Where does solar/renewables go from here? What will happen with President elect Trump?

I understand that Trump has said very discouraging things about the Solar Tax credit and the EPA.
He's also recently said he wants to promote US energy including coal.
I know some of the republicans will not be much help, and that there is a likelihood of a largely deadlocked administration with nothing getting done, even with Republican House, Senate and President. I would guess that the current "in place" legislation won't change. Current Tax credits would stay in place for the current duration.
I am genuinely curious, if we can keep this on topic I would appreciate it. Bill I couldn't figure out where to put this, if you feel we need to move it please feel free.
He's also recently said he wants to promote US energy including coal.
I know some of the republicans will not be much help, and that there is a likelihood of a largely deadlocked administration with nothing getting done, even with Republican House, Senate and President. I would guess that the current "in place" legislation won't change. Current Tax credits would stay in place for the current duration.
I am genuinely curious, if we can keep this on topic I would appreciate it. Bill I couldn't figure out where to put this, if you feel we need to move it please feel free.
Home system 4000 watt (Evergreen) array standing, with 2 Midnite Classic Lites, Midnite E-panel, Prosine 1800 and Exeltech 1100, 660 ah 24v ForkLift battery. Off grid for @16 of last 17 years. Assorted other systems, and to many panels in the closet to not do more...lol
Comments
I think the industry needs to develope without anymore stimulus and sometimes too much of a good thing ends up being counterproductive. The credit may last but if you are counting on them you better get moving. No Guarantees on this guy!
Probably that is a big reason he was elected.
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
KID #51B 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
Keep it friendly and it will stay open.
Yes, Westbranch, you are correct, most all of these subsidy/tax credit bills have limited time provisions. Plus, no congress can pass a law that prevents a future congress from changing it (need a constitutional amendment to do that--But, of course, a future amendment can change the law--See Prohibition).
Subsidies have a "long life":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohair
I think that is the big lesson that the Affordable Care Act will once again remind people of.
Also the hope that the next guy will pass legislation that is approved on both sides of the isle to allow the congress to pass legislation that won't just get overturned by the next President. What a concept......No wonder we have such a disdain for politicians.
Ethenol and Mohair anyone?
The other thing we hardly hear about is that the last time a party won 3 terms in a row was Ronald Reagan.
The odds were very low that a change of party was not going to happen last night if you went to Las Vegas very often.
The last thing I have on this is John Zogby a pro at polling voters said last Sunday before the election that the metrics used these days for polling are not accurate for 2016. He sure was right about that! I want his crystal ball for a short term loan
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
I am available for custom hardware/firmware development
Trump insider: New administration won't attack renewable energy
The president-elect will not move to revoke wind and solar subsidies, according to a major Trump financial contributor who said he is a member of the transition team.
There has been a lot of angst in the renewable power sector over what the Trump presidency will mean, but according to a Trump insider, renewable energy will not be in the new president’s sights when he takes office in January.
The day after the election, shares of solar power companies like SolarCity, SunPower and Vivint Solar cratered, as did wind turbine maker Vestas, while shares of coal company Peabody Energy jumped more than 50%. But those drastic movements may not prove to be an accurate reflection of the realities the energy sector will face under Trump’s presidency.
“Energy is not one of the top five agenda items” on Trump’s to-do list when he takes office in January, according to a major Trump financial contributor who said he is a member of the transition team and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The top issues on that agenda are tax reform, immigration, reforming health care (Obamacare), infrastructure, and trade.
“Everything with renewables continues; the credits will remain in place,” he said.
During his bid for the White House, Trump criticized solar power programs such as the Department of Energy’s loan to Solyndra and his presidential transition website includes no details on wind and solar policy.
But despite the campaign rhetoric, the momentum of power sector deal flow, which has come largely from renewable energy deals, is likely to continue, say market participants.
There have been two main drivers of renewable energy deals, says Dan Reicher, executive director of the Streyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford Law School. On the federal side, there are tax credits and accelerated depreciation. At the state level there are renewable portfolio standards.
Even with Congress in Republican hands after the election, it is unlikely there would be a move to repeal the production tax credit (PTC) for wind power or the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar power, Reicher said.
There is also a limited incentive to repeal either the PTC or the ITC as both were renewed in December on a stepped down basis with definitive expiration dates. The PTC is expiring by 2020 and the ITC will drop to 10% in 2021.
So, in addition to the benefit remaining in place, the step-down schedule is likely to provide an incentive for developers of wind projects in particular to push to close financing on their projects sooner rather than later. At the beginning of 2017, for instance, the PTC drops to 80%.
The most likely scenario from a finance perspective will be “business as usual,” said a partner in a fossil fuel development company, who believes the Trump Administration will be “energy friendly” and could eliminate some regulations that could aid the development of gas-fired generation.
Under Trump’s presidency he sees fewer roadblocks for the continued development of hydraulic fracturing and for new pipelines to get the fracked gas to consumers, such as new gas-fired generators, which would be a positive for development. But in terms of financing, that is “based on economics and doesn’t have anything to do with what administration is in power,” the developer said.
Among the economic factors that the Trump Administration could influence, though, are the tax credits. Some commentators have pointed out that the Trump Administration would not even have to engage in the heavy legislative lift required repeal the tax credits, instead the administration could work through the Internal Revenue Service to revise some of the rules that govern the credits, such as the definition of construction start, which is one of the eligibility milestones.
That could be possible in some draconian scenario, said the Trump insider, but “it is not going to happen.” The PTC cuts across party lines with Republican states such as Iowa reaping benefits from wind power development.
Tax reform, in fact, could have the largest near-term effect on financing power projects, particularly legislation that would broaden the scope of entities that can participate in master limited partnerships (MLPs).
Before yieldcos – Wall Streetese for yield company – became popular in the sector, financiers were exploring MLPs as a way to bring down renewable finance costs by broadening the investor base for renewable investments. By law, MLPs are restricted to oil and gas assets.
But there already is legislation, the Master Limited Partnerships Act, backed by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that would extend the legislation to include renewable resources, as well as energy storage and carbon capture and storage technologies.
The Trump insider gives MLP reform an even chance of legislative success because it could be revenue negative. “There are only so many costs” that can be borne as part of a wider tax reform package, he said.
Part of that tax package could include doing away with the carried interest provisions that shield income from private equity and hedge funds.
Private equity is one of the largest sources of funding for power sector deals, so that particular Trump campaign promise could be seen as a negative for power sector deal flow, but in seen in the context of wider tax reforms that concern could evaporate if the top tax rate under Trump is 25%.
During his campaign Trump also promised bring back coal jobs. That could be a tougher task. Even the Trump insider admitted that the candidate might have “oversold what he can do” concerning coal jobs. The closure of coal-fired power plants and the decline in domestically consumed coal has more to do with low natural gas prices than it does with the Environmental Protection Agency, he said.
In fact, if Trump follows through with his pledge to spur $1 trillion in private sector infrastructure spending with $140 billion in tax credits that could further erode coal’s place in the nation’s generation mix by removing regulatory hurdles to the fracking of natural gas from tight shale formations. That, in turn, could lead to more pipeline infrastructure and more natural gas-fired power plants, especially if climate change regulations, such as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, are challenged, which appears to be likely.
Trump’s emphasis on infrastructure, while most likely focused on public works such as roads and bridges, could also extend to transmission lines, especially in the western parts of the nation where many power lines are under more direct federal control.
Even if business as usual prevails for much of the power sector — there could even be an uptick in the financing pipeline or transmission deals — there could still be some pain. There will be “enormous casualties among climate change activities,” the Trump insider said. But, he added, “Trump doesn’t want to turn his back on climate change.”
Trump likes nuclear power, and he may push the zero emission attributes of nuclear plants, but, the insider said, there is little that can be done to reverse the economic challenges that nuclear power faces which, like coal-fired generation, are largely the result of low priced natural gas, which has driven down wholesale power prices.
Follow Peter Maloney on Twitter
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
KID #51B 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
I use Turbo Tax too, it does it all for you. No problems!
A $300 credit off your liability for every $1000 you've spent and used is well worth the hour or so of finding receipts and plugging in the numbers.
I'm a bit curious, since I've allowed my self to take the fall and winter off, so don't have a huge tax liability, and some other deductions. I'm about a flip of the switch away from taking a credit on my 3rd Classic lite CC, purchased 2 years ago. I suspect I'll go ahead and take it. I believe they roll over if I don't have enough tax liability. The panels wee purchased used so no credit there...
Turbo Tax is great...in theory. Until something goes wrong. Seems that nothing, tax related, is easy when one lives in two places. Having a business with quarterly taxes to be paid is challenging enough...tax wise.
Why give tax credit for installing Chinese panels but not for used panels? The idea is to provide incentives for going solar.
I remain unconvinced that sound ideas require government intervention. Intervention often means loop holes for those who can afford tax attorneys. Loop holes that the rest are forced to pay for.
IMHO, the more any administration makes decisions based on free market drivers rather than "lining pockets", the more the US can move back to making things rather than servicing things. That likely includes solar panels. Will they be cheaper than Chinese/other imports - likely not, but will they stimulate our economy via the usual increased money velocity? - likely. Will they be built with less environmental impact in the US? Maybe not if the only consideration is the US, but globally, very likely. I know that this is true for any refined products (fuels), plastics, chemicals and specialty chemicals because the US sets the gold standards for environmental (and safety by the way) in just about every heavy industry sector.
As for incentives/subsidies - I fervently hope that the Trump admin will be smart enough and have enough business savvy to separate the "chaff". As an example, from a thermodynamicist's perspective, subsidizing the hydrogen based automotive industry is simply ridiculous. However, budgeting the Navy to design a hydrogen fuel cell aircraft carrier to complete with nuclear may be worthwhile (I really don't know the answer, but if I headed up "energy strategies" for the US, I'd sure be looking into it!) However, incentives for electric vehicles (needed battery technology), time shifting energy equipment (e.g.Tesla's powerwall 2), solar roofs, high efficiency inverters that are EMP proof (actually ANY pragmatic EMP proofing equipment), etc, etc, - I am all in. I like individual ability to obtain incentives better than industries ability to lobby, but that's just my opinion.
Bottom line to me is that Solyndra type decisions will typically hurt needed industries rather than help - and the renewable industry is absolutely needed if we want to be sustainable for our great-great-great grandchildren.
Medicare had unfunded liabilities of 36 trillion in 2013. Enter national health care and consequent runaway health care costs. Then we have social security unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars plus the burgeoning 20 trillion dollar debt. Our debt/unfunded liabilites is well over 75 trillion dollars. We are toast.
Buckle up the seat belts and prepare for a bumpy ride. I may also suggest the purchase of necessary consumables with good shelf life. Anything could happen.
The Pinocchio Test
Coburn’s general point about potential unfunded liabilities is worth noting, but just because a number is large does not mean it is worth quoting.
In general, we would hope for a little more rigor from lawmakers than simply citing a Web site with fuzzy sourcing. Throwing out figures such as $128 trillion without context (percentage of GDP) or explanation (this is over an infinite horizon) does a disservice to listeners. In any case, there are little data available that give much credence to this particular figure.
Update: In a statement to the Powerline blog, a Coburn spokesman gave this column “Three Pinocchios,” citing in part a letter by economists that pegged the gap at $222 trillion.
But a better way to express these numbers is as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. That $23 trillion turns out to be 1.4 percent of GDP, or 4 percent of taxable payroll.
Depending on which economist you consult, this is either manageable or a potential problem. There is certainly a gap, and either payroll taxes or federal individual and corporate income taxes would need to be raised, possibly significantly, in order to close it.
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
Mark good analysis, thanks.
Dave, good numbers for comparison to GDP... that is a separate topic though.
This morning I watched a regular , weekly, offering on Canadian Politics from one of our 3 National TV networks...so of course the entire show is now about the Pres. Elect and what will the impacts to us be... NAFTA came up...
Discussion moved to the current results of the NAFTA agreement, in effect Jan 1,1994:
One of the presenters was the Deputy Prime Minister for a part of 1993 while the final touches were being made.
It was recalled that our Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, the principal architect of the 1994 NAFTA in Canada, PROUDLY boasted that the welfare of All Canadians will be lifted (ie wages would rise) and be the result of increased bilateral/trilateral trade...http://www.cbj.ca/nafta/
Well from a global perspective it is a success, GDP has increased, but when looked at locally there have be 'job displacements' and 'plant closures' in both Canada and the US and increased use of lower cost labour in Mexico...
so what happened?
Businesses over the last 20+ years in our countries and the expectation of a company staying put and continuing to operate in a given country ... this as most of us are aware of has NOT happened
I remember one of the first axioms our economics our Prof said in Economics 101: Money 'FLOWS' to the point that will generate the maximum return.
That surely has happened and I am thinking that your Pres. Elect may also know that fact...
The circus will continue, at least, for the next 2 months IMHO...
KID #51B 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
~~~~~~
Yes, it's basic economics, that money flows to the greatest return. This worries me more than anything and is the very reason I started this discussion. I worry that making our economy 'thrive' will come at the cost of the environment. Removing EPA, restriction on coal fired plants and such will not bode well. Though Pence might be worse than Trump! under his 'leadership' Indiana has had a bad record in pollution/coal.
I believe climate change is here but not the anthropogenic stuff, and I agree with Marks thoughts about using tax incentives to 'realize' benefits from a chosen item like Hydrogen cells for industrial applications , if there is a long term research time line that is needed to bring a product to market.
There has been a similar incentive done by our Provincial Gov. to promote Hydrogen as a fuel for transit buses, been going on for > 20 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard_Power_Systems
moost of the subsidies came through BC HYDRO and its bus/ transit arm.
KID #51B 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
My favorite from Henry Ford,
"It's not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money.
It's the customer who pays the wages."
The coal industry probably will die on it's own, I am hoping this happens and the workers will have some more time to get ready for it.
The EPA has middle ground they can work to and get things they want without forcing overnight panic.
LA smog looked pretty good the last time I was there. It is the bad air coming across the Pacific that I hope the western technology can influence environmental change.
The pendulum swings and another quote from Otto von Bismarck...
"people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election"
Pretty decent moon tonight at 3:22 am PST.
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
- If "clean" coal can compete - let it compete - To "compete" might include carbon capture and certainly include upgrading older plants to modern, efficient designs that meet the existing stringent pollution requirements. I believe the deciding factor will eventually be some form of "carbon penalty". Note that accurate life-cycle analyses of "carbon footprints" is not easy and often give surprising results, i.e., coal might actually compete - especially existing/modernized plants.
- I suspect there is a significant untapped potential in our existing electrical energy production and distribution systems that we can tap into by leveling energy usage via energy storage. Most of our power plants use about as much "fuel" when running at 50% as when running at peak efficiency. Some plants have "peaking" plants that shutdown and restart - not very efficient either. I believe Elon Musk has started somewhat of an energy revolution with his remarkable EVs and his "Powerwalls". As this matures , two major things are possible - 1. use of traditional hydrocarbon fuels could be greatly reduced, especially for the "commuter", and 2. our existing electrical systems will find new levels of efficiency - reducing the amount of new plants required.
- Hopefully the new power plants that are needed to "fuel" these EVs will be as sustainable/renewable as possible (and by the way EMP resistant - another subject).
- A continual move to "renewable" forms of energy is needed if nothing more than to conserve our valuable natural resources of crude oil, natural gases and condensates for our future needs of chemicals and polymers.
- To make such a transition would surely create many jobs!
The big one I hope gets solved is the 35% increase in 2016 of the deficit here by 580 billion. This can't go on for much longer and the corporate tax rate here of 35% is the highest in the world. We need to attract business instead of sending them away.
What a no brainer!
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
So many modern gadgets are a house of cards. The biggest part of our GDP is financial services....pushing money back and forth across the table and .....wala..... magical GDP!
We mostly make food/fast food, weapons, plastic, petrochemicals/pharmaceuticals, and chemicals. We enjoy disproportionate numbers in the "service industries" of incarceration and surveillance. We are leaders of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
By the way, Tesla can't make it without huge government subsidies. Hopefully this will change.
Think I went off the grid for the fun of it?
Oh , the 'system' was remotely controlled , by whom,???
KID #51B 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
The advantage of electric car and central energy production is that the polluting can be somewhat controller/monitored. Car are a bit notorious polluters. Of course recycling lead acid batteries has become somewhat efficient. Many of the new storage batteries are not yet economical to recycle, though rebuilding/replacing individual cells has give some of them very long life. No golden battery yet, though some are looking better.
I live in Missouri where a large part of the population drive trucks and complain about gas prices, though they don't need the features of a truck 98% of the time. I do think it has gotten a bit better, likely due to higher gas prices. Maybe higher utility prices will drive people to alternative energy....
...naa, that's just a pipe dream, crossing the Mississippi 2x!
1. What do you predict the efficiency of solar panels to be in 10-20 years?
2. What do you predict the efficiency of battery energy usage to be in 10-20 years?
3. With matching high voltage MPPT charge controllers (affordable "DC" quick charging at home), what will be the "round trip" efficiency of EV's mile per KWH - specifically the "commuter" style vehicle.
4. What do you predict the energy density of batteries to be in 10-20 years? (just curious on this one).
5. With an EV range of 300 miles and a 20 minute quick charge network (at work also), what % of commuters will opt for an EV vrs an ICE vehicle? - OK, this is the tough one!
6. Using that %, what will be the reduction in hydrocarbon fuel usage - due to "commuter" usage alone in the US?
7. With a 300 mile range, and a 100 mile commute every day, what amount of energy is available (with "smart" logic) for "energy shifting", charging late at night and using the excess during "peak". For some that have learned to actually CONSERVE - go off grid!
8. What will be the result in utilization of our existing generation/grid - can high efficiency PV generation plants (or nuclear, methane based, other low carbons) be built to make up for the new loads in such a short period of 10-20 years?
9. How many jobs will this create and how much reduction in tons of carbon/year?
10. Do you have better options? Seriously asking.
I did the hydrocarbon fuels reduction calc several years ago from (OMG) government data - quite astounding. Back then, the future did not look nearly as "bright" (LED costs, powerwall, 300 mile EVs, etc, etc) - amazing technology shifts very quickly. If there was a limit, it appeared to be ability to design and construct all the needed production facilities (ignoring the "big oil" component!).
Believe me, not trying to be a smart-ass, but looking toward a future that assumes nothing more than improvements on existing technologies. I'd sure like to see others "predictions".
I guess we have different definitions of "time" gas was $2.70-2.80 summer of 2015. It takes time for people to change their ideas and opinions and choices of what they will spend money on... I don't consider that quite some time.