Free to the public. Press Conference: 166 N. Cherry St., Fruita (home on tour) at 2pm
970-241-0209
www.HighNoonSolar.com

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2009) — A new study on the installed costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems in the U.S. shows that the average cost of these systems declined significantly from 1998 to 2007, but remained relatively flat during the last two years of this period.
Researchers at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) who conducted the study say that the overall decline in the installed cost of solar PV systems is mostly the result of decreases in nonmodule costs, such as the cost of labor, marketing, overhead, inverters, and the balance of systems.
“This suggests that state and local PV deployment programs — which likely have a greater impact on nonmodule costs than on module prices — have been at least somewhat successful in spurring cost reductions,” states the report, which was written by Ryan Wiser, Galen Barbose, and Carla Peterman of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.
Installations of solar PV systems have grown at a rapid rate in the U.S., and governments have offered various incentives to expand the solar market.
“A goal of government incentive programs is to help drive the cost of PV systems lower. One purpose of this study is to provide reliable information about the costs of installed systems over time,” says Wiser.
The study examined 37,000 grid-connected PV systems installed between 1998 and 2007 in 12 states. It found that average installed costs, in terms of real 2007 dollars per installed watt, declined from $10.50 per watt in 1998 to $7.60 per watt in 2007, equivalent to an average annual reduction of 30 cents per watt or 3.5 percent per year in real dollars.
The researchers found that the reduction in nonmodule costs was responsible for most of the overall decline in costs. According to the report, this trend, along with a reduction in the number of higher-cost “outlier” installations, suggests that state and local PV-deployment policies have achieved some success in fostering competition within the industry and in spurring improvements in the cost structure and efficiency of the delivery infrastructure for solar power.
Costs differ by region and type of system
Other information about differences in costs by region and by installation type emerged from the study. The cost reduction over time was largest for smaller PV systems, such as those used to power individual households. Also, installed costs show significant economies of scale. Systems completed in 2006 or 2007 that were less than two kilowatts in size averaged $9.00 per watt, while systems larger than 750 kilowatts averaged $6.80 per watt.
Installed costs were also found to vary widely across states. Among systems completed in 2006 or 2007 and less than 10 kilowatts, average costs range from a low of $7.60 per watt in Arizona, followed by California and New Jersey, which had average installed costs of $8.10 per watt and $8.40 per watt respectively, to a high of $10.60 per watt in Maryland. Based on these data, and on installed-cost data from the sizable Japanese and German PV markets, the authors suggest that PV costs can be driven lower through sizable deployment programs.
The study also found that the new construction market offers cost advantages for residential PV systems. Among small residential PV systems in California completed in 2006 or 2007, those systems installed in residential new construction cost 60 cents per watt less than comparably-sized systems installed as retrofit applications.
Cash incentives declined
The study also found that direct cash incentives provided by state and local PV incentive programs declined over the 1998-2007 study period. Other sources of incentives, however, have become more significant, including federal incentive tax credits (ITCs). As a result of the increase in the federal ITC for commercial systems in 2006, total after-tax incentives for commercial PV were $3.90 per watt in 2007, an all-time high based on the data analyzed in the report. Total after-tax incentives for residential systems, on the other hand, averaged $3.1 per watt in 2007, their lowest level since 2001.
Because incentives for residential PV systems declined over this period, the net installed cost of residential PV has remained relatively flat since 2001. At the same time, the net installed cost of commercial PV has dropped — it was $3.90 per watt in 2007, compared to $5.90 per watt in 2001, a drop of 32 percent, thanks in large part to the federal ITC.
“Tracking the Sun: The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics in the U.S. from 1998–2007,” by Ryan Wiser, Galen Barbose, and Carla Peterman, may be downloaded as a PDF. The research was supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Solar Energy Technologies Program) and Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division), and by the Clean Energy States Alliance.
Sponsored by EnCana and free to attendees, the 7th annual Energy Expo gives an up-close look at the technology and skilled workforce responsible for developing clean domestic energy in Western Colorado. It takes place Wednesday, May 6th, from noon to 5 p.m. at the Garfield County Fairgrounds.
“There have been a lot of changes in the last year, in the way Colorado’s energy resources are developed,” said Kathy Friesen, Education Advisor and Expo Director. “The Expo continues to be an educational forum for the community to gain first-hand knowledge about the natural gas industry, environmental initiatives and alternative energy. We encourage everyone to come out and ask questions.”
Emerging technology exhibits are a critical component of the Expo and this year is no different with EnCana debuting one of their natural gas fleet vehicles, the Honda Civic GX. EnCana recently launched its Drive NGV employee program and hasintroduced a small fleet of business and commuter-use natural gas powered vehicles to its employees to help increase awareness for the virtues of natural gas and its versatility as the cleanest commercially available fuel choice.
With more than 80 exhibits, the 7th Annual Energy Expo is on track to be the most informative expo yet. For more information, please contact EnCana at ![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
(970) 2...
.
EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EnCana Corporation. With an enterprise value of approximately US$40 billion, EnCana is a leading North American unconventional natural gas and integrated oil company. By partnering with employees, community organizations and other businesses, EnCana contributes to the strength and sustainability of the communities where it operates. EnCana common shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under the symbol ECA. For more information, go to www.encana.com [2] or call ![]()

![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
866-896-6371
.
Thursday April 23, 2009
Friday April 24, 2009
Saturday April 25, 2009
Sunday April 26, 2009
High Noon at Grand Junction’s Energy Expo! Your reporter Hears it From All Sides
March 3, 2009 @ 3:53 am
By Sharon Sullivan, CEN Contributing Reporter
Grand Junction homebuilder, Bonnie Peterson, talks excitedly about energy, and Colorado’s potential to solve the nation’s demands for it. Four years ago Peterson and Kathy Hall, Western Slope representative for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, organized what has become an annual event: Grand Junction’s [1] Energy Forum and Expo.
“Western Colorado has all sorts of energy resources: gas, oil through shale - who knows where we’ll go with that, coal, a ton of forest if we ever get to the point we can develop biomass, sunshine, uranium,” Peterson said. “We want to provide opportunities for people to be educated in all of these arenas.”
Approximately 1,000 people attended the fourth annual free Energy Forum and Expo, February 27, at the Two Rivers Convention Center. The event featured a panel of energy-related speakers and vendors, mostly associated with the oil and gas industry.
“This region is the breadbasket of energy opportunity - fossil fuel as well as the new energy economy,” said Reeves Brown, executive director of Club 20, a civic and political organization, who helped host the event. “We think it’s smart to try and position this region and this community on the forefront of evolving energy technologies.
Most of the speakers said while alternative energies need to be explored, they will not replace oil and gas anytime soon.
Keynote speaker Michael Economides, a chemical and petroleum engineer, chairman of a natural gas firm, and author of “The Color of Oil,” was back this year by popular demand of the largely pro-oil and gas industry crowd. Economides’ speech often mocked the press, Venezuelan
president Hugo Chavez, and especially former Vice-President Al Gore for his views on global climate change.
The press wants to talk about solar and wind which may account for more than 1 percent of energy needs, Economides said. “Get it (solar) out of your mind. Your electricity bill will be $10,000 a month. That’s what solar energy will do. There are no alternatives to hydrocarbon energy sources in the foreseeable future.”
“That’s preposterous,” said Lou Villaire, a salesman with Atlasta Solar, one of two solar companies exhibiting at the Expo which featured 59 vendors. “He’s employed by the oil and gas industry, but he puts himself up as an independent researcher.”
“Ten-thousand dollars? He needs to come and talk to some of our customers,” said another Atlasta salesman Andy Whipple. What Economides fails to mention, Villaire said, is that solar would be more competitive if the government took away the huge oil and gas subsidies. Economides seemed to backpedal slightly when asked to comment further on the “$10,000 a month” solar bill. “Solar is good. With a subsidy we can make everything possible. If government gives away money, that’s different,” Economides said.
The country’s energy needs can’t be solved until transportation issues are addressed, Economides said. If trends continue, by 2011, the U.S. will be importing more oil than it uses for transportation. But ethanol is not the answer to increased needs for fuel, Economides said. Ethanol is the “largest scam in energy history,” because you end up with a negative energy balance producing it, according to Economides.
Former Congressman Charlie Stenholm, spoke at the forum in favor of ethanol, although he said he didn’t always believe in it. “I opposed ethanol. I couldn’t explain to my oil and gas (constituents) why we should subsidize the competition,” Stenholm said. But he changed his mind about ethanol. “If corn is more valuable in the marketplace as fuel as opposed to food, that should determine where it goes,” Stenholm said. Stenholm also mentioned the potential of oil shale for solving the nation’s appetite for oil. “You are sitting on the OPEC of the world with your oil shale production right here in Colorado,” Stenholm told the audience.
Tracy Boyd, of Shell Exploration and Production Company expounded on the topic of oil shale. Shell’s Mahogony Research Project seeks to extract oil from shale by gradually heating up the rock underground over a four-year period. The company is studying oil shales’s commercial feasibility through its Research, Development and Demonstration project in northwestern Colorado.
”The reserves here (in Colorado) are so rich,” with significant potential for solving the nation’’s energy needs, Boyd said. Seventy percent of the oil shale lies beneath federal lands. Someone from the audience asked Boyd about the project’s water consumption - a concern of many that live in western Colorado’s desert region. Oil shale water consumption is unknown, Boyd said. “Opponents use that against it. They are right, but over time we’re getting a handle on it. Three-to-one (three barrels of water to one barrel of oil production) is the number we use for general planning purposes.
”There are higher estimates but we in the industry don’t buy those numbers.” Shell has acquired water rights on the Yampa, Colorado and White rivers. “So when one basin is low, that year we can switch off to another river’s basin, Boyd said. Another person from the audience asked if the future price of oil would support the cost of oil shale development, which isn’t expected to take place commercially for several years. “I can’t answer that. I really don’t know,” Boyd said.
George Glasier, of the Canadian-based Energy Fuels Inc. spoke about his company’s plans to develop the region’s vast deposits of uranium for nuclear power. Uranium mining and milling in Colorado was discontinued in the 1980s due to declining uranium prices. The meltdown at the Three Mile Island reactor in Middletown, Pa., in 1979 and the 1986 explosion at the Chernoby plant in Russia factored in the market decline of uranium. World leaders plan to double the amount of energy it derives from nuclear, in the next 20 years, Glasier said. These days touted by proponents as “clean” energy, companies like Energy Fuels is poised to revive uranium mining in Colorado.
But that doesn’t take into consideration the radioactive waste generated by the uranium milling.
All the waste generated by the U.S. would fit on a football field 30 feet high, Glasier said. “Granted it’s highly radioactive, but (the waste) is not great in quantity.” Disposing of the tailings (the sandy waste material after the milling process) is key, Glasier said. “You want no leakage for thousands of years. You have to prevent the slurry from seeping into the ground water.”
Deciding what to do with the high-level radioactive waste is a problem, a political problem, Glasier said.
We’ve been working on the Yucca site (a proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada) for 20 years. Nevada still doesn’t want it,” he said.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The spotlight on renewable energy couldn’t have been trained on a better target when President Obama signed his stimulus bill into law, said a Grand Junction man who has long been involved in solar energy.
“It was significant for Colorado” that the new energy economy was boosted by the president during the signing ceremony, said Lou Villaire of Atlasta Solar Center, 2923 North Ave.
As with the rest of the energy industry, “We’ve been hit with the economic downturn,” Villaire said.
With the coming of spring, and new tax advantages related to solar energy, the prospects for the solar industry appear to be brightening, Villaire said.
One particularly important aspect of the measure for Grand Valley residents calls for more tax credits to be available for solar-thermal installations, projects that use solar energy for heating residences and domestic water.
“The two often work well together,” he said.
The cap of $2,000 on tax credits for such residential installations now could be as high as $10,000, Villaire said.
That expansion accompanies tax advantages for using solar energy to generate electricity that were included in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, he said.
Steps to increase the use of solar energy are important, but just as significant are the measures making incentives available for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances that will reduce consumption immediately, he said.



Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Given the role the sun has played every year literally growing local farmer Brant Harrison’s organic fruit and vegetable business, he figured it was time to take their business relationship to the next level.
With an eye on being more environmentally friendly and saving his business, Kokopelli Fruit and Produce, a little green, Harrison installed a solar panels atop his shop.
“Over a year’s time, averaging out, it will really decrease the amount of energy we have to consume, produced by the power plant right across the road,” Harrison said, referencing the Cameo coal-fired power plant across the Colorado River.
Harrison is not alone.
In fact, according to a report from the Grand Junction-based solar energy research institute, he is one of a growing number of Mesa County residents and businesses hooking up their solar arrays to the electrical grid.
According to projections by local energy analyst Lou Villaire, the number of individuals “tapping into” the grid with solar energy will grow from zero at the start of 2006 to 300 users by the end of 2008.
Villaire, who runs the Grand Valley Solar Center, said the Grand Valley’s solar usage parallels that across the state.
He cites 2004’s Amendment 37, which required that all of Colorado’s electrical utilities produce 10 percent of their energy through renewable means, as one of the primary reasons the state has so quickly encouraged residential and commercial solar production.
Colorado’s leaders doubled down on Amendment 37’s mandate last year, mandating that 20 percent of all retail electrical sales be produced from renewable sources by 2020.
As a result of these mandates, Villaire wrote, the state’s largest electricity producer, Xcel Energy, has paid out nearly $31.3 million in rebates to Colorado residents and companies through its Solar Rewards Program.
Grand Valley Power, which also provides power throughout the county, is not offering any solar credits.
For this growth to continue, Villaire said, it is essential that the federal government agree to extend a substantial credit it provides home and business owners to install solar equipment, totaling 30 percent of the equipment costs up to $2,000.
Tom Plant, director of the Governor’s Energy Office, said the credits have been “enormously important” is making Colorado one of the nation’s leaders in creating new solar electrical production.
“The investment tax credit is what drives our large-scale solar development,” Plant said of the credit, which Congress extended this month as part of an economic bailout package.
Colorado has installed 12.4 megawatts worth of solar cells as of 2007, up 61 times its 2005 solar cell output.
Plant said solar might not be the only way to meet the state’s renewable energy production standards, but it is the best way to include more individuals and businesses in meeting that goal.
“There’s no silver bullet, but there is silver buckshot,” Plant said, “so we’re trying to advance a number of different solutions.”
Solar facts
• Solar energy generation in Mesa County saves residents an estimated $200,000 every year
• The average size of a residential solar array tapped onto the electrical grid in Grand Junction is five kilowatts.
• The average size of a commercial solar array tapped onto the electrical grid in Grand Junction is 9.5 kilowatts.
• The average out-of-pocket expense for a solar array tapped onto the electrical grid in Grand Junction is $22,000.
• 10 percent of Xcel Energy’s solar grid ties in Colorado are in Mesa County.
Source: The Grand Valley Solar CenterSolar rebates and tax credits
For households powered by Xcel Energy, the company offers:
• A $2.50 energy credit for every watt of your solar array’s capacity
• A $2 rebate for every watt of your solar array’s capacity paid upon installation
The federal government offers tax credits for:
• 30 percent of solar energy equipment, up to $2,000
• 30 percent of solar water heating equipment up to $2,000
Sources: Xcel Energy, U.S. Energy Department, Lou Villaire
Below is the text of a letter a group of people are going to read to the City Council Monday 15 September 2008 regarding a local ordinance that would protect a solar system's access to the sun. Come Monday to City Hall at 250 North 5th Street at about 5 minutes before 7PM.
We are writing to ask that the city of
The popularity of solar power is reflected in the more than 300 solar installations which currently are in place, both residentially and commercially in
Remember:
Monday, Sept. 15th
6:55PM
250 North 5th Street (City Hall)