SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/11/2007 10:11:36 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1583503
 
A rather strange opinion piece you might find interesting.

__________________________________________________________

Jonah Goldberg:

Ron Paul isn't that scary

It's that over-do-gooder Mike Huckabee who should be making conservatives nervous.

November 20, 2007

As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, media conservatives are beginning to attack Paul in earnest. Republican consultant David Hill condemns the candidate's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."

For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that many of his top advisors actually have hooves.

Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.

While many are marveling at Paul's striking success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't. One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His opponents in the presidential race are attacking him while the field is ignoring Paul like an eccentric who sits too close to you on the bus.

So what's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. By all accounts, he's a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.

What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee is a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government -- and your tax dollars -- to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

For example, Huckabee has indicated he would support a nationwide federal ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.

And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.

Whatever the faults of the man and his friends may or may not be, Paul's dogma generally renders them irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.

As for Huckabee -- as with most politicians, alas -- his personal preferences matter enormously because ultimately they're the only thing that can be relied on to constrain him.

In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants to do with government certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton would do, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional. This isn't to say he -- or Hillary -- is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.

Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular by jettisoning the unpopular bits. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right coupled with a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.

Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension -- and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" -- has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it is a conflict that runs through the heart of individual conservatives. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.

I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (and because he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla). But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.

latimes.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/13/2007 11:22:39 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1583503
 
Can the solar industry live without tax credits?

By Stephanie I. Cohen
Dec 12, 2007 15:38:00 (ET)

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The alternative energy sector expects big things from the Democratic-controlled Congress, namely pumped up government spending and incentives for alternative energy sources.

But the nascent solar industry has hit roadblocks recently in its efforts to lock in long-term government incentives from Democrats, and some market players are wondering if Democrats can deliver on their renewable energy promises.

U.S. federal energy tax policy has a long history of promoting oil and gas development. Now the solar industry, which secured some tax breaks from the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, wants to extend and expand these incentives. Failure to pass solar incentives could put pressure on the industry and would represent a setback, while passage is expected to rally stocks, according to analysts.

The industry's strategy for securing tax breaks has focused less on the environmental benefits of using non-fossil fuel energy sources to generate electricity and more on job prospects for lawmakers' constituents and rebuilding American's industrial cities.

These tax credits would be beneficial for some of the biggest names in the solar space including California-based solar installer Akeena Solar (AKNS, Trade ) and solar manufacturer SunPower (SPWR, Trade ), First Solar (FSLR, Trade ). China's Suntech (STP, Trade ),Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. (YGE, Trade ), and Ja Solar Holdings Co. (JASO, Trade ) would also benefit, according to analysts.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., face an uphill battle as they try to push a contentious energy bill through Congress in the coming weeks. They have acknowledged it will be difficult to pass an energy tax package in the Senate, where opposition is significant, and have hinted that tax provisions may have to be moved as a separate package down the road.

Groups like the Solar Energy Industry Association are concerned that business and residential solar tax credits pivotal in growing the domestic solar market in the past two years, and which are set to expire at the end of 2008, may be left dangling if Democrats prove unable to pass a energy bill. The group is calling for an 8-year extension of the exiting solar commercial investment tax credit and a six-year extension and expansion of the residential solar tax credit. These incentives would cost about $900 million over 10 years, according to industry.

Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the industry has received "firm commitments" from Democratic leaders that tax incentives will be passed by Congress. The group is also pressuring Republicans to support the bill.

Last week Democrats in the House and Senate introduced a new energy bill giving solar groups exactly what they want. The bill would enact an 8-year extension of the 30% investment tax credit for businesses and a 6-year extension of the 30% investment tax credit for residential solar electric while raising the cap on the credit to $4,000. The House passed the bill 235-181, but the Senate defeated a motion to proceed to a vote on the bill. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill in it current form.

Solar industry participants want a major commitment from Democrats.

"The investment that we have to make is significant and it simply cannot be justified unless the incentive program is going to have a funded life that's long enough for us to get a return on investment," said Roger Efird, president of Suntech America, speaking on a November industry conference call. Efird says a 10- to 20-year extension of the credits would be "ideal."

Analysts and industry participants are hopeful that Congress will provide continued support for the burgeoning sector amid concerns over rising oil prices and climate change. But Wall Street is also being cautious in its optimism regarding passage of the bill. "We warn investors not to pin hopes on either the robust subsidies for green and clean power within this bill," according to a Dec. 6 report from Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Analysts at the firm say they still do not see adequate support in the House or Senate to override a veto threat.

While the solar sector has experienced rapid growth and investor exuberance that has been compared to the internet boom, it is still largely dependent on government subsidies in the U.S. and abroad for its expansion. Resch acknowledged that "right now, solar is a technology primarily driven by policy."

This year, the photovoltaic, or solar electric market, is on track to grow by over 60% in the United States, according to Resch. A November research report from Think Equity Partners expects solar [photovoltaic] demand to grow substantially for at least the next five years, driven by new subsidies.

But solar has a long way to go. "Our worldwide demand forecasts do not have the U.S. becoming a meaningful portion of worldwide solar demand until 2010," according to a report from Collins Stewart.

There are other ways to pass the solar tax provisions if the energy bill is sidelined. One option is to use the agriculture bill being debated in the Senate as an alternative vehicle to move solar tax incentives. Congress could also pass a one-year extension of the solar tax credits beyond its current expiration at the end of 2008, though this approach is not favored by industry.

"By prematurely ending or decreasing incentives, regulatory bodies could chill demand for solar [photovoltaic] products," a report from Signal Hill said.

When Democratic leaders recently mentioned moving an energy policy bill followed by a separate tax package, market participants noted a quick downward reaction among some solar stocks.

Analysts see an energy bill with tax breaks as a major catalyst for the U.S. solar market.

Industry executives are advocating for continued government assistance, saying the sector is still in its infancy regardless of strong growth in recent years.

"Global solar market capitalization is now well over $50 billion at the moment, lofty for a sector that is rapidly commoditizing and that saved the world about four coal plants last year," according to an October report from Thomas Weisel Partners. "We acknowledge that the industry is extremely profitable."

Barry Cinnamon, chief executive officer of Akeena Solar, said his company has been seeing a combined annual growth rate of over 166% since 2001. "I don't see any reason in the world why we and other installation companies cannot continue with that growth rate," he said during a recent industry conference call.

Tom Werner, chief executive officer of SunPower, supports extending credits. SunPower has a market capitalization of $10.5 billion and the company's U.S. business is growing 30% per quarter. The company recently announced that Morgan Stanley has agreed to provide it with up to $190 million in financing for future solar installations.

"SunPower's market capitalization is bigger than the entire industry was as recent as five years ago," the executive boosted on the industry confernece call. To those that would criticize government financial help for the industry, Werner said, "You might note that the fossil fuel industry has continued to derive significant government support despite the fact that they've been incredibly profitable for a heck of a long time."

In exchange for long-term financial support, the solar industry is promising lawmakers something big -- manufacturing jobs in some of the country's more depressed job markets and declining manufacturing centers.

"The U.S would reclaim global leadership in the solar industry," Resch said. Translation: the U.S. would go from being the 4th largest solar manufacturer to being the first in the next decade, bringing well-paying jobs. Extending renewable tax credits would lead to more so-called green collar jobs in places like Michigan, Ohio, Montana, Texas, Oregon, Tennessee New Hampshire and Tennessee, Resch said.

Still, the industry admits it won't disappear if Congress fails to extend these tax credits, but says growth would be concentrated in those states with strong state-level rebate programs and Europe.

"The industry will be focused elsewhere and Americans will be able to read about solar going to retail electric-grid-parity in other countries and we'll be a follower," Werner said.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/13/2007 4:33:21 PM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1583503
 
Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries from wind and solar to development of biomass and carbon capture from coal plants were part of the tax package that was dropped.

Senate Democrats earlier abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.

----------------------------------------------------------

Senate Republicans move on energy bill By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer


The Senate was on the verge Thursday of approving the first increase in automobile gas mileage in three decades and huge increases in ethanol use.

Democrats were forced to strip away from the compromise energy bill a contentious $21.8 billion tax package, including billions of dollars in tax increases on the biggest oil companies, because of determined Republican opposition and a White House veto threat over the new taxes.

Democratic leaders fell one vote short, 59-40, in getting the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., was the only Democrat to break ranks.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said immediately after the vote that he would proceed without the tax provisions and hoped to finish the legislation later in the day. Later, he said that while disappointed at the loss of the tax measures, he viewed approval of the auto fuel economy increases — the first in 32 years — "a tremendous accomplishment."

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky predicted the bill would be approved with wide bipartisan support and be signed by President Bush.

It still would have to be passed by the House, which a week ago approved legislation that included the $21 billion new taxes with revenues marked for promoting renewable fuels and energy efficiency.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters she looked forward to getting the bill and predicted its approval. "Now we will have legislation," she said. She said she expects a vote next week.

McConnell chided Democrats for pushing a "massive tax increase" that he said "they knew would never be signed into law" because of the president's opposition.

Shortly before the vote, the White House reiterated its opposition to the taxes which it said singled out the oil industry "for punitive treatment" and would raise energy costs.

Reid countered that the Senate shouldn't back away from the needed tax measures "just because the president doesn't like it."

"We must begin to break our country's addiction to oil.... We must reverse global warming," Reid said, adding that the legislation would make strides toward both of those goals.

The bill's centerpiece requires automakers to increase vehicle fuel economy to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon over the next 13 years — a 40 percent increase and the first boost in the federal gas mileage requirement since 1975 when the rules were first enacted.

For years, auto companies have fought successfully any increase in the automobile mileage standard which now is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for small trucks and SUVs. But an agreement forged with the help of Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the longtime protector of the auto industry in Congress, cleared the way for the new requirements which have bipartisan support.

It also would rapidly ramp up the required production of ethanol, eventually to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase. At least 21 billion gallons must be from feedstock other than corn such as prairie grasses and wood chips.

And it would increase energy efficiency requirements for appliances and federal and commercial buildings and require faster approval of federal energy efficiency standards.

Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries from wind and solar to development of biomass and carbon capture from coal plants were part of the tax package that was dropped.

Senate Democrats earlier abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.


The mandate was fought by the electric utility industry and, especially the Atlanta-based Southern Co. They argued that the mandate would lead to higher electricity costs, especially in regions that do not have an abundance of wind or solar energy, such as the Southeast.

The oil companies had pressed lawmakers to oppose repeal of the $13.5 billion in tax breaks provided them by Congress in 2004 and 2005. They argued the tax relief was essential as an incentive for domestic oil and gas production and refinery expansion and that rolling back the tax breaks would lead to higher energy prices.

Democrats released a report by the Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday that concluded that rescinding the tax breaks would have no impact on production decisions or "have any effect on consumer prices for oil and gas."



To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/17/2007 8:18:36 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583503
 
Sands shift as solar energy’s silicon demand outshines that of chipmakers
Robin Pagnamenta

Global demand from the solar power industry for silicon – the raw material for making solar panels – is set to outstrip demand from microchip manufacturers for the first time this year.

Green demands for more solar power, which relies on silicon for the manfacture of photovoltaic cells, have pushed up the price for the element by 40 per cent this year to $1,600 (£790) per tonne.

The result is a global shortage of the highly refined crystalline polysilicon, even though it is produced from raw materials as common as sand. This is pushing up prices and forcing the world’s biggest producers to invest heavily in new refining and production capacity.

Solar Buzz, the research and consultancy group, said that the booming sales of refined silicon to the solar industry grew to an expected 23,102 metric tonnes this year, up 12 per cent from 20,719 tonnes last year.
Related Links

* Short supply of material forces innovation

It is the first time that annual volumes have exceeded those for manufacturers of semiconductors used in computers and other electronic equipment, which are expected to reach about 22,882 tonnes this year, up slightly from 22,086 last year.

“Solar demand is the main driver of growth for the business at the moment,” said a spokesman for Wacker Chemie, a business based at Burghausen, Germany, that is the world’s second-largest manufacturer of polysilicon. “We are experiencing 20 to 30 per cent growth in demand from the solar power industry.”

Polysilicon is extracted by heating sand and converting it into a crystalline form and then reducing and refining it using heat until fine slices can be shaved off. Semiconductor-grade silicon needs to be more highly refined than the kind used to make photovoltaic cells, and so it fetches an even higher price.

Wacker was planning to more than double capacity at its plant in Bavaria to 22,000 metric tonnes by 2010, up from 10,000 tonnes currently. The world’s other top manufacturers of raw silicon – Hemlock of the US and Tokuyama of Japan – are also expected to almost double their overall manufacturing capacity by 2009 to keep pace with demand.

Dipesh Shah, chairman of Jetion, a solar panel manufacturer, and the former head of BP’s solar business, said that demand was growing “very rapidly”.

Mr Shah said: “The industry is being driven by renewable power initiatives in a number of countries, economies of scale, continued cost reductions and better use of raw materials.”

Sales in the solar power industry are expected to reach $14 billion for 2007, up from $10 billion last year. Solar power still provides only 0.04 per cent of the world’s total energy use, but the industry’s growth is being led by countries such as Spain and Germany, where it enjoys a subsidy regime.
business.timesonline.co.uk



To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/20/2007 7:02:23 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1583503
 
Now we know why Bush caved on the Energy bill, and why it was so weak...

E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules for Cars
By JOHN M. BRODER and FELICITY BARRINGER
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency’s decision.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” he said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

The 17 states — including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.

The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California’s proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”

He added, “California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”

Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California’s, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in the United States.

Automakers praised the decision. “We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program,” said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers.”

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.

The California attorney general, Edmund G. Brown Jr., called the decision “absurd.” He said the decision ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher air quality standards than those set nationally.

Mr. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said: “I find this disgraceful. The passage of the energy bill does not give the E.P.A a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the E.P.A. decision defied law, science and common sense. He said his committee would investigate how the decision had been made and would seek to reverse it.

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, called the ruling a “mockery of law and sound public policy.”

Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, said the state would challenge the decision.

Mr. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. “Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive,” he said.

Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, which had geared up to enforce the proposed emissions rules on 2009-model cars, said the reasoning was flawed. “Thirty-five miles per gallon is not the same thing as a comprehensive program for reducing greenhouse gases,” Ms. Nichols said.

David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that since 1984, the agency has not distinguished between local, national and international air pollution.

“All the smog problems that California has are shared with other states, just like the global warming problems they have are shared with other states,” he said.

Danny Hakim and Micheline Maynard contributed reporting.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (362021)12/25/2007 6:20:08 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1583503
 
Good article in Scientific American, the type of bold thinking we need:

A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions
By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
—The Editors
igh prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.

Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.

Much more: sciam.com