New Jersey's Only Solar Manufacturing Plant Shuts For Christmas Season, Lays Off Workers.

[NNadir]

It seems they demand another subsidy since the already ridiculous subsidies can't keep them functioning:

At a time when politicians are targeting "green jobs" as a source of economic growth, New Jersey's only manufacturer of solar panels has announced a temporary shutdown.

Just weeks after it began production at a new manufacturing plant in Germany, EPV Solar Inc. will shutter its manufacturing and research facilities in Lawrence and Hamilton for two weeks starting tomorrow, leaving a local work force of about 400 with an unexpected unpaid holiday vacation

.EPV described the shutdown of its Mercer plants as a cost-cutting linked largely to a tight credit market, which has made it difficult for customers to obtain financing for solar panel purchases.

Yet the company also claimed it might have avoided the shutdown if it had received more timely help from the state. New Jersey offers various grants, low-interest loans and other incentives to clean energy businesses.

One grant from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority for which EPV was rejected was worth between $1.5 million and $2 million and could have kept doors open, company spokeswoman Dolores Phillips said. Upset with the rejection from NJEDA, among other things, company CEO Scott Massie recently warned Gov. Jon Corzine that EPV might cease to "retain or grow" its New Jersey operations...

... EPV was founded in 1991 at the company's offices on Bakers Basin Road in Lawrence. That site has a small manufacturing operation but focuses mostly on research and development.

Yet, for its third plant, the company went abroad.

"We chose to put our third facility in Senftenberg, Germany, and were welcomed by Germany with attractive incentives," the letter by Massie states.

Dolores Phillips, the company spokeswoman, said German officials helped EPV find land for its factory and "gave us enormous subsidies."

http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1229835914229520.xml&coll=5&thispage=3

Solar energy has never been a significant player in New Jersey's electrical profile, in spite of more than 16 years of operations by EPV.

New Jersey's electrical production profile can be found here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05nj.xls

The size of the various highly subsidized so called "renewable" facilities in New Jersey can be found here: http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/program-updates/core-activity/core-activity

Note that 58 MW of solar PV electricity has been installed in this state, and since the actual capacity of utilization in this state is less than 20%, this is the equivalent of a 12 MW plant, the equivalent of what a large high school building might have. This is after 16 years of operations by EPV.

While New Jersey struggles to provide more subsidies to rich people with solar PV installations, it appears that our unemployment insurance program is nearly backrupt.

Solar energy isn't a significant player in Germany either, where the energy program consists largely of kissing Vladmir Putin's ass and praying the South Africans will actually deliver coal.

[kristopher]

1. Yeah those subsidies...

For electricity-related R&D, we estimate
• DOE received $11.5 billion (2007 dollars) in funding from FY2002to FY2007.
• Funding grew by 35 percent from FY2002 to FY2007.
• Funding spread across several fuels: about $6.2 billion was provided to
nuclear, $3.1 billion to fossil fuels, and $1.4 billion to renewables.

For electricity-related tax expenditures, we estimate
• Tax expenditures totaled $18.2 billion (2007 dollars) from FY2002 to FY2007.
• Grew by 88 percent from FY2002 to FY2007.
• Tax expenditures largely go to fossil fuels: about $13.7 billion was provided to
fossil fuels and $2.8 billion to renewables.

• We did not include the credit for production from advanced nuclear power facilities because there is no current revenue loss from the credit as advanced nuclear facilities have yet to be constructed. Federal loan and loan guarantees, preferred borrowing, and other activities may also subsidize electricity. (All of these "uncounted" forms of subsidies apply to fossil and nuclear but NOT renewables. - K)

And guess what? I'll bet we are going to spend about $100 billion in the next two years on renewables. We are going to make a change. Go ahead and cry, don't be ashamed. Get it all out and you'll feel better.

Poor little feller...

[NNadir]

7. When you don't know what you're talking about, just make stuff up without a single reference.

Since you don't know how to do math, we won't bother to ask you to try to do a calculation of the return on energy per dollar of subsidy.

One hundred billion dollars in subsidies to the stupid failed renewable energy industry still won't produce an exajoule of energy, since a similar worldwide expenditure over the last 50 years failed to do so.

Now, Kiddie, even if you don't do references, I do. You may be totally fucking surprised to learn this, but the government actually publishes the subsidy figures.

In fact, a poster on this website who can actually READ posted references here, doing what you can't fucking do, cite references.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=155541&mesg_id=155541">Federal energy subsidies. ALL of them. Every last damn one of them.

I'd suggest you read 'em and weep, but I'm not sure the "reading" part is a strong suit, and the "weeping" part would require either an ability to feel shame at one's own obliviousness or a sense of ethics.

In my school district, where they are cutting all sorts of education programs, they are very proud of having installed a "50 kw" solar PV system on the roof of the junior high school.

Every kid in the school can look up the power output from his or her computer, as can his or her parents.

During the month of September, it produced 2316.238 kWh, or just 6.34% of name plate power.

During the month of October, it produced 5542.58 kWh or just 15.4% of name plate power.

During the month of November, it produced 1156.11 kWh or just 3.21% of name plate power.

It's a fucking waste of our educational dollars, a scam to make rich people feel less guilt over their consumer frenzy life style, and what's worse, the money for it is being taken out of the education of children, who are already screwed by the kind of yuppie mentality annuciated here by whiny little shit heads in giant pick up trucks who hate every nickel spent on nuclear energy because, unlike the stupid yuppies themselves, nuclear produces a big return on investment.

I favor an internationally funded 100 trillion dollar subsidy to nuclear energy on an emergency basis. Nuclear, unlike the shitty solar system robbing my kids at the Junior High, works.

[kristopher]

10. GAO-08-102 Federal Electricity Subsidies FY2002-2007

We see the disparity that accrued over that recent 5 year period, with solar receiving only a fraction of the total spent for renewables; which was itself only a small fraction of the (partialiy counted, don't forget the untallied loan guarantees etc mentioned at the bottom) subsidies given nuclear and fossils. That disparity has existed at least since Reagan, so pointing to current spending per watt of production is (as usual for you) a misleading stat.

Poor little feller just ain't right in the head or heart...

[jpak]

15. That's just plan stupid -240 GW of global renewable capacity produces ex-o-jewels of juice each year

Also, too bad MCain lost and Obama won.

Obama is going to spend *brazillions* on renewables over the next 8 years.

and no GOP nukes for you.

:D

[amerikat]

2. I worked for EPV from 1995-2000.

I visited the new plant in November. Nice operation. They finally got it together.
Such a shame they find themselves in this position after rebuilding the company
from scratch. I still have many friends there that I keep in touch with.
Glad I didn't go back to work there.

By the way they make amorphous silicon thin film modules. Not high power( 2'X 4' panel)
puts out 50 watts. They lend themselves to mass production at a lower cost. Last
I heard they had orders for everything they could produce for years. Another
victim of the bankers I guess.

[kristopher]

3. This is just a delay, not a shut down

Everyone is waiting for the new government to assume power. We should wait a bit to see how that shakes out before lamenting their demise, IMO.

[amerikat]

4. I agree.........so many good folks there, I hope they are

included in the new infrastructure build out that I expect from the Obama administration.

[NNadir]

5. Um, the plant is SHUT. The workers are not getting PAYCHECKS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[amerikat]

6. I worked there many times when paychecks were rare.

I still worked and always got my money in the end. I even payed my department out
of my own money one Christmas. We believed and I still do.
PV has a place in this world. It is not the cure all. but it has a place.

[NNadir]

8. I don't agree that PV has a place in this world.

I think it's a much dirtier form of energy than advertised.

Over at Kos, a person has a report what he or she calls http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/21/202045/49">Top 10 Stories the MSM Missed In 2008 (w/ poll)

Check out #6.

The external cost of solar electricity is missed precisely because it is such a miserable failure as a form of energy, not even producing enough electricity to power the servers saying how wonderful it is.

It's waste profile is very much like that of consumer electronic waste.

It's not as dangerous as say, natural gas, but that's not saying much. I wrote a diary on another website comparing the payback time in human toxicity for solar cells operating in Northern latitudes. It was something like 50 years. Solar cells don't operate for 50 years.

[amerikat]

9. We always joked that we would need to build a Nuke plant

to supply the energy for the PV plant. We were joking to some extent. We were doing research on CIGS
at the time.

I tend to think of research as having exponential effects. The space/moon project for example.
We spent much money, time and effort to go to the moon. In the end it had many benefits not
even considered in the initial calculation of risk to reward. I think it worked out well on
a technical level. The spin offs have graced us with things we now use everyday. Basic
research doesn't always pay off........but when it does it pays off big. Just my opinion.

[comtec]

11. Just curious, why are you hating on Solar?

What is your suggestion then?
What is your preference for energy generation?
It's fine to be against something if you have a reasonable replacement for it.

[jpak]

12. Koo koo, Koo koo, Koo koo

"I wrote a diary on another website comparing the payback time in human toxicity for solar cells operating in Northern latitudes."

This make it true!!!!!11111

Just like the Charlatan New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor...

:rofl:

[kristopher]

13. The press exaggerates

(and so do you) It is an interesting paper, and it is very good that they caught this early on so that mitigation efforts can be implemented.

The numbers quoted in the press are based on an interesting statement from the paper:
"The maximum potential release of NF3, assumed here to be its production, is equivalent to approximately 67 MMTCO2....
NF3 is an expensive commodity with an estimated price of about $US 20 per kg, and thus there are economic as well as environmental incentives not to waste it through inadvertent release. According to Robson et al. <2006>, most of NF3 is used in a manner such that only 2% escapes to the atmosphere, but this contrasts with studies by Lee et al. <2007> showing a maximum destruction efficiency of less than 97% under ideal conditions..."(

So actually only a very small fraction of NF3 is released. Let's assume the high finding of 3% released is low and 5% is actually the amount being wasted. 5% x 67MMTCO2e = 3.35 MMTCO2e as a probable amount released in 2008. To put this in perspective the paper notes that 2005 CO2 emissions were 15,128MMTCO2 and they use a 3600MW coal plant in Georgia as a benchmark for coal powerplant emissions; it emits 25MMTCO2/yr.
So NF3 = 3.35MMTCO2e
1 large coal plant = 25MMTCO2/yr
Total CO2 = 15,128MMTCO2/yr
PRATHER AND HSU: MISSING KYOTO GAS NF3 (Pg. 2)
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L12810

There is no disputing that it is too much, especially as we ramp up production of solar; but it isn't the calamity some nnumbnuts make it out to be. With a lifespan of 500 years it is much more persistent than CO2, but much less of a threat to future generations than millions of tons of 100,000+ year highly radioactive waste.

[jpak]

14. NNadir conveniently neglects the 200-400 tons of CFC-114 released by US uranium enrichment plants

each year - the equivalent to 2-4 million tons of CO2

http://greenyes.grrn.org/2001/05/msg00123.html

or the 600 MW gas-fired power plant that USEC wants to build to supply power to its uranium enrichment plants.

http://www.earthisland.org/yggdrasil/UEN_june_01.htm

<snip>


USEC is taking steps to diversify. In partnership with Constellation Power Sources and Marubeni Corp., the company has submitted a bid to the Tennesse Valley Authority (TVA) to construct a 600 MW power plant that would operate year round and smaller plants that would operate in summer only. When TVA asked for bids in January, it did not specify where the plants should be located but stated that the power produced must be delivered to TVA’s seven-state region. The 600 MW facility that USEC wants to build and operate would be a gas-fired plant and would be constructed on 120 acres of DOE land northeast of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. USEC has asked the Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization (Pacro) to act as leasing agent. TVA plans to issue a "short list" of bidders in July and to sign a contract with the winning bidder by December 14. (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 5/23/01)

Freon emissions

USEC’s plants at Paducah and Portsmouth emitted 818,000 tons of CFC-114 (freon) in 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available. The manufacture and importation of CFC-114, one of the chemicals that destroys the ozone layer, was banned by the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, but companies are allowed to use existing supplies. The CFC-114 cools equipment and uranium hexafluoride in the plants, and escapes to the atmosphere through leaks in piping. The tonnage emitted by USEC in 1999 was 88% of total CFC-114 emissions from US industrial sources; 14% of worldwide emissions. USEC has been trying to develop an alternative coolant and to plug leaks, if only because CFC-114 is in short supply and, as of now, neither plant could operate without it. (James Brugger, Courier Journal, 5/29/01)

<more>