Is SolarWorld the sunpowered company?
Chuck Sheketoff
SolarWorld calls itself “The Sunpowered Company.” But is it?
I’ve tried to find out how much power SolarWorld’s Hillsboro facility uses today and will use when its expansion is complete, but the company and one of its lobbyists have not responded. I want to compare its power usage with the 500 MW of solar cells that the company will be producing. Is it a net energy producer or another large industrial consumer? I’m also curious to learn how much solar energy it is using today and will use, to see if it is really "sunpowered."
A while back a reporter told me that s/he was told that SolarWorld is using or plans to use so much electricity that PGE had to put in a new substation. I haven’t found anyone who can confirm that. PGE, not surprisingly, won’t disclose anything about SolarWorld’s power use. And even though they’ve been handing out millions in tax credits to SolarWorld to sell, the Oregon Department of Energy won’t say – or doesn’t know – how much power SolarWorld is using, will use, and will be offsetting with solar energy they produce or purchase.
Not only should SolarWorld be generating its own solar power, but you’d think a company that calls itself “The Sunpowered Company” would be in the “platinum” category of “Clean Wind power” purchasers from PGE. But SolarWorld’s name doesn’t appear under any of the categories of wind power purchasers in the most recent PGE ad placed in the Portland Business Journal (click ad to enlarge) publicly thanking their “Clean Wind” participants. Better yet (because it is all from renewables), maybe SolarWorld is purchasing all its power through the Green Source program that PGE offers.
I wish I knew.
You’d think that a solar company that received $11 million in our tax dollars through tax credits intended to encourage the conservation of energy and the use of renewable resources and which has applications pending for about $20 million more in taxpayer dollars, would be comparing its own energy use to how much energy it is producing and will produce, and would be consuming only renewable energy.
And you’d think the state energy agency would be doing the same comparison and requiring as a condition of receipt of taxpayer dollars that the facility only use renewable energy. But we haven’t been given that information by either SolarWorld or the Oregon Department of Energy, and there’s no such conditions placed on the tax credits doled out.
The SolarWorld facility in Hillsboro is reportedly going to produce 500 MW in solar cells. How much energy will it consume to do so? How much of its energy will its own solar collectors provide? And is it buying only renewable power for the rest of its demand or is it part of Oregon’s energy problem?
I'd like to know.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 30, '09
Any comparison on how much power that bank of cells by I-5 and 217 generate vs. how much of a subsidy we threw at it?
While you're at it, why not look at how badly Hillsboro subsidizing Intel worked out for that poor community. It has 100x the high-tech jobs of Portland now.
Mar 30, '09
Are we really going after decent employers and new investment in one of the only growth sectors left in this economy?
Mar 30, '09
Of course it is a net energy sink when looking at instantaneous energy use; it takes several years in prime locations for PV panels to return as much usable energy as is embedded in them, many years in some cases (and many will never return their initial energy investment because they are in some stupid vanity installation that makes no sense except as public relations).
So, yes, the plant is part of Oregon's energy problem.
So? What did you expect? To make an energy profit from day 1? Dream on.
The same is true for all facilities intended to produce energy-generating technologies -- the energy is invested in the devices/technology and then, over time, is recaptured. At least with solar PV, there is a strong likelihood of recapturing all the embedded energy and then pure energy profit for decades after. And that's all without a mandate -- no one is forcing people to buy solar panels whether they want to or not, and no one has a tariff to keep foreign solar panels out. If you want to do some crusading analysis of a boondoggle, turn your analytical engine towards the Oregon "biofuels" boondoggle, a state-level subsidy piled on top of federal subsidies and blending mandates.
Join with Senator Walker and others to get the stupid ethanol blending mandate (and state subsidy) killed. That would be a useful pursuit.
Meanwhile, trying to subject a marketing slogan to a rigorous analysis ("are they really sunpowered?") is kind of a waste of time.
Mar 30, '09
"I'd like to know."
Sure. Anything that looks like new non-govt jobs is scary isn't it? Why don't you spend time going after Randy/Sam dumping $85M on Paulson for 300 new (maybe, maybe, maybe) jobs?
Mar 30, '09
Are we really going after decent employers and new investment in one of the only growth sectors left in this economy?
Apparently, yes we are. I really don't know what these people want. I am about to give up caring to find out.
12:33 a.m.
Mar 31, '09
Sounds to me like this is a case of the PR people being overly skittish about things. As George notes, a solar-power panel production facility is going to consume a lot of power just getting built - and then building those initial solar-power panels.
Presumably, the long-term outlook is that it'll be a net energy "producer" (or at least, "harvester" of the energy produced by the sun.)
Presumably, someone at SolarWorld will be able to answer Chuck's questions with some reasonable long-term data.
I hope.
Mar 31, '09
Another question might be; are they buying PGE renewable power.
Mar 31, '09
Never mind. Need more coffee.
Mar 31, '09
This is soooo typical. America has to be drug kicking and screaming into the world community, on this issue, then responds by turning it into a big fraud. Meanwhile BSO dons his greenface for the next act in the nanny state's menstrual show. BO supplies needed gravitas, lest the unwashed laugh at the funny man.
Scourge of the planet, we are.
Mar 31, '09
The bottom line is that investment in early childhood development and education are a far better ROI for the economy, let alone the qualitative effects on the community and lives of the participants and their families. This subsidy doesn't compare, so their slogan makes them all the more __.
Apr 1, '09
Not many people are going to purchase solar panels that have an expected life of 25 years with a payback period of 110 years. No matter how many times Obama promotes them:
http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=248
Apr 1, '09
Chuck, it is a reasonable question. The answer is the same wheter you look at solar power, wind generated power, corn power or sea tide power.
The intitial construction and start-up is a net loss regarding energy usage. Could they some day generate enough of their own power to be energy nuetral in the manufacturing process? I doubt it given the real problems with sun in the northern part of the state.
Now, if a solar powered manufacturing plant were situated in either eastern or southern Oregon it most likly wold have a better chance of approaching energy neutrality in the manufacturing process.
Apr 1, '09
The location of the plant is irrelevant to the question of energy payback, the location of the panels produced is what matters. So you can build them where you have abundant grid power and use them where you have abundant solar. Over time the panels pay off their embedded energy (if properly sited and maintained). It's all one grid; there's no "Oregon-only" grid.