictive contract clauses even when customers are trying to act in line with energy-transition goals.

Sources align with the cited reporting: Hamburger Abendblatt (24 October 2026) first covered the family’s experience; Chip followed on 27–28 October 2026.

A cartoon scene depicting characters with exaggerated facial expressions discussing the need for an electric power supply masterplan, with one character exclaiming 'GOSH!!' in surprise.

After 26 years of EEG- based solar subsidies in Germany, the industry faces a potential crisis as fixed long- term feed- in tariffs for new small systems are set to end.

Background

Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), introduced in 2000, guaranteed fixed feed- in tariffs for solar (and other renewables) for 20 years.

This drove rapid PV expansion.

By late 2026, transmission system operators projected EEG financing needs of about €17.52 billion for 2027, with roughly €9.6 billion attributable to photovoltaics (covered via the federal budget taxpayer funds rather than the earlier EEG surcharge on consumers).⁠

Many older plants (especially those commissioned in 2006) lose their fixed 20-year EEG payments at the end of 2026.

They then receive only a market- value- based residual payment (Jahresmarktwert Solar minus a marketing deduction, which rises notably for 2027), available until at least 2032 under current rules.⁠

Planned changes from 2027 (EEG reform draft)

The government draft (still under parliamentary discussion as of early November 2026, with a possible vote in mid- November) aims to phase out the classic fixed feed- in tariff for new installations:

  • No more 20- year fixed tariffs for most new systems.
  • Small systems get a limited transitional payment (typically up to 36 months, at a reduced rate) before mandatory direct marketing (selling on the market via a marketer).
  • Eligibility for the transition shrinks over time (e.g., higher kW thresholds in 2027, lower later; eventually none for the smallest systems).
  • Additional elements discussed include feed- in power limits (e.g., ~50% of capacity for some rooftop systems) to encourage storage and self-consumption, and a shift toward contracts for difference or market- oriented support for larger projects.⁠

Systems commissioned by 31 December 2026 are generally grandfathered under the existing 20- year fixed tariff rules.⁠

Industry reaction and risks

The solar industry (including the Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft) has warned of a sharp drop in demand for new small rooftop systems, tens of thousands of potential job losses in installation and related trades, and setbacks to expansion targets. Recent insolvencies in the sector are cited as early signs of strain.

Critics argue the sector remains heavily dependent on guaranteed revenues despite decades of support and falling technology costs.

Supporters of the reform emphasize cost control, market integration, and that many small systems are already viable via self- consumption.⁠

The reform is not yet final law (parliamentary process and EU state-aid approval are still pending), so details could shift.

Current 2026 feed- in rates for new building- mounted systems (e.g., ~7.70 ct/kWh for partial feed- in up to 10 kW in the second half of the year) remain available for installations completed this year.

An astronaut standing on a lunar-like surface near a solar panel, with planets and a starry sky in the background.

Solar Industry Searches for a Message (it is not economics)

“But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.”

From The Master Resource

By David Bergeron

“But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.” – David Bergeron, SunDanzer (below)

I just returned from the Intersolar & Energy Storage North America conference in San Diego where the keynote address focused on how the long-duration storage industry can move forward under the headwinds of the current administration. Their strategy? Better messaging, shifting from climate-change arguments to affordability, reliability, and resilience.

But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.

Cost and reliability have always been the problem with solar. The price of solar has fallen greatly in the past 30 years, and battery prices are falling, too, so there is hope that solar with batteries can become economically viable in more and more applications. But where is it viable today? That is the question the industry should be answering—clearly, directly, and in dollars and cents.

At Intersolar, I went to a few vendors promoting residential solar-and-battery systems and asked a simple question: “If I go completely solar with battery backup, what is my approximate cost of energy (cents/kWh), assuming normal amortization and maintenance?” No one I spoke to could answer that basic, simple question.

This is surprising, if not stunning. It should be the most important number in the industry. These vendors promoting solar against competing energy sources—gas, propane, coal, nuclear, and others—should know their cost for comparison. Even if solar is more expensive, some might choose it for the sake of independence; that’s fair. But if the industry cannot state its delivered cost of electricity, it is not ready to claim “affordability.”

As a residential customer, I can buy reliable electricity from many utilities for 10–15 cents/kWh (25–50 cents in California). So what is the delivered cost of residential solar with battery backup? My simple calculation indicates it might be 15–30 cents/kWh for residential systems in a sunny region, depending on the size of the battery. But that system would still not be as reliable as grid power. You can add a backup generator, but the cost per kWh will increase another 10 cents or so.

Even at 25–40 cents/kWh, solar can make sense in some places—and this is where the industry should focus: the markets where the numbers work without heroic assumptions. But as for most Americans in most places (excluding blue-states Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut), home solar is approximately double the cost of grid electricity–and with a lot less transaction cost and risk.

For utility-scale systems, the same price-signal test applies. If solar were truly affordable, someone could offer a fixed price to a utility that the utility would happily purchase without government subsidies or mandates. This should be the goal of the on-grid solar industry: a competitive price with no subsidy (no Investment Tax Credit, in particular). They claim they are there, but the most honest referee is procurement. If solar were truly a better value to utilities—delivered, firmed, and reliable — utilities would freely choose it.  There is a reason that most new data centers are opting for natural gas power rather than solar.

“Affordability” cannot be a slogan. It must be a price. The industry should publish all-in, delivered cents-per-kWh ranges under standard assumptions—financing, maintenance, replacement, and reliability—and stand behind them. If solar is competitive, the market will validate it. If it is not, no amount of messaging will change the arithmetic.

“Reliability” is another word I heard at the conference used to describe solar. I agree that with enough battery capacity, solar can be considered reliable 24/7 power—but at what cost? Solar is fundamentally intermittent and can only be made reliable with significant battery expense. That is not an argument against solar. It is an argument for honesty in the price signal.

Conclusion

So when the solar lobby comes to town claiming solar is affordable, reliable, and resilient, a simple question should follow: What is the delivered cost per kWh, and how much of that price depends on subsidies, mandates, or special rate structures? If the answer is unclear, the claim is marketing, not economics.

The ITC is ending, and net-metering subsidies are waning in many key states. The training wheels are coming off. It’s time for solar to compete on price. It can in some places, and as time and technology advance—especially with energy storage—solar might one day be a significant energy source. But it needs to focus on reducing cost and proving it in the only language the market understands: price signals. The political winds that blow solar to and fro would calm if solar were economical. That is a better path to success.

———————–

 David Bergeron is a solar technologist and founder/CEO of SunDanzer, a free-market, off-grid solar company based in Tucson, Arizona. Bergeron’s letter, “End DOE’s Loans/Grants Now!” to Jigar Shah, formerly director of the $400 billion Loan Programs Office, is a rare example of a free-market business leader putting principle first.

A Cautionary Solar Tale: Billions Wasted Thanks to a Rush to Market

Back in the late 1970s there was a popular wine commercial with the film director Orson Welles reminding us that “some things can’t be rushed,” and concluding with what became a famous catchphrase: “We will sell no wine before its time.”

View of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility with mountains in the background, located in the Mojave Desert.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A solar power facility with a tall tower and mirrors reflecting sunlight, set against a backdrop of mountains in a desert landscape.

This article was orginally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Back in the late 1970s there was a popular wine commercial with the film director Orson Welles reminding us that “some things can’t be rushed,” and concluding with what became a famous catchphrase: “We will sell no wine before its time.”

One of the biggest yet least discussed problems with the race to establish the solar industry before the subsidies run out is that the product has arguably been rushed to market before it is perfected. The construction is getting ahead of the expertise – meaning that billions of dollars could be invested in solar devices that are soon to become outdated.

The haste to establish solar fields across more than a million acres of U.S. farmland – along with countless more installations around the world – has seemed to come with relatively little long-term planning as to deployment, functionality with existing electric grids and eventual decommissioning and disposal.

Modern solar devices are relatively new creations, in many cases still being studied and upgraded. And yet, giant arrays of solar panels mounted on posts – replacing acres of corn, wheat and soybean fields – are being established as though the technology is finalized and the form complete.

A stark example of the folly of rushing solar products to market was recently provided. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert, built from 2010-14 at a cost of $2.2 billion – including $1.6 billion in three federal loan guarantees from the Obama Energy Department – is now “set to close in 2026 after failing to efficiently generate solar energy,” according to a recent story in the New York Post.

“The facility’s 5 square miles of desert were covered with some 173,500 heliostats, adjusted via computer to catch maximum rays,” the story noted. “The computer-controlled mirrors can reflect light from the sun at temperatures that can reach 1,000 degrees in part of the installment.”

“The idea was that you could use the sun to produce a heat source,” alternative energy consultant Edward Smeloff told the Post. “The mirrors reflect heat from the sun up to a receiver, which is mounted on top of the tower. That heats a fluid. It creates steam [that spins] a conventional steam turbine. It is complicated.”

But as the technology rapidly evolved, the Ivanpah facility “couldn’t compete with newer and less expensive forms of creating solar power,” the Post reported. The result? The reckless hurry to “go green” once again ended up with a project deep in the red.

Modern solar technology is so emergent that it’s a long way from being perfected. For instance, new research at the Autonomous University of Querétaroin in Mexico is studying “a new thin-film solar cell design capable of converting more than twice the standard percentage of sunlight into usable electricity,” according to Metal Tech News.

The technology is designed to utilize “only Earth-abundant, non-toxic materials in a breakthrough that could help reshape the solar industry” and have applications “both environmentally friendly and suitable for large-scale manufacturing.”

“Higher efficiency means a solar panel will produce more electricity for a given amount of sunlight, which can be crucial in applications with limited available space or where maximizing energy output is essential,” the story noted.

Another innovation involves “bifacial” solar panels, which operate by “capturing sunlight from both the front and back of the module,” allowing them to “utilize reflected sunlight from various surfaces, such as the ground, water, or nearby structures, resulting in increased electricity yield,” according to an industry report.

Left unsaid is that such breakthroughs would mean that many existing solar installations are operating with outdated technology generating less electricity than would have been likely if patience, continued research and a more complete product had been brought to market.

Yes, technology is always evolving and improvements are constantly being made on everything from automobiles to microwave ovens to cell phones to laptop computers. But in few areas – none to the extent to which taxpayers have propped up solar– have billions of dollars in subsidies been allocated to rush such a still-evolving product into production, installation and implementation.

Even more concerning is the fact that there is no need for such urgency. Our traditional, affordable hydrocarbons, especially natural gas, are sufficiently abundant to last at least through the remainder of this century. With more time and continued research, solar energy might someday be deployed more efficiently and cost-effectively, possibly requiring a fraction of the footprint currently required. Such foresight could preserve more farmland for agricultural use and minimize potential brownfield damage when solar fields reach their decommissioning stage.

The solar industry should only launch validated, fully realized products that are economically viable without government subsidies. As Steven Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, said in regard to the Ivanpah solar debacle, “No green project relying on taxpayer subsidies has ever made any economic or environmental sense.”

The “renewables” sector should learn a lesson from the wine-making industry and promise to install no solar before its time.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Utility-scale Solar: The Grim News Begins (Blue Ridge “wind-down’)

“Solar construction firm Blue Ridge Power issues mass worker layoff in North Carolina,” read the article in pv magazine. “The utility-scale solar engineering, procurement and construction firm filed a WARN act with the state, cutting over 500 jobs.”

A dilapidated urban setting with a large, distressed sign reading 'Solar Bankruptcies: The New Normal' prominently displayed, highlighting issues in the solar industry.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… this was one of the hottest and most promising job sectors in the country at the end of 2024. Now, clean energy job growth is at serious risk – and with it, our overall economy.” (-Bob Keefe, below)

“Solar construction firm Blue Ridge Power issues mass worker layoff in North Carolina,” read the article in pv magazine. “The utility-scale solar engineering, procurement and construction firm filed a WARN act with the state, cutting over 500 jobs.”

A worker wearing a hard hat and safety vest is kneeling on a construction site, handling equipment for a solar energy project.

Much of the rooftop solar industry is in liquidation mode, and now the central station “utility scale” solar industry is in trouble. Expect more of the same in the next months as solar subsidies and local opposition (the environmental grassroots) grows. The delayed end of the Investment Tax Credit (30 percent credit) and the Production Tax Credit (2.8 cents/kWh) will cause a rush to the exits before the credits expire at the end of 2027 (with credits at risk for projects not started by July 4, 2026).

Blue Ridge is a primary industrial solar installer in South and North Carolina, with 8,000 MW installed and 1,200 MW under construction in 14 states. Some quotations from Ryan Kennedy‘s September 23, 2025, recap:

“Blue Ridge Power has experienced market headwinds similar to those impacting the entire renewable energy industry, requiring Pine Gate Renewables to dedicate significant resources to support the organization. After reviewing numerous options to find a path forward, Pine Gate made the difficult decision to conduct an orderly wind-down of Blue Ridge Power,” said Pine Gate Renewables in a statement.

And on the macro situation:

E2 research shows that since January 2025, businesses cancelled more than $22 billion of planned clean energy factories and projects that were expected to create 16,500 jobs. Analysis by Energy Innovation suggests that more than 830,000 jobs could be lost due to policy rollbacks created by the Trump Administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The U.S. clean energy workforce now stands at 3.56 million. In 2024, 7% of all new jobs in the United States were in clean energy, and clean energy represented 82% of all new energy sector jobs. However, approximately 50,000 fewer jobs were created in 2024 as compared to 2023.

“What these numbers show is that this was one of the hottest and most promising job sectors in the country at the end of 2024,” said Bob Keefe, E2’s executive director. “Now, clean energy job growth is at serious risk – and with it, our overall economy.”

Final Comment

Solar as grid electricity is a government-created industry. It would not exist without the large tax credits that began with the 10 percent ITC in 1978, which was extended six times (1980, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991). Then came the 30 percent credit in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, itself extended seven times (2006, 2008, 2009, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2022).

That’s a total of thirteen extensions if you are counting. So much for an ‘infant’ industry, which was not infant to begin with.

Shh! Chinese solar firms sacked one-third of their workers — 87,000 solar jobs gone

Quietly, the world manufacturing base for solar panels has been shrinking for nearly two years and yet hardly anyone knows.  Especially not the Prime Minister of Australia who set up the $1 billion Solar Sunshot a year ago to artificially create an Australian solar panel manufacturing industry, twenty years too late, and with the worst possible timing.

A graphic featuring the text 'Reduced Workforce' in bold red, overlaying an image of two rundown solar panel installations surrounded by overgrown vegetation and industrial buildings in the background.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

A cracked bubble revealing a vibrant landscape with wind turbines, solar panels, lush greenery, and clouds, symbolizing the fragility of the solar industry.

The invisible shrinking solar industry

Quietly, the world manufacturing base for solar panels has been shrinking for nearly two years and yet hardly anyone knows.  Especially not the Prime Minister of Australia who set up the $1 billion Solar Sunshot a year ago to artificially create an Australian solar panel manufacturing industry, twenty years too late, and with the worst possible timing.

China has already captured the solar market and killed it.

Gluts have consequences

The CCP is making twice as many solar panels as the world wants to buy.  The latest trend is from bad to worse.

Let’s remember this story, the next time the propaganda media try to tell us solar panels are setting new records. Isn’t this the sort of thing our investigative sleuths at the ABC-BBC-CBC should have been digging out before elections were held? Doesn’t this change everything?

Australia is supposed to be going gangbusters “leading the world” and installing 22,000 panels a day to meet our Net Zero target, but no one else in the world is doing that.

China’s solar giants quietly shed a third of their workforces last year

Reuters

BEIJING, August 1 (Reuters) – China’s biggest solar firms shed nearly one-third of their workforces last year, company filings show, as one of the industries hand-picked by Beijing to drive economic growth grapples with falling prices and steep losses.

Layoffs are politically sensitive in China, where Beijing views employment as key to social stability. Other than a 5% cut acknowledged by Longi last year, none of the firms mentioned above have announced any job cuts or responded to questions from Reuters.

“The industry has been facing a downturn since the end of 2023,” said Cheng Wang, an analyst at Morningstar. “In 2024, it actually got worse. In 2025, it looks like it’s getting even worse.”

There is a glut on our grids too

The Duck Curve has been quacking on grids in California and Australia for years. Finally the market is starting to pay people what solar power is really worth.  Many solar feed in tariffs in Australia are shrinking to nothing. The tragedy is that this was not done 10 years ago, so homeowners were not misled (and not squeezed to cough up the payments to subsidize too).

Power companies don’t want your solar power anymore

… 4 million Australian homeowners are set for disappointment as energy retailers all but stop buying their solar power – blowing out the promised return on investment (ROI) and pushing customers towards costly batteries.

Solar customers in Victoria, in particular, recently received notifications from their retailers that their feed-in tariff (FIT) had been slashed as of 1 July,…

Excess solar is so toxic, that prices are negative.  Things are so crazy, solar farms often have to disconnect at midday, right at their peak, or they will have to pay people to take the power away.

Unlike all the expert prophesies, coal production is still growing, and solar factories are the stranded assets.

h/t To Paul Homewood at  NotaLotOfPeopleKnowThat for the story idea.

POST NOTE: 44,000 panels a day corrected to 22,000. The target is 44GW…

https://videopress.com/v/FHE4W8PE?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&autoPlay=true&loop=true&preloadContent=metadata&useAverageColor=true

Solar Alert! Rooftop Decay, Facility Decommissioning

And you thought that owning a Tesla was ecological …. Imagine that solar roof that now needs attention with the installer AWOL. The solar industry is about to become the least popular in the U.S. with hundreds of thousands of disappointed customers.

Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“This is where the next frontier of solar energy lies—not in installing the next 100GW—it’s rescuing the first 100GW.” – Cesar Barbosa (below)

And you thought that owning a Tesla was ecological …. Imagine that solar roof that now needs attention with the installer AWOL. The solar industry is about to become the least popular in the U.S. with hundreds of thousands of disappointed customers.

———————–

Cesar Barbosa is busy in a hot new field–solar decommissioning. And repowering too if the tax credit is still there.

“As the founder of NuLife Power Services,” he states, “I’m proud to lead a nationally recognized company specializing in Repowering, Removal & Reinstallation, and Decommissioning for aging solar assets across North America.”

For me, it’s not just about revitalizing solar systems—it’s about building a strong workforce through solid leadership and investing in people who are driven to make a lasting impact in renewable energy.

The name NuLife reflects our mission: giving aging solar systems—and the teams behind them—a chance to shine.

He adds:

My solar company helps clients manage complex end-of-life challenges, specializing in residential portfolio repairs and commercial repowering. My consulting business empowers business owners and managers to unlock their inner champion through a Christian lens.

Busted Sunnova has thousands of customers under 25-year contracts in California, where Barbosa works. What happens to them? And as other solar companies bite the dust … Removing solar panels is and will be a big business indeed.

Warning! Solar Waste Ahead!

In a recent social media post, Barbosa warned:

A bold prediction no one wants to hear: Half of all commercial solar systems installed before 2016 will be underperforming or non-operational by 2030.

The solar industry is obsessed with the future.
Cutting-edge panels (bigger is better). Sleek batteries. Dazzling projections for new installs.

But here’s the reality we can’t afford to ignore: a silent crisis unfolding on rooftops across America—a crisis I’ve been tackling firsthand since 2012, traveling the country with SunPower to address some of the industry’s most pressing system failures.

Across the country, tens of thousands of rooftop solar systems—once hailed as the clean energy revolution—are quietly decaying. Not because the technology failed, but because the industry did. We rushed to install. We cut corners. We promised 25 years of performance… and delivered systems that can’t make it past 10.

He continues:

Here’s what’s killing them:
Inverters are dying—many are already out of warranty, with no replacements available.

Wiring and electrical infrastructure that was never designed for 25+ years of exposure.

Install quality? Forget it—an army of barely trained crews built the boom, and now we’re paying the price.

Maintenance? There was no plan. Just a contract, a handshake, and a hope it would all work out.

This is not just an engineering issue—it’s a financial one. Underperforming assets are generating less revenue than forecasted, while increasing the risk of electrical faults, fire hazards, and insurance claims.

And here’s the kicker: almost no one is ready to deal with this wave of system failures. Asset managers, facility owners, and even EPCs are discovering that repowering, remediation, or decommissioning is far more complex and expensive than expected.

This is where the next frontier of solar energy lies—not in installing the next 100GW—it’s rescuing the first 100GW.

Revitalization. Repowering. Responsible end-of-life planning. The question isn’t whether it’s coming. It’s whether we have the guts to face it. Are we going to keep pitching the dream—or finally clean up the mess we left behind?

——————–

Georgia proves it: Stable electricity markets attract business and growth

When considering factors that spur a state’s economic development and growth, how a state regulates its utilities is too often overlooked. That could not be more important now that the needs of AI and data centers have created the highest power demand in a generation, requiring a buildout of at least $50 billion just for new generation and another $250 billion for data centers.

Fresh peaches growing on branches in garden outdoors, closeup. Space for text

From CFACT

By Kevin Doyle

When considering factors that spur a state’s economic development and growth, how a state regulates its utilities is too often overlooked. That could not be more important now that the needs of AI and data centers have created the highest power demand in a generation, requiring a buildout of at least $50 billion just for new generation and another $250 billion for data centers.

The states which can provide stability and predictability to utilities will be the winners in this race. Georgia proves it: Atlanta is already among the top 10 data center markets, and construction grew 76% year-over-year to 1,281 Megawatts in the first half of this year.

A big ingredient in this success is Georgia’s utility regulation structure and the advantages it affords Georgians, especially when compared to deregulated states in the Northeast. The Peach State’s well-regulated energy market not only ensures affordable rates and reliable service, but actively supports economic growth in ways that deregulated states struggle to match.

Georgia’s stability and predictability are a long-term competitive advantage in the eyes of businesses seeking sites for new plants or facilities across the country. In contrast, the deregulated energy markets in states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts usually face higher rates plus price volatility and reliability issues that are a big part of the equation guiding where businesses locate operations—especially large industrial consumers.

The proof is in the pudding. Georgia consistently ranks among the best states for business. Between July 1, 2023, and June 30 of this year, the Georgia Department of Economic Development’s Global Commerce team supported 429 facility expansions and new locations, resulting in more than $20.3 billion in investment and the commitment of 26,900 new, private sector jobs statewide.

Georgia’s Public Service Commission oversees the Peach State’s investor-owned utilities, while the state’s cooperatives and municipal utilities are regulated by their member-elected boards of directors and their citizen-elected city councils, respectively. This structure regulates utility rates and oversees infrastructure investments, ensuring energy prices remain affordable and predictable for families and businesses. This steady foundation allows businesses to forecast energy costs accurately, which makes for better-informed long-term investment decisions.

Data centers are not the only investments that result. Take the case of the Hyundai Motor Group’s recent decision to build a $5.5 billion electric vehicle plant in Bryan County. Highlighting the state’s appeal to major investors, the plant is expected to create 8,000 jobs and stimulate significant economic activity in the region.

Consider the case of Plant Vogtle, a nuclear joint venture among the state’s utilities. Vogtle Units 3 and 4, one of the largest construction projects in the United States, would not have been possible without Georgia’s regulatory framework. Plant Vogtle generated thousands of construction jobs and permanent positions and represents a significant investment in the state’s energy infrastructure, providing reliable, emissions-free electricity. That is an attractive option for employers that prioritize clean energy.

Georgia’s regulatory framework also supports sustainable economic growth by encouraging investments in renewable energy and clean technologies. Georgia ranks among the top seven states for solar capacity as a result of its rapid expansion of solar power.

This focus on sustainability not only addresses environmental concerns but also creates new economic opportunities. The growth of the universal solar industry in Georgia has led to the creation of numerous jobs and has attracted investments from major solar companies. In deregulated states, the fragmented approach to energy regulation can hinder the development of renewable energy projects, limiting both economic and environmental benefits.

As other states, especially those with deregulated energy markets, look to enhance their economic development efforts, Georgia’s approach provides valuable lessons. A focus on stability, infrastructure investment, and support for innovation drives economic growth, jobs and ensures affordable, reliable and ever-cleaner electricity for decades.

Georgia’s families and businesses are the winners, and that is a model to which every state should aspire.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Europe’s solar industry warns of bankruptcy risk as prices drop

So much for cheap solar power then!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t idau

So much for cheap solar power then!

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Europe’s solar power industry warned on Monday of a “precarious” situation for European solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturers as solar PV prices reached record lows.

Industry trade group SolarPower Europe said in a letter sent to the European Commission that European companies risk bankruptcies, which they said would hurt the EU’s goal of reshoring 30 GW of the solar PV supply chain.

Prices of PV modules have dropped by more than a quarter since the beginning of the year, according to SolarPower.

“This is creating concrete risks for companies to go into insolvency as their significant stock will need to be devalued,” SolarPower Europe said.

Strong demand, combined with large investments and fierce competition among Chinese suppliers led to overcapacities in the market and a price fall.

The industry calls on the European Commission to buy up European companies’ solar module stockpiles, to set up a Solar Manufacturing Bank at EU level and to boost demand for solar PV in Europe among others.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/europes-solar-industry-warns-of-bankruptcy-risk-as-prices-drop/ar-AA1gz7yu

FILE PHOTO: European flags fly outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels,© Thomson Reuters

A 10 Percent ‘Community Solar’ Discount? Think Again!

Think about this the next time you hear a solar industry flack or an administration mouthpiece or a corrupt media ideologue yammer about what a great deal ratepayers and taxpayers are getting for IRA-funded clean energy projects.

From Master Resource

By Joseph Toomey — May 9, 2023

“A 10% reduction off the retail rate for wholesale power would net Summit Ridge Energy a price of $0.1181 per kWh, which is 244% higher than the average wholesale rate in 2021 that all other power producers received. And that boost will be absorbed and passed on to all retail ratepayers.”

“The $2.5 billion investment in production plants that Q-Cells promises isn’t really coming from the company, but from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of federal taxpayers’ largesse and Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.”

Last month, Vice President Kamala Harris visited a Korean-owned solar photovoltaic module plant in Dalton, Georgia. Long known as the carpet capital of America (and perhaps less illustriously as the Home of the Blonde Bombshell), Dalton will now host a vastly-expanded Korean-owned solar panel production facility operated by a company called Q-Cells.

Those with long memories may recall the name Q-Cells as a spectacular crash-and-burn event during the previous decade. The company was originally German-owned, filing for bankruptcy in 2012, an event heralded by Der Spiegel as “the end of German solar.” The once high-flying company boasted a $150 share price and an €8 billion market capitalization. Fortunes waned in the face of stiff Chinese competition, and the company’s shares had collapsed to just 16 cents before declaring bankruptcy in April 2012. Six months after the German bankruptcy declaration, Q-Cells was acquired by South Korea’s Hanwha Solutions Group.

“Community Solar” Projects

During her visit, the Vice President proudly announced a deal whereby Q-Cells and Virginia-based Summit Ridge Energy will partner on what are called “community solar projects” to be deployed in three states, Maine, Maryland and Illinois. Two of these three states reside wholly or in part within the PJM balancing authority area. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory lists nearly 2,625 megawatts of community solar project capacity deployed as of June 2020.

Q-Cells will invest a combined $2.5 billion in two solar module production plants in Dalton and nearby Cartersville according to news reports. The investment will expand Q-Cells production capacity in Georgia to 8.4 gigawatts of solar modules per year.

The Biden administration claims that community solar projects result in a 10 percent annual savings for customers. Media outfits like Associated Press and National Public Radio parrot this dubious claim verbatim. Summit Ridge Energy shows a similar figure on its website, but avoids making any definitive claims.

Let’s Do the Math

Take a closer look at the actual written declaration about the promised 10% savings:

The installations will sell power between a 5–10% discount to current RETAIL UTILITY RATES under their local community solar programs….

See? They’re not saying you’re getting a 10% reduction on your RETAIL electricity bill. They’re saying they will sell solar power to utilities under Power Purchase Agreements — i.e. WHOLESALE agreements — that are priced at a level 10% below the RETAIL rate level.

How does that work in practice?

In 2021, the average wholesale power purchase price in the PJM territory where these projects were to be deployed was $0.0485 per kilowatt-hour. But the average retail power price in Maryland in 2021 was $0.1312 per kWh.

Thus, a 10% reduction off the retail rate for wholesale power would net Summit Ridge Energy a price of $0.1181 per kWh, which is 244% higher than the average wholesale rate in 2021 that all other power producers received. As you can see, your 10% “savings” is really just a massive 244% boost in the wholesale rate for the power produced by these projects in PJM. And that boost will be absorbed and passed on to all retail ratepayers.

One such series of community solar projects in Illinois and Maryland deployed 26.7 megawatts of solar capacity at a development cost of $78.7 million. These projects qualified for federal Investment Tax Credits of $26.6 million, meaning federal taxpayers paid fully one-third of the installation cost.

Tax Credits Galore

Interestingly, the tax credit schedule enacted in the wildly-misnamed Inflation Reduction Act shows a 7 cent per Watt tax credit for manufacturing of a solar module. Press reports indicate the Dalton plant will produce 5.1 gigawatts per year of solar modules while the Cartersville plant will produce another 3.3 gigawatts annually.

Together, the plant expansions will cost Q-Cells $2.5 billion in investment. That capacity will qualify the company to receive $588 million per year in federal tax credits, meaning that it will have completely recouped its $2.5 billion investment outlays in 4 years and 3 months. In essence, Q-Cells isn’t paying for the plants. Federal taxpayers are.

“These credits were absolutely critical to this expansion by Q-Cells,” says Michael Carr, Director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, a solar industry lobbying group. With the U.S. Treasury effectively buying solar manufacturing plants on the installment plan without receiving a single share of stock, one would be hard-pressed to disagree.

So, if you’ve been following closely, Q-Cells and Summit Ridge Energy will install community based solar projects in three states, but one-third of the cost of those projects will be funded by federal taxpayers. These community solar projects promise to deliver a 10 percent savings that actually entails a huge 244 percent increase in the cost of wholesale power purchased by utilities and the grid operator. And the $2.5 billion investment in production plants that Q-Cells promises isn’t really coming from the company, but from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of federal taxpayers’ largesse and Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

VP Harris Applauds

Vice President Harris offered some uncharacteristically stirring oratory to announce the Q-Cells deal with Summit Ridge Energy:

I am proud to be in Dalton today to announce the largest community solar order in American history — made possible by the investments our Administration has made to expand American manufacturing and increase demand for clean energy. When we invest in climate, clean energy, and manufacturing, we invest in America. President Biden and I will continue to fight to create opportunity in every community.

Actually, it wasn’t the administration making any investments. It was federal taxpayers and system ratepayers. And the administration’s “fight to create opportunity in every community” wasn’t really about creating opportunity in communities. It was actually about creating an opportunity for federal tax money to be used to line the pockets of Q-Cells and Summit Ridge Energy.

This isn’t just a story about the often-hidden cost of renewable energy, or the blatant dishonesty of the administration that championed a massive spending spree aimed at boosting wind and solar energy. It’s also a story about the corruption of the “fact check” media whose default position is to accept at face value any pronouncement from the Biden administration, to “run cover” for its misstatements.

Think about this the next time you hear a solar industry flack or an administration mouthpiece or a corrupt media ideologue yammer about what a great deal ratepayers and taxpayers are getting for IRA-funded clean energy projects.

———-

Joseph Toomey is a career management consultant with undergraduate and MBA finance degrees. His supply-chain-strategy consulting work for clients in the oil and gas, electric utilities, industrials, and renewable energy industries spans three decades across dozens of countries around the world. He is the author of An Unworthy Future: The Grim Reality of Obama’s Green Energy Future (2014), which critically appraises the Obama Administration’s energy policy.