a Business Spectator publication

Killer decree threatens global solar

opportunity:energy

In a move that will shake the global PV industry, the Italian government approved on March 3 a long awaited Renewable Energy Decree that marks an unanticipated, early end to its incredible solar race.

After months of intense negotiations with parliament and industry representatives that seemed to have achieved positive results, the Italian minister for economic development, Paolo Romani, presented a final “surprise” version of the Decree that will set the new standards for all future renewable energy incentives.

The Decree was due to address Italy’s path to its EU 2020 renewable energy targets (17 per cent of primary energy consumption and 30 per cent of electricity from renewables). The result? All that had been discussed until now is no longer valid, and the deadliest blow goes to solar power, effective immediately.

The third “Conto Energia”, the brand new scheme of incentives for solar power, which came into effect only two months ago and was planned to run for three years until the end of 2013, giving stability and a further boost to the growing sector, will in fact be cancelled altogether on 31st May 2011, three months from now. Whoever has not installed and connected their plants by then will be left to the mercy of a tariffs review that is still to be drafted and discussed.

To add further uncertainty to this gloomy outlook, an as yet undisclosed annual cap will be put in place for the years to come, on top of the downgraded tariffs. While a much feared 8,000 MW final cap was taken off the table, the lack of a new incentives scheme and this new annual cap will spread more panic than the original draft ever could have achieved.

To those with a feel for investments, it is clear that this situation leads to one inevitable consequence: all investment plans based on the currently set tariff regime (worth billions of euros) will be halted immediately until further notice, and chances are that the new rules will prevent solar photovoltaics from ever reaching the installation figures achieved so far, even when solar power will become a truly cheap energy option.

So why has the Italian government u-turned in this unprecedented way? Recent debate over the costs of renewable energy incentives was used as an excuse to revert the path thus far taken by the energy sector: around €4 billion will be spent in 2011 for green energy, an unacceptable price to pay, according to Minister Romani. Little matter that some €2.5 billion will go straight back in the form of taxes, that the renewables industry accounts for 2 per cent of Italy’s GDP, or that Germany is spending far more and has created a strong industry as a result.

The environment minister Stefania Prestigiacomo noted only few days ago: “Solar incentives weigh on Italy’s energy bill less than the CIP6 [a scheme by which refineries and incinerators also get incentives] or nuclear decommissioning. German renewables incentives weigh around 10 per cent, in Italy they do by 3-5 per cent." It is estimated that, after the last Italian nuclear plant was switched off over 20 years ago, Italy’s nuclear decommissioning bill is still around €400 million per year.

The true reason for this last minute Decree is simple: Renewable energy, and solar power in particular, is growing fast, so fast that Italy’s plans to build new EPR (European pressurised reactor) nuclear plants in the country by 2022 will fall apart if the race goes on undisturbed. Italy can already count on about 17,000 MW of hydropower, 6,000 MW of wind power, and a staggering estimated 7,500 MW of solar power (over 3,700 MW already connected, 3,771 MW awaiting connection), on top of other renewable energy sources like biomass and geothermal power (Italy is top European geothermal producer, with more than 800 MW, well over Iceland).

The ministry could have decided to “just” trim down solar incentives more quickly and steeply while ruling out all sorts of capping mechanisms (like Germany has recently done, while also confirming a 52,000 MW target by 2020). This would have given the industry a chance to absorb the hit, adapt to new terms and slow down as necessary, while also helping the solar sector reach an early grid parity two or three years from now (the PV industry has already got used to abrupt changes in market conditions, so much so that prices declined 50 per cent in the last two years).

Instead, a subtly planned Decree will now cancel a brand new three year scheme, leaving a legislative black hole and a looming annual cap on new schemes, so as to introduce an element of luck in the financing equation of all business to come. If you aren't quick enough to install your panels, you won’t get the incentives, and could go bankrupt. It’s not hard to guess how banks will react to this new state of play.

Should the global PV industry be concerned? Very much so. Italy was forecast to install something like 5,000 MW or more in 2011, threatening Germany’s ranking as the world’s top solar market. This means that as much as a quarter of global PV installations for this year (16- 20  according to the latest estimates by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, EPIA) are expected to take place in this country alone.

Should this Decree be signed by Italy’s President Giorgio Napolitano and come into effect, solar panel overproduction will occur for months to come, only to be reabsorbed whenever smaller, weaker manufacturers are gradually swept away by this unforeseen tsunami, something worse than Spain’s solar tariffs’ shutdown in 2009.

But can they actually do it? Tens of thousands of jobs are now set to disappear (120,000 in the solar sector alone, according to industry sources), along with hundreds of companies involved in what has grown to be a sizeable investment sector for the Italian economy. Things are so serious that national industry associations like Assosolare have threatened legal action against this Decree, and are seeking to have it cancelled by Italy’s President on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, with too much power given to one ministry over energy incentives. Francesco Ferrante MP, a Democratic Party deputy, laconically commented: “Delegating renewable energy incentives to Minister Paolo Romani is like entrusting Dracula with the management of a blood donors association“. Assosolare finally suggested that international credit ratings agencies could well step in, to reassess and downgrade the credibility of a nation whose government’s derogative methods create unusual risks and instability to long-term industrial investments.

These are crucial hours for an entire sector of Italy’s economy, and beyond: should this Decree be signed off, we can expect a strong contraction of the solar photovoltaic industry at a global level in 2011. All eyes are on Italy.

Carlo Ombello writes about sustainability and renewable energy technology. This article first appeared on his blog opportunity:energy, and was reproduced with permission.

Comments on this article

Aye

Craig,

Nice to hear from you again. :)

You and some like-minded nuclear hooligans never fail to deliver high quality technical explanation to your claims ("nuclear power is just plain better", cool!...), together with amusing forecasts for PV's future failure (as posted by you on my blog: "You’d better hurry up and rally all your midgets, jugglers, elephants and dancing girls, and do it quick, or there’s no telling how bad things could get", you're brilliant, really!).

First, believe me or not, PV is one real player in the energy sector, for the simple reason that it is quick to install and it's modular (and prices are going down). But it's not the only threat to nuclear, in fact anything is! First of all combined cycle gas plants, which are environmentally friendly and with efficiencies up to 60%, and they take 18 months to install (check how many were installe last year in Europe). And guess what, the next threat to nuclear fission is... progress in nuclear research! which will make current EPR reactors look like something from the wild west in few years time. I believe we will soon have truly renewable nuclear energy, and this will cause a lot of trouble to the French nuclear industry. The issue with current nuclear is that it can't compete on both time and money with a variety of other energy sources.

 

Regards

Carlo Ombello

Peak uranium?

I've looked at the issue of fuel supply for nuclear reactors:

 

http://channellingthestrongforce.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-nuclear-power-sustainable.html

 

It's true that the current fuel cycle with once-through light water and heavy water reactors is not sustainable in the long term if we try to run the whole world on it, but we have alternatives which will turn the situation around quite nicely, and the waste from current reactors constitutes fuel for the next generation.

 

As for universal nuclear power being 'simplistic', well, sometimes the simple answers are in fact the best.

 

Spiderman Syndrome

Who's been bitten by a radioactive spider??

 

It's simplistic to think that building a bunch of nukes will somehow solve the the carbon problem.

 

Nobody's watching the ball::

The big destabiliser isn't going to carbon pollution and global warming. That's a legacy we leave the next generation.

 ...It's peak O I L... and then peak C O A L and then peak U R A N I U M...

 

Peak oil is probably here now and possibly occurred in 2005. It won't be obvious until GFC is sufficenly dealt with and demand increases to 2007 levels again. Possibly, it will occur this year.

Virgin Airlines' boss, Richard Branson is estimating $200 per barrel oil by 2015. I expect that he is well informed.

 

Fine, we'll just switch to Coal, except that the 119 year reserve quoted by the world coal Association has a few conditions like the caveat 'at current production levels' (double it and this becomes 60 years). This is likely to be somewhat optimistic, with a lot of the reserves poor quality (low energy) and ard to get at in thin or deep seams. This figure doubtless makes no accommodation for Hubbert's model, so the peak may arrive surprisingly soon.

The Wikipedia page on "Peak coal" discusses this concept well. --  so mch for "sustainable coal mining"

Could it overtake Australis's debate on a carbon (coal) tax?

 

The same can be said for Uranium, It has a likely problem date between 2035 and 2050, earlier if there is more uptake, which is likely. There is no way Australia is going to have more than one reactor before 2030. Building enough to replace all of the coal generation in the country isn't going to be easy and it will do little to solve the liquid fuels crisis the predeeded the other two.

 

If we must have some reactors, all reactors are not created equal. many designs reqiuire moderately highly enriched Uranium and are more very dependent on complex fuel refining.

Some designs, such as CANDU can operate on low grade fuels, such as spent fuel from other reactors or Thorium. This would allow the reactor to continue to operate as high grade fuels become difficult to obtain. It is doubtful that the world fuel supply will outlast a reactor built in 2030. 

 

Forget about fusion, it's probably 100 years off. The way front-runner tokamaks look now, they may be always be unaffordable. It is unwise to stake the future on a log odds bet or miracle. (remember cold fusion?)

 

The reality is that Oil and Coal are very difficult to replace and no single, convenient, solution will suffice.

 

As Richard Feynman remaked in 1986, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled"

He was referring to the factors contributing to the crash of the Challenger space shuttle, but the comment is equally true of any issue involving nature and technology.

Smell the coffee.

It's much worse than that, Michael. What's happening here is the clear recognition that nuclear power is just plain better, and that continual subsidising of renewables is a complete waste of money.

 

You might want to check that decommissioning figure too. That sounds way too high.

Smell the brimstone

Lets wait and see who goes first, the solar incentives or the minister for economic development  by decree.

Is that for real? Solar incentives are costing less than the amount being paid for nuclear decommisioning for reactors last used 20 years ago. This appears to be an action to defend inefficient and expensive nuclear power against a rising competitor.

In the corrupt politics of Italy, where the historical and present day stench still hangs around fresh from centuries of political machinations, look for evidence of large amounts of money, threats, bribery or blackmail. Too often organized crime, shady business and even the CIA are deeply involved. Or maybe thats just normal for standard corporate lobby efforts.

 

 

EPRs

Two EPRs will provide almost as much electricity as 6000MW of wind power and 7500MW of solar power and is cheaper and more reliable.  The Italian Government is making decisions based on engineering facts and data not political ideology.  Pity the Australian Govt cannot do the same. 

All is not lost!

Cheer up, Carlo. With the glut of unsaleable PV panels resulting from this episode, you can go back to claiming that the firesale prices bankrupt manufacturers will be flogging these baubles off for represents the long-prophecised drop in manufacturing costs your lot keep amusing the rest of us with. Just like you did after the Spanish debacle. 

Pollutocracy

I wonder how the coal barons would behave if the coal subsidies were suddenly cancelled. Of course that's not going to happen because big Coal is such a big donor to Western governments.