Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: COVID-19 roundup
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Five years ago, Illinois lawmakers passed a law that boldly aimed to build a solar power industry from scratch while also saving thousands of jobs at two struggling Exelon nuclear plants.
Besides bailing out the nuclear plants, the Future Energy Jobs Act promised to create tens of thousands of solar power jobs and get the state moving away from fossil fuels to a point where, by 2025, Illinois would be getting a quarter of its power from “clean energy” sources.
Things haven’t worked out as planned. The 2025 target is now far out of reach, the jobs expectations went unmet, and the solar industry is laying off workers as the funding that was promised has dried up, an investigation by Inside Climate News and the Chicago Sun-Times found.
The plans the law promised sputtered from the start.
Now, state legislative leaders are racing to meet a May 31 deadline to fix its biggest problems — including the impending loss of more than $300 million in funding for renewable energy programs.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 21, 21 @ 10:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: COVID-19 roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’ve helped Grow Solar projects install over a megawatt of solar down here in SW Illinois over the last several years. We struggle to find entry level employees with relevant solar credentials. The demand continues to be great. The company has grown immensely but it’s based in Missouri. Right now we have a growing wait list to install though because the state has no incentive money and folks don’t want to build. We also saw a lot of work for the bigger projects go to out of state companies
Comment by SWIL_Voter Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:03 am
*SWIL_Voter
The fact that no company wants to build a solar farm without government incentive money tells you this energy source isn’t economically viable.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:35 am
=== this energy source isn’t economically viable===
Now explain the US Navy’s presence in the Persian Gulf, the Iraq War (1 & 2). Etc.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:37 am
=== US Navy ===
Well we can certainly have a discussion about our geopolitical entanglements, but I thought this thread was about solar energy. Briefly, we have an economy based on fossil fuels, so naturally we are going to protect those sources. At this time, solar power is similar to ethanol production. For over 40 years we’ve subsidized ethanol as an alternative, yet it’s never been viable on its own. Using food to create energy was always counter-intuitive to many folks. I just don’t see the need in building new subsidized energy sources, that may never be economically competitive, when we already have made a large investment in existing energy sources that are meeting our energy needs.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:52 am
Sun only shines about 20% of the time so storage is a big and expensive issue for solar. Ok with some reasonable incentives to help build out system but also maintain a reliable backbone ( think nukes). Question is how much does the customer get soaked in making everyone happy ?
Comment by NorthsideNoMore Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:56 am
===when we already have made a large investment in existing energy sources that are meeting our energy needs. ===
I can’t tell if you’ve just missed the fact that Exelon is demanding literal billions in public bailouts, or if you think our continued reliance on fossil fuels is just fine. It seems like your analysis of the issue is lacking.
===as the funding that was promised has dried up===
Looks like the solar industry forgot to help kids get internships.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:02 pm
- Briefly, we have an economy based on fossil fuels, so naturally we are going to protect those sources. -
So you’re good with subsidizing the fossil fuel industry which requires money and armed conflict, but not the solar industry which only requires money? You’re a bonafide genius.
Comment by Excitable Boy Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:05 pm
==Soapbox Derby & NorthsideNoMore== The WSJ last week had an article on how solar combined with new battery tech is making new Natural Gas plants less economically viable. Your talking points are 10 years out of date.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/batteries-challenge-natural-gas-elecric-power-generation-11620236583
https://www.nuvationenergy.com/resources/article/solar-plus-storage-displacing-natural-gas-peaker-plants
Comment by Anotheretiree Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:08 pm
We have been subsidising fossil fuels and their producers for years. And we have been doping it with something far more valuable than money.
We have subsidized fossil fuel with blood for more than 75 years.
I would trade billions for just one of the lives that have been senselessly propping up foreign oil producers.
=Well we can certainly have a discussion about our geopolitical entanglements, but I thought this thread was about solar energy.=
Shhh…the adults are talking.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:10 pm
But don’t forget when the sun is shining that is when you use a lot of electricity. Right now to the common homeowner/business owener the math doesn’t work. For everything else there is a subsidy that you don’t see working in the background. Solar doesn’t have that yet. Maybe if/when we move to a carbon trading scheme but not yet.
Comment by Publius Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:20 pm
I continue to be amazed that nukes are now ok with environmentalists. Carbon neutral? Yes. But the waste problem remains unsolved as it was 40 years ago during the height of the “No Nukes” movement. I even took a pretend college course on nuclear power back then, the theme of which was propaganda against the nuclear power industry. Glad the credit hours were real though. Jackson Browne, were he dead, would generate enough power spinning in his grave to power all of Illinois.
Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:38 pm
== this energy source isn’t economically viable.==
Literally every energy source on earth is subsidized, and none more heavily so than fossil fuels. And obviously nuclear is a big topic in the article linked here. Would you rather do a thing at a $7,000 discount or no?
Comment by SWIL_Votet Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:56 pm
== But don’t forget when the sun is shining that is when you use a lot of electricity. ==
That’s why retail rate net metering is so important.
==Right now to the common homeowner/business owener the math doesn’t work. ==
It does with net metering and for sure with SRECs. 6-7 year paybacks with 25 year production warranties
Comment by SWIL_Voter Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:59 pm
The ads that run and promise how much solar cheaper are so full of it. Those studies are outright fraud. Green energy is more expensive and less reliable. If we don’t want to send out money to the Middle East to buy oil why would we want to send it to China to buy solar panels and the rate earth metals needed for batteries?
Comment by Downstate Illinois Friday, May 21, 21 @ 1:00 pm
As the use of renewables increases, and it will, there will be larger subsidies for the fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Comment by Blue Dog Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:16 pm
Lots of solar experts here all of a sudden. Could some of you explain why, even though solar doesn’t work, it is the fastest growing and lowest cost source of energy on the planet? And why so many fortune 500 companies are installing solar even though its not economic or reliable?
Comment by illinoyed Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:33 pm
*illinoyed
Solar isn’t the fastest growing and/or lowest cost source of energy on the planet. It’s not even the fastest growing renewable source, hydro and wind are ahead of it. Just look at the comment from SWIL_Voter which started this thread. Companies AREN’T rushing to build more solar UNLESS they can confirm their government subsidies. That says a lot more about what’s really happening than some WSJ article, or those of you making ad hominem attacks on this thread.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:58 pm
=== Companies AREN’T rushing to build more solar UNLESS they can confirm their government subsidies===
And Exelon is rushing to close its nuke plants UNLESS it gets a gigantic subsidy
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:03 pm
Rich
I’m not defending Exelon seeking additional subsidies. Most folks on this page know the best way to get the GA’s attention is to yell fire and practice brinkmanship. My point is that nukes are a reliable source of energy already linked into our power infrastructure. Non-renewables are probably the future, but that day isn’t here yet. The only replacement generation capacity that will be available if they close Nukes down in the next few years is from burning more natural gas.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:14 pm
* I meant renewables are probably the future *
Comment by Soapbox Derby Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:16 pm
===Non-renewables are probably the future, but that day isn’t here yet.===
Kicking the can on this issue threatens the existence of our species. Solar is worth subsidizing even if it weren’t so cheap per kilowatt hour.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, May 21, 21 @ 4:17 pm