The push for PV troubles me. Their financial practicality depends a great deal on large subsidies from both Federal and State governments. Solar power is not competitive without it. One of the justifications for the subsidies is that innovations to make photovoltaics competitive would not come about unless the market for it were big enough to spur private investment which would ultimately lower the costs. And indeed the costs have fallen but still not far enough.

How long will heavy subsidies be needed to make PV competitive? I remember that during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the same argument was advanced. And there were solar panels installed on the White House roof. (They were removed during Reagan’s term.) That was 30 years ago. True, the subsidy programs have waxed and waned over the years making progress uneven. But considering the extremely rapid technological innovation and cost reduction in other fields, particularly in semiconductors technologies, during the same period I wonder why photovoltaics has seemingly not advanced as fast.

I think a kilowatt of electricity saved is worth just as much as a kilowatt generated. As long as we are throwing subsidies at the energy problem, one could make the argument that heavier subsidies for energy conservation is just as cost effective as subsidies for generation. And in the case of conservation programs, unlike generation programs, the subsidies could go to people of lesser means. PV subsidy programs inherently go to the better off homeowners with the financial standing to get bigger loans.

Residential energy conservation doesn’t involve much in the way of shiny new things on the outside of the house. Most of it is pretty boring and not seen. But it can be very cost effective.

But we should not complain that this new idea was only picked up by the apparently-wealthy. That’s the usual way good new technology gets spread — at first the rich pay too much to get it first, then the rest of us buy later as the lowering cost curve meets our means and desires. Unfortunately we stopped this train before it could depart to the next, more well-configured, station. You could say we failed to think like a successsful startup company — but maybe that’s an unrealistic expectation for any government program.

I’ve long said that Berkeley has had one supremely successful manufacturing sector — the manufacturing of innovation. But I can’t decide if it’s more unselfishness or incompetence that generally leaves it to other cities to harvest the fruit of our trees.