Ronna Kelly from Berkeley’s Haas School of Business published an article two days ago outlining concerns about residential solar energy creation. A study by the Haas School of Business, the UC Energy Institute, and Severin Borenstein found that the costs of traditional Photo Voltaic solar panels outweighs the benefits (including reduction of greenhouse gas) and are thus less efficient than putting a delay on residential solar expansion. Instead, it is recommended that more research be done to develop better solar technology. This research would be done through funding by the state that would be shifted away from commercial production (as subsidies for residential solar are cut to cover research costs).
This is a very interesting and controversial argument as some of the most spectacular breakthroughs in solar energy generation have been produced by commercial firms such as Nanosolar. Nanosolar isn’t focusing it’s product on residential installations at this point so the impact of cut subsidies might not reach them, but it would certainly stifle other developments and commercialization of technology has historically produced the fastest results as economies of scale are reached. It’s the same reason that the United States often outpaces the rest of the world in medical technology developments – the US commercializes them. I’m no fan of subsidies, and having studied business myself I do trust in the Haas study, but the thought of losing incentives for solar installation just doesn’t feel right.
Certainly, as some of the world’s greatest products and services were started from University level research, Google anyone? it is important to continue funding that research but commercialization is a key component to driving that research to the marketplace and capturing public interest which ultimately makes the largest difference.
