Competitive Solar? A Perennial Deceit (Enron/NYT in 1994)

Ed Note: The solar industry is in “a fight for our lives,” in the words of the head of the Solar Energy Industries Association. (Fifteen extensions of the Investment Tax Credit are not enough.) But the narrative has long been that solar is “competitive,” or almost so. The news story posted below, from 1994, is part of this false narrative.

“Federal officials, aware that solar power breakthroughs have shined and faded almost as often as the sun, say the Enron project could introduce commercially competitive technology without expensive Government aid.” (- Allen Myerson, New York Times, November 15, 1994)

Thirty-one years ago, the ‘newspaper of record’ excitedly reported atop the business section that a breakthrough with solar energy had occurred with the business genius of the upstart energy company Enron.…

Solar Tax Credits: 1978–2025 (never enough)

Aaron Nichols on LinkedIn provided a history of federal solar tax subsidies, beginning with Jimmy Carter. His point was to show that the numerous extensions (15 by my count) were bipartisan. My point, instead, is that on-grid solar is inherently noncompetitive against free market energies. [Note: AN blocked me]

Solar tax credits were not “created by the Inflation Reduction Act” or “invented by the Biden Administration,” Nichols begins. He continues:

The first solar energy incentives were created in 1978 by Jimmy Carter’s Administration. They’ve even enjoyed bipartisan support and been renewed by Republican administrations! Here’s a high-level history of solar tax credits:

1978: The Energy Tax Act of 1978 set the first federal solar ITC at 10% of project costs. ​Congress extended and modified this credit through the early 1980s, eventually making a 10% solar ITC permanent in 1992​.…

Climate Exchange with Jean Boissinot: For the Record

Diana Urge-Vorsatz , Vice Chair of the IPCC, Professor at Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, posted:

JUST HOURS AGO, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a landmark carbon pricing measure for international shipping. Starting in 2028, ships will be financially accountable for missing decarbonisation targets – a crucial development for a sector that was not included in the Paris Agreement, which focused solely on domestic emissions.

She justified the action:

Shipping is responsible for nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions (which is about as much as Russia)… Without stronger action, shipping emissions are projected to double by 2100. Moreover, with over 40% of maritime freight used for carrying fossil fuels (AR6 WGIII Ch 10.6), decarbonising energy systems could also lead to a reduction in shipping volumes.

IRA Cronies: American Clean Power Association, et al.

Heartland UK/Europe: More Progress! (DeSmog confirms again)

Turning 70: Some Public Policy Notes

Climate Disobedience Waning?

‘Climate Grieving’ at UK Centre for Climate Psychology

Climate Adaptation vs. Mitigation Fail

Sunnova Declares Bankruptcy