I tend to agree that competition makes companies find solutions to their problems. And I agree with the assessment that taking away subsidies from PV will make the industry stronger. However, I make that statement with an important caveat - if renewables are to have subsidies taken away, then fossil-fuels and nuclear not only also have to have all direct and indirect subsidies taken away but the price of energy produced by these must accurately include all negative environmental externalities. It wouldn't be very fair to allow coal-plants to sell electricity at a price that completely ignores the greenhouse gases that spews into the atmosphere, and then tell the non-polluting and clean PV industry that they have to compete on 'an even field.' Because that isn't even. Either fossil-fuels must reflect their externalities in their price or PV, and other renewables, must continue getting subsidies.

At the moment photovoltaic energy would reduce to a small niche market without subsidy.

The reward for underperformance and lack of competition are typical artefacts of investment subsidies. A much better alternative is a fixed feed-in tarrif.

The difference between agricultural subsidies and renewable energy subsidies is that agriculatural subsidies are permanent. Everybody is aware that subsidies on renewable energy are only there for a transitional period. You can find this back in the feed-in tariff system in Germany: The tariffs decrease every year. Nobody get's a chance to get lazy this way! All market parties now they have to prepare for a subsidiless time!

Subsidies are okay to a point, but they do cause problems in dependence. The best is a staged withdrawal, or even better yet, prize subsidies where the best, cheapest technology gets more subsidies than the next technology. Look at NASA's prizes for spaceflight and how they have sparked very interesting competition in the private sector.

Doesn't the oil, coal and nuclear get massive subsidies in the billions of dollars while solar and wind get a few million for subsidies?

I agree, get rid of the subsidies but you have to level the playing field for all the energy sources.

Subsidies for green technology can achieve social good by compensating for externalities.

The article should mention the external cost of oil, coal, gas and nuclear and the direct and indirect subsidies that those industries receive. Let them go first and see how those industries enjoy the freedom of not being subsidized.

What about Germany? They have the groundbreaking solar installation program where the government has heavily subsidized solar installations. That has resulted in going from virtually no solar infrastructure to the world's largest and fastest growing.

This has created a vast industry that has been very good for businesses and jobs, and has made German solar companies in demand world-wide because of their expertise and experience.

The creation of a marketplace that didn't really exist before subsidies has resulted in more innovation and technical advancement, not less as Vinod suggests.

If we remove subsidies it should be the ones that support bad agricultural practices, such as the over production of certain commodities such as corn. Many of these crops are an environmentally destructive monoculture which destroys the viability of native farmers world wide due to artifically low prices.

In Mexico many small corn farmers are starving because there is no market for there product; US corn is cheaper than their seed stock. It is interesting that the comparison is between New Zealand farmers and solar, not New Zealand farmers and US farmers.

It has long been argued that subsidies encourage enviromentally damaging practices and lock farmers into one crop.

Without subsidies many of the farming practices would naturally revert to older, better ones; crop rotation, diversity, less fertilizer, pesticides and "engineered" plants. Practices such as grass grazed beef would return with the availablity of ultra-cheap subsidized grain, and with the freeing up of land that couldn't produce grain crops without irragation and fertilizer.

It is odd to see Vinod talking about solar power since his main gig is ethanol, which we all know is tied closely to farmers and as such is very involved in the agricultural subsidy issue. Makes me think there is more to this story.

This Treehugger post is a distortion of the AP article, which in itself a mess that scrambles and mixes up quotes and other information.

The source of these quotes is when Vinod Khosla gave the key note for Solar Power 2006 conference. The topic of the keynote was innovation and how subsidies get in the way of innovation by locking into sub optimal modalities, like coal power and bad agriculture.

He at NO TIME stated that subsidies for solar PV should be removed, but rather questioned the bad effect subsidies have on encouraging coal production, petroleum use, and bad agricultural practices.

Vinod Khosla covered a lot of ground in his talk, and although it was a "solar" conference he talked about his work in ethanol at length, as well as the solar industry in general.

He talked about the nature of subsidies and how they affect various industries; coal, petroleum, solar PV, agriculture and its relationship to ethanol.

AT NO TIME did he make a direct comparison to solar PVs to New Zealand with the intent of saying the PV shouldn't get subsidies! He compared US agriculture with its heavy subsidies to New Zealand, then went on extend the premiseto say if there was a level playing field for all technologies solar would win.

Vinod DID say there is an unlevel playing field because solar is forced to compete against industries that are subsidized, and as such are at an unnatural disadvantage. He said the best solution was to remove subsidies for coal and other undesirable industries rather than tag on another subsidy to solar.

The money that would be freed up could be used for other purposes and the marketplace would be much more efficient that the government in supporting the best technology, which would be solar.

Repeat --- He NEVER suggested that solar should compete with other subsidised industries without a subsidy!!!

Much of his talk was about the complexity of agricultural subsidies and how that relates to ethanol, and thats why he was talking about the New Zealand farmer subsidy situation!

US agricultural is made very inflexible and inefficient by subsidies.

Farmers are paid to not grow crops or to graow crops that there is no market for. The vast excess is then dumped below its real cost on international markets.

That makes it difficult to get farmers to switch to crops more suitable for ethanol production. However if subsides were removed farmers could grow whatever they wanted, and they wouldn't be spending money on as much fertilizer, and Monsanto engineered seeds and herbicides. Marginal lands could be planted with switchgrass and similar hardy plants.

The result would be an explosion in the ethanol industry; lower cost production that would more profitable for the farmers as well as more environmentally sound. That was the nature of his talk and the reason for the reference to New Zealand.

He also spoke about the need to establish "reverse subsidies" on coal and other undesirable technologies.

As usual, tha AP has totally screwed up the wonderfully lucid points Vinod Khosla made and turned them into a conclusion so far from the original intent it would be laughable if it didn't make you want to cry.

Then Treehugger takes this messed up AP press release and scrambles it up even more, using quotes out of context to form this incorrect conclusion that "Vinod Khosla say PV should't be subsidized"

This is irresponsible of Treehugger. First, Treehugger didn't check other sources, instead choose to use a bottom feeder news organization like AP. Then Treehugger took that bad info, used it out of context to come up with their own, very wrong, conclusion (read the orginal AP article to see how far Treehugger took this).

This is unfair to Vinod Khosla and unfair to solar energy. This is completely irresponsible of Treehugger, and very damaging to have this very incorrect information published. Shame on you, Treehugger!

________________________________________________
Authors note:
The rabbit hole goes deep on this one. I would enjoy hearing an economist talk about agricultural subsidies in the US, and how these are now killing people due to the industrialized farming they encourage (E. coli in spinach). Bring in someone with a global perspective and you will see how the US subsidies agriculture helps, and damages the rest of the world through food drops to the starving, and out competing local farmers. Like all things fun to discuss, subsidies are not inherently bad or good, but I think they should have a lifespan. I don’t honestly know enough about the agricultural subsidies in the US to make a blanket statement here. New Zealand suffered after it abolished its subsidies, it was not a bloodless revolution. There were accounts of suicide (unconfirmed), many people lost their livelihood, and there was a serious slump in the economy that took 6 years to recover.

If the US suddenly switched to no agricultural subsidies, I imagine the global impact would be huge. However, it is clear to me that the need for subsidies is lingering on too long, we should probably be weaning ourselves off. I liked the idea of continually decreased steps of subsidies. Even though New Zealand has no subsidies for agriculture, I suspect the reason they can compete on the world stage is the subsidized cost of oil/gas for transportation all over the world.

As for Vinod, I think he believes in a green future. If you get rid of subsidies for solar would his bio-fuel investments be better able to compete? I don’t know if the possibility of that is enough to explain his work in solar. Vinod is a major catalyst for change, for the better, and he is not only invested in bio-fuels.

As far as misquoting or misrepresenting information, there is no intentional misrepresentation on the information at hand. There may be a 'telephone game' effect, as my quote came from the AP (as cited) and not from the horses mouth. The quoted information was quoted accurately… from the AP release. BUT, the resulting discussion was not representative of previous reports, as I was tying to branch out in a new direction. I believe that the intention was misread by one or a few who have me at the unique disadvantage of remaining anonymous, and lack the complete understanding of the limited forum provided for a blog.

To illuminate, it is always the case that more information could add to clarify in the issue, but there is a point at which this information becomes a burden to understanding. The balance is not always clear, but creating discussion is the benefit we are looking for. Until your post (Shame on Treehugger), we had accomplished this feat with a rational and reasonable questions. Instead of directing misguided anger, I would challenge you to come out from behind your accusations, and help us understand in a way that encourages further discussion on the topic. Be the change you want to see in the world, as it is too easy to destroy the efforts of others until you have done something useful yourself.

To reiterate, the attempt of this post was simply to raise the question of subsidies in solar, and my previous knowledge of New Zealand subsidy removal gave me a grounding for the review. I thought the comparison while a reach, may provide an insight into how people feel about subsidies, and suggest that we consider that not all subsidies are good.

UPDATE:: I'm altering the opening line of the article to clarify my position, and remove the assertion that I know what Vinod thinks....as that is impossible, until I get him to write me an e-mail... (I wish).

I think the premise of this Treehugger post is exactly opposite to what Vinod was saying.

He feels strongly subsidies are needed to jump start both solar and biofuels.

It even says so in the AP article, saying solar will be profitable "provided that the current 10-year solar incentive plans run their course and that a similar, federal plan is enacted". After that 10 years of subsidy solar will then be able to suceed on its own.

He also said that at some point we should pay coal power plants to not produce power, just like we pay farmers to not grow crops. This would be called a subsidy as well. (This too is in the AP article).

I have to agree with the previous poster. I do feel this Treehugger post is quite a distortion. Its kind of a national inquirer kind of sensationalist twist.

You are connecting two things that don't express Vinod's statement or point of view. Vinod is strongly for sunsidies for at least 10 years, after that solar should be profitable (that's in the AP article too)

If removing solar subsidies is your premise, fine, just don't pin it on Vinod. It's not what be said, nor what he believes.

________________________________________________
Authors note: (updated)
First- Vinod did not say that. If you read the article it is Rhone Resch who is being reported on. I think your comment is boardering on the hysterical.

However, I already admited my Vinod mind reading skills are poor. I used the article, and the quote as a segue into what I thought we be a discussion about subsidies on solar power. I'm not trying to 'pin' Vinod to anything, or have any knowledge beyond reporting what the AP had written. Again, I was taking the article in a different direciton then anyting I had read in the literature, in hopes it would inspire discussion. In light of the response, I have updated the article to reflect this ambiguity.

I saw the keynote that Vinod delivered for Solar Power 2006, and the Treehugger post about removing subsidies for solar power could not be more incorrect.

This is my summary of what Vinod actually said:

- solar power is popular in California but it must scale to global levels before it is viable.

- for the next 5 to 10 years solar needs to be heavily subsidized to achieve the fastest ramp up possible.

- at the same time laws should be inacted to tax carbon emissions. This will double the cost of coal making it far more expensive, while at the same time making solar (being carbon neutral) much more cost effective.

- new solar technologies will be developed to meet these needs and more attention given to the system side of solar.

- in the long term for people to use solar it must be cheaper; given new technologies, carbon taxing, and global scale it will be far cheaper. Solar will then suceed on its own merits.

However, none of those will happen unless there is an aggressive ramp up. This includes substantial subsidies to achieve a jump start.

I share the previous posters concern, and agree with many of their points.

Instead of using AP, why not find a better quality source?

I don't understand how Treehugger can post something without at least a quick search to make sure they are providing valid information.

I did a google for "solar power 2006" found lots of great coverage. In two minutes I found many sources much better than AP including a on-line video interview with Vinod Khosla on the Solar Power 2006 website. In fact, virtually every solar power expert had a video interview, probably 25 in all.

http://tvworldwide.com/events/eqtv/061016/default.cfm?id=7511&type=wmhigh

I think Treehugger should take the two minutes needed to google their topic and make sure their article is on the right track, especially when dealing with a low grade source like AP. Then they could post great content like these video interviews instead of crappy AP articles.

I share the irritation of the previous poster. Don't Treehugger readers deserve better than taking a bottom of the barrel AP article, then distorting it with a premise that is both incorrect and misleading?

Treehugger needs to be a little more careful that what they are posting is in fact correct. I agree with the other poster; this lack of judgement is quite irresponsible.

_______________________________________________
Authors Note: Again, the point of the article was not directly about Vinods opinion, or even mentioned the key note address - but about subsidies. Try and stay on topic. But I agree, being more careful is always good. See changes.

Vinod mind reading skills aren't necessary.

Reading skills are.

The AP article says that subsidies are needed for 5 to ten years, as quoted in the previous post.

Mind reading is not required.

However, it is very uncool to put words in Vinod's mouth.

Vinod has stated in the AP article (and elsewhere) solar will take off, given subsidies in the next 5 to 10 years.

To imply that Vinod thinks ending subsidies (for solar) right now is a good idea is compleletely wrong.

_______________________________________________
Authors note:: Vinod said no such thing in the article cited. Please read carefully.

The article cited:
The president of the Solar Energy Industries Association feels the same way: "Solar will be the lowest-cost option at the retail level in 10 years," Rhone Resch told United Press International on Monday evening.

The AP quote is all messed up.

The first part is refering to biofuels, the second part is solr, but not for awhile, to let costs get in line and the technology improve.

One of the energy blogs has the whole text, I don't know which one but it should come up in google. Vinod is all about a fast ramp up, you need subsidies for that.

The AP article wasn't very representitive of Vinod. If Treehuggers take was based on just that information, I can understand the confusion- Usually they do a better research job, but I did like the comparison with the Kiwi's, and it was a different tack on how people feel about subsidies...

While I can not begin to address the issue of bloggers responsibilities for accurate reporting, I do try to hold myself to as accurate a report as possible within the time frame and scope of a story. There is usually some basic research, and hopefully some previous knowledge that contribute to a story. For this post, the scope of the story was the comparison between subsidies in New Zealand agriculture, and subsidies in solar power. I had not included in my scope of research the opinions of Vinod, which the UPI article simply provided a quote that I took at face value. Obviously, people are concerned about Vinod's opinion being represented correctly, and I have tried to update the article as necessary such that future readers will not mistake that these are directly Vinods opinions (unless he wants to chime in). I appreciate the criticism, as it makes my work better in the future, but I did want to express my concern for accuracy, as it stands the article is factual and represents the cited information. Thank you for your understanding.

thanks Tim, that was very helpful.

Keep up the good work. I hope we Treehuggers haven't been too tough on you :)

Good work by Tim?

I don't think so.

Not only is this post one of the most misleading and manipulative one I have ever see on Treehugger, Tim's arrogant, unresponsive responses to the obvious problems just make it worse.

This post is incorrect, intentionally misleading and irresponsible. And the half baked alterations by Tim do nothing but make it worse as he ignores the misleading, and incorrect, premise that Vinod might prefer subsidies be removed.

In response to my post Tim wrote: "Authors Note: Again, the point of the article was not directly about Vinods opinion, or even mentioned the key note address - but about subsidies. Try and stay on topic"

Why Include Vinod's (incorrect quote) when all it does is mislead people?

Instead of scolding me to stay on topic, I have to ask why Tim puts words in Vinods mouth by leading with the statement:
"Does Vinod Khosla, the famous venture capitalist, think solar power doesn't need the economic crutch of subsidies?

This is misleading, as we all have mentioned, and the opposite to what Vinod believes. Many of the responces to this post provide strong evidence this is so.

This is very "National Enquirer" type journalism. When it is so clear that Vinod strongly believes there should be aggressive subsidies, why does Tim stick to this misleading headline???

And then you scold UoCgradstudent "Again, the point of the article was not directly about Vinods opinion, or even mentioned the key note address - but about subsidies. Try and stay on topic."

If this is so not about Vinod, why do you include him in the senational, intentionally distorted headline???

It is clear Vinod strongly believes in subsibsidies, yet you intentionally imply otherwise with your headline. If this is about subsidies, why drag Vinod into this, except for sentionalism?

You are providing bad information, and except for scolding the people who try to defend Vinod's position you do nothing.

Other posters have given you the information and the sources to correct this yet you stick by an incorrect assumption.

It is very clear that Vinod does not want to end subsidies; if you listen to the excellent video link provided you will hear he says the exact opposite.

Another poster illuminated that the AP quote was put together from two different statements, and gave you a way to confirm that, yet you still stick by the flawed AP article. Even after other responders provided corrected, reliable news sources, including a video of Vinod himself!

This is so arrogant, and so irresponsible, I simply cannot believe Treehugger would publish information that is so obvious wrong. You have been given every opportunity to make it right yet you arrogantly ignore the facts.

A Treehugger reader will look at this article and draw the wrong conclusion that Vinod doesn't think subsidies are necessary.

They won't realize Treehugger is using a quote that AP has constructed from two different statements, and then was used out of context by Treehugger to imply he believes in something that in reality he is strongly against!

This is wrong and I think Vinod should be notified that his statements are being manipulated like this.

I think if you are going to misrepresent Vinod's views like this, you should REMOVE ALL REFERENCES to Vinod in this post.

This is very bad for the alternative fuels movement that badly need subsidies to compete in the marketplace.

Treehugger is doing a big disservice to Vinod, and the entire eco movement by this half-baked, irresponsible and unresponsive journalism.
______________________________________________
Authors Note::
Your are wrong. Based on the UPI article is is clear Vinod is for cutting back subsidies. If you disagree with this opinion that is fine, but that is the representation found in the cited article.

It has come to our attention that someone has been posting under many names and pretending to be many people here. Comments will be closed while we investigate.