In 2011, American renewable energy investment in solar and wind technologies dominated the global market, propelling the United States past China into the leadership position, according to Ernst & Young's latest quarterly, "Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (CAI)," released today. Ernst & Young also issued a new forward-looking report—"United States Renewable Attractiveness Indices"—that benchmarks the US state investments that were the driving force behind this shift, offering insight into the nation's diverse renewable energy markets, energy infrastructures and their suitability for individual technologies. Most notably, the report highlights that, despite uncertain macroeconomic conditions, renewable energy—particularly in states like Massachusetts, Colorado, Texas and California—is positioned very favorably to benefit from future investments.
While California's dominance of the All Renewables Index was anticipated, the top five rankings of states like Colorado, Massachusetts and Texas demonstrate a commitment to growing energy infrastructures across the nation. For instance, New Mexico and Colorado came in second and third respectively in the All Renewable Index because of consistent growth and strong potential across all renewable energy technologies. Massachusetts and Texas tied for fifth with a strong draw for solar and wind investment respectively.
In addition to providing a baseline for future reports which will be released semiannually, the United States Renewable Attractiveness Indices looks at issues that will enhance or impair further development in the renewable energy markets, such as incentives like the Production Tax Credit, wind power's key incentive. The continuance of this tax credit would have a significant impact on what has become a thriving domestic manufacturing sector.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Previewing solar policy in 2012 and beyond
Policy, particularly at the state and even at the company level, has a large impact on solar and other renewables. It’s helped California, Colorado and New Jersey, among other states, increase the presence of renewables and has driven jobs growth.
But policy, either enacted by a legislature or by regulators, can also hinder the development and growth of the solar industry. During Solar Power Colorado, Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association’s (COSEIA) annual conference, a panel of policy experts discussed what legislation and policy, good and bad, is likely in the coming years.
One thing that’s definitely starting to change is how utilities work with distributed generation.
“One thing that’s happening is an increase in utilities wanting to get into the business of selling solar,” said Annie Carmichael, the Vote Solar Initiative’s solar policy director.
She cited Arizona’s APS, a utility which last year started selling solar systems to schools and public buildings. The utility offers a third-party ownership option, allowing the entities to install solar with no upfront costs, like residential solar leases.
“They don't lose revenue or a connection with their customers,” she said.
On the other side of things, utilities may try to push legislation that adds charges to homes and businesses bills for going solar, according to Carmichael.
“The other thing we're seeing, which is definitely coming to Colorado this year, is the proposal of network-use charges and standby charges for net-metered customers,” she said. “San Diego Gas and Electric introduced a standby charge of $10 to $40 for a solar installation.”
Ultimately Vote Solar and others were able to stop the utility from enacting the policy.
But other utilities are likely to push for similar policies and legislation in other states.
“The message [utilities are using] here is that net-metering is an unfair subsidy. That it's a cost shift, where low-income customers are subsidizing wealthy solar customers,” Carmichael said.
The bodies that regulate solar and energy, like Colorado’s Governor’s Energy Office (GEO), are also changing as the industry matures.
“We really are trying to understand where are the market failures and the market barriers that are preventing economic activity from occurring,” said GEO Director TJ Deora. That’s partly because the GEO is switching to a much tighter budget now that federal monies and its other funding streams are drying up.
The office is not working on doling out incentives as much as it is interested in creating an environment for job creation, energy security and lowered long-term consumer costs and providing environmental protection, according to Deora.
“We think there's plenty of opportunity within all those areas where we can keep ourselves busy,” he said. “GEO wants to bring societal Interest and profits together, really to do it through policy and through stakeholders who understand where these alignments might be.”
Colorado’s renewable portfolio standard requires investor-owned utilities, which supply about 60 percent of the state’s customers with electricity, to source 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. The state’s rural energy authorities (REAs) and municipal utilities are only required to source 10 percent of their electricity from renewables by that date.
That may change, said Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters.
“REAs are becoming more interested in renewables as the price comes down,” he said. “That's great to hear. I think a lot of people believe we need to raise that standard up.”
Colorado may do more to drive renewable energy growth by designing legislation that designates solar-specific communities.
Legislatures may also look to California’s Million Solar Roofs initiative to create ways to increase solar in the state, Maysmith said
But policy, either enacted by a legislature or by regulators, can also hinder the development and growth of the solar industry. During Solar Power Colorado, Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association’s (COSEIA) annual conference, a panel of policy experts discussed what legislation and policy, good and bad, is likely in the coming years.
One thing that’s definitely starting to change is how utilities work with distributed generation.
“One thing that’s happening is an increase in utilities wanting to get into the business of selling solar,” said Annie Carmichael, the Vote Solar Initiative’s solar policy director.
She cited Arizona’s APS, a utility which last year started selling solar systems to schools and public buildings. The utility offers a third-party ownership option, allowing the entities to install solar with no upfront costs, like residential solar leases.
“They don't lose revenue or a connection with their customers,” she said.
On the other side of things, utilities may try to push legislation that adds charges to homes and businesses bills for going solar, according to Carmichael.
“The other thing we're seeing, which is definitely coming to Colorado this year, is the proposal of network-use charges and standby charges for net-metered customers,” she said. “San Diego Gas and Electric introduced a standby charge of $10 to $40 for a solar installation.”
Ultimately Vote Solar and others were able to stop the utility from enacting the policy.
But other utilities are likely to push for similar policies and legislation in other states.
“The message [utilities are using] here is that net-metering is an unfair subsidy. That it's a cost shift, where low-income customers are subsidizing wealthy solar customers,” Carmichael said.
The bodies that regulate solar and energy, like Colorado’s Governor’s Energy Office (GEO), are also changing as the industry matures.
“We really are trying to understand where are the market failures and the market barriers that are preventing economic activity from occurring,” said GEO Director TJ Deora. That’s partly because the GEO is switching to a much tighter budget now that federal monies and its other funding streams are drying up.
The office is not working on doling out incentives as much as it is interested in creating an environment for job creation, energy security and lowered long-term consumer costs and providing environmental protection, according to Deora.
“We think there's plenty of opportunity within all those areas where we can keep ourselves busy,” he said. “GEO wants to bring societal Interest and profits together, really to do it through policy and through stakeholders who understand where these alignments might be.”
Colorado’s renewable portfolio standard requires investor-owned utilities, which supply about 60 percent of the state’s customers with electricity, to source 30 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. The state’s rural energy authorities (REAs) and municipal utilities are only required to source 10 percent of their electricity from renewables by that date.
That may change, said Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters.
“REAs are becoming more interested in renewables as the price comes down,” he said. “That's great to hear. I think a lot of people believe we need to raise that standard up.”
Colorado may do more to drive renewable energy growth by designing legislation that designates solar-specific communities.
Legislatures may also look to California’s Million Solar Roofs initiative to create ways to increase solar in the state, Maysmith said
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Solar Power Colorado 2012: The potential for solar thermal
Here at Solar Power Colorado, solar thermal was referred to as the sleeping giant of renewable energy. That’s probably because, while solar PV efficiency currently tops out at about 20%, commercially available solar thermal efficiencies can be up to 80% efficient.
Solar thermal is a loose term for any device that uses the sun’s heat, rather than converting its energy into electricity, which accounts for its improved efficiency over PV. Solar thermal most often comes in the form of panels with a liquid underneath them. That liquid can then be used to heat water, the air inside a home, a pool, or even provide electricity and cooling when hooked up to a sterling engine, like the systems provided by Cool Energy.
In 2008, 28GW of solar thermal were installed worldwide, with China making up 78% of that. By contrast, the US had less than 1% of the market. Solar thermal systems are installed on more than 60 million homes in China and 10 million in European. In the US, fewer than 1 million homes have solar thermal of any kind. According to Tony Montgomery, Energy Organizer for the Colorado Environmental Coalition and co-Founder of the Solar Thermal Alliance of Colorado, “China is going full bore about developing every energy source they can. Many countries only have policies for solar thermal, while we have everything but.”
In 2010, there was about 5MW installed in the US. The Colorado Solar Thermal Alliance estimates that number could conservatively be 780MW by 2050. That means that it will be a $1 billion dollar industry, employing almost 25,000 people nationally by then. Of solar thermal costs, 2/3 are related to labor, meaning more money stays in the community where it is installed, a huge benefit for communities struggling in a tough economy.
Because solar thermal can run the gamut from simple, passive hot water heating to utility-scale concentrating solar power, one of the largest obstacles has been figuring out how solar thermal fits into existing renewable energy policy.
The EU, United Kingdom, and Canada are all making solar thermal an important part in their renewable energy plans for the future. The EU, for example, has the goal in place to generate 50% of heating requirements through solar thermal by 2050. That’s quite a lot for a continent with decidedly less sunshine than we get here.
Consistent policies and incentives are needed to allow us to catch up with the rest of the world. The problem becomes quantifying the energetic advantage of a solar thermal system. The renewable portfolio standard (RPS), arguably the most important policy driver for renewable energy, is based on electricity generation, so measures of electricity and fuel not used for heating are difficult to monetize. As a result, there is no impetus for utilities to encourage solar thermal because it reduces their business without contributing to their RPS requirements.
One approach would be to broaden demand-side management and efficiency incentives to include solar thermal. Another would be to create a second renewable portfolio standard, this one centered on Btu (British thermal units, the most common measure of heat), which could apply to biomass, geothermal, and solar thermal.
Currently, most homes are heated by natural gas, which has created an additional obstacle for solar thermal because it is so cheap and isn’t considered as dirty as other forms of carbon-based energy. Despite this, a solar thermal system can pay for itself in as little as 5 years because of its efficiency; a fact that hasn’t caught on with the public, yet. But, the members of the Solar Thermal Alliance of Colorado are confident that once policy catches up with technology and the public learns about its advantages, solar thermal is going to awaken and become a vital part of our energy portfolio.
Written by Sydney Kaufman, Contributing Editor, US, Solar Novus Today
Solar thermal is a loose term for any device that uses the sun’s heat, rather than converting its energy into electricity, which accounts for its improved efficiency over PV. Solar thermal most often comes in the form of panels with a liquid underneath them. That liquid can then be used to heat water, the air inside a home, a pool, or even provide electricity and cooling when hooked up to a sterling engine, like the systems provided by Cool Energy.
In 2008, 28GW of solar thermal were installed worldwide, with China making up 78% of that. By contrast, the US had less than 1% of the market. Solar thermal systems are installed on more than 60 million homes in China and 10 million in European. In the US, fewer than 1 million homes have solar thermal of any kind. According to Tony Montgomery, Energy Organizer for the Colorado Environmental Coalition and co-Founder of the Solar Thermal Alliance of Colorado, “China is going full bore about developing every energy source they can. Many countries only have policies for solar thermal, while we have everything but.”
In 2010, there was about 5MW installed in the US. The Colorado Solar Thermal Alliance estimates that number could conservatively be 780MW by 2050. That means that it will be a $1 billion dollar industry, employing almost 25,000 people nationally by then. Of solar thermal costs, 2/3 are related to labor, meaning more money stays in the community where it is installed, a huge benefit for communities struggling in a tough economy.
Because solar thermal can run the gamut from simple, passive hot water heating to utility-scale concentrating solar power, one of the largest obstacles has been figuring out how solar thermal fits into existing renewable energy policy.
The EU, United Kingdom, and Canada are all making solar thermal an important part in their renewable energy plans for the future. The EU, for example, has the goal in place to generate 50% of heating requirements through solar thermal by 2050. That’s quite a lot for a continent with decidedly less sunshine than we get here.
Consistent policies and incentives are needed to allow us to catch up with the rest of the world. The problem becomes quantifying the energetic advantage of a solar thermal system. The renewable portfolio standard (RPS), arguably the most important policy driver for renewable energy, is based on electricity generation, so measures of electricity and fuel not used for heating are difficult to monetize. As a result, there is no impetus for utilities to encourage solar thermal because it reduces their business without contributing to their RPS requirements.
One approach would be to broaden demand-side management and efficiency incentives to include solar thermal. Another would be to create a second renewable portfolio standard, this one centered on Btu (British thermal units, the most common measure of heat), which could apply to biomass, geothermal, and solar thermal.
Currently, most homes are heated by natural gas, which has created an additional obstacle for solar thermal because it is so cheap and isn’t considered as dirty as other forms of carbon-based energy. Despite this, a solar thermal system can pay for itself in as little as 5 years because of its efficiency; a fact that hasn’t caught on with the public, yet. But, the members of the Solar Thermal Alliance of Colorado are confident that once policy catches up with technology and the public learns about its advantages, solar thermal is going to awaken and become a vital part of our energy portfolio.
Written by Sydney Kaufman, Contributing Editor, US, Solar Novus Today
Monday, February 6, 2012
COSEIA all set for 2012 Solar Power Colorado conference and expo
COSEIA all set for 2012 Solar Power Colorado conference and expo
Theo Romeo
Feb 02, 2012
On Feb. 09, Colorado’s solar industry puts all its chips on the table.
The 2012 Solar Power Colorado conference and expo, hosted by the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, gets underway next week at the Embassy Suites Conference Center in Loveland, Colo. And there are a few notable changes from last year’s event, which had sold out nearly a week before the doors opened.
First, CEO of Solar Energy Industries Association Rhone Resch will join three other industry heavy hitters—Paula Mints, Navigant's principal solar analyst; Travis Bradford, author of the book Solar Revolution; and national policy expert Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative—for the “State of the Industry” panel, taking place from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Thursday, Feb. 09.
“We have a huge number of solar leaders who are flying in to go to this event,” said Neal Lurie, COSEIA’s executive director. “That’s a huge vote of confidence in the future of the Colorado solar market.”
Another notable difference will be that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will deliver the keynote address this year.
“Having Governor Hickenlooper participate in Solar Power Colorado reinforces his commitment to the state’s solar sector,” said Neal. “We have seen a huge amount of interest in collaborating with local governments to help streamline permit processes and reduce non-hardware costs of going solar.”
In fact, Hickenlooper signed a bill which limited solar permitting fees in the state last July.
The final and maybe most interesting changes to this year’s event are that COSEIA decided to shorten the conference and expo from three days down to two—oh, and there will be gambling.
That’s not a typo.
So why only two days?
“We regained out sanity,” joked Lurie. “Putting together a major conference requires a significant amount of coordination. We’d rather be able to pack in a huge number of fun activities over two days.”
And one of those activities is a casino/networking night.
If you’ve ever been to a trade conference, there is normally some type of networking event. You grab a few drinks, and look for people you know, talk to them, and stare at the strangers around you, who are staring right back.
“It can be hard for professionals to come into a room and meet,” said Lurie. “Playing blackjack or poker can really break the ice.”
In addition to Colorado solar installers, developers, financiers and energy leaders, there will be another group holding their cards close to their chests at the casino night.
“We’ve also seen a huge interest from outside organizations,” said Lurie. “A broad range of solar businesses who haven’t been involved in COSEIA in the past are participating—Trina Solar, Jinko—companies that weren’t here last year. There’s a continued interest in the Colorado marketplace.”
And there should be.
Per capita, Colorado has more solar jobs than any other state. It recently was awarded a DOE grant for solar projects. It’s the home of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and COSEIA has been working its butt off.
Last year, the organization set up an event that connected solar developers and financiers and completed the Solar Thermal Roadmap, which outlined how the state can be a leader in the emerging technology.
So what will 2012 bring to the Colorado solar market?
You’ll find out next week.
Solar Power Colorado is open to the public, and as of this writing, there is still room available. You can register at www.coseia.org.
Theo Romeo
Feb 02, 2012
On Feb. 09, Colorado’s solar industry puts all its chips on the table.
The 2012 Solar Power Colorado conference and expo, hosted by the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, gets underway next week at the Embassy Suites Conference Center in Loveland, Colo. And there are a few notable changes from last year’s event, which had sold out nearly a week before the doors opened.
First, CEO of Solar Energy Industries Association Rhone Resch will join three other industry heavy hitters—Paula Mints, Navigant's principal solar analyst; Travis Bradford, author of the book Solar Revolution; and national policy expert Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative—for the “State of the Industry” panel, taking place from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Thursday, Feb. 09.
“We have a huge number of solar leaders who are flying in to go to this event,” said Neal Lurie, COSEIA’s executive director. “That’s a huge vote of confidence in the future of the Colorado solar market.”
Another notable difference will be that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will deliver the keynote address this year.
“Having Governor Hickenlooper participate in Solar Power Colorado reinforces his commitment to the state’s solar sector,” said Neal. “We have seen a huge amount of interest in collaborating with local governments to help streamline permit processes and reduce non-hardware costs of going solar.”
In fact, Hickenlooper signed a bill which limited solar permitting fees in the state last July.
The final and maybe most interesting changes to this year’s event are that COSEIA decided to shorten the conference and expo from three days down to two—oh, and there will be gambling.
That’s not a typo.
So why only two days?
“We regained out sanity,” joked Lurie. “Putting together a major conference requires a significant amount of coordination. We’d rather be able to pack in a huge number of fun activities over two days.”
And one of those activities is a casino/networking night.
If you’ve ever been to a trade conference, there is normally some type of networking event. You grab a few drinks, and look for people you know, talk to them, and stare at the strangers around you, who are staring right back.
“It can be hard for professionals to come into a room and meet,” said Lurie. “Playing blackjack or poker can really break the ice.”
In addition to Colorado solar installers, developers, financiers and energy leaders, there will be another group holding their cards close to their chests at the casino night.
“We’ve also seen a huge interest from outside organizations,” said Lurie. “A broad range of solar businesses who haven’t been involved in COSEIA in the past are participating—Trina Solar, Jinko—companies that weren’t here last year. There’s a continued interest in the Colorado marketplace.”
And there should be.
Per capita, Colorado has more solar jobs than any other state. It recently was awarded a DOE grant for solar projects. It’s the home of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and COSEIA has been working its butt off.
Last year, the organization set up an event that connected solar developers and financiers and completed the Solar Thermal Roadmap, which outlined how the state can be a leader in the emerging technology.
So what will 2012 bring to the Colorado solar market?
You’ll find out next week.
Solar Power Colorado is open to the public, and as of this writing, there is still room available. You can register at www.coseia.org.
Friday, January 27, 2012
GE CEO: Solar-Panel Sales to Exceed $1 Billion by 2020
GE CEO: Solar-Panel Sales to Exceed
$1 Billion by 2020
Posted By admin On November 4, 2011 @ 2:35 pm In ARCHIVES, Feature Articles | No Comments
General Electric Co. (GE) [1] expects sales of its solar power panels to exceed $1 billion annually by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt said at Columbia University event in New York with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Staff-Updated
“I know that by 2020 this is going to be at least a $1 billion product line. We’re going to invest what it takes,” Immelt said. ”We did this with no government funding.”
If his optimistic projection becomes a reality, it will be good news for Colorado workers. The company recently selected Aurora [2]for the site of its new $300 million thin-film solar panel manufacturing plant.
The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company said the new facility will make enough panels using cadmium telluride annually for about 80,000 U.S. homes, or 400 megawatts. The panels be more efficient, lighter weight and larger than conventional thin film panels.
Colorado beat out 10 other states to land the investment, including New York, because of its strong workforce, proximity to one of GE’s existing “centers of excellence” and availability of needed infrastructure.
Victor Abate, head of GE’s renewable energy business said that the work the company has done with its Colorado-based solar team allowed them to “achieve efficiencies in our solar panels in record time.”
In addition, “The Colorado location will allow us to deliver our technology roadmap faster and commercialize industry-leading panel efficiencies sooner,” Abate said.
“We also look forward to continuing to build our relationships with Colorado’s local, state and federal officials who have been extremely helpful as we moved through the site selection process,” Abate added in the release.
$1 Billion by 2020
Posted By admin On November 4, 2011 @ 2:35 pm In ARCHIVES, Feature Articles | No Comments
General Electric Co. (GE) [1] expects sales of its solar power panels to exceed $1 billion annually by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt said at Columbia University event in New York with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Staff-Updated
“I know that by 2020 this is going to be at least a $1 billion product line. We’re going to invest what it takes,” Immelt said. ”We did this with no government funding.”
If his optimistic projection becomes a reality, it will be good news for Colorado workers. The company recently selected Aurora [2]for the site of its new $300 million thin-film solar panel manufacturing plant.
The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company said the new facility will make enough panels using cadmium telluride annually for about 80,000 U.S. homes, or 400 megawatts. The panels be more efficient, lighter weight and larger than conventional thin film panels.
Colorado beat out 10 other states to land the investment, including New York, because of its strong workforce, proximity to one of GE’s existing “centers of excellence” and availability of needed infrastructure.
Victor Abate, head of GE’s renewable energy business said that the work the company has done with its Colorado-based solar team allowed them to “achieve efficiencies in our solar panels in record time.”
In addition, “The Colorado location will allow us to deliver our technology roadmap faster and commercialize industry-leading panel efficiencies sooner,” Abate said.
“We also look forward to continuing to build our relationships with Colorado’s local, state and federal officials who have been extremely helpful as we moved through the site selection process,” Abate added in the release.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Colorado's future in renewable energy dims after years of growth
Colorado's future in renewable energy dims after years of growth
The Denver Post
Jerry Marizza, new-new energy coordinator for United Power, stands at Colorado's first "solar farm" in Brighton last week. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)
About 1,200 wind turbines are spinning on Colorado's Eastern Plains, hundreds of acres of solar arrays are tilted skyward in the San Luis Valley and the roofs of more than 10,000 homes and businesses sport solar panels.
Since voters in 2004 passed Amendment 37 — which set a state renewable-energy standard — Colorado has built or committed to about 2.5 gigawatts of renewable generation.
That's enough energy to power between 500,000 and 650,000 homes, based on estimates from the wind and solar industries.
The standard, however, is close to being met, and the future for renewable-energy incentives is uncertain. So, the question is: What is renewable energy's future in Colorado?
"Are we going to see the billion dollars in renewable investment that was made in the last five years repeated in the next few years?" asked TJ Deora, director of the Governor's Energy Office.
United Power has started operating a plant in Erie that uses methane gas from landfills to generate electricity. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)to see the billion dollars in renewable investment that was made in the last five years repeated in the next few years?" asked TJ Deora, director of the Governor's Energy Office.
"We aren't going to see a lot of local growth," Deora said.
The last seven years have seen the creation of more than 11,000 renewable- energy-related jobs in the state, according to industry trade groups that warn the growth might stall or reverse.
To be sure, some utilities are pushing ahead with renewable-energy projects, and leasing companies are making it possible for homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
"Customers want renewable energy," said Jerry Marizza, new-energy coordinator for United Power, a Brighton-based electric cooperative serving 120,000 people.
United developed the state's first "solar farm" and last year started using landfill gas to make electricity.
Still, Colorado is at a renewable-energy "plateau," said James Newcombe, director of the electricity practice at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy-consulting group based in Snowmass. "The landscape will be more challenging for renewables."
Much of the push came from the state renewable-energy standard, which requires investor-owner utilities to generate 30 percent of their power from renewable sources, and municipal utilities and cooperatives to generate 10 percent by 2020.
Those goals are now close to being met.
After creating or contracting for 2.4 gigawatts of wind, solar and roof-top solar generation, Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, said it will meet the standard ahead of schedule, and with small additions, it will be in compliance through 2028.
Black Hills Energy, which serves Pueblo and southeastern Colorado, also has to meet the 30 percent standard.
The Rapid City, S.D.-based utility is generating 12 percent of its power from renewable sources, said Chris Burke, vice president of Colorado operations.
Black Hills has announced a 29-megawatt wind project and will likely add another 125 to 150 megawatts of wind, Burke said.
Utilities' progress mixed
Two municipal utilities — in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins — have to meet the 10 percent target.
Colorado Springs Utilities is planning to add 50 megawatts of wind and already has 2 megawatts of rooftop solar through its own incentive program.
"Colorado Springs doesn't need any new resources until 2024," said Mark James, the manager overseeing renewable energy for the utility.
In Fort Collins, the City Council has called for a strategic energy plan focusing on local projects, said Steve Catanach, manager of Fort Collins Power & Light.
The city will need between 80 megawatts and 135 megawatts of generation to meet the standard, Catanach said.
Another area where renewable-energy growth has cooled off is the installation of home and business rooftop solar, which was fueled by incentive programs offered by the utilities.
Xcel trims incentivesSince 2006, Xcel has through its SolarRewards program provided nearly $250 million in rebates and credits — from a fund created by adding a 2 percent charge on customer bills.
About 9,600 solar arrays have been installed, but the fund is $51 million in the red, and Xcel has cut back on incentives and capped the program.
"We've shifted our focus to other states, and we've had to trim staff," said Jim Welch, chief executive of Bella Energy, a Boulder-based solar installer.
Bella's current projects include a solar-panel installation on the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City. The company is also working in New Jersey, Delaware and New England.
About 6,100 people in the state are employed in solar energy, according to a study by the nonprofit Solar Foundation.
"Colorado is a leader in renewable-energy jobs, but that's going to change if these issues aren't addressed," said Neil Lurie, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
Compounding the loss of state incentives is uncertainty about the future of key federal subsidies — production tax credits for wind and solar, and a program that offered cash grants for projects.
The wind-production tax credit — equal to $22 for each megawatt a wind farm produces — is set to expire in December. The solar tax credit expires next year.
Also set to lapse this year is a federal program, known as Section 1603, that enabled energy developers to get a cash grant instead of tax credits.
The program was started in 2009 when few investors were looking for tax credits.
"The 1603 program made projects easier to develop," said Blake Jones, chief executive of Namaste Solar, a Boulder-based solar installer that is also doing more of its work from Kansas to New York.
"It is just very difficult to plan for the Colorado solar market," Jones said.
Growth opportunitiesDespite the headwinds, renewable-energy advocates say there are still opportunities for renewable energy in the state.
Xcel may soon reach the 30 percent renewable-energy standard, but the state average in 2009 was just 6.5 percent, said John Nielsen, energy-program director for the environmental-policy group Western Resource Advocates.
One of the places for growth is in rural electric cooperatives, another is in solar gardens, in which residents can buy shares, Nielsen said.
Cooperatives must also meet the 10 percent renewable-energy standard, and there are already 25 cooperative projects adding up to 35 megawatts, including the two by United Power.
United Power's "solar farm," begun in 2009, enables customers to pay $1,050 for a 210-watt panel with a 25-year lease — about enough time to pay off the investment.
"We did this as a service and did it grow-as-you-go," said United's Marizza. The farm started out as 10 kilowatts and has now doubled in size as customers joined.
In 2011, the legislature passed a law promoting solar gardens, and industry executives say they hope this will be a growth area.
Some advocate raising the renewable-energy standard above 30 percent.
"In October, Xcel hit a record 55 percent of the electricity on the system coming from wind," said Ron Lehr, western representative for the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. "Let's keep it going."
Prices get competitiveThe biggest boost for renewables, however, may come as they become cheaper and more competitive with other energy sources.
Solar-panel prices have dropped 40 percent this year to about $4 a watt, and the price for a solar installation is expected to continue to drop, Namaste's Jones said.
The cost that Xcel is paying for wind power has been cut almost in half in the past 10 years to $32 a megawatt-hour, said Deora of the Governor's Energy Office.
That price is close to being competitive with coal and natural gas, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
"The long-term goal is for renewables to compete without subsidies as part of a balanced energy portfolio," Deora said.
Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912 or mjaffe@denverpost.com
The Denver Post
Jerry Marizza, new-new energy coordinator for United Power, stands at Colorado's first "solar farm" in Brighton last week. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)
About 1,200 wind turbines are spinning on Colorado's Eastern Plains, hundreds of acres of solar arrays are tilted skyward in the San Luis Valley and the roofs of more than 10,000 homes and businesses sport solar panels.
Since voters in 2004 passed Amendment 37 — which set a state renewable-energy standard — Colorado has built or committed to about 2.5 gigawatts of renewable generation.
That's enough energy to power between 500,000 and 650,000 homes, based on estimates from the wind and solar industries.
The standard, however, is close to being met, and the future for renewable-energy incentives is uncertain. So, the question is: What is renewable energy's future in Colorado?
"Are we going to see the billion dollars in renewable investment that was made in the last five years repeated in the next few years?" asked TJ Deora, director of the Governor's Energy Office.
United Power has started operating a plant in Erie that uses methane gas from landfills to generate electricity. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)to see the billion dollars in renewable investment that was made in the last five years repeated in the next few years?" asked TJ Deora, director of the Governor's Energy Office.
"We aren't going to see a lot of local growth," Deora said.
The last seven years have seen the creation of more than 11,000 renewable- energy-related jobs in the state, according to industry trade groups that warn the growth might stall or reverse.
To be sure, some utilities are pushing ahead with renewable-energy projects, and leasing companies are making it possible for homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
"Customers want renewable energy," said Jerry Marizza, new-energy coordinator for United Power, a Brighton-based electric cooperative serving 120,000 people.
United developed the state's first "solar farm" and last year started using landfill gas to make electricity.
Still, Colorado is at a renewable-energy "plateau," said James Newcombe, director of the electricity practice at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy-consulting group based in Snowmass. "The landscape will be more challenging for renewables."
Much of the push came from the state renewable-energy standard, which requires investor-owner utilities to generate 30 percent of their power from renewable sources, and municipal utilities and cooperatives to generate 10 percent by 2020.
Those goals are now close to being met.
After creating or contracting for 2.4 gigawatts of wind, solar and roof-top solar generation, Xcel Energy, the state's largest utility, said it will meet the standard ahead of schedule, and with small additions, it will be in compliance through 2028.
Black Hills Energy, which serves Pueblo and southeastern Colorado, also has to meet the 30 percent standard.
The Rapid City, S.D.-based utility is generating 12 percent of its power from renewable sources, said Chris Burke, vice president of Colorado operations.
Black Hills has announced a 29-megawatt wind project and will likely add another 125 to 150 megawatts of wind, Burke said.
Utilities' progress mixed
Two municipal utilities — in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins — have to meet the 10 percent target.
Colorado Springs Utilities is planning to add 50 megawatts of wind and already has 2 megawatts of rooftop solar through its own incentive program.
"Colorado Springs doesn't need any new resources until 2024," said Mark James, the manager overseeing renewable energy for the utility.
In Fort Collins, the City Council has called for a strategic energy plan focusing on local projects, said Steve Catanach, manager of Fort Collins Power & Light.
The city will need between 80 megawatts and 135 megawatts of generation to meet the standard, Catanach said.
Another area where renewable-energy growth has cooled off is the installation of home and business rooftop solar, which was fueled by incentive programs offered by the utilities.
Xcel trims incentivesSince 2006, Xcel has through its SolarRewards program provided nearly $250 million in rebates and credits — from a fund created by adding a 2 percent charge on customer bills.
About 9,600 solar arrays have been installed, but the fund is $51 million in the red, and Xcel has cut back on incentives and capped the program.
"We've shifted our focus to other states, and we've had to trim staff," said Jim Welch, chief executive of Bella Energy, a Boulder-based solar installer.
Bella's current projects include a solar-panel installation on the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City. The company is also working in New Jersey, Delaware and New England.
About 6,100 people in the state are employed in solar energy, according to a study by the nonprofit Solar Foundation.
"Colorado is a leader in renewable-energy jobs, but that's going to change if these issues aren't addressed," said Neil Lurie, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.
Compounding the loss of state incentives is uncertainty about the future of key federal subsidies — production tax credits for wind and solar, and a program that offered cash grants for projects.
The wind-production tax credit — equal to $22 for each megawatt a wind farm produces — is set to expire in December. The solar tax credit expires next year.
Also set to lapse this year is a federal program, known as Section 1603, that enabled energy developers to get a cash grant instead of tax credits.
The program was started in 2009 when few investors were looking for tax credits.
"The 1603 program made projects easier to develop," said Blake Jones, chief executive of Namaste Solar, a Boulder-based solar installer that is also doing more of its work from Kansas to New York.
"It is just very difficult to plan for the Colorado solar market," Jones said.
Growth opportunitiesDespite the headwinds, renewable-energy advocates say there are still opportunities for renewable energy in the state.
Xcel may soon reach the 30 percent renewable-energy standard, but the state average in 2009 was just 6.5 percent, said John Nielsen, energy-program director for the environmental-policy group Western Resource Advocates.
One of the places for growth is in rural electric cooperatives, another is in solar gardens, in which residents can buy shares, Nielsen said.
Cooperatives must also meet the 10 percent renewable-energy standard, and there are already 25 cooperative projects adding up to 35 megawatts, including the two by United Power.
United Power's "solar farm," begun in 2009, enables customers to pay $1,050 for a 210-watt panel with a 25-year lease — about enough time to pay off the investment.
"We did this as a service and did it grow-as-you-go," said United's Marizza. The farm started out as 10 kilowatts and has now doubled in size as customers joined.
In 2011, the legislature passed a law promoting solar gardens, and industry executives say they hope this will be a growth area.
Some advocate raising the renewable-energy standard above 30 percent.
"In October, Xcel hit a record 55 percent of the electricity on the system coming from wind," said Ron Lehr, western representative for the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. "Let's keep it going."
Prices get competitiveThe biggest boost for renewables, however, may come as they become cheaper and more competitive with other energy sources.
Solar-panel prices have dropped 40 percent this year to about $4 a watt, and the price for a solar installation is expected to continue to drop, Namaste's Jones said.
The cost that Xcel is paying for wind power has been cut almost in half in the past 10 years to $32 a megawatt-hour, said Deora of the Governor's Energy Office.
That price is close to being competitive with coal and natural gas, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
"The long-term goal is for renewables to compete without subsidies as part of a balanced energy portfolio," Deora said.
Mark Jaffe: 303-954-1912 or mjaffe@denverpost.com
Monday, January 16, 2012
New solar field under construction in West Windsor
New solar field under construction in West Windsor
The University has begun installation of the new solar photovoltaic panel field in West Windsor Township after clearing 27 acres of land and obtaining the necessary local, county and state permits and utility company approvals.
The 5.3-megawatt solar field will annually generate 8 million kilowatt-hours of energy and could eventually reduce the University’s carbon dioxide emissions by 3,090 metric tons every year, according to University estimates. This reduction will contribute to the University’s 2008 Sustainability Plan, which aims to bring its carbon dioxide emissions down to the 1990 levels by 2020.
The system was designed by SunPower Corporation, and will be funded and owned by Key Equipment Finance, a Colorado-based firm. Princeton University will host the field and lease the equipment from Key Equipment Finance for about eight years, after which the University will have the option to purchase it at fair market value.
Construction teams first mobilized on the site in early October. In December, they began removing trees, weeds and debris from the field’s soil, which was composed largely of sediment and waste that had been dredged from Lake Carnegie back in the 1970s. The natural matter collected from the site will be resold for composting and animal bedding. “The pleasing thing is, it’s all being reused, it’s not being land-filled or wasted,” said Ted Borer, the Princeton Energy Plant Manager.
Most recently, workers planted the first vertical support piers, which are the steel columns designed to hold up the photovoltaic array. Long beams called “torque tubes” will later be added to these piers, and some will be outfitted with bearings capable of rotation. Of the panels to be installed, 80 percent will be new “SunPower T0 Trackers,” which use a GPS device to follow the sun throughout the day and thus maximize energy absorption. The remaining 20 percent will be fixed in place. As of January 13, over 500 of the 4,000 piers had been installed.
The conduit that will carry power from the field to the campus has been placed under the Delaware & Raritan Canal and Lake Carnegie. A gravel pathway is being built around the site for maintenance vehicles. The University has also held a kick-off meeting with local utilities representatives.
Several dozen people from SunPower and specialty subcontractors are currently working on the site. The peak anticipated staff for the project will be between 80 and 90 people, Borer estimated. “All the labor is union labor,” he added.
The project’s completion has been scheduled for the summer of 2012. “They [SunPower] have a pretty ambitious schedule laid out in front of them, but so far we’re tracking it,” Borer said.
Though the prospect of using solar panels to generate energy for the University has long been on the minds on those in the facilities department, the project became financially possible in 2010 due to a federal grant and various incentives offered under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as the revenue-generating potential of New Jersey’s Solar Renewable Energy Certificate Program.
The West Windsor solar panel field will become the third major solar energy-producing site on campus, following the installations of solar panels on the Frick Chemistry Laboratory and the roof of the Research Collections and Preservation Consortium building.
The University has begun installation of the new solar photovoltaic panel field in West Windsor Township after clearing 27 acres of land and obtaining the necessary local, county and state permits and utility company approvals.
The 5.3-megawatt solar field will annually generate 8 million kilowatt-hours of energy and could eventually reduce the University’s carbon dioxide emissions by 3,090 metric tons every year, according to University estimates. This reduction will contribute to the University’s 2008 Sustainability Plan, which aims to bring its carbon dioxide emissions down to the 1990 levels by 2020.
The system was designed by SunPower Corporation, and will be funded and owned by Key Equipment Finance, a Colorado-based firm. Princeton University will host the field and lease the equipment from Key Equipment Finance for about eight years, after which the University will have the option to purchase it at fair market value.
Construction teams first mobilized on the site in early October. In December, they began removing trees, weeds and debris from the field’s soil, which was composed largely of sediment and waste that had been dredged from Lake Carnegie back in the 1970s. The natural matter collected from the site will be resold for composting and animal bedding. “The pleasing thing is, it’s all being reused, it’s not being land-filled or wasted,” said Ted Borer, the Princeton Energy Plant Manager.
Most recently, workers planted the first vertical support piers, which are the steel columns designed to hold up the photovoltaic array. Long beams called “torque tubes” will later be added to these piers, and some will be outfitted with bearings capable of rotation. Of the panels to be installed, 80 percent will be new “SunPower T0 Trackers,” which use a GPS device to follow the sun throughout the day and thus maximize energy absorption. The remaining 20 percent will be fixed in place. As of January 13, over 500 of the 4,000 piers had been installed.
The conduit that will carry power from the field to the campus has been placed under the Delaware & Raritan Canal and Lake Carnegie. A gravel pathway is being built around the site for maintenance vehicles. The University has also held a kick-off meeting with local utilities representatives.
Several dozen people from SunPower and specialty subcontractors are currently working on the site. The peak anticipated staff for the project will be between 80 and 90 people, Borer estimated. “All the labor is union labor,” he added.
The project’s completion has been scheduled for the summer of 2012. “They [SunPower] have a pretty ambitious schedule laid out in front of them, but so far we’re tracking it,” Borer said.
Though the prospect of using solar panels to generate energy for the University has long been on the minds on those in the facilities department, the project became financially possible in 2010 due to a federal grant and various incentives offered under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as the revenue-generating potential of New Jersey’s Solar Renewable Energy Certificate Program.
The West Windsor solar panel field will become the third major solar energy-producing site on campus, following the installations of solar panels on the Frick Chemistry Laboratory and the roof of the Research Collections and Preservation Consortium building.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Former Xcel Energy CEO Dick Kelly is now Board Chairman At Solar Giant BrightSource
Former Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL) Chief Executive Richard Kelly has joined the board of California solar-power developer BrightSource Energy Inc. as chairman, succeeding John Bryson, the company said Wednesday.
Kelly retired last year from Minneapolis-based Xcel, which operates utilities in Minnesota, Colorado and other states.
Bryson was chairman of BrightSource's board before President Barack Obama tapped him last year to become Secretary of Commerce. Bryson was chairman and chief executive of Edison International (EIX) until 2008, when he retired.
Kelly said he was "extremely excited" to join BrightSource, adding that he sees the company as "uniquely positioned" to meet increasing global demand for clean energy.
BrightSource obtained a $1.6 billion govenment-loan guarantee last year to help finance construction of a 390-megawatt solar-thermal power plant in the California desert.
The privately held company plans to build additional solar-power plants to supply California utilities owned by Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG).
BrightSource backers include VantagePoint Capital Partners, Morgan Stanley (MS), BP PLC (BP.LN, BP), Chevron Corp. (CVX) and Google Inc. (GOOG), among others.
Kelly retired last year from Minneapolis-based Xcel, which operates utilities in Minnesota, Colorado and other states.
Bryson was chairman of BrightSource's board before President Barack Obama tapped him last year to become Secretary of Commerce. Bryson was chairman and chief executive of Edison International (EIX) until 2008, when he retired.
Kelly said he was "extremely excited" to join BrightSource, adding that he sees the company as "uniquely positioned" to meet increasing global demand for clean energy.
BrightSource obtained a $1.6 billion govenment-loan guarantee last year to help finance construction of a 390-megawatt solar-thermal power plant in the California desert.
The privately held company plans to build additional solar-power plants to supply California utilities owned by Edison and PG&E Corp. (PCG).
BrightSource backers include VantagePoint Capital Partners, Morgan Stanley (MS), BP PLC (BP.LN, BP), Chevron Corp. (CVX) and Google Inc. (GOOG), among others.
Friday, December 23, 2011
2011 Record US Solar Growth
Domestic solar energy industry achieved a record for installations and growth in the third quarter of 2011, according to a new report
Released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the U.S. Solar Market Insight: 3rd Quarter 2011 report reveals that the US solar market installed more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity in the first three quarters of 2011, already surpassing the 2010 annual total of 887 MW.
In the third quarter, 449 MW was installed, a record for quarterly installations and more new solar electric capacity than was added in all of 2009. This also represents 140pc growth over the same quarter last year.
Looking forward, however, the outlook for continued strong growth is uncertain. The market impact of cheap Chinese solar panels and the potential expiration of the 1603 program weigh heavy on the industry. The SEIA report predicts that if there is no extension of the 1603 program, a tax equity bottleneck for projects will happen in 2012, leading to a possible slowdown in installations in late 2012 and into 2013.
“The US solar industry is on a roll, with unprecedented growth in 2011,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA. “Solar is now an economic force in dozens of states, creating jobs across America. But our industry needs stable policy on which to make business decisions, and unfortunately an underlying mechanism for financing solar projects is scheduled to expire on December 31.
“To keep the industry growing and creating jobs in the U.S. we need Congress to extend the 1603 program. The 1603 programme has done more to expand the use of renewable energy than any other policy in U.S. history.”
Released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the U.S. Solar Market Insight: 3rd Quarter 2011 report reveals that the US solar market installed more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity in the first three quarters of 2011, already surpassing the 2010 annual total of 887 MW.
In the third quarter, 449 MW was installed, a record for quarterly installations and more new solar electric capacity than was added in all of 2009. This also represents 140pc growth over the same quarter last year.
Looking forward, however, the outlook for continued strong growth is uncertain. The market impact of cheap Chinese solar panels and the potential expiration of the 1603 program weigh heavy on the industry. The SEIA report predicts that if there is no extension of the 1603 program, a tax equity bottleneck for projects will happen in 2012, leading to a possible slowdown in installations in late 2012 and into 2013.
“The US solar industry is on a roll, with unprecedented growth in 2011,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA. “Solar is now an economic force in dozens of states, creating jobs across America. But our industry needs stable policy on which to make business decisions, and unfortunately an underlying mechanism for financing solar projects is scheduled to expire on December 31.
“To keep the industry growing and creating jobs in the U.S. we need Congress to extend the 1603 program. The 1603 programme has done more to expand the use of renewable energy than any other policy in U.S. history.”
Sunday, December 18, 2011
BLM to hold Colorado hearing on western solar plan
SUMMIT COUNTY —Colorado residents will get one more chance to offer input on a plan that could potentially open more than 111,000 acres of public lands in Colorado for industrial solar development.In response to strong public outcry, the Bureau of Land Management recently reversed its decision not to hold a Colorado public hearing on a supplemental environmental study to the Draft Solar Programatic Environmental Impact Statement in Colorado. The meeting is set for Jan. 11, 2012 at the Inn of the Rio Grande in Alamosa (7 p.m.)
In November and December, 2011, BLM held public hearings in Las Vegas, El Centro, CA, and Palm Desert but no Colorado hearing was scheduled.
Numerous citizens appealed to the BLM on the grounds that Colorado was not being treated fairly under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Nearly all the Colorado lands eyed for solar development are in the rural, high-altitude San Luis Valley, including over 16,000 acres in 4 Solar Energy Zones. The San Luis Valley is home to Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who oversees the BLM’s increasingly controversial solar development proposal on public lands.
The supplemental study addresses impacts for large-scale industrial solar development that will have significant impacts on a broad range of individuals, communities and environments. The plan will affect areas in the San Luis Valley subject to industrial solar development.
Critics say the proposal also impacts ratepayers and taxpayers who could be deprived of the benefits of locally produced solar energy development as a result of the disproportionate allocation of scarce public resources for remote, centralized solar power plants on public lands.
“We are pleased that BLM listened to that people and reversed its position”, said Ceal Smith, founder of the grassroots, San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance. “Interest in the San Luis Valley is very high and now Coloradans will have the same chance as citizens in California, Nevada and Arizona to express their concerns about the proposed large-scale privatization of public lands for industrial energy development,” Smith said.
“A lot more is known now about impacts and less destructive and costly point of use alternatives for solar development. It’s important that the BLM give full consideration to this new information,” she added.
More than 100 citizens attended the March 7th, 2011 public scoping hearing on the Draft PEIS in Alamosa, CO. Participants included adjacent landowners, ranchers and farmers, local government officials, student and community environmental groups, solar installers and business representatives, global climate change and clean energy advocates and professionals, including 24 individuals who came prepared to speak.
The Alamosa meeting drew more attendance than any of the other public hearings held throughout the country, with the possible exception of the Feb. 8th Indian Wells hearing in California.
The Supplement to the PEIS and other related documents can be downloaded here: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/supp/index.cfm
The deadline for public comment on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS is January 23, 2012.
In November and December, 2011, BLM held public hearings in Las Vegas, El Centro, CA, and Palm Desert but no Colorado hearing was scheduled.
Numerous citizens appealed to the BLM on the grounds that Colorado was not being treated fairly under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Nearly all the Colorado lands eyed for solar development are in the rural, high-altitude San Luis Valley, including over 16,000 acres in 4 Solar Energy Zones. The San Luis Valley is home to Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who oversees the BLM’s increasingly controversial solar development proposal on public lands.
The supplemental study addresses impacts for large-scale industrial solar development that will have significant impacts on a broad range of individuals, communities and environments. The plan will affect areas in the San Luis Valley subject to industrial solar development.
Critics say the proposal also impacts ratepayers and taxpayers who could be deprived of the benefits of locally produced solar energy development as a result of the disproportionate allocation of scarce public resources for remote, centralized solar power plants on public lands.
“We are pleased that BLM listened to that people and reversed its position”, said Ceal Smith, founder of the grassroots, San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance. “Interest in the San Luis Valley is very high and now Coloradans will have the same chance as citizens in California, Nevada and Arizona to express their concerns about the proposed large-scale privatization of public lands for industrial energy development,” Smith said.
“A lot more is known now about impacts and less destructive and costly point of use alternatives for solar development. It’s important that the BLM give full consideration to this new information,” she added.
More than 100 citizens attended the March 7th, 2011 public scoping hearing on the Draft PEIS in Alamosa, CO. Participants included adjacent landowners, ranchers and farmers, local government officials, student and community environmental groups, solar installers and business representatives, global climate change and clean energy advocates and professionals, including 24 individuals who came prepared to speak.
The Alamosa meeting drew more attendance than any of the other public hearings held throughout the country, with the possible exception of the Feb. 8th Indian Wells hearing in California.
The Supplement to the PEIS and other related documents can be downloaded here: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/supp/index.cfm
The deadline for public comment on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS is January 23, 2012.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Colorado Solar Industry Faces Challenges
Colorado's San Luis Valley, an alpine desert, is rapidly becoming a leading producer of solar energy in the United States. The sun shines more than 340 days a year in the San Luis Valley. So the solar industry is booming here.
Several solar facilities in the region generate electricity on an industrial scale and others are under construction. Under Colorado law, 30 percent of power used in the state must be generated from renewable sources by 2020. But given the demand for electricity, Alamosa County's year-round sunshine still won't be enough.
Nick Thiel, plant manager of San Luis Solar Ranch, said, “We are sitting on 220 acres [89 hectares] with roughly 110,000 panels, equivalent to a 30-megawatt site,” said Thiel.
The company says that's enough to supply power to more than 7,500 homes.
“In the mornings, when the sun rises over those mountains, their sensors attract the sun, so they move in concordance with the sun. In the morning they face the east, and as the day falls, it will follow all the way to the west until it sets,” said Thiel.
In this valley, solar farms are expanding rapidly, making Colorado the third-largest solar energy producing state in the US, after California and New Jersey.
But the sun is not enough.
Alamosa County, one of the largest in the region, has six solar farms. County Commissioner Darius Allen said 650 hectares have been allocated for solar power and more could be dedicated, if the infrastructure were better.
“Right now, the transmission lines we have in here is pretty much maxed out,” said Allen.
But that's not the only problem. San Luis Valley is an agricultural area producing potatoes, grain, alfalfa and pasture for cattle. Farmers are concerned about land going to the solar industry.
Steve Vandiver is General Manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. He said, “If agriculture goes away here, we have nothing left."
Agriculture in this valley is under another threat. The land, rivers and aquifers under the Valley are drying out. That also affects solar power.
“Some of the bigger plants - the solar thermo plants - take a significant amount of water. You have to dry up a lot of farm land in order to create a water supply that is large enough to support those types of plants,” said Vandiver.
Solar panels also need to be washed because dust accumulates on them.
The water shortage has forced authorities to draw up plans that will close hundreds of wells and retire agricultural land.
“Valley wide we are probably looking at 60 to 80,000 acres [24,000 to 32,000 hectares] that will have to come out of production in the long term,” said Vandiver.
Farmers are concerned. George Whitten is his family's third generation on this organic ranch.
Recently, he and his wife Julie Sullivan, an environmental activist and educator, recruited neighbors in a bid to fight the construction of an 800-hectare solar farm adjacent to their land. They won their case, and the project failed.
“I never thought I would be fighting solar energy, and so it was very bizarre,” said Sullivan.
“It’s giant parabolic mirrors. They are the size of a drive-in theater, and there were going to be 9,000 of those right along that power line,” said Whitten.
The Whittens say industrial sites - even solar ones - should not replace agriculture.
They say instead of saving energy, Americans are trying to figure out how to use more.
Several solar facilities in the region generate electricity on an industrial scale and others are under construction. Under Colorado law, 30 percent of power used in the state must be generated from renewable sources by 2020. But given the demand for electricity, Alamosa County's year-round sunshine still won't be enough.
Nick Thiel, plant manager of San Luis Solar Ranch, said, “We are sitting on 220 acres [89 hectares] with roughly 110,000 panels, equivalent to a 30-megawatt site,” said Thiel.
The company says that's enough to supply power to more than 7,500 homes.
“In the mornings, when the sun rises over those mountains, their sensors attract the sun, so they move in concordance with the sun. In the morning they face the east, and as the day falls, it will follow all the way to the west until it sets,” said Thiel.
In this valley, solar farms are expanding rapidly, making Colorado the third-largest solar energy producing state in the US, after California and New Jersey.
But the sun is not enough.
Alamosa County, one of the largest in the region, has six solar farms. County Commissioner Darius Allen said 650 hectares have been allocated for solar power and more could be dedicated, if the infrastructure were better.
“Right now, the transmission lines we have in here is pretty much maxed out,” said Allen.
But that's not the only problem. San Luis Valley is an agricultural area producing potatoes, grain, alfalfa and pasture for cattle. Farmers are concerned about land going to the solar industry.
Steve Vandiver is General Manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. He said, “If agriculture goes away here, we have nothing left."
Agriculture in this valley is under another threat. The land, rivers and aquifers under the Valley are drying out. That also affects solar power.
“Some of the bigger plants - the solar thermo plants - take a significant amount of water. You have to dry up a lot of farm land in order to create a water supply that is large enough to support those types of plants,” said Vandiver.
Solar panels also need to be washed because dust accumulates on them.
The water shortage has forced authorities to draw up plans that will close hundreds of wells and retire agricultural land.
“Valley wide we are probably looking at 60 to 80,000 acres [24,000 to 32,000 hectares] that will have to come out of production in the long term,” said Vandiver.
Farmers are concerned. George Whitten is his family's third generation on this organic ranch.
Recently, he and his wife Julie Sullivan, an environmental activist and educator, recruited neighbors in a bid to fight the construction of an 800-hectare solar farm adjacent to their land. They won their case, and the project failed.
“I never thought I would be fighting solar energy, and so it was very bizarre,” said Sullivan.
“It’s giant parabolic mirrors. They are the size of a drive-in theater, and there were going to be 9,000 of those right along that power line,” said Whitten.
The Whittens say industrial sites - even solar ones - should not replace agriculture.
They say instead of saving energy, Americans are trying to figure out how to use more.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Colorado industry group gets $491,000 grant to cut red tape and costs for solar installations
Colorado industry group gets $491,000 grant to cut red tape and costs for solar installations
The Denver Post
A Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team today received a $491,000 federal grant to develop a system that will cut red tape and cost for solar panel installations.
"Every municipality has been going about trying to set standards in a piecemeal fashion and that has added to cost," said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado solar association.
Non-hardware costs, such as permitting, installation, design and maintenance account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop system, according to the US Department of Energy, which awarded the grant.
In a report released earlier this year, San Francisco-based SunRun, a company that leases solar panels, estimated local permitting and inspection added $2,500 to the average residential installation nation-wide.
The average residential solar installation is now between $12,000 and $18,000 and half the costs are now for permitting, regulatory, interconnection, customer acquisition, installation, and other similar charges, Lurie said.
The COSEIA team will work with municipalities to develop consistent lists of best practices, on-line tools and other standards, with the goal of cutting application costs by 25 percent, Lurie said.
"The Energy Department is investing in this Colorado project to unleash the community's solar potential by making it faster, easier, and cheaper to finance and deploy solar power," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team also includes: the Rocky Mountain Institute, Denver, Boulder County, Fort Collins, Golden, and the American Solar Energy Society.
The Denver Post
A Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team today received a $491,000 federal grant to develop a system that will cut red tape and cost for solar panel installations.
"Every municipality has been going about trying to set standards in a piecemeal fashion and that has added to cost," said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado solar association.
Non-hardware costs, such as permitting, installation, design and maintenance account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop system, according to the US Department of Energy, which awarded the grant.
In a report released earlier this year, San Francisco-based SunRun, a company that leases solar panels, estimated local permitting and inspection added $2,500 to the average residential installation nation-wide.
The average residential solar installation is now between $12,000 and $18,000 and half the costs are now for permitting, regulatory, interconnection, customer acquisition, installation, and other similar charges, Lurie said.
The COSEIA team will work with municipalities to develop consistent lists of best practices, on-line tools and other standards, with the goal of cutting application costs by 25 percent, Lurie said.
"The Energy Department is investing in this Colorado project to unleash the community's solar potential by making it faster, easier, and cheaper to finance and deploy solar power," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team also includes: the Rocky Mountain Institute, Denver, Boulder County, Fort Collins, Golden, and the American Solar Energy Society.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Reduce your utility bill and receive a tax credit
Reduce your utility bill and receive a tax credit
The “clean energy economy” is here and growing day by day; thanks in part to the Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy that has stimulated job creation, while encouraging home and business owners to install and create clean power by using solar.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended by The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, many federal incentives apply to renewable technologies. The federal tax credits have currently been extended to 2016.
In order to qualify for the following systems and receive the federal tax credit in 2011, the system must be installed by Dec. 31, 2011.
• Solar Thermal (Hot Water) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to solar thermal system expenditures with no cap. Products must be certified by Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
• Residential Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to PV system expenditures with no cap. Systems must be installed by a licensed contractor.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems receive a 30% Treasury grant instead of a tax credit for new installations. Business owners may receive a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department instead of taking the Production Tax Credit. Receive a grant of 30% of the cost of the system in approximately 60 days as a direct deposit. This grant can only be taken for systems where construction begins before Dec. 31.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems Bonus Depreciation 2008-2012 plus Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) receive 100% bonus depreciation in 2011, 50% in 2012. MACRS businesses may recover investment in certain property through depreciation schedule; renewable energy technologies are classified as a five-year property.
What is the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit? A tax deduction is subtracted from income before total tax liability is computed. Tax credit is subtracted directly from the total tax liability. The tax credit is more advantageous to the taxpayer. Example: Tax credit of $1,000 for someone in the 28% tax bracket is equivalent to a tax deduction of about $3,500. Consult your tax advisor for details.
Solar jobs have been created in part because the incentives available to you have increased the demand for solar electricity products and services. According to a recent study by Brookings Institution the clean energy economy employs some 2.7 million workers across the industry in sectors such as solar energy and green construction. Solar photovoltaic installations have grown at a compounded annual growth rate of 61% between 2006 and 2009.
Are you ready to earn your 2011 federal tax credit? Call Atlasta Solar Center and talk with a professional about the incentives and rebates available until the end of this year. Happy holidays!
The “clean energy economy” is here and growing day by day; thanks in part to the Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy that has stimulated job creation, while encouraging home and business owners to install and create clean power by using solar.
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended by The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, many federal incentives apply to renewable technologies. The federal tax credits have currently been extended to 2016.
In order to qualify for the following systems and receive the federal tax credit in 2011, the system must be installed by Dec. 31, 2011.
• Solar Thermal (Hot Water) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to solar thermal system expenditures with no cap. Products must be certified by Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
• Residential Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Systems receive a 30% tax credit which applies to PV system expenditures with no cap. Systems must be installed by a licensed contractor.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems receive a 30% Treasury grant instead of a tax credit for new installations. Business owners may receive a grant from the U.S. Treasury Department instead of taking the Production Tax Credit. Receive a grant of 30% of the cost of the system in approximately 60 days as a direct deposit. This grant can only be taken for systems where construction begins before Dec. 31.
• Commercial Solar PV Systems Bonus Depreciation 2008-2012 plus Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) receive 100% bonus depreciation in 2011, 50% in 2012. MACRS businesses may recover investment in certain property through depreciation schedule; renewable energy technologies are classified as a five-year property.
What is the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit? A tax deduction is subtracted from income before total tax liability is computed. Tax credit is subtracted directly from the total tax liability. The tax credit is more advantageous to the taxpayer. Example: Tax credit of $1,000 for someone in the 28% tax bracket is equivalent to a tax deduction of about $3,500. Consult your tax advisor for details.
Solar jobs have been created in part because the incentives available to you have increased the demand for solar electricity products and services. According to a recent study by Brookings Institution the clean energy economy employs some 2.7 million workers across the industry in sectors such as solar energy and green construction. Solar photovoltaic installations have grown at a compounded annual growth rate of 61% between 2006 and 2009.
Are you ready to earn your 2011 federal tax credit? Call Atlasta Solar Center and talk with a professional about the incentives and rebates available until the end of this year. Happy holidays!
Monday, November 14, 2011
Solar developers discuss investment needs for Colorado’s solar market
On Nov. 4, a panel of Colorado-based solar executives met with executives from national and regional banks at the “Solar Finance Roundtable” hosted by the Colorado Bankers Association and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA).
The solar-financing roundtable, held at St. Julien’s hotel in Boulder, Colo., was a unique opportunity for the various players in both industries to discuss how to help move the solar industry forward.
“Solar-related financing is one of the top pain points in the solar industry today,” said COSIEA Executive Director Neil Lurie.
It’s one of the top challenges that is inhibiting faster growth in solar, according to Lurie.
“Based on the feedback we've heard from the industry and our members, we estimate that about 80 to 90 percent of solar businesses in Colorado lack the financing that they need to be able to broker business deals that helps support customer needs,” he said.
AC Solar, which has installed solar on about 600 homes, half on-grid, half off-grid, could benefit from financing, said Co-Owner JoElyn Newcomb.
“If I had an easy financing program, I would double my size tomorrow,” she said.
At this point she said the company has so much business and limited access to financing that Newcomb only looks at customers that can pay for a system outright.
Still, options are becoming more open for homeowners, said Justin Pentelute, CEO of Syndicated Solar, which focuses primarily on commercial and utility solar development.
“Residential solar is definitely starting to gain. I think right now there's a lot of financing options that make a tremendous amount of economic sense,” he said.
However, he sees a gap in financing available for projects in between residential and large-scale commercial or utility-scale projects.
“We're seeing issues getting anyone approved that's not investment grade,” he said. “That's the biggest issues that we're coming up against.”
Out of 15 solar project proposals generally only one secures financing. That’s despite companies having good balance sheets, according to Pentelute.
There’s also an issue with the products available to support solar financing.
“There are no loans designed for solar,” Pentelute said.
Most loans aren’t designed for periods longer than 10 years.
“It isn't really consistent with the life of a solar asset, which is 25 years,” said Pentelute.
This could be fixed to some tweaks to existing offerings, which sounds easy, but isn’t, he said.
Thus far the best options for commercial clients with a yen for tax equity are capital lease options. For those that don’t want tax equity financing, Syndicated Solar finds that third-party operating leases are a good way to go.
“The power-purchase agreements have been the most difficult to process because there is no standardized agreement. It's really difficult to negotiate when you have three parties going to war on what's acceptable,” Pentelute said.
The need for solar companies to better educate bankers on solar benefits was clear.
“There are plenty of bankers that have no clue what a solar system is,” said Mike Healy, a founder of solar thermal developer Skyline Innovations. “I can't tell you how many conversations started or ended with 'alright so it collects the heat, and then electricity comes from there, and that's how you heat the hot water.' There is clearly an education gap. We need to educate them.”
Such work will help bankers become more familiar with solar.
The solar-financing roundtable, held at St. Julien’s hotel in Boulder, Colo., was a unique opportunity for the various players in both industries to discuss how to help move the solar industry forward.
“Solar-related financing is one of the top pain points in the solar industry today,” said COSIEA Executive Director Neil Lurie.
It’s one of the top challenges that is inhibiting faster growth in solar, according to Lurie.
“Based on the feedback we've heard from the industry and our members, we estimate that about 80 to 90 percent of solar businesses in Colorado lack the financing that they need to be able to broker business deals that helps support customer needs,” he said.
AC Solar, which has installed solar on about 600 homes, half on-grid, half off-grid, could benefit from financing, said Co-Owner JoElyn Newcomb.
“If I had an easy financing program, I would double my size tomorrow,” she said.
At this point she said the company has so much business and limited access to financing that Newcomb only looks at customers that can pay for a system outright.
Still, options are becoming more open for homeowners, said Justin Pentelute, CEO of Syndicated Solar, which focuses primarily on commercial and utility solar development.
“Residential solar is definitely starting to gain. I think right now there's a lot of financing options that make a tremendous amount of economic sense,” he said.
However, he sees a gap in financing available for projects in between residential and large-scale commercial or utility-scale projects.
“We're seeing issues getting anyone approved that's not investment grade,” he said. “That's the biggest issues that we're coming up against.”
Out of 15 solar project proposals generally only one secures financing. That’s despite companies having good balance sheets, according to Pentelute.
There’s also an issue with the products available to support solar financing.
“There are no loans designed for solar,” Pentelute said.
Most loans aren’t designed for periods longer than 10 years.
“It isn't really consistent with the life of a solar asset, which is 25 years,” said Pentelute.
This could be fixed to some tweaks to existing offerings, which sounds easy, but isn’t, he said.
Thus far the best options for commercial clients with a yen for tax equity are capital lease options. For those that don’t want tax equity financing, Syndicated Solar finds that third-party operating leases are a good way to go.
“The power-purchase agreements have been the most difficult to process because there is no standardized agreement. It's really difficult to negotiate when you have three parties going to war on what's acceptable,” Pentelute said.
The need for solar companies to better educate bankers on solar benefits was clear.
“There are plenty of bankers that have no clue what a solar system is,” said Mike Healy, a founder of solar thermal developer Skyline Innovations. “I can't tell you how many conversations started or ended with 'alright so it collects the heat, and then electricity comes from there, and that's how you heat the hot water.' There is clearly an education gap. We need to educate them.”
Such work will help bankers become more familiar with solar.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Solar power showing greater mainstream potential
NEW YORK — Solar energy may finally get its day in the sun.
The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel “farms” near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.
Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year. More solar energy is being planned than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
“We are at the beginning of a turning point,” says Andrew Beebe, who runs global sales for Suntech Power, a manufacturer of solar panels.
Solar’s share of the power business remains tiny. But its promise is great. The sun splashes more clean energy on the planet in one hour than humans use in a year, and daytime is when power is needed most. And solar panels can be installed near where people use power, reducing or eliminating the costs of moving power through a grid.
Solar power has been held back by costs. It’s still about three times more expensive than electricity produced by natural gas, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration.
But the financial barriers are falling fast. Solar panel prices have plunged by two-thirds since 2008, making it easier for installers to market solar’s financial benefits, and not simply its environmental ones. Homeowners who want to go solar can do so for free and pay the same or less for their power.
Last month two of the nation’s biggest utilities, Exelon and NextEra Energy, each acquired a large California solar power farm in the early stages of development. Another utility, NRG Energy, has announced a plan with Bank of America and the real estate firm Prologis to spend $1.4 billion to install solar systems on 750 commercial rooftops.
Nationwide, solar power installations grew by 102 percent from 2009 to 2010, by far the fastest rate in the past five years.
“Every manufacturer globally is looking around for the next major growth market, and the U.S. is the first one everyone points to,” says Shayle Kann, managing director for solar research at GTM Research.
Making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments. The main federal subsidy pays for 30 percent of the cost of a residential system. When state and other subsidies are added, as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.
But prices of solar panels, the squares of crystalline silicon or thin layers of metal films that turn the sun’s rays into electricity, are falling so fast that its advocates now credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidy shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.
“Over the past 10 years the industry has made the case that we needed to increase scale so we could reduce prices,” says Arno Harris, CEO of solar developer Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Sharp Corp. “We’re seeing it happen.”
The falling prices have made it easier for solar installers to raise the money needed to grow. And they’ve made solar power systems so affordable they can appeal to homeowners who want to save on their electric bill, not just reduce their environmental impact.
Tim Johnson, a high school math teacher in Philadelphia, had wanted to put solar panels on his roof for years. Like many people concerned about the environment, the thought of powering his home without burning fossil fuels had a strong appeal. But with two kids in college, he couldn’t justify spending $15,000, after subsidies, to do it.
But since March, he has generated 50 percent to 75 percent of his electricity with a set of solar panels on his roof, saving 20 percent on his electricity bills. His upfront cost for the system: $0.
Instead of buying and installing the panels himself, he signed up with SunRun, one of a handful of companies that build, own and maintain solar systems on homes. These companies earn money by charging customers for the power the panels produce.
Johnson pays SunRun $52 a month, and he pays his traditional utility for whatever extra power he needs from the grid. In all, he pays $60 to $100 a month for power; he used to pay $90 to $120.
SunRun can charge Johnson a competitive rate because federal and state subsidies pay for a portion of the installation. Also, the arrangement allows SunRun to take advantage of one of solar’s big advantages. Because it is generated near where it is needed, it doesn’t have to pass through hundreds of miles of wires, transformers and other equipment. The power price SunRun has to beat in order to entice customers like Johnson is an expensive retail rate, bloated with transmission and distribution charges that home solar doesn’t incur.
It would be cheaper over the long run for a homeowner to buy and install a solar system because he would not have to pay a company like SunRun for financing, service and maintenance. But these plans have growing appeal because they don’t require homeowners to lay out thousands of dollars up front.
In California, which leads the nation in solar power installations, 51 percent of the residential solar systems installed through the first three quarters of this year were sold with these plans, up from 12 percent in 2009.
SunRun and competitors such as SolarCity and Sungevity are expanding into more states, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Last month, Google announced it would create a fund that local installers in every state can tap so they too can offer no-money-down plans.
Some installers are teaming up with big hardware chains Home Depot and Lowe’s in an effort to expose solar to customers who might not otherwise consider it.
“Awareness is still one of our biggest problems,” says Lynn Jurich, co-founder and president of SunRun, which has a partnership with Home Depot.
Solar panel prices have been declining for years because of lower costs for polycrystalline silicon, the main raw material for most solar panels, and larger-scale manufacturing, especially in Asia. In the last six months, demand has dropped sharply in Germany, the world’s biggest solar market, in response to shrinking subsidies. This has created a global glut of solar panels and accelerated the decline in prices.
Solar panels, which are priced based on the amount of power they can produce during full sunshine, sold for $1.34 per watt in mid-September, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s down from $1.90 at the beginning of 2010. In 2008, they sold for $4 a watt.
The glut has been gut-wrenching for companies that make solar panels. Many of them remain profitable and are growing. But three U.S. panel makers have filed for bankruptcy in two months, including Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a $528 million federal loan.
Falling profit margins are scaring investors. The stock price of First Solar Inc. has fallen from $170 in April to $53.77. Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. has fallen from $11 to $2.07 over the same period.
The Solyndra bankruptcy has sparked a political uproar. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of pushing for Solyndra’s loan for political reasons and have used the bankruptcy to question Obama’s plan to help boost the economy by subsidizing clean energy projects.
The market will not get any easier for small solar panel makers. General Electric Co., Samsung and other big companies are entering the market. This should increase supply and bring down costs even further. GE announced this month that it would build the largest panel factory in the U.S., near Denver.
But what has been treacherous for solar panel makers has been a boon for companies that market and install solar systems, for companies that make electronics and other parts for solar systems, and for solar customers.
To be sure, solar is growing from a very small base. All of the panels now installed across the nation produce enough electricity to power 600,000 homes, or about as much electricity as one large coal-fired power plant.
There are 30,000 megawatts’ worth of solar projects awaiting approval in the U.S., according to the American Public Power Association. Not all of them will be built, either because of regulatory or financial hurdles. But even if only half that is ultimately built, it would be five times what is already installed.
“We’re going in the direction the planet and the industry needs to go,” says Harris.
AP
The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel “farms” near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.
Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year. More solar energy is being planned than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.
“We are at the beginning of a turning point,” says Andrew Beebe, who runs global sales for Suntech Power, a manufacturer of solar panels.
Solar’s share of the power business remains tiny. But its promise is great. The sun splashes more clean energy on the planet in one hour than humans use in a year, and daytime is when power is needed most. And solar panels can be installed near where people use power, reducing or eliminating the costs of moving power through a grid.
Solar power has been held back by costs. It’s still about three times more expensive than electricity produced by natural gas, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration.
But the financial barriers are falling fast. Solar panel prices have plunged by two-thirds since 2008, making it easier for installers to market solar’s financial benefits, and not simply its environmental ones. Homeowners who want to go solar can do so for free and pay the same or less for their power.
Last month two of the nation’s biggest utilities, Exelon and NextEra Energy, each acquired a large California solar power farm in the early stages of development. Another utility, NRG Energy, has announced a plan with Bank of America and the real estate firm Prologis to spend $1.4 billion to install solar systems on 750 commercial rooftops.
Nationwide, solar power installations grew by 102 percent from 2009 to 2010, by far the fastest rate in the past five years.
“Every manufacturer globally is looking around for the next major growth market, and the U.S. is the first one everyone points to,” says Shayle Kann, managing director for solar research at GTM Research.
Making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments. The main federal subsidy pays for 30 percent of the cost of a residential system. When state and other subsidies are added, as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.
But prices of solar panels, the squares of crystalline silicon or thin layers of metal films that turn the sun’s rays into electricity, are falling so fast that its advocates now credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidy shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.
“Over the past 10 years the industry has made the case that we needed to increase scale so we could reduce prices,” says Arno Harris, CEO of solar developer Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Sharp Corp. “We’re seeing it happen.”
The falling prices have made it easier for solar installers to raise the money needed to grow. And they’ve made solar power systems so affordable they can appeal to homeowners who want to save on their electric bill, not just reduce their environmental impact.
Tim Johnson, a high school math teacher in Philadelphia, had wanted to put solar panels on his roof for years. Like many people concerned about the environment, the thought of powering his home without burning fossil fuels had a strong appeal. But with two kids in college, he couldn’t justify spending $15,000, after subsidies, to do it.
But since March, he has generated 50 percent to 75 percent of his electricity with a set of solar panels on his roof, saving 20 percent on his electricity bills. His upfront cost for the system: $0.
Instead of buying and installing the panels himself, he signed up with SunRun, one of a handful of companies that build, own and maintain solar systems on homes. These companies earn money by charging customers for the power the panels produce.
Johnson pays SunRun $52 a month, and he pays his traditional utility for whatever extra power he needs from the grid. In all, he pays $60 to $100 a month for power; he used to pay $90 to $120.
SunRun can charge Johnson a competitive rate because federal and state subsidies pay for a portion of the installation. Also, the arrangement allows SunRun to take advantage of one of solar’s big advantages. Because it is generated near where it is needed, it doesn’t have to pass through hundreds of miles of wires, transformers and other equipment. The power price SunRun has to beat in order to entice customers like Johnson is an expensive retail rate, bloated with transmission and distribution charges that home solar doesn’t incur.
It would be cheaper over the long run for a homeowner to buy and install a solar system because he would not have to pay a company like SunRun for financing, service and maintenance. But these plans have growing appeal because they don’t require homeowners to lay out thousands of dollars up front.
In California, which leads the nation in solar power installations, 51 percent of the residential solar systems installed through the first three quarters of this year were sold with these plans, up from 12 percent in 2009.
SunRun and competitors such as SolarCity and Sungevity are expanding into more states, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Last month, Google announced it would create a fund that local installers in every state can tap so they too can offer no-money-down plans.
Some installers are teaming up with big hardware chains Home Depot and Lowe’s in an effort to expose solar to customers who might not otherwise consider it.
“Awareness is still one of our biggest problems,” says Lynn Jurich, co-founder and president of SunRun, which has a partnership with Home Depot.
Solar panel prices have been declining for years because of lower costs for polycrystalline silicon, the main raw material for most solar panels, and larger-scale manufacturing, especially in Asia. In the last six months, demand has dropped sharply in Germany, the world’s biggest solar market, in response to shrinking subsidies. This has created a global glut of solar panels and accelerated the decline in prices.
Solar panels, which are priced based on the amount of power they can produce during full sunshine, sold for $1.34 per watt in mid-September, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s down from $1.90 at the beginning of 2010. In 2008, they sold for $4 a watt.
The glut has been gut-wrenching for companies that make solar panels. Many of them remain profitable and are growing. But three U.S. panel makers have filed for bankruptcy in two months, including Solyndra, a solar panel maker that received a $528 million federal loan.
Falling profit margins are scaring investors. The stock price of First Solar Inc. has fallen from $170 in April to $53.77. Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. has fallen from $11 to $2.07 over the same period.
The Solyndra bankruptcy has sparked a political uproar. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of pushing for Solyndra’s loan for political reasons and have used the bankruptcy to question Obama’s plan to help boost the economy by subsidizing clean energy projects.
The market will not get any easier for small solar panel makers. General Electric Co., Samsung and other big companies are entering the market. This should increase supply and bring down costs even further. GE announced this month that it would build the largest panel factory in the U.S., near Denver.
But what has been treacherous for solar panel makers has been a boon for companies that market and install solar systems, for companies that make electronics and other parts for solar systems, and for solar customers.
To be sure, solar is growing from a very small base. All of the panels now installed across the nation produce enough electricity to power 600,000 homes, or about as much electricity as one large coal-fired power plant.
There are 30,000 megawatts’ worth of solar projects awaiting approval in the U.S., according to the American Public Power Association. Not all of them will be built, either because of regulatory or financial hurdles. But even if only half that is ultimately built, it would be five times what is already installed.
“We’re going in the direction the planet and the industry needs to go,” says Harris.
AP
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
GE to Build Largest Solar Factory in U.S. in Colorado
In perhaps its biggest solar move since acquiring PrimeStar Solar [7], General Electric Co., (NYSE: GE [8]) announced plans to build America's largest solar factory in Colorado.
The plans to build the factory were actually made this past April, but a location had not been settled on until recently. Aurora, Colorado - a suburb of Denver - is the energy giant's choice, due to proximity to testing lines and available space. However, considering the current climate for solar panel production [9], the venture is a risky one.
Low-cost photovoltaics have led to considerable fallout in the solar market. Some of the biggest solar panel producers in the U.S. recently succumbed to bankruptcy [10] - due in large part to the reduced prices coming out of Asian markets. [11] Many of them having also received large government loans.
But GE intends to drop prices even further and still turn a profit, looking to its successes with wind as an example.
Says Vic Abate, GE's Vice President of Renewable Energy [12], ""It's a challenging industry for sure, but the cost of solar had to come down for it to become a mainstream power source."
The factory - which will be larger than 11 football fields and pack an annual capacity of 400 MW (enough to power 11,000 homes) - will be built without government subsidies and will produce "thin film" panels from cadmium telluride.
Similar to panels built by First Solar [13], they are less efficient at converting the sun's rays into electricity than traditional crystalline silicon panels, but are cheaper to manufacture and therefore produce power at a lower cost.
The plans to build the factory were actually made this past April, but a location had not been settled on until recently. Aurora, Colorado - a suburb of Denver - is the energy giant's choice, due to proximity to testing lines and available space. However, considering the current climate for solar panel production [9], the venture is a risky one.
Low-cost photovoltaics have led to considerable fallout in the solar market. Some of the biggest solar panel producers in the U.S. recently succumbed to bankruptcy [10] - due in large part to the reduced prices coming out of Asian markets. [11] Many of them having also received large government loans.
But GE intends to drop prices even further and still turn a profit, looking to its successes with wind as an example.
Says Vic Abate, GE's Vice President of Renewable Energy [12], ""It's a challenging industry for sure, but the cost of solar had to come down for it to become a mainstream power source."
The factory - which will be larger than 11 football fields and pack an annual capacity of 400 MW (enough to power 11,000 homes) - will be built without government subsidies and will produce "thin film" panels from cadmium telluride.
Similar to panels built by First Solar [13], they are less efficient at converting the sun's rays into electricity than traditional crystalline silicon panels, but are cheaper to manufacture and therefore produce power at a lower cost.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Atlasta collecting solar ‘artifacts' for eventual public display
Atlasta collecting solar ‘artifacts' for eventual public display
More than 30 years ago Virgil Boggess, the owner of Atlasta Solar Center, started collecting solar energy products as part of his growing business and because he liked to see how all of the solar technologies work.
Since that time, the Atlasta Solar Collection has grown dramatically to more than 100 pieces, all reflecting the evolution of an industry for a half-century.
Now, this Colorado Solar Collection is looking for a catalog, a home to display the products to the public, and further donations of solar energy technologies from around the country. Once the Colorado Solar Collection finds a local Western Slope home, it will be the world's first historical tour of the U.S. solar industry for the last 100 years.
Several weeks ago, this column had an article about the history of the solar thermal industry in the U.S. It was noted that the U.S. solar thermal industry is more than 100 years old. The discovery and development of solar electric began in the early 1800s when the French physicist Edmund Becquerel uncovered the “photoelectric effect.”
In 1923, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his theories about the photoelectric effect. And in 1954 the U.S. solar electric industry began as researchers at Bell Labs demonstrated the first practical applications of photovoltaics (PV). Other manufacturers got in the game including AT&T and Westinghouse.
Hoffman Electronics produced the first commercial applications for PV priced at $1,500/watt. To put this into perspective, most current major manufacturers of PV can now sell solar electric panels for as little as $1.50/watt. Solar electric is now 1,000 times less expensive than 60 years ago.
The Atlasta Solar Collection has some of the earlier 20-40 watt PV panels manufactured by Solarex and ARCO Solar (once part of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation) made in the early 1970s. Solarex is now part of the global energy conglomerate British Petroleum.
Among the one hundred or so items currently in the Colorado Solar Collection, there are several of some the most efficient solar thermal panels ever manufactured, which were manufactured by Colt, the same company that manufacturers rifles. Other unusual solar artifacts include gas-powered (through expansion and contraction of the gas) automatic greenhouse skylight openers, a pumpless solar thermal system that uses parabolic troughs, Tri-Tech “Air Hair” solar thermal space heating systems, air heating window units; and “SolaRoll,” an EPDM rubber solar water heating unit.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE COLORADO SOLAR COLLECTION?
For the time being, all of these artifacts of scientific and technological history have half a home with Atlasta Solar. However, Atlasta Solar has requested that the (GVSC) Grand Valley Solar Center (a local nonprofit solar advocacy organization) to find a permanent home for the collection in Mesa County. Atlasta Solar has also asked the GVSC to request donations of other solar-manufactured articles from Colorado residents. If you have any older solar products that you would like to donate (or have removed), please call Atlasta Solar at . The long-term goal is to collect, catalog, and give public display to the world's first solar collection of the last century of the U.S. solar industry right here in western Colorado.
More than 30 years ago Virgil Boggess, the owner of Atlasta Solar Center, started collecting solar energy products as part of his growing business and because he liked to see how all of the solar technologies work.
Since that time, the Atlasta Solar Collection has grown dramatically to more than 100 pieces, all reflecting the evolution of an industry for a half-century.
Now, this Colorado Solar Collection is looking for a catalog, a home to display the products to the public, and further donations of solar energy technologies from around the country. Once the Colorado Solar Collection finds a local Western Slope home, it will be the world's first historical tour of the U.S. solar industry for the last 100 years.
Several weeks ago, this column had an article about the history of the solar thermal industry in the U.S. It was noted that the U.S. solar thermal industry is more than 100 years old. The discovery and development of solar electric began in the early 1800s when the French physicist Edmund Becquerel uncovered the “photoelectric effect.”
In 1923, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his theories about the photoelectric effect. And in 1954 the U.S. solar electric industry began as researchers at Bell Labs demonstrated the first practical applications of photovoltaics (PV). Other manufacturers got in the game including AT&T and Westinghouse.
Hoffman Electronics produced the first commercial applications for PV priced at $1,500/watt. To put this into perspective, most current major manufacturers of PV can now sell solar electric panels for as little as $1.50/watt. Solar electric is now 1,000 times less expensive than 60 years ago.
The Atlasta Solar Collection has some of the earlier 20-40 watt PV panels manufactured by Solarex and ARCO Solar (once part of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation) made in the early 1970s. Solarex is now part of the global energy conglomerate British Petroleum.
Among the one hundred or so items currently in the Colorado Solar Collection, there are several of some the most efficient solar thermal panels ever manufactured, which were manufactured by Colt, the same company that manufacturers rifles. Other unusual solar artifacts include gas-powered (through expansion and contraction of the gas) automatic greenhouse skylight openers, a pumpless solar thermal system that uses parabolic troughs, Tri-Tech “Air Hair” solar thermal space heating systems, air heating window units; and “SolaRoll,” an EPDM rubber solar water heating unit.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE COLORADO SOLAR COLLECTION?
For the time being, all of these artifacts of scientific and technological history have half a home with Atlasta Solar. However, Atlasta Solar has requested that the (GVSC) Grand Valley Solar Center (a local nonprofit solar advocacy organization) to find a permanent home for the collection in Mesa County. Atlasta Solar has also asked the GVSC to request donations of other solar-manufactured articles from Colorado residents. If you have any older solar products that you would like to donate (or have removed), please call Atlasta Solar at . The long-term goal is to collect, catalog, and give public display to the world's first solar collection of the last century of the U.S. solar industry right here in western Colorado.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Solar State of the Week: Colorado
Solar State of the Week: Colorado
The Colorado market is almost evenly split between the residential, non-residential, and utility sectors.
State incentive programs drove the Colorado PV market to more than double in 2010, resulting in the installation of 53.6 megawatts of capacity.
The state market maintained a relatively even split, with 18.7 megawatts of installed capacity from residential, 15.9 megawatts from non-residential, and 19.1 megawatts from utility. Installations in the residential sector were mainly driven by the allowance of third-party-owned systems and incentives from the Governor’s Energy Office rebate program. In the utility sector, SunPower’s 19-megawatt Greater Sandhill project was completed in Alamosa County, becoming the largest solar energy project in the state.
The next few years will see additional large-scale utility projects coming online in the state. SunPower’s San Luis Valley Solar Ranch, a 30-megawatt photovoltaic installation, and Cogentrix’s Alamosa Solar, a 30-megawatt concentrating PV project, are both currently under construction and expected to come online in 2012.
Though Colorado had the third highest cumulative installed capacity at the end of 2010, the outlook for solar installations in the state is uncertain. Xcel Energy, which is responsible for over 75 percent of PV installations in Colorado, announced in February that it was making substantial changes to its “Solar* Rewards” customer-sited PV incentive program. The utility plans to cut rebate levels from $2.00 per watt to $0.25 per watt for systems under 100 kilowatts.
Until the PUC issues approval for these new rates, rebates will be frozen, and this poses a substantial risk to Colorado’s residential and small commercial market through 2011.
The Colorado market is almost evenly split between the residential, non-residential, and utility sectors.
State incentive programs drove the Colorado PV market to more than double in 2010, resulting in the installation of 53.6 megawatts of capacity.
The state market maintained a relatively even split, with 18.7 megawatts of installed capacity from residential, 15.9 megawatts from non-residential, and 19.1 megawatts from utility. Installations in the residential sector were mainly driven by the allowance of third-party-owned systems and incentives from the Governor’s Energy Office rebate program. In the utility sector, SunPower’s 19-megawatt Greater Sandhill project was completed in Alamosa County, becoming the largest solar energy project in the state.
The next few years will see additional large-scale utility projects coming online in the state. SunPower’s San Luis Valley Solar Ranch, a 30-megawatt photovoltaic installation, and Cogentrix’s Alamosa Solar, a 30-megawatt concentrating PV project, are both currently under construction and expected to come online in 2012.
Though Colorado had the third highest cumulative installed capacity at the end of 2010, the outlook for solar installations in the state is uncertain. Xcel Energy, which is responsible for over 75 percent of PV installations in Colorado, announced in February that it was making substantial changes to its “Solar* Rewards” customer-sited PV incentive program. The utility plans to cut rebate levels from $2.00 per watt to $0.25 per watt for systems under 100 kilowatts.
Until the PUC issues approval for these new rates, rebates will be frozen, and this poses a substantial risk to Colorado’s residential and small commercial market through 2011.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
US government backs Abengoa’s solar project with $1.2 billion loan guarantee
US government backs Abengoa’s solar project with $1.2 billion loan guarantee
Despite the high-profile failure of solar developer Solyndra earlier this month, Abengoa has successfully secured a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the US government to move ahead with Mojave Solar Project.
The 280 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant will cost an estimated $1.6 billion in total and should be completed in 2014. The Department of Energy (DOE) offered a loan guarantee earlier this summer.
Construction has already started on the project, which is located 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles near Barstow, California.
Once operational the plant will generate enough power for more than 54,000 households and will prevent the emission of over 350,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. One of the largest utilities in the US, Pacific Gas & Electric, has agreed a 25-year power purchase agreement, which is awaiting official confirmation.
Abengoa has also just started operations at the first of two CSP plants in southern Spain, which it has built jointly with Germany energy company E.ON.
Helioenergy 1 and Helioenergy 2, which will come online later this year, will produce enough power from 121,000 mirrors spread over 220 hectares to supply 52,000 households.
The DOE has also finalised a $90.6 million loan guarantee to Cogentrix for the 30 MW Alamosa Solar Generating Project in Colorado.
The high concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) facility, which uses concentrating optics and multi-junction solar cell panels controlled by a dual-axis tracking system, will produce enough power for 6500 homes and avoid 43,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions a year.
A $150 million loan guarantee has also been granted to 1366 Technologies to develop a multicrystalline wafer manufacturing project that could reduce the costs of solar manufacturing.
The innovative process could produce 700-1000 MW of silicon-based wafers a year at half the usual cost. The first phase of the project will be carried out at the company’s facility in Lexington, Massachusetts, but 1366 Technologies is looking for other sites for the next phase.
Meanwhile, Greece has unveiled a plan to increase its installed solar capacity to 2.2 GW by 2020 and 10 GW by 2050, according to Reuters.
The financially troubled nation hopes to attract up to €20 billion in investment through the ‘Project Helios’ plan.
While Greece has sunshine for an average 300 days a year and receives 50% more solar radiation that European solar champion Germany, it has a mere 200 MW already installed.
And further afield, Australia’s first utility-scale solar power project is under way in Western Australian.
The First Solar project, which is being backed by Verve Energy, GE Energy Financial Services and the Western Australian Government, will see a 10 MW facility built on 80 hectares of land 50 km southeast of Geraldton.
The output from the Greenough River Solar Farm, which is expected to be operational mid-next year, will be bought by the WA Water Corporation, which is building a new Southern Seawater Desalination Plant.
Despite the high-profile failure of solar developer Solyndra earlier this month, Abengoa has successfully secured a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the US government to move ahead with Mojave Solar Project.
The 280 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant will cost an estimated $1.6 billion in total and should be completed in 2014. The Department of Energy (DOE) offered a loan guarantee earlier this summer.
Construction has already started on the project, which is located 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles near Barstow, California.
Once operational the plant will generate enough power for more than 54,000 households and will prevent the emission of over 350,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. One of the largest utilities in the US, Pacific Gas & Electric, has agreed a 25-year power purchase agreement, which is awaiting official confirmation.
Abengoa has also just started operations at the first of two CSP plants in southern Spain, which it has built jointly with Germany energy company E.ON.
Helioenergy 1 and Helioenergy 2, which will come online later this year, will produce enough power from 121,000 mirrors spread over 220 hectares to supply 52,000 households.
The DOE has also finalised a $90.6 million loan guarantee to Cogentrix for the 30 MW Alamosa Solar Generating Project in Colorado.
The high concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) facility, which uses concentrating optics and multi-junction solar cell panels controlled by a dual-axis tracking system, will produce enough power for 6500 homes and avoid 43,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions a year.
A $150 million loan guarantee has also been granted to 1366 Technologies to develop a multicrystalline wafer manufacturing project that could reduce the costs of solar manufacturing.
The innovative process could produce 700-1000 MW of silicon-based wafers a year at half the usual cost. The first phase of the project will be carried out at the company’s facility in Lexington, Massachusetts, but 1366 Technologies is looking for other sites for the next phase.
Meanwhile, Greece has unveiled a plan to increase its installed solar capacity to 2.2 GW by 2020 and 10 GW by 2050, according to Reuters.
The financially troubled nation hopes to attract up to €20 billion in investment through the ‘Project Helios’ plan.
While Greece has sunshine for an average 300 days a year and receives 50% more solar radiation that European solar champion Germany, it has a mere 200 MW already installed.
And further afield, Australia’s first utility-scale solar power project is under way in Western Australian.
The First Solar project, which is being backed by Verve Energy, GE Energy Financial Services and the Western Australian Government, will see a 10 MW facility built on 80 hectares of land 50 km southeast of Geraldton.
The output from the Greenough River Solar Farm, which is expected to be operational mid-next year, will be bought by the WA Water Corporation, which is building a new Southern Seawater Desalination Plant.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Electric utility ‘demand charges' penalize commercial businesses
Electric utility ‘demand charges' penalize commercial businesses
Why is the topic of utility “demand charges” important? In most cases, utilities are monopolies that are guaranteed a certain amount of profit.
However, sometimes the method whereby utilities gain this guaranteed profit has little to do with the actual cost of the product they supply. Electric utility “demand charges” are an example of this widespread market distortion. This means that if you have a business, up to two-thirds of your bill may have little to do with the actual energy you have consumed.
WHAT ARE UTILITY DEMAND CHARGES?
Over a hundred years ago in the early days of electricity generation, utility service areas were small, sometimes only a few city blocks. Peak power requirements came in the early evening when people came home from work and turned on their lights. At this time lighting was typically the only electricity loads that homes had.
When another house was added to the utility service area, additional electricity generation capacity had to be installed to meet the new demand. New and existing utility customers were required to pay a fee to cover the costs of this additional generation. Nowadays, utilities can forecast service demand with great precision, and thus do not need to add additional generation capacity to meet the power demands of your existing business.
Power generation now is generally comprised of base load power plants, intermediary generation and peaking power generation. Base load power generation usually consists of coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants, and traditional hydroelectric.
Intermediate power generation is often comprised of older costlier coal plants, and some lower costs natural gas generation.
Peaking power is usually natural gas generation that can be brought online and offline quickly according to peak power demands.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO REDUCE DEMAND CHARGES?
Demand charges can unfairly penalize certain commercial electricity customers; and electric utility demand charges especially penalize premium peak power produced from solar. What can you do at your business to reduce these antiquated utility demand charges?
First, be certain that your business is using the correct utility rate. A simple rate analysis may demonstrate that your business can use another available utility rate without demand charges.
Rate analysis done by Atlasta Solar has found numerous instances where commercial customers fell well below the threshold of utility demand charges, yet the utility continued to charge the customer hundreds of dollars a month for demand charges.
Simply switching to another electricity rate structure can immediately save you hundreds of dollars a month.
Two, the use of newly available and inexpensive automated energy monitoring equipment can keep you attuned to the power demands of your business. If you can measure it, you can manage it.
Three, relatively easy methods of managing power demand such as staging lighting and motors can keep your demand charges much lower.
Investing in solar power can decrease or eliminate your energy charges and reduce your demand charges dramatically. Solar power can generate all of the energy your business needs. Investing in solar power can also allow you to take advantage of a new solar power rate from the utility, which cuts your demand charges in half and pays you a premium for the solar power that you produce and use.
Electric utility demand charges are a century old obsolete method of measuring power that unfairly penalizes certain commercial customers. It is time the utilities change their outdated methods of valuing electricity. Solar power is peak power and clean power and must be valued as such. Call Atlasta Solar Center today at 970-248-0057 to have a rate analysis completed for your business.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110909/COMMUNITY_NEWS/110909965/1027/RSS&template=printart
Why is the topic of utility “demand charges” important? In most cases, utilities are monopolies that are guaranteed a certain amount of profit.
However, sometimes the method whereby utilities gain this guaranteed profit has little to do with the actual cost of the product they supply. Electric utility “demand charges” are an example of this widespread market distortion. This means that if you have a business, up to two-thirds of your bill may have little to do with the actual energy you have consumed.
WHAT ARE UTILITY DEMAND CHARGES?
Over a hundred years ago in the early days of electricity generation, utility service areas were small, sometimes only a few city blocks. Peak power requirements came in the early evening when people came home from work and turned on their lights. At this time lighting was typically the only electricity loads that homes had.
When another house was added to the utility service area, additional electricity generation capacity had to be installed to meet the new demand. New and existing utility customers were required to pay a fee to cover the costs of this additional generation. Nowadays, utilities can forecast service demand with great precision, and thus do not need to add additional generation capacity to meet the power demands of your existing business.
Power generation now is generally comprised of base load power plants, intermediary generation and peaking power generation. Base load power generation usually consists of coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants, and traditional hydroelectric.
Intermediate power generation is often comprised of older costlier coal plants, and some lower costs natural gas generation.
Peaking power is usually natural gas generation that can be brought online and offline quickly according to peak power demands.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO REDUCE DEMAND CHARGES?
Demand charges can unfairly penalize certain commercial electricity customers; and electric utility demand charges especially penalize premium peak power produced from solar. What can you do at your business to reduce these antiquated utility demand charges?
First, be certain that your business is using the correct utility rate. A simple rate analysis may demonstrate that your business can use another available utility rate without demand charges.
Rate analysis done by Atlasta Solar has found numerous instances where commercial customers fell well below the threshold of utility demand charges, yet the utility continued to charge the customer hundreds of dollars a month for demand charges.
Simply switching to another electricity rate structure can immediately save you hundreds of dollars a month.
Two, the use of newly available and inexpensive automated energy monitoring equipment can keep you attuned to the power demands of your business. If you can measure it, you can manage it.
Three, relatively easy methods of managing power demand such as staging lighting and motors can keep your demand charges much lower.
Investing in solar power can decrease or eliminate your energy charges and reduce your demand charges dramatically. Solar power can generate all of the energy your business needs. Investing in solar power can also allow you to take advantage of a new solar power rate from the utility, which cuts your demand charges in half and pays you a premium for the solar power that you produce and use.
Electric utility demand charges are a century old obsolete method of measuring power that unfairly penalizes certain commercial customers. It is time the utilities change their outdated methods of valuing electricity. Solar power is peak power and clean power and must be valued as such. Call Atlasta Solar Center today at 970-248-0057 to have a rate analysis completed for your business.
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110909/COMMUNITY_NEWS/110909965/1027/RSS&template=printart
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Solar Thermal Story
Solar electric has been getting all the headlines lately, yet there is another type of solar energy that has been affordable and available in the U.S. for more than 100 years. The technology is a solar thermal system and it is primarily used to provide domestic hot water (DHW).
The first U.S. large production solar DHW system came in the late 1800s. Clarence Kemp patented a method to combine the old practice of exposing metal tanks to the sun with the use of the solar box. He called his new solar water heater the “Climax.”
Kemp sold his solar water heaters in California — where over 1,600 units were in service by 1900. In 1909, William J. Bailey patented an improved solar water heater. He separated the solar water heater into two parts with a heating element exposed to the sun outside and an insulated storage tank in the house. Households could now have solar-heated water day and night and the next morning.
Bailey's “Day and Night” solar had a motto “Sunshine Like Salvation is Free.” From 1909 through 1918 Bailey sold more than 4,000 systems in California. Later, after the solar boom in California, Floridians purchased and shipped more than 100,000 solar water heaters between 1930 and 1954. Half of Miami homes had solar water heaters. In the early 1950s electricity became cheap in Florida and electric utilities gave away electric water heaters to gain market control. By 1973, there were only two full-time solar water heating companies left in the U.S.
In 1973, the Organization of Oil Exporting Companies (OPEC) started an oil embargo against the U.S. The Solar Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act passed in 1974, which established the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) and led to the solar thermal boom of the 1970s and 1980s. SERI later became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) based in Golden, Colo. During this time, installing a solar system on your home was considered a patriotic act.
The federal and state solar thermal tax credits that existed from 1979 to 1986 started a nationwide boom in solar hot water systems that helped establish hundreds of manufacturers and thousands of contractors and distributors.
In Grand Junction alone in 1985, there were 25 solar companies (there are now 8-10 solar companies in GJ). After the tax credits ended in 1986, there was one GJ solar company that stayed in business, Atlasta Solar Center, which is alive and well today.
After 1986, over 95% of all solar companies nationwide went out of business. Between 1978 and 1986 there were 1 million solar thermal systems installed in the U.S — 1 out of every 65 households. By contrast, there are only about 150,000 grid-tied solar electric systems installed in the U.S. — 1 out of every 1,000 households.
Today, solar water heating has strong growth. In 2006, solar water heating installations more than doubled compared to 2005 due to the residential federal solar tax credit. Then in 2008, installations grew 56%. Solar (DHW) prices and technologies continue to improve. Some of the old solar DHW systems look like a science experiment and were overcomplicated (see photo 1). New, more attractive, evacuated solar tubes can be flush mounted on the roof (see photo 2).
A new solar DHW system can now be purchased for as little as $2,500, and can save hundreds of dollars a year. Solar electric systems typically cost 10 times that. Atlasta Solar has been installing and servicing solar DHW systems for more than 30 years.
The first U.S. large production solar DHW system came in the late 1800s. Clarence Kemp patented a method to combine the old practice of exposing metal tanks to the sun with the use of the solar box. He called his new solar water heater the “Climax.”
Kemp sold his solar water heaters in California — where over 1,600 units were in service by 1900. In 1909, William J. Bailey patented an improved solar water heater. He separated the solar water heater into two parts with a heating element exposed to the sun outside and an insulated storage tank in the house. Households could now have solar-heated water day and night and the next morning.
Bailey's “Day and Night” solar had a motto “Sunshine Like Salvation is Free.” From 1909 through 1918 Bailey sold more than 4,000 systems in California. Later, after the solar boom in California, Floridians purchased and shipped more than 100,000 solar water heaters between 1930 and 1954. Half of Miami homes had solar water heaters. In the early 1950s electricity became cheap in Florida and electric utilities gave away electric water heaters to gain market control. By 1973, there were only two full-time solar water heating companies left in the U.S.
In 1973, the Organization of Oil Exporting Companies (OPEC) started an oil embargo against the U.S. The Solar Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act passed in 1974, which established the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) and led to the solar thermal boom of the 1970s and 1980s. SERI later became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) based in Golden, Colo. During this time, installing a solar system on your home was considered a patriotic act.
The federal and state solar thermal tax credits that existed from 1979 to 1986 started a nationwide boom in solar hot water systems that helped establish hundreds of manufacturers and thousands of contractors and distributors.
In Grand Junction alone in 1985, there were 25 solar companies (there are now 8-10 solar companies in GJ). After the tax credits ended in 1986, there was one GJ solar company that stayed in business, Atlasta Solar Center, which is alive and well today.
After 1986, over 95% of all solar companies nationwide went out of business. Between 1978 and 1986 there were 1 million solar thermal systems installed in the U.S — 1 out of every 65 households. By contrast, there are only about 150,000 grid-tied solar electric systems installed in the U.S. — 1 out of every 1,000 households.
Today, solar water heating has strong growth. In 2006, solar water heating installations more than doubled compared to 2005 due to the residential federal solar tax credit. Then in 2008, installations grew 56%. Solar (DHW) prices and technologies continue to improve. Some of the old solar DHW systems look like a science experiment and were overcomplicated (see photo 1). New, more attractive, evacuated solar tubes can be flush mounted on the roof (see photo 2).
A new solar DHW system can now be purchased for as little as $2,500, and can save hundreds of dollars a year. Solar electric systems typically cost 10 times that. Atlasta Solar has been installing and servicing solar DHW systems for more than 30 years.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Survey says Coloradans are fed up with oil companies, want more renewables
Survey says Coloradans are fed up with oil companies, want more renewables
By Scot Kersgaard | 08.24.11 | 8:39 am
Coloradans blame market speculation and oil companies for high gas prices, and the vast majority say the best way to bring prices down is to crackdown on market manipulation, according to a poll released Tuesday.
The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would also be an effective way to reduce prices.
“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington, deputy director of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”
Garrington told The Colorado Independent that the surveyors asked open ended questions along the lines of “Why do you think oil prices are so high? and What could be done to bring prices down?”
“We didn’t lay out policy options to choose from. We just asked people what they thought,” he said.
According to Garrington, Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring those subsidies to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.
Garrington pointed to a ThinkProgress study that shows how market manipulation affects the price of oil. The study shows that while the effect of speculation varies, it can increase the price of oil substantially.
“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”
To reduce gas prices, he said seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.
The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.
“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.
Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Responding to additional questions by email, Garrington said this about why the poll was conducted and why it is being released now, several months after the polling was completed.
“Checks and Balances was interested in learning where the public was at on gas prices and subsidies in the context of the larger political debate happening in Washington. We chose to release the poll in response to the Americans for Prosperity tour, which is backed by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. AFP is using gas prices to try and take political advantage of the American public and leverage more handouts for Big Oil – this time in the form of our public lands, drinking water, and air quality.”
By Scot Kersgaard | 08.24.11 | 8:39 am
Coloradans blame market speculation and oil companies for high gas prices, and the vast majority say the best way to bring prices down is to crackdown on market manipulation, according to a poll released Tuesday.
The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would also be an effective way to reduce prices.
“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington, deputy director of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”
Garrington told The Colorado Independent that the surveyors asked open ended questions along the lines of “Why do you think oil prices are so high? and What could be done to bring prices down?”
“We didn’t lay out policy options to choose from. We just asked people what they thought,” he said.
According to Garrington, Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring those subsidies to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.
Garrington pointed to a ThinkProgress study that shows how market manipulation affects the price of oil. The study shows that while the effect of speculation varies, it can increase the price of oil substantially.
“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”
To reduce gas prices, he said seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.
The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.
“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.
Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Responding to additional questions by email, Garrington said this about why the poll was conducted and why it is being released now, several months after the polling was completed.
“Checks and Balances was interested in learning where the public was at on gas prices and subsidies in the context of the larger political debate happening in Washington. We chose to release the poll in response to the Americans for Prosperity tour, which is backed by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. AFP is using gas prices to try and take political advantage of the American public and leverage more handouts for Big Oil – this time in the form of our public lands, drinking water, and air quality.”
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Grand Valley's first solar farm began producing electricity Aug. 1.
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — The Grand Valley's first solar farm began producing electricity Aug. 1.
Two years ago the rural electric cooperative Grand Valley Power began looking into how it could promote solar energy to its customers.
The utility broke ground in May for the 88-solar panel farm at 714 29 Road.
Rooftop solar arrays on private homes usually cost $15,000 to $20,000 — a hurdle for many of its members, GVP energy service administrator Derek Elder said.
For a $950 one-time upfront leasing fee of the 235-watt panel, a co-op member can receive electricity for 25 years. At current electricity rates that means a person would recoup his investment in 22 years.
“The reality is rates will go up,” Elder said. “As rates go up, the (rate of) return will come down.
“A lot of our solar grid-tie customers (who install solar arrays on their homes) are retired or getting ready to retire and are on a fixed income and are looking to control their expenses (against future rate increases) as much as possible.”
One 235-watt panel at maximum production is enough to energize three 75-watt lightbulbs, Elder said. Members will see the amount of electricity produced monthly noted on their utility bills, along with an average $3.60 credit per panel.
Residential customers can purchase up to a 10 kwh system, or about 40 panels. An average household needs about 20 panels for its entire electricity use, Elder said. A person can buy one panel per year if they want.
“They can build their system to their comfort level,” Elder said.
“If a person wanted to go up to 40, and consumed only 20, they'd receive a credit at the end of the year for the excess (energy).
People who install solar panels on their rooftops also receive credit for extra electricity produced.
“The advantage of the solar farm, we break it down panel by panel,” making it affordable for people, Elder said.
Once all 88 panels are leased, the co-op will use funds to build phase two. The site currently energizes 20 kwh.
“At this site we have the capacity to build up to 130 kwh,” Elder said. “If that fills up we'll take the same model and replicate the model on other property.”
Customers who move after they've purchased a panel are allowed to transfer that solar credit to a new address as long as it's a Grand Valley Power account. If the person moves outside of Grand Valley Power service area, the credit either stays with the property or can be transferred to another Grand Valley Power account.
Grand Valley Power serves outlying areas of Fruita and Grand Junction, from the Utah state line to the rural areas of DeBeque. The co-op includes 17,000 meters.
Atlasta Solar of Grand Junction installed the farm's solar panels.
“They did a good job and it looks nice as well,” Elder said.
A ribbon-cutting of the new solar farm takes place 10 a.m., Friday, Aug. 12, at 714 29 Road. Grand Valley Power is also celebrating its 75th anniversary with an open house and annual meeting, 4-8 p.m. at 845 22 Road. Grand Valley Power was formed in 1936, by a group of rural people in the lower Grand Valley who had been unable to secure electric service from existing utilities, due to unavailability at the time, or high construction costs to the individual user.
The utility began Aug. 1, 2011, producing solar power at its solar farm at 714 29 Road. Eighty-eight solar panels were installed on two-thirds of an acre by Atlasta Solar Center.
Grand Valley Power customers can protect against future rising electricity rates by purchasing one or more of the farm's panels ($950/each). As electricity rates go up, customers will recoup their investment in solar sooner.
GO&DO
What: Grand Valley Power solar farm ribbon-cutting AND 75th anniversary open house and annual meeting
When: Fri., Aug. 12 — ribbon cutting at 10 a.m.; celebration, 4-8 p.m.; BBQ buffet meal served 5-7 p.m. with the meeting.
Where: Ribbon cutting - 714 29 Road
Open house and meeting - 845 22 Road
Info: 242-0040, www.GVP.org
Two years ago the rural electric cooperative Grand Valley Power began looking into how it could promote solar energy to its customers.
The utility broke ground in May for the 88-solar panel farm at 714 29 Road.
Rooftop solar arrays on private homes usually cost $15,000 to $20,000 — a hurdle for many of its members, GVP energy service administrator Derek Elder said.
For a $950 one-time upfront leasing fee of the 235-watt panel, a co-op member can receive electricity for 25 years. At current electricity rates that means a person would recoup his investment in 22 years.
“The reality is rates will go up,” Elder said. “As rates go up, the (rate of) return will come down.
“A lot of our solar grid-tie customers (who install solar arrays on their homes) are retired or getting ready to retire and are on a fixed income and are looking to control their expenses (against future rate increases) as much as possible.”
One 235-watt panel at maximum production is enough to energize three 75-watt lightbulbs, Elder said. Members will see the amount of electricity produced monthly noted on their utility bills, along with an average $3.60 credit per panel.
Residential customers can purchase up to a 10 kwh system, or about 40 panels. An average household needs about 20 panels for its entire electricity use, Elder said. A person can buy one panel per year if they want.
“They can build their system to their comfort level,” Elder said.
“If a person wanted to go up to 40, and consumed only 20, they'd receive a credit at the end of the year for the excess (energy).
People who install solar panels on their rooftops also receive credit for extra electricity produced.
“The advantage of the solar farm, we break it down panel by panel,” making it affordable for people, Elder said.
Once all 88 panels are leased, the co-op will use funds to build phase two. The site currently energizes 20 kwh.
“At this site we have the capacity to build up to 130 kwh,” Elder said. “If that fills up we'll take the same model and replicate the model on other property.”
Customers who move after they've purchased a panel are allowed to transfer that solar credit to a new address as long as it's a Grand Valley Power account. If the person moves outside of Grand Valley Power service area, the credit either stays with the property or can be transferred to another Grand Valley Power account.
Grand Valley Power serves outlying areas of Fruita and Grand Junction, from the Utah state line to the rural areas of DeBeque. The co-op includes 17,000 meters.
Atlasta Solar of Grand Junction installed the farm's solar panels.
“They did a good job and it looks nice as well,” Elder said.
A ribbon-cutting of the new solar farm takes place 10 a.m., Friday, Aug. 12, at 714 29 Road. Grand Valley Power is also celebrating its 75th anniversary with an open house and annual meeting, 4-8 p.m. at 845 22 Road. Grand Valley Power was formed in 1936, by a group of rural people in the lower Grand Valley who had been unable to secure electric service from existing utilities, due to unavailability at the time, or high construction costs to the individual user.
The utility began Aug. 1, 2011, producing solar power at its solar farm at 714 29 Road. Eighty-eight solar panels were installed on two-thirds of an acre by Atlasta Solar Center.
Grand Valley Power customers can protect against future rising electricity rates by purchasing one or more of the farm's panels ($950/each). As electricity rates go up, customers will recoup their investment in solar sooner.
GO&DO
What: Grand Valley Power solar farm ribbon-cutting AND 75th anniversary open house and annual meeting
When: Fri., Aug. 12 — ribbon cutting at 10 a.m.; celebration, 4-8 p.m.; BBQ buffet meal served 5-7 p.m. with the meeting.
Where: Ribbon cutting - 714 29 Road
Open house and meeting - 845 22 Road
Info: 242-0040, www.GVP.org
New Solar Farm Open For BusinessOffers Low-Cost Solar Energy
New Solar Farm Open For BusinessOffers Low-Cost Solar Energy
Dann Cianca dcianca@kjct8.com
POSTED: 6:46 pm MDT August 12, 2011
Embed this VideoxEmailFacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- A Grand Valley company is offering to lease you a little piece of sunshine. And they guarantee you'll make your money back over time.
Grand Valley Power held a ribbon cutting at their new solar farm on 29 Road today. The farm is unique because it allows people to lease a solar panel for $950. That is much less than the $20,000 that it costs to install a solar system at your home.
Derek Elder of Grand Valley Power says that it's a good opportunity for more people to become involved in solar power.
"It opens it up for renters to participate in solar. It opens it up for people who don't have their houses oriented properly. People who might have shade trees around their houses."
This is the first solar farm of its kind in the Grand Valley and the fourth in Colorado. It will be expanded based on interest and builders hope that usage will be high enough to warrant future farms.
Dann Cianca dcianca@kjct8.com
POSTED: 6:46 pm MDT August 12, 2011
Embed this VideoxEmailFacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- A Grand Valley company is offering to lease you a little piece of sunshine. And they guarantee you'll make your money back over time.
Grand Valley Power held a ribbon cutting at their new solar farm on 29 Road today. The farm is unique because it allows people to lease a solar panel for $950. That is much less than the $20,000 that it costs to install a solar system at your home.
Derek Elder of Grand Valley Power says that it's a good opportunity for more people to become involved in solar power.
"It opens it up for renters to participate in solar. It opens it up for people who don't have their houses oriented properly. People who might have shade trees around their houses."
This is the first solar farm of its kind in the Grand Valley and the fourth in Colorado. It will be expanded based on interest and builders hope that usage will be high enough to warrant future farms.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Hidden Cost Savings: The Top 9 Public Benefits Of Installing Solar Power
Hidden Cost Savings: The Top 9 Public Benefits Of Installing Solar Power
Jessica Lillian, Monday 01 August 2011 - 21:59:43
Even as the costs of solar power continue to decline, a widespread perception from the public and many policymakers that solar is "too expensive" remains stubbornly in place - much to the frustration of advocates and industry professionals.
A new study challenges this assumption by delving into the numbers to compare the actual costs and benefits of solar power projects. The results confirm several key widespread public benefits of solar power and could provide the industry with a valuable weapon in the public-perception fight - a battle that remains crucial for long-term viability and growth.
The report, authored by Richard Perez at the University of Albany, Ken Zweibel at the GW Solar Institute and Thomas E. Hoff of Clean Power Research, focuses on tangible benefits that solar power generation delivers to utilities, ratepayers and taxpayers.
"It is clear that some possibly large value of solar energy is missed by traditional analysis," the report says.
Notably, these advantages apply to a wide population, thus providing a rebuttal to the "what's in it for me?" argument. Many other well-known recent studies on solar power's benefits focus on real - but not public - benefits. For instance, the average taxpayer may not care that his neighbor's rooftop PV array has raised that home's value or that the solar sector has created jobs for other people.
The new study, titled "Solar Power Generation in the U.S.: Too expensive or a bargain?," finds that, in all, solar PV installations deliver $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Although incentives have proven to be a vital driver of solar power growth, the report's authors argue that the gulf between "inexpensive" conventional energy and "expensive" solar is smaller than often portrayed, especially when solar's public benefits are taken into account.
"This large apparent 'grid-parity gap' can hinder constructive dialogue with key decision makers and constitutes a powerful argument to weaken political support for solar incentives, especially during tight budgetary times," the authors wrote.
Instead, according to the report, incentives can be viewed as a logical means of transferring value from the public - which is enjoying solar's $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh benefits - to those who invested in the solar plants creating those benefits.
Where did the public-benefit dollar figure come from? What are these benefits, exactly? The report breaks down solar power's public value into the following nine accrued benefits (based on an analysis of relatively non-sunny New York City):
1. Savings on wholesale energy ($0.06-$0.11/kWh, of the total $0.15/kWh-$0.40/kWh). Locally generated electricity from solar installations reduces the amount of power utilities must purchase at higher prices on the wholesale market.
2. Reduction of demand-response expenses ($0.00-$0.05/kWh). "PV installations can deliver the equivalent of capacity, displacing the need to purchase this capacity elsewhere, e.g., via demand response," the report explains.
3. Savings on energy losses within the distribution system ($0.00-$0.01/kWh). Electrical losses typically incurred when energy is moved from large power plants to local loads can be avoided with distributed solar plants sited close to the load.
4. Reduced need for feeder equipment upgrades ($0.00-$0.03/kWh). Because distributed PV can deliver capacity at the feeder level, it can reduce the wear and tear on transformers and other feeder equipment.
5. Hedge against fuel-price spikes ($0.02-$0.03/kWh). "Solar energy does not depend on commodities whose prices fluctuate on short-term scales and will likely escalate substantially over the long term," the report says.
6. Grid security aid ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). Solar power's ability to closely mirror peak power demand can help reduce the chances of blackouts that can occur when the existing power system is overly stressed. Power outages currently cost the U.S. economy approximately $100 billion annually, according to the report.
7. Health-related and environmental gains ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). The deployment of solar power displaces the greenhouse gas emissions, mining-related consequences, water contamination, and other environmental- and health-related damages associated with fossil fuels. The $0.03-$0.06/kWh figure cited is "certainly a conservative range," the report adds.
8. Long-term taxpayer benefits from reduced fuel-price volatility ($0.03-$0.04/kWh). Using an estimate of a 150% rise in fuel-based generation costs by 2036 (deemed a conservative estimate), the report found that the "insurance hedge" of solar generation contributes a significant long-term value (in addition to the short-term fuel-price hedge value mentioned earlier).
9. Economic boost. The job-creation benefits of solar power have been demonstrated in numerous studies. Moreover, "Job creation implies value to society in many ways, including increased tax revenues, reduced unemployment and an increase in general confidence conducive to business development," the report explains.
Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Copyright © 2000-2011 SolarIndustryMag.com
( http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8418 )
Jessica Lillian, Monday 01 August 2011 - 21:59:43
Even as the costs of solar power continue to decline, a widespread perception from the public and many policymakers that solar is "too expensive" remains stubbornly in place - much to the frustration of advocates and industry professionals.
A new study challenges this assumption by delving into the numbers to compare the actual costs and benefits of solar power projects. The results confirm several key widespread public benefits of solar power and could provide the industry with a valuable weapon in the public-perception fight - a battle that remains crucial for long-term viability and growth.
The report, authored by Richard Perez at the University of Albany, Ken Zweibel at the GW Solar Institute and Thomas E. Hoff of Clean Power Research, focuses on tangible benefits that solar power generation delivers to utilities, ratepayers and taxpayers.
"It is clear that some possibly large value of solar energy is missed by traditional analysis," the report says.
Notably, these advantages apply to a wide population, thus providing a rebuttal to the "what's in it for me?" argument. Many other well-known recent studies on solar power's benefits focus on real - but not public - benefits. For instance, the average taxpayer may not care that his neighbor's rooftop PV array has raised that home's value or that the solar sector has created jobs for other people.
The new study, titled "Solar Power Generation in the U.S.: Too expensive or a bargain?," finds that, in all, solar PV installations deliver $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh to ratepayers and taxpayers.
Although incentives have proven to be a vital driver of solar power growth, the report's authors argue that the gulf between "inexpensive" conventional energy and "expensive" solar is smaller than often portrayed, especially when solar's public benefits are taken into account.
"This large apparent 'grid-parity gap' can hinder constructive dialogue with key decision makers and constitutes a powerful argument to weaken political support for solar incentives, especially during tight budgetary times," the authors wrote.
Instead, according to the report, incentives can be viewed as a logical means of transferring value from the public - which is enjoying solar's $0.15/kWh to $0.40/kWh benefits - to those who invested in the solar plants creating those benefits.
Where did the public-benefit dollar figure come from? What are these benefits, exactly? The report breaks down solar power's public value into the following nine accrued benefits (based on an analysis of relatively non-sunny New York City):
1. Savings on wholesale energy ($0.06-$0.11/kWh, of the total $0.15/kWh-$0.40/kWh). Locally generated electricity from solar installations reduces the amount of power utilities must purchase at higher prices on the wholesale market.
2. Reduction of demand-response expenses ($0.00-$0.05/kWh). "PV installations can deliver the equivalent of capacity, displacing the need to purchase this capacity elsewhere, e.g., via demand response," the report explains.
3. Savings on energy losses within the distribution system ($0.00-$0.01/kWh). Electrical losses typically incurred when energy is moved from large power plants to local loads can be avoided with distributed solar plants sited close to the load.
4. Reduced need for feeder equipment upgrades ($0.00-$0.03/kWh). Because distributed PV can deliver capacity at the feeder level, it can reduce the wear and tear on transformers and other feeder equipment.
5. Hedge against fuel-price spikes ($0.02-$0.03/kWh). "Solar energy does not depend on commodities whose prices fluctuate on short-term scales and will likely escalate substantially over the long term," the report says.
6. Grid security aid ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). Solar power's ability to closely mirror peak power demand can help reduce the chances of blackouts that can occur when the existing power system is overly stressed. Power outages currently cost the U.S. economy approximately $100 billion annually, according to the report.
7. Health-related and environmental gains ($0.03-$0.06/kWh). The deployment of solar power displaces the greenhouse gas emissions, mining-related consequences, water contamination, and other environmental- and health-related damages associated with fossil fuels. The $0.03-$0.06/kWh figure cited is "certainly a conservative range," the report adds.
8. Long-term taxpayer benefits from reduced fuel-price volatility ($0.03-$0.04/kWh). Using an estimate of a 150% rise in fuel-based generation costs by 2036 (deemed a conservative estimate), the report found that the "insurance hedge" of solar generation contributes a significant long-term value (in addition to the short-term fuel-price hedge value mentioned earlier).
9. Economic boost. The job-creation benefits of solar power have been demonstrated in numerous studies. Moreover, "Job creation implies value to society in many ways, including increased tax revenues, reduced unemployment and an increase in general confidence conducive to business development," the report explains.
Photo credit: U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Copyright © 2000-2011 SolarIndustryMag.com
( http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8418 )
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Innterview with Ron Binz
By: Rebecca Cantwell
Many people think of utility regulation as an arcane and dull realm. But things were pretty lively when Ron Binz served as chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2007 until April 2011. He led the Colorado PUC in implementing the many policy changes championed by Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature to bring forward Colorado’s “New Energy Economy.” Binz talked with Smart Energy Living shortly after leaving his post as chief utility regulator.
Q. You presided over big changes in state policy. What do you feel best about?
A. It would be hard not to say that at the top was our implementation of the Clean Air Clean Jobs act. It was a legislative directive for the Commission, in one fell swoop, to clean up the coal emissions of Xcel and Black Hills. Typically plants are cleaned up in onesies and twosies. This was a comprehensive look at the whole coal fleet and was probably alone in the nation to treat it at one time in terms of hazardous pollutants and carbon emissions. It was a huge case with 34 legal parties and hearings that went on for several weeks.
Q. What will it mean for the average Coloradan, good and bad? For example, it will increase rates, correct?
A. Rates will increase between now and 2020 no matter what. We estimate our decision to retire old coal plants and replace them with new natural gas plants will result in rates that will be only about 3 percent higher. It’s an impact, but the benefits in reduced smog and reduced particulates that, for example, create haze in natural parks, are all desirable. We built in a hedge against future carbon regulation when we switched from coal to a fuel that causes less carbon emissions.
Q. When will we see some results?
A. The commission order of December 15, 2010 specifies what will happen to a bunch of power plants. Nothing happens until next year when the first closures happen. Closures and conversions of coal plants will happen through the end of 2017. Familiar icons like the Cherokee coal plant in the northern metro area that is now emitting steam all winter will be converted to natural gas. By doing that, we will cut one of the largest sources of hazardous air pollution in the Denver area.
Q. What does the fact that this was so difficult and unusual say about the way utilities are structured and regulated?
A. Utilities going forward will have to be different kinds of businesses. This case showed us how much more nimble utilities will need to be. We were responding to an EPA requirement to clean up carbon. I’m proud we could show that a state could move quickly to implement something like this and, with the cooperation of the utility, achieve a good result.
Q. You came in for a lot of criticism along the way though.
The criticism I took was for being involved in legislative process in shaping the bill so that it would be good for consumers. I did that at the request of the governor, who knew the commission had expertise in rates. My involvement was not in the beginning but at end of it when most components had been agreed to. The opponents to the legislation were trying to upset the process any way they could and they settled on criticizing me for getting involved in the legislation. In my experience, the involvement of a chairman is usual, not unusual.
Q. One of the conundrums of recent energy policy is that to achieve energy efficiency, you are trying to get utilities to sell less of the product they make money selling. What do you think works?
A. Beginning in 2007, we moved in a direction toward a more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency for the utilities. We required twice as much efficiency – twice as much kilowatt savings or energy not used –as the law required.
We adopted aggressive goals in 2008 when we made that decision. Xcel and Black Hills and all the gas companies began to develop energy efficiency programs within the utility, like rebates for air conditioners and refrigerators and a whole bevy of programs. The theory is that the energy saved by the utility is less expensive than building plants to create that energy.
That policy chugged along for a couple years and then in the fall of 2010 , we encouraged Xcel to increase energy savings by an additional 30 percent. We told them, “ You’ve been doing good --now let’s have more of a stretch goal.” Xcel preferred a slower growth pace. Their proposal was to increase by 8 percent over what they had been doing. But the commission basically agreed with the push goal of a 30 percent increase in efficiency.
Q. What do they get out of the deal?
A. If Xcel achieves these goals, it is rewarded handsomely. They get their costs recovered quickly and a bonus on top. That treatment is designed to counteract the built-in disincentive of not wanting to save electricity because the company is in the business of selling electricity. We try to change the benefit-cost equation by making energy efficiency the most profitable thing they can do.
Now Colorado is in middle of pack nationally on energy efficiency. I hope the commission continues to push this. It does make so much sense to use the utility to pursue energy efficiency.
Q. Where do you see utility regulation heading?
A. I think regulation needs to continue evolving. The model of regulators simply deciding the rates, that is probably soon to be displaced by something different. We can look at experiences of price cap regulation where you set a cap and let the utility do what it needs with its costs and investments to stay below the cap. You set a price and let them decide what they need to do. This model has been shown to produce more efficient results. We need a mode of regulation where the focus is on the price to customers.
Q. What impact will the trend toward individuals and communities owning their own sources of power have on utilities?
A. That is beginning to happen and will mushroom – the homeowner-provided solar panels and the wind tower on commercial property. Those are instances where customers are putting in production equipment or leasing it. That will cause the utility to lose load and lose customers and they don’t like that. The more of that that happens, the more pressure on the utility. As a general matter, I think we will see the utilities move into the business of providing rooftop solar systems.
Q. Since the utilities are monopolies, will they drive others out?
A. As long as regulators don’t let utilities use their monopoly status, the competing firms should be able to get along. It has worked in telecom. Generally the new players have done very well, and we can imagine something similar in electric power. But more generally, the pressure from distributed generation, or community power, is a good thing and will keep pressure on the utilities to do a better job.
Q. Colorado came a long way on renewable energy under your tenure. How would you characterize the transformation?
A. Renewable energy is now really woven into the fabric of Colorado. When you flip on a light switch, one kilowatt hour out of seven is produced by renewable energy and we are heading to one out of three, and at a cost that is acceptable. Customer bills went up but not a lot and polling shows customers are happy to have renewable energy in the mix. We moved from a “least cost’’ strategy to one that realizes the environmental effects of what we do and makes it a greater component of decision making. And this happened with the “greening’’ of Xcel Energy. The same company that opposed the Colorado Green wind project in 2003 was the leading wind provider in the U.S. by 2010. So it’s been a happy coincidence of regulators, the governor, legislators and the utility who saw the business sense in that. Colorado is a beacon for how you can move steadily and strongly towards renewable energy.
In addition to his work leading Colorado’s utility regulation, Binz was also an active member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serving as Chair of NARUC’s Task Force on Climate Policy, and as a member of both the Energy Resources and Environment Committee and the International Affairs Committee. Binz now heads Public Policy Consulting (www.rbinz.com).
Many people think of utility regulation as an arcane and dull realm. But things were pretty lively when Ron Binz served as chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission from 2007 until April 2011. He led the Colorado PUC in implementing the many policy changes championed by Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature to bring forward Colorado’s “New Energy Economy.” Binz talked with Smart Energy Living shortly after leaving his post as chief utility regulator.
Q. You presided over big changes in state policy. What do you feel best about?
A. It would be hard not to say that at the top was our implementation of the Clean Air Clean Jobs act. It was a legislative directive for the Commission, in one fell swoop, to clean up the coal emissions of Xcel and Black Hills. Typically plants are cleaned up in onesies and twosies. This was a comprehensive look at the whole coal fleet and was probably alone in the nation to treat it at one time in terms of hazardous pollutants and carbon emissions. It was a huge case with 34 legal parties and hearings that went on for several weeks.
Q. What will it mean for the average Coloradan, good and bad? For example, it will increase rates, correct?
A. Rates will increase between now and 2020 no matter what. We estimate our decision to retire old coal plants and replace them with new natural gas plants will result in rates that will be only about 3 percent higher. It’s an impact, but the benefits in reduced smog and reduced particulates that, for example, create haze in natural parks, are all desirable. We built in a hedge against future carbon regulation when we switched from coal to a fuel that causes less carbon emissions.
Q. When will we see some results?
A. The commission order of December 15, 2010 specifies what will happen to a bunch of power plants. Nothing happens until next year when the first closures happen. Closures and conversions of coal plants will happen through the end of 2017. Familiar icons like the Cherokee coal plant in the northern metro area that is now emitting steam all winter will be converted to natural gas. By doing that, we will cut one of the largest sources of hazardous air pollution in the Denver area.
Q. What does the fact that this was so difficult and unusual say about the way utilities are structured and regulated?
A. Utilities going forward will have to be different kinds of businesses. This case showed us how much more nimble utilities will need to be. We were responding to an EPA requirement to clean up carbon. I’m proud we could show that a state could move quickly to implement something like this and, with the cooperation of the utility, achieve a good result.
Q. You came in for a lot of criticism along the way though.
The criticism I took was for being involved in legislative process in shaping the bill so that it would be good for consumers. I did that at the request of the governor, who knew the commission had expertise in rates. My involvement was not in the beginning but at end of it when most components had been agreed to. The opponents to the legislation were trying to upset the process any way they could and they settled on criticizing me for getting involved in the legislation. In my experience, the involvement of a chairman is usual, not unusual.
Q. One of the conundrums of recent energy policy is that to achieve energy efficiency, you are trying to get utilities to sell less of the product they make money selling. What do you think works?
A. Beginning in 2007, we moved in a direction toward a more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency for the utilities. We required twice as much efficiency – twice as much kilowatt savings or energy not used –as the law required.
We adopted aggressive goals in 2008 when we made that decision. Xcel and Black Hills and all the gas companies began to develop energy efficiency programs within the utility, like rebates for air conditioners and refrigerators and a whole bevy of programs. The theory is that the energy saved by the utility is less expensive than building plants to create that energy.
That policy chugged along for a couple years and then in the fall of 2010 , we encouraged Xcel to increase energy savings by an additional 30 percent. We told them, “ You’ve been doing good --now let’s have more of a stretch goal.” Xcel preferred a slower growth pace. Their proposal was to increase by 8 percent over what they had been doing. But the commission basically agreed with the push goal of a 30 percent increase in efficiency.
Q. What do they get out of the deal?
A. If Xcel achieves these goals, it is rewarded handsomely. They get their costs recovered quickly and a bonus on top. That treatment is designed to counteract the built-in disincentive of not wanting to save electricity because the company is in the business of selling electricity. We try to change the benefit-cost equation by making energy efficiency the most profitable thing they can do.
Now Colorado is in middle of pack nationally on energy efficiency. I hope the commission continues to push this. It does make so much sense to use the utility to pursue energy efficiency.
Q. Where do you see utility regulation heading?
A. I think regulation needs to continue evolving. The model of regulators simply deciding the rates, that is probably soon to be displaced by something different. We can look at experiences of price cap regulation where you set a cap and let the utility do what it needs with its costs and investments to stay below the cap. You set a price and let them decide what they need to do. This model has been shown to produce more efficient results. We need a mode of regulation where the focus is on the price to customers.
Q. What impact will the trend toward individuals and communities owning their own sources of power have on utilities?
A. That is beginning to happen and will mushroom – the homeowner-provided solar panels and the wind tower on commercial property. Those are instances where customers are putting in production equipment or leasing it. That will cause the utility to lose load and lose customers and they don’t like that. The more of that that happens, the more pressure on the utility. As a general matter, I think we will see the utilities move into the business of providing rooftop solar systems.
Q. Since the utilities are monopolies, will they drive others out?
A. As long as regulators don’t let utilities use their monopoly status, the competing firms should be able to get along. It has worked in telecom. Generally the new players have done very well, and we can imagine something similar in electric power. But more generally, the pressure from distributed generation, or community power, is a good thing and will keep pressure on the utilities to do a better job.
Q. Colorado came a long way on renewable energy under your tenure. How would you characterize the transformation?
A. Renewable energy is now really woven into the fabric of Colorado. When you flip on a light switch, one kilowatt hour out of seven is produced by renewable energy and we are heading to one out of three, and at a cost that is acceptable. Customer bills went up but not a lot and polling shows customers are happy to have renewable energy in the mix. We moved from a “least cost’’ strategy to one that realizes the environmental effects of what we do and makes it a greater component of decision making. And this happened with the “greening’’ of Xcel Energy. The same company that opposed the Colorado Green wind project in 2003 was the leading wind provider in the U.S. by 2010. So it’s been a happy coincidence of regulators, the governor, legislators and the utility who saw the business sense in that. Colorado is a beacon for how you can move steadily and strongly towards renewable energy.
In addition to his work leading Colorado’s utility regulation, Binz was also an active member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, serving as Chair of NARUC’s Task Force on Climate Policy, and as a member of both the Energy Resources and Environment Committee and the International Affairs Committee. Binz now heads Public Policy Consulting (www.rbinz.com).
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The myths of solar debunked: Part 2
The myths of solar debunked: Part 2
JULY, 14 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
970-241-0209
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
The myths on solar continue being refuted this week in part 2 of a 3-part series. Our next article will focus specifically on financial myths associated with solar.
MYTH #1 Solar needs to be installed at a weird angle on my roof.
This myth, once again, had some past truth to it but isn't relevant for most of today's installations. Solar hot water panels were usually installed at a 54-degree angle to optimize winter solar gain, when the sun is low in the sky. This is because solar hot water panels cannot store heat on an annual basis, just on a daily basis, so the angle is put at the one required for winter heating, a high angle and one that required the panels being lifted away from the roof.
Solar electric panels work in a much different way since the utility grid can store excess power generated. The optimum angle for solar electric panels, on an annual basis in Grand Junction, is 30-39 degrees, depending on your information source. However, installing panels flush to the roof (the most common roof angle around the Grand Valley is about 20 degrees) only loses 4% production annually. This can be accounted for when designing the system, leaving the end product working as expected and not looking like an eyesore.
MYTH #2 Solar has to be installed facing south.
This one may get an initial rising of eyebrows from the “solar purists,” but it relates strongly to the last myth.
First, due to declination in Colorado, the perfect orientation for solar panels is actually right around 10 degrees east of south. That aside, many people don't have south facing roofs or, if they do, they may be very shaded. Should these people just get disqualified from solar or get a system that is lifted at a strange angle to the roof? Of course not.
Solar can be mounted to the east, southeast, south, southwest or west roofs. Efficiency loss to mount a system directly east-facing versus south is around 14%; for west the loss is 18%. A good designer will simply make up for this by adding another panel or two to the array that, ultimately, will allow the system to produce the same amount of annual power as the south-facing solar system.
MYTH #3 The power that goes into manufacturing a solar electric panel never actually gets made up by the energy it, in turn, produces.
This one is easy because there are a lot of studies on the subject. The term we are talking about here is Energy Payback Time (EPBT) or how long it takes for a solar panel to make more electricity than what went into creating it.
This term is used in all energy production techniques and is something that gets reviewed heavily by investors and developers for technologies such as oil shale. If you have to use more energy to get a product than that product then makes, why do it? Each solar panel has a different EPBT, due to different techniques in manufacturing, but for SunPower high efficiency 72 cell modules, the payback is 1.4- 3.8 years, depending on global location of installation.
MYTH #4 Climate change isn't real.
OK, this one isn't a specific solar myth but being active in the renewable energy field means I should address it nonetheless.
Perhaps it will mean a letter to the editor from someone who has learned “facts” from individuals paid by the industries dependent on folks believing global warming is a hoax to keep their bottom line secured, but that's the way that goes.
You think we would have learned a thing or two when this happened 50 years ago with tobacco companies after data revealed a link between smoking and lung disease. The tobacco industry just hired actors that were dressed up as doctors who gave advice that the reports were false. Nothing to see here; keep smoking away.
Ninety-eight percent (yes, that many) of climate scientists throughout the world have reached consensus that global climate change is happening. When 98% of medical doctors tell me not to do something because it will kill me, I listen to them. They are the experts, not the actors dressed up like them.
Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. Watch the evening news to get regular updates on this situation, including all the “freak” numbers of tornadoes, mega-floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. The Arctic ice cap reached its record low volume last year. Climate change is real and, as Al Gore puts it: “Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends.”
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110715/COLUMNISTS/110719992/1068&parentprofile=1059&template=printart
JULY, 14 2011
HEIDI IHRKE
HIGH NOON SOLAR
569 S. WESTGATE DR. #4
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505
970-241-0209
WWW.HIGHNOONSOLAR.COM
The myths on solar continue being refuted this week in part 2 of a 3-part series. Our next article will focus specifically on financial myths associated with solar.
MYTH #1 Solar needs to be installed at a weird angle on my roof.
This myth, once again, had some past truth to it but isn't relevant for most of today's installations. Solar hot water panels were usually installed at a 54-degree angle to optimize winter solar gain, when the sun is low in the sky. This is because solar hot water panels cannot store heat on an annual basis, just on a daily basis, so the angle is put at the one required for winter heating, a high angle and one that required the panels being lifted away from the roof.
Solar electric panels work in a much different way since the utility grid can store excess power generated. The optimum angle for solar electric panels, on an annual basis in Grand Junction, is 30-39 degrees, depending on your information source. However, installing panels flush to the roof (the most common roof angle around the Grand Valley is about 20 degrees) only loses 4% production annually. This can be accounted for when designing the system, leaving the end product working as expected and not looking like an eyesore.
MYTH #2 Solar has to be installed facing south.
This one may get an initial rising of eyebrows from the “solar purists,” but it relates strongly to the last myth.
First, due to declination in Colorado, the perfect orientation for solar panels is actually right around 10 degrees east of south. That aside, many people don't have south facing roofs or, if they do, they may be very shaded. Should these people just get disqualified from solar or get a system that is lifted at a strange angle to the roof? Of course not.
Solar can be mounted to the east, southeast, south, southwest or west roofs. Efficiency loss to mount a system directly east-facing versus south is around 14%; for west the loss is 18%. A good designer will simply make up for this by adding another panel or two to the array that, ultimately, will allow the system to produce the same amount of annual power as the south-facing solar system.
MYTH #3 The power that goes into manufacturing a solar electric panel never actually gets made up by the energy it, in turn, produces.
This one is easy because there are a lot of studies on the subject. The term we are talking about here is Energy Payback Time (EPBT) or how long it takes for a solar panel to make more electricity than what went into creating it.
This term is used in all energy production techniques and is something that gets reviewed heavily by investors and developers for technologies such as oil shale. If you have to use more energy to get a product than that product then makes, why do it? Each solar panel has a different EPBT, due to different techniques in manufacturing, but for SunPower high efficiency 72 cell modules, the payback is 1.4- 3.8 years, depending on global location of installation.
MYTH #4 Climate change isn't real.
OK, this one isn't a specific solar myth but being active in the renewable energy field means I should address it nonetheless.
Perhaps it will mean a letter to the editor from someone who has learned “facts” from individuals paid by the industries dependent on folks believing global warming is a hoax to keep their bottom line secured, but that's the way that goes.
You think we would have learned a thing or two when this happened 50 years ago with tobacco companies after data revealed a link between smoking and lung disease. The tobacco industry just hired actors that were dressed up as doctors who gave advice that the reports were false. Nothing to see here; keep smoking away.
Ninety-eight percent (yes, that many) of climate scientists throughout the world have reached consensus that global climate change is happening. When 98% of medical doctors tell me not to do something because it will kill me, I listen to them. They are the experts, not the actors dressed up like them.
Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. Watch the evening news to get regular updates on this situation, including all the “freak” numbers of tornadoes, mega-floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. The Arctic ice cap reached its record low volume last year. Climate change is real and, as Al Gore puts it: “Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends.”
http://www.gjfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110715/COLUMNISTS/110719992/1068&parentprofile=1059&template=printart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
