If investment does not come to Florida for large solar projects, utility companies say it's because solar is still very expensive. If there are no large investments in solar, then the cost of solar remains high. How to untangle this dilemma? Seems to have been addressed in other countries like Germany. As more news emerges about the meltdown of Japan's nuclear facilities, it seems, yet again, Florida is headed in the wrong direction.
"In a place known as the Sunshine State, it would seem solar electricity would be natural." Ivan Penn, a writer for the St Petersburg Times takes a look this week at Progress Energy's lack of 'progress' toward committing to solar.
"We do see very positive signs in regard to cost and technology," said Scott Sutton, a spokesman for Progress Energy. "One of the biggest obstacles to solar is that it is much more expensive."
Read the full article here.
Meanwhile, the Georgia Public Service Commission called this week for Georgia Power to present options to expand solar energy projects in the state.
Seems a study from Arizona State University’s school of business looked at how much solar energy a state can generate and how much it costs to do it. Georgia came in third behind Colorado and Arizona. The full study, “Optimal Deployment of Solar Index,” including the rankings of all 50 states, can be found here.
Look for Florida in this list:
The Top 10 states that would benefit from solar deployment through generating and exporting energy to other states are:
8. Alabama (tie)
8. Missouri (tie)