SolarDweller Solar Blog

Habitat For Humanity Solar pictures

2006-05-31T22:13:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Hopefully, after two days of work plus just one more coming up, we'll have another few solar PV systems completed on the Habitat for Humanity East Bay project in Livermore, CA!! Yess!!!

Check out my pictures from the event at http://solardweller.shutterfly.com and feel free to send me any solar questions or even how much a solar PV system might cost these days at : ~~solarisbetter@comcast.net~~. Best email is solarisbetter@yahoo.com I enjoy getting your solar questions and letting you know how easy(or challenging) a solar solution can be.

Go solar and enjoy the pictures,
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, renewable, green, electricity, solarsightings, whatsnews

Part II--The other shoe drops--the electricity corporation's hand in CA

2006-05-29T21:27:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

So, the other day I was complaining in a post because California Public Utilities Commission is going to get less generous with the amount of rebate money people who install solar pv will get next year. The example I used: a nice-sized, 2.5kW single-home system net price could go up from $15,800 this year to $17,000 next year because of a lower state rebate, unless of course your nice, neighborhood installer decides to keep the price toward the lower end to keep demand high, with the effect of lowering his/her own profit margin.

And if these possible state-level changes weren't dizzying enough for installers and consumers, PG&E (the other shoe, the California electricity corporation), decided to change its electricity rate structure beginning May 1 of this year(2006).

The biggest change was in their "Time of Use" rate, which is the type of rate which most solar owners have chosen historically and found most beneficial economically for the solar power they sell "back" to PG&E during "peak hours." Anyone can choose a "time of use" rate, which just means the utility will charge you more for power you use between 12-6pm(peak hours), and charge you less for all other hours and weekends(off-peak). Doesn't sound good if you use much power during those peak hours. But if you have some nice solar panels on your roof, and you don't use much power during those peak hours, you get to EXPORT that power to PG&E at the HIGHER peak-hour rates, while you pay PG&E LESS for off-peak power at night.

This was a great deal for solar, because on the old "time-of-use" schedule, called "E-7" in PG&E language, in the Summer PG&E would pay or credit the solar owner for their solar electricity at $.29/kWh between noon and 6pm, and only charge that owner around $.09/kWH to use the utility's electricity outside those peak hours. This large differential for the solar owner between the price to sell and buy, in effect, made it possible to buy a PV system that produced only 65% of their electricity usage but REDUCED the electric bill by 95%. In other words, a PV system producing 65% of your electricity needs could produce 95% of economic savings.

Now, the problem: solar owners can't get the old "E-7" rate with such a wide differential between peak and off-peak prices. Now you have to go with the "E-6" rate schedule. Instead of earning $.29/kWH peak and paying $.09/kWh off-peak in Summer, the new rates are $.21/kWh peak and $.095/kWh off-peak. They're paying you less for your solar during the day and charging you more at night for power!!! What a deal!!

So, what's it all mean!? Basically, the magic of a PV system producing only 65% of your electricity but reducing your bill by 95% is not so magic any more, because the utility is buying your solar for less between those prime noon-6pm hours when solar panels produce at their best. The reality now is that you need a bigger, more expensive PV system than you would have needed under the old rate to get that same 95% economic savings benefit.

All in all, future solarDwellers, it's been a pretty disappointing double whammy from the state(potential reduced rebates) and the corporation(reduced price for your solar exports) at the same time. Don't get me wrong! This is just a bump in the road in the rebirth of solar in California and nationwide.

Buying solar for your abode still is guaranteed to pay you back on your investment and guaranteed to reduce your carbon footprint A LOT!!!! You'll be glad to know if you put a 2.5kW system on your house, it's roughly the carbon equivalent of not driving your car 10 months out of each and every year that your solar panels are on your roof. So, stick with your current car and buy solar instead of a new car, or try not driving for the 10 months out of every year . . . .You gotta do what works for you.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, green+power, alternative, renewable, sustainable, economicsofsolar, psychologymarketing,

Volunteering to install solar this weekend

2006-05-26T22:27:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Just got done with one full day on the roof in Livermore, CA on a Habitat for Humanity multiple "green building" duplex project. The solar part's being coordinated by a local non-profit that installs solar for only low-income households: Grid Alternatives. In this case all the equipment was donated, so these homeowners will have close to a $0 electric bill from day one with no loan payment they would normally have to pay off the solar panels. I'll update after day two tomorrow and hopefully get some pictures up soon! It is so cool to see solar pv panels going up on a group of houses together ringing the same curved street.

Later . . .
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, renewable, alternative, solarsightings, whatsnews

Solar funding tremors in California--a rant Part I

2006-05-17T22:02:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Man, my longest posting absence(two weeks)since solarDweller began last November. Thanks for checking back--yes, the solarDweller blog is alive. IT'S ALIIIIIVE. Partly a break form writing solar-all-the-time, and busy with other solar "activities" and work beyond the internet world.

But, it's amazing how just two weeks in solar time can be like lightyears with how fast solar regulatory/economic faultlines can shift. Enough to confuse and even worry your potential average solar pv consumer, and enough to test the nerves of your average local, hard-working installer. So, here's a version to give you the gist . . .

First, those average PV consumers and installers were all happy, even making a clean-energy toast, when the California PUC authorized the 10-year solar rebate funding plan back in January. Finally! A long term priority given to solar, along with a brand spankin' new $2,000 federal tax credit for solar as well. Woo-hoooooo!

Then, fast-forwarding a mere 4 months, with the clink of champagne glasses still ringing in our ears and the bubbly still tickling our noses, a double-whammy from two entities with a hand in solar pv: one a California state commission and the other a corporation. Today's post: the state's hand . . .
The same commission that just passed that wonderful long-term rebate funding this past January, the California Public Utilities Commission that is, came out with a draft proposal just last month saying,(liberal paraphrasing here):

"Well, maybe we're being too generous with that 10 years of $2.8 billion of rebate money we just approved(contributed at the rate of $.75/month from each electricity customer). We mean, like, you solar freaks just got that $2,000 credit from the feds, so let's drop your $2.80/watt California solar rebate to $2.25/watt beginning Jan 2007. Oh, so sorry that's only 8 months away and it was only scheduled to drop to $2.60/watt . . ."

So, for a typical single-family home 2.5kW solar PV system, this proposed rebate cut is like increasing that system cost by roughly $1200 in 8 months. I guess you can already see the PUC's thought process: "So, we increase the 2.5kW system cost by 1,200 next year. But with the new $2,000 fed tax credit, those solar pv consumers are still $800 better than they were in 2005 before that new fed credit."
Not so bad, right? The net effect(rough estimate on the high side):

2007 2.5kw system Price might be $17,000 (next year?)
2006 2.5kW system Price is $15,800 (now)
2005 2.5kW system Price was $17,800 (before)

You can see why these price girations are enough to make a future solarDweller or solarInstaller dizzy!!!

My take: if we're really serious about EXPANDING the use of solar power on a ten-year plan, taking into account the reduced greenhouse gases and environmental benefits, you AGGRESSIVELY incentivize solar at the beginning, and bring the rebate down gradually as solar production costs come down in tandem. This year's 2.5kW net price of $15,800 from the example above is NOT TOO GENEROUS in my eyes. That extra $2,000 fed tax credit was just that nice extra push to get more people in the solar market faster! I just think it's wrong-headed that the PUC now wants to SLOW that demand down because it feels we're being too generous with subsidy money.

Remember those HUGE tax breaks oil drillers got in the 2005 Energy Bill for domestic off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? How much did Exxon make this year in record profits? Where are our priorities????

Pardon my negative enthusiasm. It's that JUST when things got REALLY good, they quickly got a little less really good. A downgrade to medium good. If your a glass-half-full type person, using the numbers above, at least we're doing better than treading water. 2007's guestimate of $17,000 for the avg system is still better than last year's $17,800 price-tag . . . .
End post with a smile :-) and, if you can, BUY SOLAR THIS YEAR while we're still at "REALLY good", especially if you're at all close to making that "solar-decision." You can even get a nice, smaller system for around $9,000 bucks. It's all good if a lot of us even go a little green!

Next post: Part II--The other shoe drops--the electricity corporation's hand.

--the solarDweller

P.S. Thanks to my solar insider "source" for bringing to my attention this recent PUC solar rebate reduction draft proposal.
Categories: solar, solar+power, alternative, renewable, sustainable, whatsnews, economicsofsolar

First "Solar Spotlight" Interview by solarDweller

2006-04-27T23:20:00.000-07:00

Metro Lighting and Crafts Store with solar, Berkeley, CA

Hey solarDwellers,

Welcome to my first installment of interviews I plan to do, talking to local people and businesses in the neighborhood that have taken that awesome, liberating and green step of going solar.

One thing I believe is that solar on roofs can be contagious as more people get curious when they see neighbors making that solar choice. The whole "tipping" point meme. I wanted a way to go further than seeing and posting photos of a new solar PV system, or a large roof with a bigger-than-average PV system in the S.F. Bay Area. So, I decided to talk to and get the first-hand experience of people living beneath those solar roofs, and let them talk about how they feel about solar, and if it has been positive both environmentally and economically for them.

So, for my first "solar-spotlight interview", I would like to highlight a
company called Metro Lighting, in Berkeley, CA that makes artisan lamp and lighting fixtures. When I first drove by their large grid of solar panels perched on their retail store roof, I thought, "Now there's a nice-sized PV system." It really made their "green building" stand out among the other industrial buildings on that block. And when I got closer and saw all those display fixtures inside, most of which the owners have diligently switched over to the energy-efficient, compact fluorescent kind, I immediately understood how that large electricity bill was probably crying out to the owners for some sleek solar panels up on the roof.

From their website, a little bit about the owners and their hand-crafted lamp designs: "Metro Lighting & Crafts was founded in 1993 by Lawrence Grown, and began as a restoration company for antique lighting fixtures. In time, Lawrence and his wife, Christa Rybczynski, who both hold degrees in Architecture, began using their
knowledge of lighting and architectural history to create new designs,
inspired and informed by Art Nouveau and Craftsman aesthetics."

Here's a side view of the roof with 100+ panels:

I spoke with Lawrence and Christa at their store and by e-mail about their year-old, commercial solar PV system as recorded in the following Q&A with them:

solarDweller: How long have you had your system?

Metro Lighting: It was one year last October/November 2005.

solarDweller: What size is your system and what percentage of your
electricity use was it designed to cover?

Metro Lighting: 19 kW. It was designed to cover 60% of our
store's electricity use.

solarDweller: How does its output compare to what your installer
predicted?

Metro Lighting: We are covering at least 60%, maybe even up to 70% of our electricity use.

solarDweller: How does your bill compare to what it was before?

Metro Lighting: It had been $800 to $900/month before solar. For
last year it averaged only $300/month.

solarDweller: How long did your installer estimate it will take
for the system to pay for itself?

Metro Lighting: About 5-6 years

solarDweller: How did you get the idea to put solar on?

Metro Lighting: The monthly bill was a constant reminder of how
much energy we were using. We tell our kids to turn off the
lights when not in use at home, but we need to have our display
fixtures lit all day. I guess it was just a matter of time
until we felt we could afford the investment.

solarDweller: What was your principal motivation? Ratio of
economics/environmental benefit. (50/50? 30/70? 70/30?)

Metro Lighting: About half for economics and half for the environment.

solarDweller: What was the biggest barrier/worry to making the
decision to purchase your solar PV system?

Metro Lighting: The initial outlay of cash, and the fact that we
don't own the building.

solarDweller: If you don't own your building, what did you have to
do to convince the owners? (Gordon Commercial Real Estate)

Metro Lighting: It was much simpler than I had thought. The
owners were also interested right away, we just needed to work
out the details. We wrote an addendum to our lease saying that
we owned the system and could choose to take it with us if we
leave. The installer is liable for any roofing issues.

solarDweller: How do you feel now that you have it?

Metro Lighting: Pleased and proud.

solarDweller: Have you thought of marketing yourself as a green
business to differentiate yourself from competition?

Metro Lighting: We have applied to the Alameda County Green Business Certification program, but they have a big backlog. I'm not sure when we'll be able to officially call Metro Lighting an Alameda County Certified Green Business, but that will be an exciting day. We also have a new line of compact fluorescent lighting fixtures for further energy conservation. We've swapped out many of our display bulbs from 25 watt incandescent to 5 watt screw-in compact fluorescents as well. I'm hoping when it gets sunny that our meter will spend more time running backwards.

solarDweller: Do many people notice or ask you about your solar PV
system?

Metro Lighting: Not that many people have mentioned the system, actually. At first there were a lot of comments, but not many anymore. That's fine, really. We want to do the right thing, but we are not in the solar business, and we don't mind sticking to the work at hand of designing, building and selling quality lighting.

That pretty much said it all, and I was glad to get such positive feedback and feelings about solar from a true solar PV owner. I liked the short payback period, and the fact they FEEL so good about having that solar there helping them make green energy for their business. I was also pleasantly surprised to hear that what could be seen as the big hurdle of convincing Gordon Commercial to let them do solar, that it was just a matter of adding language to the lease and getting the guarantee from the solar installer.

It's great to see a small business doing "the right thing" in the neighborhood, carrying out their artistic endeavors while keeping our air that much greener and cleaner! And, don't worry: their neighbors will get that solar envy, and hopefully follow the great example being set by Metro Lighting of Berkeley. Check out their website www.metrolighting.com the next time you need some nice lighting solutions. You'll feel good about your green purchase!

--the solarDweller

And now, for the really solar curious . . .
Some pictures of the inverter AC output and DC-AC calculations:

Their system runs off 5 Sharp 3500 watt Sunvista inverters, which means their theoretical maximum AC output is 17,500 watts or 17.5kW. Remember, these are fed by 19,000 watts or 19kW of DC power from the panels before the electricity gets converted to AC by those inverters. Electricity gets "lost" as it passes through the conversion process in the inverter. Lawrence and Christa can check out the system's AC production at any time by looking at the following displays, one for each inverter:

And a close-up of one of the displays:

The amount of DC going into that inverter from the DC panels started at 3.8 kW (19kW total panels/5 inverters), but the monitor in the photo, which we checked at high noon(solar time) on a sunny day, reads only 2.88 kW AC, not the "theoretical" max AC output from the Sunvista 3500 inverter of 3.5 kW. Why? Well, the old reality that you "lose" some of the electricity as it travels from the panels to the inverter, and then again when it passes through the inverter. The important number when you're buying a system is to try to figure the "real world" efficiency, or what percentage of the total DC rating of your panels gets converted into the AC output as it comes out of the inverter.

2.88 kW AC output / 3.8 kW of DC panels = 76%

You buy 3.8 kW worth of DC panels, and you get 2.88 kW of usable AC out of them. This is just the reality of efficiency loss when converting DC to AC. Many people OVERESTIMATE how much AC electricity their DC panels will produce. It's an easy mistake. If you buy 3.8 kW of panels and just multiply by an inverter which is 92% efficient, you'll overestimate your AC: 3.8 * .92 = 3.5 kW. To account for the total efficiency loss in the wiring, dust on the panels, etc, it's safer to count on an efficiency of 75-80% from the panels' total DC rating. I usually go with 77%, assuming direct sun, panels tilted at latitude and no significant shading. So, in the case above, just take your 3.8 kW of panels going into one inverter and multiply:

3.8 kW * .77 = 2.92 kW AC output, which is very close to the 2.88 kW "real-world" reading we saw in the photo of the single monitor above.

Use the lucky "77" efficiency number when you try to estimate the output of your solar panels and you'll come pretty darn close to reality. It's better to be pleasantly surprised that your system produces a little more than your conservative estimate than to be disappointed about what was an overly-optimistic efficiency estimate.

Hasta la próxima, solar people, and hope this post was useful!

Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, renewable, alternative+energy, sustainable, tips, calculations, solarsightings, psychologymarketing

Click here for solar chocolate

2006-04-26T22:33:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

My posting frequency has dropped off recently with solar writing ideas accumulating, but lack of time recently to get them posted! It's amazing what happens to "blogging time" when stuff gets super busy. I've been exploring/working on different solar job/career opportunities, mixed in with some substitute teaching, mixed in with some work on marketing for a summer reading program for those little guys and girls fresh out of pre-school and kindergarten, getting ready for the big-time 1st grade reading experience.

So, back to solar. You'll have to scroll down a bit to see a post that was in draft form days ago, and which I just posted. It's all about makin' chocolate with solar power. Or instead of scrolling, just click HERE.

I'll be catching up with some more posting tomorrow(April 27), with my first "solar spotlight" local interview and news and info about a cool, waterproof solar product integrated into the roof membrane, among whatever else I can squeeze in to some sought-after "free" time tomorrow! Keep checkin' in with solarDweller for the solar scene and solar thoughts . . .

Until then,
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, sustainable, green, renewable, sustainable,

Earth Day Berkeley: Helping people with the Solar Decision

2006-04-22T10:10:00.000-07:00

Hello solarDwellers:

Feeling motivated this morning as I head out to take my place behind a solar table at Berkeley, CA's Earth Day celebration with a solar acquaintance of mine, answering people's questions and hopefully making it easier for them to make what I'm calling "The Solar Decision."

It's one of the BEST decisions one can make as a way to reduce your contribution of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere at the local level. Putting a modest 2 kW solar PV system on your house and just letting it quietly do its work over its 20 year life is equivalent to NOT DRIVING for 10 YEARS, without making sacrifices in the comfort of your home. That's about 85,000 lbs of CO2. And as an info-mercial might exclaim: "All for the amazing price of around $12,000! (Based on the following statistics: electricity from natural gas emits 0.52 kg CO2/kWh and from coal emits 0.92 kg CO2/kWh; and according to Terra Pass, an average four-cylinder car emits roughly 7,000 lbs of CO2/year.

I didn't even mention that it's also like a CONSERVATIVE fixed investment, at least guaranteed to pay for itself over the life of the system. And if you spend $75-100 per month on electricity, it pays for itself in half that time AND you get a nice return on investment.

So, on this Earth DAY, I urge those who are able to make "THE SOLAR DECISION" to do so now when rebates/tax credits are favorable. You'll be making a good financial decision and taking action to reduce your annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Go solar!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, earth+day, sustainable, renewable, alternative, whatsnews, psychologymarketing

Solar in NY Times + Upcoming solarDweller features

2006-04-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Man, haven't posted in a while. Ever since I got on the solar blogging train, it's hard to get off with so much exciting stuff going on in the world of solar. Having not posted for 5 days seems like an eternity in the fast-moving, complicated world of solar these days. The not cool: too much to write about, too little time. The very cool: it's not getting tiring and the ideas for writing seem never-ending. But, occasionally, the solar blogging needs a little pause action to reflect and let ideas incubate for a bit. What I'm loving . . . the trend is in tact: electricity prices increasing + more attention on global warming + good subsidy environment for solar + more competition in the solar market = long-term growth for solar and alternative energy. Yea!

Working on some ideas for posting here, such as

My new "Sun-Spotlight" feature, an original article/interview re a local business that has enjoyed the econ/enviro benefits of going solar recently

A post which will be an invitation for any of yous out there to e-mail me how much electricity you use or what your annual electricity cost is, and I'll send you a free rough estimate of what size pv system you would need and how much it might cost. (Solar) information is power, right? (the puns are flying off the shelf tonight-apologies). (Please comment, gentle reader, if you like/don't like this idea as a feature of this blog.)

Oh, maybe I should make reference to the title of this current post. NY Times Business section today featured the solar industry, and specifically SunPower, which is majority owned by Cypress Semi. Mostly a profile on the owner of CY, but worth the read which gives a picture of the momentum gathering in the solar area. This article, plus the jump over $70 barrel for oil explains the very positive day today in the market for renewable energy companies. A few of the 'graphs I found interesting from the article, re: solar growth and the HUGE amounts of silicon required . . . .

After years of promise, the market for solar power is finally taking off, with annual demand expected to increase to as much as 2,500 megawatts by the end of 2008, from about 1,000 megawatts now (which is the size of a large nuclear power plant).

For Mr. Rodgers, that is the beauty of the six-inch squares of silicon that are colored black to absorb the sun's radiation. SunPower is on track to gain the ability to make about 35 million wafers a year by the end of 2006, enough to produce 100 million watts of solar power annually.

Mr. Rodgers argues that his SunPower subsidiary has a crucial advantage over both larger and smaller competitors. While most of the industry has a conversion efficiency of around 14 percent, the SunPower photovoltaic cell will reach 21 percent, a 50 percent advantage that translates into both cost and performance leads for the company.

There are other hurdles to overcome as well. Producing 35 million silicon wafers requires more than 700 tons of silicon. "We have contracts signed for 2006, but yes, we're worried," he said. "We expect the general market will loosen up in 2008, so we've got a couple of years when we've got to wheel and deal to make sure we get it."

So glad it's sunny in California again.

--your future solarDweller

p.s Keep an eye on this company: Worldwater Corp--solar installer and mobile solar water pumping and purification
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, green, renewable, whatsnews,

Growing driver of Renewable Energy Use: State policies

2006-04-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

RPS is an acronym I've been seeing a lot lately. "Renewable Portfolio Standard" is just state energy bureaucracy talk for, "Dude, what percentage of our electricity production should be from renewable sources, like, you know, green energy dude?"

State departments of energy are a HUGE driver of how much wind, solar, hydro and biomass-based electricity will ultimately get pushed out onto the grid. Progressive state green energy targets can help deal with our global warming problem, given that about 70% of our greenhouse emission prob comes simply from producing electricity, despite the fact that all the press writes out is SUV's and peak oil(see my post re: peak oil is NOT the problem).

So, now we have New Jersey's proposal from this article:

"THE ISSUE: On Wednesday, the Board of Public Utilities will vote on a proposal that would mandate that 20 percent of energy available in the state come from renewable energy sources such as wind or solar by 2020."

And then some examples from other states, which should each receive a prize from the treasure chest or a happy face sticker:

"OTHER STATES: California requires that 20 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2017 but may meet that goal by 2010. Nevada is aiming for 20 percent by 2015, and Hawaii wants to hit 20 percent by 2020."

We gotta get that green electricity flowin!!!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+electricity, pv, green+energy, alternative, whatsnews

No solar brownies, but chocolate . . . yesssss

2006-04-11T21:30:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

In case you missed the comment by Kevin from Unplugged Living, just when I thought it couldn't get any better than solar-powered beer to go with solar-powered pizza, Kevin has served me up a nice choice for dessert: solar chocolate! Ok, my life is complete now. I retire.

And yes, read this reprinted article from Homepower Magazine about the people who built a small, solar-powered chocolate factory on the Caribbean island of Grenada, when the author's interests of chocolate and renewable energy mixed so nicely together. "Hey, you got your solar panel in my chocolate!" "No, you got your chocolate on my solar panels!" (Wasn't that how the old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup commercials went?)

Oh, I'm making a comeback, coming out of my retirement. Because when looking for chocolate images to post with this article, which I found at(you know it had to exist): chocolate.com, those chocolate marketers found a way to get beer into their promotion. Just totally validates and elevates to the level of "acceptable" the pizza, beer, chocolate for dessert combination.

To wit, the chocolate/beer recommendation from the connoisseurs craze marketers at chocolate.com:

Ah, winter.

A perfect time to hibernate and enjoy some of life's finer things. What better to do on cold February nights than snuggle up to your sweetie? And what better way to seduce the object of your affection than with a dynamic duo... such as chocolate and beer.

Crazy as it sounds at first, beer may serve as a better culinary compliment to chocolate than you think. Ray Daniels, Director of Craft Beer Marketing for the Brewers Association, certainly thinks so.

"Simply stated, wine generally gets overwhelmed by chocolate. You can't taste the wine due to the richness of the chocolate," Daniels said. "Beer has the chops to stand up to the rich flavors involved. It is also about complementary flavors: earthy, roasted, even chocolaty and bitter flavors in beer that are echoed in the chocolate."

Beer and chocolate have huge fan bases in America. That's nothing new. But, if people like Daniels and "Cocoa Pete" Slosberg -- the creator of Pete's Wicked Ale -- have their way, the two can be merged to ignite a kind of synergy that is rarely equaled.

"It's not just one plus one equals two. It's one plus one equals three," said Slosberg, who has been sweet on European chocolate ever since traveling there to promote his beer.

After selling the brewery that made him famous, Slosberg is now pairing his two passions by creating his own specialty chocolates.

Daniels' recommended pairings identify three general categories of beers that play well with a range of chocolates:

Dark beers, such as porters and stouts, are made from malted barley that has been roasted to a dark, deep color. The darkened barley boosts the flavors that go well with most chocolates. Some beer aficionados even enjoy a dark, rich stout or porter as an after-dinner, desert-type treat.

Weizens (German-style wheat beers), and Belgian-style white ales (HÃ¶egaarden, Blue Moon). These are beers of lighter flavor and paler color than most all-barley ales, and often include fruity and spicy flavors such as clove, apple, nutmeg, cinnamon and apricot, among others. With these classic dessert flavors supplementing sumptuous chocolate, you and your sweetie will not be let down.

Malty golden beers and golden ales (such as KÃ¶lsch) are sweeter and lighter colored options that are clear and crisp with lower bitterness and aroma levels. These beers tend to go well with deserts in which chocolate is prevalent, but not quite as highly concentrated, such as cookies.

Have I just gotten way too eccentric and off on the solar food tangent or what? No, hey, this is for fun. Invite me to your next beer/chocolate pairing. Then I'll retire again.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, green, alternative, sustainable, whatsnews

Bartender! A solar beer with that solar pizza

2006-04-10T20:20:00.000-07:00

(From Anderson Valley Brewery website)

Hey future solarDwellers:

Thanks over there to UnpluggedLiving.com for appreciating my post on the deliciousness of solar pizza in Mill Valley. So, right back at you with some love for finding that Anderson Valley solar beer to go with that pizza. Last time I said that I didn't know pizza could be any better, but this is just getting downright sinful now.

Does anyone know where I can find solar brownies for dessert? Hey, business-people out there: make it solar powered, and the customers shall partake. That's a fairly win-win-win-win etc scenario, no?!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, sustainable, green, renewable, alternative+energy, WhatsNews, PsychologyMarketing

Cloudscape: natural solar power

2006-04-05T22:29:00.000-07:00

Luckily, had the cam on me on this walk . . .

--the solarDweller

Solar Sightings No. 7--More solar in Berkeley

2006-04-05T21:52:00.000-07:00

Hey solarDwellers:

It's the hide-and-seek solar house(yet another solar pv system in Berkeley, CA). Some solar owners, or possibly because of building codes, install their panels so they're invisible from the street. You probably know my take on that, future solarDwellers: don't hide them. Show them off! Besides, new panels are sleek and cool looking. They always impress neighbors. You can help people catch the green energy fever.
But, let's take a walk a little South on this street, and, yes, there are those panels, visible from the side of the house. I counted about 24 pv panels, so, at least 2400 watts(2.4 kW). So, they can show off after all. Although, I do admit this metallic mounting structure holding the panels is pretty funky looking. Not as sleek as panels that are installed flush to the angle of the roof. Interesting that this structure is almost horizontal(tilted very little) and facing in the West direction.

I found out why when a neighbor told me that his trees created quite a bit of shadow on the South side of this solar house. In fact, due to "solar access laws" the neighbor had to do a little tree trimming to give the solar panels their due exposure to the sun. What an environmental irony: chop down the trees to let the sun shine on the silicon. I'll just leave this conundrum with the word . . . controversial. There could be a case, for example, in a hot climate for having very tall shade trees to the west and south of the house. The shade helps decrease air conditioning use, which is better than trying to power your AC without any shade, even if powered by solar. Gotta look at each house and energy profile case by case and come up with the best overall energy solution.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, sustainable, green, renewable, alternative, SolarSightings, PsychologyMarketing

Green Marketing: Solar Pizza in Marin--extra cheese, extra photons please

2006-03-31T18:57:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Now if I had my choice of pizza places, assuming they both have decent crust, tomato sauce and cheese, and one of the places powers their ovens with solar, and the other from natural gas/coal/nuclear via their friendly utility, which would the solarDweller choose???

Why,I would go to Stephano's Pizza in Mill Valley, CA, which has got a nice 26 kilowatt(kW) solar pv system on their roof (enough for about 10 homes), generating about 80% of their electricity. I didn't know it was possible to feel any better eating pizza, but now I've found a way. Pizza, powered by the sun.Mmmmmmmmm. Renewable pizza . . . now that's getting to be too good. Endless pizza.

I think there is such big potential out there for businesses that use/produce green energy to get the word out to consumers about it. Advertise it. Help differentiate themselves from those other businesses stuck in the age of fossil fuels. Help consumers feel better going to that "clean energy" business. And ultimately, be an example to the point where the competition starts doing the "solar thing" too!

Heck! Rename the business! "Stephano's Solar Pizza Shack," or a cafe, "The Solar Perk," or a copy place, "Makin' Solar Copies". Just that name change with "solar" in it, advertised well, will get more people through the doors. After all, solar is "cool" these days, and it's "high tech-y", two attention-grabbing characteristics.

Note to self: Convince Zachary's Pizza, the best pizza in the S.F Bay Area, to go solar and make all my dreams come true.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, sustainable, renewable, alternative, PsychologyMarketing, WhatsNews

Listen online to Renewable Energy News

2006-03-30T20:43:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

From Renewable Energy Access, check out their new "podcasts." I listen online, but you mobile audiophiles might prefer to download this to your mP3 player and have renewable energy news on the go.

Listen to their "Inside Renewable Energy" edition for 3/30 using this link, which covers recent energy news, an interview with Sharp Solar representative about the silicon shortage, and a "tech spotlight" about solar air conditioning.

Good listening for when you've got tired computer screen eyes.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, renewable, alternative, sustainable, WhatsNews

Cities Doing Solar--Pacifica, California

2006-03-30T20:18:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

I'm lovin' seeing cities standing up on the solar wave. I already talked about Ashland, Oregon doing "community solar" where city residents buy shares of municipal solar systems. Now the beautiful beach city of Pacifica is using solar to help provide electricity for it's buildings . . .

A massive solar energy project, which will be placed on the rooftop of the Calera Creek Wastewater Recycling Plant, is perhaps the most exciting project in the works. "The current plans are to have the system online in early April," said Holmes of the 350 kw photovoltaic power system that will help generate power for the sewer plant. "We are planning additional systems for the proposed City Hall, the Community Center and the fire stations." State grants to encourage the use of solar power have been received to help offset the cost of the new systems.

Maybe a bit overstated for them to call it massive, but, hey, I'm feeling their excitement for solar, which is the most important factor for solar . . . that "good feeling" people get once they make the solar choice. 350 kW is about enough for 140 houses, or those big, city buildings.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, sustainable, renewable, alternative+energy, WhatsNews, PsychologyMarketing

8 Megawatt Solar Plant for Colorado--that's 3200 houses!

2006-03-30T19:53:00.000-08:00

Just saw this article about how Xcel energy of Colorado is opening up the bidding process for a project to install an 8 Megawatt solar plant.

Not as big as the Nevada SolarOne 64 MW plant, but enough to power about 3200 homes. Why is the utility company doing this? . . .

Xcel said it's building the facility in order to comply with Amendment 37 mandates that the company have 18 megawatts of solar power on its system. Voters approved Amendment 37 in 2004. "This [photovoltaic] plant combined with Xcel Energy's Solar Rebate program will help bring us closer to meeting the state's Renewable Energy Standard," said the CEO of the Public Service Company of Colorado.

The trend is definitely toward cleaner energy from public utilities in many states. Traditionally, utilities have looked to buy wind to satisfy this requirement, because wind power has been and still is much cheaper than solar. But recently these solar projects suggest that solar is making financial sense as well, with a guaranteed 100% return on the initial investment over the life of the solar installation.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, sustainable, renewable, alternative+energy, EconomicsOfSolar, WhatsNews

Solar Hot Water in affordable housing

2006-03-29T22:47:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Good to see the economic and environmental advantages of renewable energy being brought into the reach of lower income levels. It doesn't only have to be for the well-off, especially solar hot water, which is less expensive.

Take a look at this article, which includes a local T.V. report(video) about how solar hot water is working in an affordable housing program in Colorado.

later,
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, sustainable, renewable, alternative+energy, WhatsNews

California: Solar potential and current sources for our electricity generation

2006-03-27T21:03:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

A little while back I promised to post what percentage of California's electricity is generated by what source. So, from the California Energy Commission:
California Gross System Power(Electricity) for 2004

Natural Gas. . . . . . . . . . .40.8%
Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.3%
Hydro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.9%
Nuclear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.8%
Renewables . . . . . . . . . . .10.2%
(Biom 2%,Geothermal 4.8%,Small hydro 1.6%,Solar .3%,Wind 1.5%)

Look at that! Under renewables, solar is sitting there at a miniscule .3% of the total! And you can see why our electricity bills will keep going up: 40% from Natural Gas, which has been notorious with supply problems and price spikes. It's almost embarrassing for the amount of solar resource California has(see below). Luckily, the goal is to grow that by increasing demand while lowering solar prices with the California Solar Initiative, the $3 billion, 10-year funding passed by the Energy Commission this past January! Also, California has passed a more aggressive "Renewable Portfolio Standard", which just means increasing the amount of electricity that is created by renewables:

Renewables currently generate 11% of the state’s electricity, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard established in 2002 requires power suppliers to procure at least 1% of their electricity from green power resources in a goal of achieving a 20% renewable mix by 2017. The state Energy Commission, Public Utilities Commission and Power Authority recently approved the Energy Action Plan to accelerate that 20% target date to 2010. (Taken from this website)

To put it in context, the goal of the "CSI" is to help develop 3,000 MW of electricity, which would bring solar up to about 2%(max) of total electricity in California, which doesn't sound like much. But that's about 6 times today's .3%, and more solar is more solar!

California Solar Potential
My eyes almost popped out when I saw the following stats from a report entitled "California Solar Resources" from the California Energy Commission, via an article on Global Energy Network Institute website:

*California has 17 million megawatts of solar potential! To put this in context, remember the 10-year goal is 3,000 MW for California, and today California has about only 400 MW of solar installed.

Too-good-to-be-true caveat . . .The report says that huge "potential" is unrealistic: you would have to basically construct every building/house with solar, and put up solar structures/carports and large utility sized concentrating solar plants on ALL the rest of California's developable land. It also would require solar to come WAY down in price(which really might not happen until the next 15-20 years)to build on such a scale. The point is, the potential is HUGE at the right price, and the real near-term potential is much BIGGER than today's 400 MW of solar, just .3% of our electricity.

For the nearer term, the report concludes a possible total still much larger than the 3,000 MW contemplated under the California Solar Initiative, if not 17 million MW:

If PV is developed in the nearer term only as residential and commercial rooftop systems, the technical potential is still in excess of 75,000 MW of capacity. While not treated in this white paper, the actual amount of PV to be developed in California will be largely determined by economics and the special benefits that PV systems may provide to communities.

Well, at least we know we can think big and that lack of sun is not the problem for California! Let's see if we can get to the 3,000 MW in ten years, and shoot much higher when the price of solar should be much lower by that point.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, electricity, California, utilities, Berkeley+solar, sustainable, renewable, alternative+energy, EconomicsOfSolar,

2006-03-26T22:39:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Looks like the rebates for very large solar projects(above 30kW) are too popular. There was $300 million set aside for these rebates for 2006, but according to this press release from the CEC as reported by Solarbuzz, there is a "trigger point" of 50 MW, meaning that once the cumulative requests for solar rebates has surpassed 50MW, the rebate amount is automatically lowered from $2.80/watt to $2.50/watt. The reasoning is that since the rebate money is being requested at such a fast pace, the rebate level is higher than it needs to be to stimulate sufficient demand in the solar market.

Personally I agree, especially because along with the state rebate, we have for the first time the federal tax credit of 30% which is uncapped for commercial installations. You can lower the state rebate, which will let it last longer and be available for a larger number of installations. And still, when combined with the fed tax credit, it is economically very attractive for commercial-size installations.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, sustainable, renewable, alternative+energy, whatsnews, EconomicsOfSolar,

Solar marketing ideas

2006-03-26T21:38:00.000-08:00

The biosphere pitch: "Act like a plant. Go solar. . . "

The competitive-nature pitch: "Be extraordinary--go solar."

The investment pitch: "Solar: Alternative Energy Treasury bonds sitting on your roof."

The global-warming worrier pitch: "Changing the climate: one solar roof at a time"

The Napoleon Dynamite pitch: "Vote solar and all your dreams will come true"

The Evangelical Pitch: "Go solar. Because the end-time is near."

The guilt-trip pitch: "Don't be a loser. Go solar."

The anti-carbon pitch: "Coal is for dolts. Go solar."

Don't know if your crying of pain or laughter, but I can't take myself so seriously all the time. Have a good day . . .

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, PsychologyMarketing, marketing

Prairie "solar" Home Companion--adventures in solar marketing

2006-03-26T20:13:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Happened to be listening to NPR this weekend, which I usually tune in to listen to "Car Talk" humor, not really caring about grinding or whizzing noises coming from under Peter in Pennsylvania's hood, but love the Car Talk show credits, like: "Assistant Director of Strategic Planning": Kent C. Detrees; "Audience Response Monitor": Luke Warm; "Adopted Son from Sweden" Bjorn A.Payne Diaz; "Child Development Expert": Dr. Benjamin Spark; and, finally, "Anger Management Consultant": Joanne Slowburn. Well, I missed the Car Talk brothers, and happened to tune in during the half-hour point/pause in Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion, which I almost never listen to, and I don't know why because whenever I hear a few minutes, it's pretty funny also.

Well, I tell you all this because of something I heard during the "pause" when NPR mentions some sponsors. The first sponsor: Borrego Solar, a solar installation company based in San Diego and Berkeley, CA. That was kinda neat, like seeing "solar" on the front page in terms of advertising. Looks like solar is getting to that "tipping point" and becoming an energy/home solution that could be mentioned in the same breath as "double-pane windows" or "tankless water heaters."

So, after the break, Prairie Home Companion first mentions it's sponsor(not solar): The American Duct Tape Council, oh so middle America! Then, the scene is a wife asking her husband how two "energy" crystals she had given him as a gift to awaken the passion in their marriage had ended up in the trash. "Oh, those rocks must've fallen out of my pocket into the garbage can," mutters the husband sheepishly. "But those crystals are to give us "spiritual energy" and rekindle our marriage, honey! We have to have a REAL talk." "Yes???" asks the husband. "Honey, we're going to go on a marriage retreat." "Well, honey, I wouldn't like to think of our marriage in terms of "retreat", but, rather, boldly moving forward," refutes the husband. "No, honey. We're going on the NRA-sponsored marriage and counseling quail shooting retreat. We can work on conflict management skills and track and kill our prey at the same time!" continues the wife.

That's as far as I got as I was on to other things this Sunday, but, pretty funny. So, my suggestion is for Prairie Home Companion, where "the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average", to add "solar" to it's name, making their rooftops solar-powered, and quite a bit above average. Yes, the "Prairie Solar Home Companion." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Right there in Middle America.

Coda: I just actually looked at their website, and what is the first banner ad I see? Toyota Prius. Prairie Home's going in the right direction, I guess. That ad assumes environmentalists are there listening, laughing at all those middle American-isms. Solar Home Companion wouldn't be such a stretch after all.

--your slightly above average solarDweller
P.S. The spell-checker suggested "thankless" instead of "tankless" water heater, and although we take them too much for granted, along with the natural gas or electricity it takes to heat the water, I'm sticking with, and suggest you install, the tankless version.
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, green, sustainable, renewable, renewable+energy, Keillor, marketing, PsychologyMarketing

Architects say tenants want more solar

2006-03-24T18:18:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

I just read this article about a meeting in Vegas next week for architects/construction people hosted by an org called the Construction Specifications Institute. Now that's the group you want to be talking about solar! Get that solar in at the planning stages, on big buildings with lots of tenants inside who need electricity. It's so much cheaper to include solar into the design of the building and to not have to put the wiring and support structures on top later. Or at least have the building "solar ready" with conduit/wiring and mounting foundations in place to make it easy to make the "solar decision" later on.

Unpredictability, like spikes in natural gas used in power plants, makes budgeting for electricity, well, unpleasant for organizations. Take a look at some quotes from the article, focusing on how tenants see solar as a way to "freeze" their electricity cost up front, making that energy cost more predictable.

"We are very clearly poised at a launching point," said Israni, pointing to rising cost for oil and natural gas, and the resulting rise in electricity bills.
Architects are getting hammered by their clients to address the energy issue," he said. "Either you are building in a system or you are designing the room so that you can add a PV system when that state comes online with a strong incentive plan."

Israni said that -- while the upfront cost of a photovoltaic system remains high -- owners benefit not necessarily from low costs but more from the predictability of the bills. Natural gas-fired power plants are plagued with volatile fuel costs. While the price per unit of electricity is high with a solar system based on construction costs, the fuel going forward is free.

Irsani pointed to a school district in California inquiring about such a system.

"We asked them at the very beginning, why do you want to consider this?" he recalled. "They said 'We need to have a reliable, and predictable cost of energy so we can plan for the future.' Customers are not necessarily concerned about cheaper."

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, , sustainable, renewable, green, alternative+energy, EconomicsOfSolar, , WhatsNews

Big Green Solar Schools in Marin County

2006-03-23T22:10:00.000-08:00

(from Sun Power Geothermal website--school roof-top pv system)

Hey solarDwellers:

Touted as the "only California school district to go 100% solar", the Kentfield Unified School District (which is all of two schools and 1,000 total students, but, hey, 100% solar is 100% solar!) has the right idea: purchase their next 20-35 years' demand for electricity up-front with the clean, solar pv. You can read the press release here, and, even cooler, take a real-time look at their pv solar electricity production here!

Together, two solar pv systems on the two school campuses come to a quite sizable 400kW DC, or enough for about 160 households. The pv systems also eliminate the $38,000 district annual electricity bill, and were financed (smartly) with school construction bonds. It's good for the community in at least ways: less pollution with the green energy production; more "clean tech" hands-on education for the students, and less tax money going to the electricity cost of the school buildings over the next decades. It lowers their long term electricity cost because by meeting their own electricity needs from day one, they won't have to pay annually increasing utility bills.

The Green Line (Environmental benefit from Sun Power website)
The 183 kW DC solar PV system at Bacich School prevents 180 tons
of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere annually
by a natural gas power plant. It takes 15 acres of trees to filter this
much CO2 from the atmosphere each year.

Now, that's a good combination: taking care of tax-payer dollars by making their electricity cost a fixed cost instead of going up every year, and taking care of everybody's air.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, green+schools, solar+schools, sustainable, renewable, green, co2, global+warming, WhatsNews

Oh, Canada! Homeowners can sign 20-yr solar contract

2006-03-21T21:38:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Also on Renewable Energy Access: an article giving major props to Ontario for following the German model of solar energy. (Germany pays homeowners many times the retail price of electricity to sell their solar energy to the grid). Basically, instead of getting a rebate up-front for buying solar, your Ontario house becomes a "micro-utility" and you sign a 20-year power production contract, kind of like big wind farms that sell their power to utilities that are seeking to add more clean energy into their mix. The utility will pay solar homeowners in Ontario $.42/kWh for their solar production, 7 times the $.06/kWh retail rate of electricity in Ontario. (To compare, California buys you're solar power at the average retail rate of $.15/kWh, and up to about $.30/kWh during the Summer peak hours if you're on a "time-of-use" bill schedule).

So, which is better . . . this German model where you pay off your solar over the period of the 20-year power production contract, or the traditional rebate model(like most states) where you get between 30-40% rebate/tax credits up-front, and then pay off the rest of the system over the next 15-20 years during which the utility pays you for your "excess solar" energy produced at the going "retail" rate for electricity(currently $.15kWh in California)?

Well, there's no huge difference after all in the long run.

Ontario/Germany model: you would pay the whole $27,000 for a 3kW system up front and it would have a 20-year payback period, with you earning about $1400 back on your investment in the first year, about a 5% return on investment. Each following year you would get that same amount back, plus an extra amount to account for inflation.

California rebate model: you would get about $7,000 back in a rebate and $2,000 back from the federal tax credit in the first year, making your first year up-front cost about $18,000 instead of the $27,000 in Ontario. You would earn about $615 back with power sold back to the utility in the first year in California, about a 3.5% return on your $18,000 net investment. The $18,000 would then take you between 15-17 years to earn back when the utility pays for your excess solar energy at PG&E's retail rate of .15/kWh, which will also increase with inflation over time.

After looking at both models, the traditional California model still looks a little better when compared to the Ontario numbers. I say this because with the rebate, your up-front cost is less, and, in the end, your payback period is even a little shorter. The Ontario program sounds a lot better at first because you see that big $.42/kWh they pay you for solar, but in California the difference is made up by the big rebate you get at the beginning. (The same model in Germany would be much BETTER than California, because they would pay you around $1.00/kWh of solar sold to the utility instead of $.42 in Ontario).

All-in-all, the Ontario program is still ambitious and predictable for homeowners, because it does make that 20-year written contract commitment to buy back a homeowner's solar, whereas, the public utility commission in California could decide at any meeting to increase or decrease the rate at which they pay homeowners for their solar power. Interesting stuff.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, global+warming, renewable, sustainable, pv, green, WhatsNews

Solar technology summary; Gov't project in Massachusetts

2006-03-21T20:47:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

First, I Came across an article at Renewable Energy Access(a "go-to" website for renewable energy info), with the news that a good-size 310kW solar installation has been approved for local power in Brockton, Mass. It's big enough to provide the power for all of city hall and then some. It's going to be installed on an EPA-designated "brownfield" site, which, from the EPA website is: "an abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial property where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by actual or suspected environmental contamination." The idea is to "refurbish" such abandoned properties, many times in the inner city, to be more fully developed. My only question before redeveloping there is "how clean did they get it?" This is why putting a a big solar array there sounds even better to me. Poetic even. Replace environmental "mistakes"(abuses) with clean energy. Some of the environmental benefits from the article:

Using electricity generated by Brockton's Brightfield will avoid the emission of about 595,300 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. That is the equivalent of taking 45 cars off the road, or the amount of carbon dioxide that would be absorbed by planting 89 acres of trees. Brockton's project also avoids emissions of other greenhouse gases -- about 1,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 370 pounds of nitrogen oxide per year.

Coincidentally, after reading the article, I checked out the website of the solar company that will supervise the project: Global Solar. It was a nice coincidence, because if you check this web-page out, you get a nice summary of different solar technologies with pros and cons. Check it out! Global Solar works with "CIGS"(Copper Indium diSelenide or(CuInSe2), which is a "flexible" thin-film solar technology that uses other semi-conductor materials besides silicon. It's benefit is the flexibility and ability to absorb a larger part of the light spectrum.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, global+warming, sustainable, renewable, clean+energy, pv, electricity, , WhatsNews,

Time magazine: solar growth, solar market risks

2006-03-20T21:38:00.000-08:00

(Graphic: www.votesolar.org)

Hey solarDwellers:

Time magazine has an article today about how hot some Taiwanese solar/silicon IPO's have been of late. First, a comment on the following assertion made in the article, which repeats the illogical link between "oil prices" and demand for solar panels:

"[These three Taiwanese solar companies]have delivered stellar gains thanks to the world's growing appetite for solar power as a hedge against the high price of crude."

Hybrid, and more fuel-efficient cars are more of a hedge against oil prices than solar panels. Oil really isn't related to solar panels, since oil is mainly for agriculture and transportation, not electricity production. It's more logical to say that solar is a hedge against rising natural gas/coal/nuclear prices, since THOSE are the fuels that are the main inputs for electricity production.

Slowing of solar company profits: Although we've been hearing about the solar panel/silicon shortage lasting until 2007 or 2008 when production can catch up to all this solar demand, it's interesting how the article points out that with so many new panel manufacturers entering the market, this new supply will quickly "outstrip" the demand being created by the new California Solar Initiative 10-year rebate program. More competition will add pressure to not raise solar panel prices too much, but the increased cost of silicon will squeeze profits via increased production costs. All in all, it makes it difficult to determine how much these price pressures will slow profit growth at the bigger solar panel manufacturers. We future "solardwellers" are not worrying so much about reduced profit margins, and just hoping that long-term programs like California's will help increase solar-grade silicon production so more buildings can go solar.

Next, it's impressive to see the goal of the California plan to install 3000MW of solar over the next 10 years in context: "which is more than the total cumulative energy capacity of all solar cells that were installed worldwide at the end of 2004." Now that's ambitious, probably more than realistic, but good to be aggressive with clean energy!

Finally, I think the article makes the other common mistake of saying solar is more expensive than it really is, making it hard for solar companies to overcome that common consumer perception. The article states:

For now, subsidies are a must. Even with higher oil and energy prices, the cost of generating electricity from the sun remains at least three times more expensive than prices that homeowners normally pay their local electric utility.

But when you take a look at the 2006 survey of solar prices over at Solarbuzz.com, you see that the average installed solar price is at about .21/kWh. Northern California's baseline retail price for utility-based electricity is about .15/kWh, making solar about 45% more expensive than retail after rebates, not "three times more expensive." Yes, we still need rebates gradually decreasing each year, so that solar can be a self-sustaining market with almost no rebates, as has happened in Japan.

Please comment if you have any experience with the current "solar panel shortage." I'm curious to see how big a delay there is between a customer's order to install panels and the installer's ability to obtain those panels.

Thanks for any input,
--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, sustainable, renewable, peak+oil, energy, oil, EconomicsOfSolar, WhatsNews

Venture Capital in the solar game

2006-03-20T20:49:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Check out this solar article by Tyler Hamilton, who writes on clean energy for the Toronto Star and has his own blog called Clean Break. There's a "clean tech" conference coming up around March 23 in San Francisco, where all the clean-energy ideas will be waiting for money to fall in their pockets to launch the next, best clean energy solution.

I like this excerpt, which talks about the burned-out past and the bright, "it's-different-this-time" future for solar technology, complete with the Carter/Reagan anecdote, and which kind a sounds like the blurb in my blog heading, "it's not just for satellites . . ."

Sure, there was a mini-boom in solar during the 1970s following the Middle East oil crisis, but enthusiasm waned as oil prices began dropping again and the industry found itself stranded without government support. Just as quickly as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House, his successor, Ronald Reagan, ripped them down. Innovation was largely stalled during the 20 years that followed.

Experts say this time around things are different. Oil prices are rising and few expect them to fall. Electricity prices are also skyrocketing. Urban smog is getting thicker, and, well, global warming is causing people to worry. It's not as organized as getting a man on the moon, but there's a clear determination within government, industry and academia to explore the full potential of solar power as a truly competitive energy source for the 21st century.

I also really like the comparison of a "distributed-energy" solar model to when the huge computer was decentralized in the form of the personal PC. More small-scale solar on your house and fewer gargantuan, centralized fossil-fueled power plants in our backyards:

MacLellan, a former sales guy at computing giant Hewlett-Packard Corp., likes to compare the solar industry of today to the personal computer industry in 1982, just as it was teetering on the verge of greatness. Older mainframe computers are in many ways analogous to big central power plants, whether coal or nuclear. PCs, on the other hand, are similar to solar PV systems in that they brought their power to millions of individual homes and businesses. Tying those PV systems to the grid is not unlike connecting a PC to the Internet.

Finally, MacLellan, who's trying to get his higher efficiency solar panel idea funded at this conference, makes another excellent point:
"It's not about cheap solar cells, it's about cheap installation." People forget that half the cost of getting a solar pv system is the labor to install it along with the mounting equipment. That cost is even higher if the installation is a bit complicated. In other words, you save money when you install higher-powered but fewer panels. That's the model that Powerlight Corp. in Berkeley, CA follows. They don't even use metal mounting structures that tilt the panels at an angle toward the sun. Their panels are integrated into an insulating material that sits flat on the roof, avoiding all that labor to install the mounting structure. Their panels might generate less electricity not being ideally-tilted toward the sun, but the lower installation cost of their model makes the total payback time shorter.

Here we go solar, here we go . . .

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, WhatsNews, EconomicsOfSolar, peak+oil, renewable, sustainable, energy

Anti-Solar rules in New Mexico being reversed

2006-03-20T20:19:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Just another sign that today's solar is not the solar of 30 years ago, when it almost died out. Seems that the city council in Alburquerque wants to get rid of outdated rules that prohibit solar installations on new housing divisions. Check out the article here, and the excerpt below . . .

Gone are the days when solar energy equipment erupted from housetops looking like something intended to communicate with aliens on Mars.
Today, sun-tapping devices can rest unobtrusively on roofs, even matching the shingles.
. . .developers often use a "stock set of restrictive covenants" that include outdated language prohibiting solar collectors.
"That provision ends up in the subdivision (covenants) despite the fact that modern solar collection panels are aesthetically totally different," Cadigan said. "We want to encourage everyone we can to use solar energy."

These barriers to installing solar are beginning to be lowered as "the new" solar gets more popular and aesthetically pleasing. Another barrier includes high city building permit fees to install solar, which have been reduced in some cities recently. Gotta keep the solar momentum going!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+energy, solar+power, WhatsNews

Battle royale in the blog world: solving our electricity problem

2006-03-18T22:25:00.000-08:00

"they fight, and fight, and fight, and fight, and fight"--Itchy and Scratchy theme song from The Simpsons

Hey solarDwellers:

Sometimes the debate in the green blogosphere can get hotter than our warming ocean waters(sorry, bad joke). I was crusin' over at the NY City Oil Drum Blog, where they were furiously debating about the future of electricity generation. How much can be solved by reduced consumption or efficiency? How much by solar, wind and other green sources? How much by nuclear? Which is worse: the "pick your poison" twins of coal and nuclear? Here, take a peek at the rhetorical theatrics over there on that blog.

A poster responds to a suggestion that a big part of the electricity solution is reducing use, more efficiency and more renewables. . .

First of all for thousandth time I see the proposed solutions to our energy woes summarized in the words "efficiency, conservation, renewables" without mentioning or analyzing the limits and problems associated with each one of them.
Like I said conservation and efficiency have their limits. More importantly they can not be relied upon. You can make an estimate how much you would achieve by implementing this and that but you can not enforce everybody on the other end of the generation-consuption line to implement the measures you want. IMO you will be surprised how many people just don't care - even don't care what their bills are.

And the original author comments later on, with at least some agreement:

For the wind & solar generation I also see about 20% as a practical limit. Again question is what happens next?

They agree the practical limit for renewables with current technology is 20% of total electricity production(sounds about right to me), but the original author emphasizes that renewables combined with efficiency could avoid the need to build new coal/nuclear power plants altogether, at least for a decade or so. To which his dueling mate responds:

Regarding the solutions I defend, if I were given a hypothetical budget I would spread it out the following way:
50% for nuclear
30% for renewables
20% for encouraging efficiency and conservation
Like I was defending until now, points 2) and 3) are partial solutions and presenting a partial solution as an end-point is very dangerous IMO. Therefore we need something else as an energy source for the future, and nuclear is the obvious choice for me.

And, the combatants start to wind down, the author with some final remarks:

I agree with you that conservation and renewables, will not cut it as far as future development goes. My point is that we will have to think seriously about the type and placement of future power plants. . . Short term or not, conservation and efficiency nonetheless roundly beats every other current alternative. I think that your response is fairly flip, and not constructive:
"'Of course if you ask the average person what he/she wants he/she will tell you that would very much want windmills located some 10 thousand miles away from his house."'

And finally, another poster enters the ring to assist our "efficiency" combatant:

"An April 2000 E.U. report found that, using existing technology, increased efficiency could decrease energy consumption by more than 18% by 2020. The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that simple voluntary energy-efficiency improvements in buildings will reduce world energy use 10%-15% by 2020. They state that, with technology already in use, efficiency improvements in buildings, manufacturing, and transport can reduce world carbon emissions more than 50% by 2020." --from "A problem with wind power"

For a very near-future post, I'll give you my ideas of how much a role, what percentage of electricity, can be supplied by solar with current technology, while commenting on what sources supply our electricity in California, one of the "cleaner" producers in the country. Hint: for our present use of solar, (are you sitting down?), think of a number greater than 0% and less than 1% of total electricity. And we're so famous for sunshine here. I guess just for surfing so far. But, you know my take. Things are a solar-changing, fast!

--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, solar+power, global+warming, nuclear, coal, electricity, sustainable, energy

And you think peak oil is the main problem? Try, try again.

2006-03-18T21:04:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

When we're talking about solar, we're not talking about our "peak-oil" problem, we're talking about our natural gas/coal/nuclear problem. That black-gold stuff gets all the headlines, but we should be paying more attention to what's on the other side of that plug on your living-room wall.

If one mainly pays attention to the major media, on would think the fate of oil is the be-all and end-all of our energy problems. But hold on there! We have to look at TOTAL energy use worldwide, not just energy used for transportation. I was shaken of this oil-centric way of thinking when I found out the following facts reading in some energy book a while ago, the title of which I can't even remember, but, never fear, the information is also available at the worldenergy.org website:

Transportation(oil):
roughly 30% of world's energy use and emissions problems

Commercial/Industrial electricity/heating(coal,nuclear,nat gas)roughly 50% of world's energy use and emissions problems

Residential electricity/heating (coal,nuclear,nat gas)
roughly 20% of world's energy use and emissions problems

In other words, 70% of our energy use is NON-TRANSPORTATION related, meaning it's related mainly to the production of heat and electricity for the world's homes and buildings. And this energy comes mainly from coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable sources. When I first came across this statistic--that oil represents 30% of total world energy use--I was quite surprised! Shocked! I thought oil was AT LEAST 50% if not more of energy demand. Must've been paying too much attention to the sexy oil crisis in the papers. In turn, my attention then went more toward our "electricity/heating" problems in need of solutions. So, wouldn't you say we need a few more column-inches in our newspapers reserved for reporting on reducing electricity use, increasing efficiency, and the ramping up the use of renewable sources of energy to produce our electricity. (Don't get me wrong, oil is a BIG problem, being the main input for our transportation and petroleum-based agriculture, paint and agricultural sectors. But, hey, that's for another post; we're talking electricity for now).

So, solar and renewable sources for electricity are indeed BIG parts of the total energy equation, and it's not all oil, I have come to realize.

And on the sixth day, a solarDweller was born. No time to rest on the seventh, though. Too many people to tell about solar!

--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, solar+power, peak+oil, nuclear, electricity, whatsnews

Update: Solar rebate funds for smaller PV in California

2006-03-16T16:47:00.000-08:00

(Picture courtesy of Sara lee)

Hello solarDwellers:

The other day I gave an update(here) about refunds available for LARGE solar projects (>30kW) in San Diego, which basically said all of the available funds are already spoken for this year(2006). People are obviously taking advantage of solar in California. The same is true for large-system rebate money in Northern California served by PG&E.

How much funding is still available for "smaller" systems <30kW?

Tip: Before I answer the funding question for 2006, for ANYONE having solar installed in CA, you'll be remiss if you don't take a look at the Energy Commission's "Emerging Renewable Handbook" Take a look at Appendix 2(p.62)"Consumer tips" about how much AC electricity a PV system will realistically produce and how to choose a contractor.
So, rebate funding for 2006 . . .Well, it looks like $40 million in rebate money is still available as of March 14, 2006. You can find this information by going to the California Energy Commission's renewable energy program link. They don't make this page too easy to find: first you go to their main page, then go to "new info", and then below a table listing dollar amounts of rebates, you'll see the small link to "accounts status page" which I linked to originally above!

So, how much solar PV can be installed with that $40 million of rebate money in California in 2006?
Well, at the rebate of $2.80/watt, it comes to about 16.5 megawatts of panels at Standard Test Condition(STC)or "ideal" rating, 14 megawatts of which would be eligible for PTC("realistic rating") rebate.

Calculation for the curious: [( 16.5 MW STC rating x .89 to get PTC watts) x (.94 inverter efficiency)= 14 MW watts eligible for rebate] or 14 MW x $2.80/watt rebate= $40 million in rebates.

How many PV system installations can you do with 16MW of panels?

Since the rebates in this program are for systems from 1 watt all the way up to 30kW, if the average size system installed is 10 kW, we're talking about funding available for 1,600 more installations in California for 2006. Or, if the "average" system size is 5kW, that's enough rebate money for 3,200 more installations this year. Note to self: research average system size in California's emerging renewables program. (Remember, the average household has a 2.5kW or 3kW system, but businesses can install under this program too, as long as the system is under 30kW, and this pushes the "average system size" higher than a household 3kW system).

So, good news! There's still time for you to put up residential or small business solar and get that rebate money in 2006! And don't forget, you also get another $2,000 back from the Federal Tax Credit!

--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, solar+energy, solar+power, whatsnews, EconomicsOfSolar, solarlinks

Innovative solar rebates in New Mexico: REC's + Net metering

2006-03-15T23:04:00.000-08:00

Hello solarDwellers:

Check out what the state powers that be in New Mexico are doing to create more growth in the solar market in New Mexico, a place that's got about 1,000,000 days of sun per year, in this article

What I like about N.Mexico's plan is a production-based incentive, giving solar owners credit for helping utilities reach a certain percentage of power produced by renewable energy(RPS or Renewable Portfolio Standard). On top of paying solar pv owners the retail rate for electricity the home's solar panels send back to the electricity grid, the state will pay solar owners a flat .13/kWh of solar electricity produced on top of the retail rate. And this REC .13/kWh credit applies for total solar energy produced, not just the "excess" that's sent back to the grid using net metering, but also any solar electricity that is consumed by that same household. In essence, solar owners are getting paid for solar WELL ABOVE the retail rate for electricity.

On top of these state credits, New Mexico also has a new 30% tax credit for solar to go along with the new 30% fed tax credit. Translation: solar is very cheap in New Mexico now! From the article:

Taken together, this means a total rebate of more than 21 cents on average, and based entirely on a system's performance, a method increasingly seen in other states as the way forward for solar policy. Experts say this is an unique approach among state policies supporting solar energy and a rather progressive one at that. "That's pretty innovative stuff," said Sindelar. "It blows me away that happened here in New Mexico."

Ben Luce, President of the Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy (CFCAE), who was instrumental in pushing for solar incentives in the states, says the utility rebate of around 21 cents per kWh could pay off as much as 45 percent of a typical solar PV system. And coupled with the existing 30 percent Federal tax credit and the new state-based 30 percent tax credit, Luce says this is a break-even profile that effectively pays for the entirety of the solar system.

Sounds like New Mexico's got the picture: if we want even more clean energy, we oughta pay people more for that valuable green energy their roofs produce.
Sign me up.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, renewable, solarnews

Delinking Oil Prices from Alternative Energy Development

2006-03-14T21:38:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Just cruising some of the green blogs this evening and thinking about the following idea that comes up a lot: sure, alternative energies do fine when oil prices are high, but they'll crash and burn again when oil and natural gas come back down.

Isn't it, though, becoming more and more obvious that we ain't in the '70's no more? Just because solar crashed after the last oil crisis, doesn't mean it's going to lather, rinse, repeat. Since the 70's two just slightly important issues have come to the forefront, and aren't going away: peak oil (or at least more expensive oil extraction) and, more significantly, global warming.

Take a look at what Joel Makower is saying over at Two Steps Forward about insurance companies realizing the mega billions they've had to pay out due to increased catastrophic climatological events. Are the insurers worried about the price of pumping oil, or more about the carbon that oil pumps into the atmosphere, I ask?

And check out The Oil Drum's reporting on news that Mexico has discovered a new very big oil/gas field very beneath the ocean floor and Afghanistan huge reserves of natural gas . . . This would have been awesome news in the 70's--more sources of oil, cheaper, problema solved!

But this precept no longer works, that cheap and plentiful oil solves the problem. We're in the "carbon footprint era", and I can only hope that environmental impact is perceived as serious enough to develop clean alternatives, even if we find the mother of all oil fields and peak oil is all a huge fantasy dreamed up by oil companies who like the idea of short supply and high prices.

Maybe it'll just come down to economics in the end. The question is who will win: oil drillers as they find "new" big reserves and say we can buy oil to our hearts' content, or the insurers who say, as the Cal grad student said in yesterday's post about solar break-throughs: "Dude. We're running out of atmosphere. Even if fossils are "cheap", it's plenty expensive for us!!!"

Alternative energy development is now more directly linked to carbon and the health, safety and economic situation of us all, not exclusively to the price fluctuations and supply/demand of fossil fuels.

--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, renewable, oil, sustainable, peak, oil, whatsnews

Adding Cleantech Blog

2006-03-13T23:37:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Many of you know already know about this blog, but I'm adding it to my blogroll, since they were nice enough as well to add solarDweller to theirs! Thanks.

They pointed me to the following interesting posts over there about solar, which are well worth the look!!! Posts on: transformerless inverters; inverter companies; and solar concentrator tech.

Go green technology and go solar. The time is now.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, solarlinks

Big solar or small solar? That is the question.

2006-03-13T22:13:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

I was checking out the always informative Energy Blog(by James Fraser) and a recent post about a huge solar concentrator dish being tested in Israel, which made me think of the debate over whether solar is better applied on a large, centralized scale or a smaller, decentralized scale.

I guess you have to deal with two big issues: environmental impact and cost. I've always leaned toward the small model--a solar panel system for every rooftop--over the large, power-plant sized solar installations, mainly because the closer you produce the power to your house, the less distance it has to travel(less transport=less electricity/heat loss as it travels over power lines). The benefit of large-scale solar is that it could be cheaper. According to the source cited in the above post at the Energy Blog, Israel says they can produce electricity at $1,000 per kilowatt, about the same price as traditional power plants. If this is true when put into practice, that looks great compared to the $6,000 per kilowatt you pay to put panels on your roof(after rebates).

Then the question is how much electricity could we produce and transport using those power-plant sized solar installations, and how much land area do we have available for that in megawatts of electricity? How much "rooftop" space do we have available to do solar on a smaller scale and how many megawatts would that space produce?

Some combination of the two will have to be worked out. Which one will win in the end? Up to this point, almost all solar production is geared toward panels, or smaller-scale solar, and no centralized,large solar plant currently reaches the size of a small/medium fossil-fuel power plant(500 MW). As with the newer "thin film" solar technologies, the total number of large scale solar power plants will need quite a bit of time to get built before they reach today's total MW production of small solar panels.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, electricity, economicsofsolar, WhatsNews

Cheaper solar? The brains at UC Berkeley are working on it

2006-03-13T18:47:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Check out this article in the local S.F Chronicle today:
"A Hail Mary against global warming peril...
Cal grad student working on thin solar panel"

Favorite part of the article:

"In 50 years, if everything goes on business as usual, CO2 levels will be twice as high," said Paul Alivisatos, who is Gur's mentor and leads the lab's nanotechnology group. . . For Alivisatos, it's not a question of the world running out of oil; he sees plenty of carbon fuels left to exploit.

"We'll run out atmosphere," he said.

Such key point: policymakers these days worry about how to get enough fossil fuels out of the ground and where they're gonna get them. They don't give enough weight to the global warming part of the equation. Even if we were awash in cheap oil for centuries to come, the increase in carbon in the atmosphere will eventually force a shift to cheaper sources of fuel as weather patterns and water temperatures begin to fluctuate too much. Better safe than sorry, right? As the grad student says:

"The way I see it, and the way a lot of other people in the field see it, is that really a risk we want to take?" Gur asked. "Let's be very pragmatic here and let's look at it as essentially an insurance risk assessment."

The search is for a solar technology, like "thin film" and solar concentrator panels, that doesn't depend so much on the expensive processing of silicon. It is very satisfying to see researchers looking at a new, cheaper solar technology that in the future could be a significant part of a global energy solution, a solution that fights against carbon-based emissions and global warming. If they create that cheaper solution, solar could be implemented on a grand scale, significantly reducing the need for nuclear/coal/gas power plants.

Article well worth the read; also gets into the topic of bio-engineering plants so that they more easily break cellulose down into ethanol, a replacement for gasoline, which brings up the ethical dilemma of bio-engineering plant DNA for the benefit of a cleaner fuel. Worth it?

I have faith we'll find a clean solution. Keep working grad students and thanks! And for the rest of us, do as much of today's solar tech as you can; tomorrow's solar tech is still quite a ways out there in years before it can reach the level of today's traditional silicon-panel production

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, electricity, WhatsNews

Solar billionaire: show me the solar money

2006-03-13T16:14:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Well, yes, I guess solar power has graduated to the big leagues, to the upper echelons, to the halls of the powerful. I don't usually keep track of Forbes' list of new billionaires, probably because seeing greater and greater concentration of wealth each year can get depressing, but Zhengrong Shi, citizen of Australia, resident of China, has become a new member on the Forbes list, #350 to be exact. His company is Suntech power, making solar panels in China.

Whoa. Dude looks pretty serious about solar in this photo.
Let's hope he keeps putting his money in green technologies, so at least we have some of that concentrated wealth going toward clean energy solutions!

--the solarDweller
solar
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, electricity, WhatsNews

San Diego--lots of demand for BIG solar rebate money

2006-03-13T15:33:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:
An interesting thing to do is to go to one of the public utility's websites, where you can keep track of how fast the rebate money for solar/photovoltaics is being claimed or "reserved" for each year.

For example, I just went to the San Diego Regional Energy Office website, which admisters the solar rebate program to check out the status of BIG project money, which means commercial projects over 30kW(kilowatts), which is roughly equal to enough solar power for 12 homes. So, looking at their "Budget Status Summary Report" for their rebate incentive funding for these big projects, we learn the following:

*They have a solar budget for rebates of $46 million for 2006

* Of those $46 million, $42.3 million for proposed projects have already been reserved. Translation: it's only March and rebates are almost . . . "all gone." If you want to do a big installation, your installer has gotta get that rebate request in early each year

*$46 million equals about 16 MW(megawatts) of San Diego solar rebates, or 16% of a projection of 100MW for all regions of California in 2006.

Remember, this is just for San Diego, and only for very large projects. To get an update on funds for smaller or single home projects, you or your installer has gotta check out California's "Emerging Renewables Program."

--the solarDweller
solar
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, electricity, WhatsNews

Solar Marketing and random solar thoughts

2006-03-11T16:39:00.000-08:00

Hello future solarDwellers:

Think solar, do solar, feel good.

Solar marketing: oh, so important. This small, solar company CEO's blog got me thinking about the ability we have these days to "choose solar." First, solar advocates have got to change the negative perception around "solar energy" that has been built up since the 70's, principally that solar just died, flopped, burned out, disappeared, whatever term you wanna use. This perception is best communicated with the anecdote you might or might not have heard about when the White House changed principal residents in 1981: bye-bye Carter, and hello Reagan. "First thing we gotta do, rip out that hippy solar water heater off MY house," said Reagan, probably with slightly different words!

The problem: many people don't know how much it has come back to life, nay, exploded in popularity, affordability and consumer satisfaction with their "green purchase." But I'm hoping that via this blog and other blogs like the ones listed on solarDweller under "Solar links", that people can take a second look at solar, and see how it can make their lives and their world better, greener and cleaner.

How many people know you can do solar for your house for less than the price of most cars these days, or for a monthly loan payment that is actually less than the utility bill they already pay now, a utility bill that can go to $0/year after you go solar? Or that their new solar pv system would help clean everybody's and their children's air? Or that as an investment, solar is a dependable way to get a 5-6% return on your investment, with the guarantee that your solar will pay for itself YEARS before it's life of producing electricity is over.

It's all about communicating this renaissance in the environmental and economic value you can get from solar NOW, not to mention the sense of satisfaction and pride you get when you realize that you have the power to make that choice to produce green energy.

Just go out and talk to anybody that has installed solar and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Random technorati musings...glad to see my posts are listed again at Technorati, a website that helps people search for content/topics in the "blogosphere." Apparently, some blog posts prone to suddenly not appearing and then magically reappearing weeks later in technorati tag search. Check out this dude's post at the blog "A Consuming Experience" who really got into his post on possible causes of this problem. I think this great resource is just so popular that the technorati people just have too much to keep track of! So, thank you, guys, for finding my posts again!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, solar+power, solar+energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable, green, electricity, PsychologyMarketing

Solar Sightings No. 6 --Solar on House in Berkeley

2006-03-09T22:07:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Welcome to the 6th installment of "Solar Sightings," in other words, my wanderings through different neighborhoods and photos of solar-electric or solar hot water systems that have caught my eye.

The house featured in this post is in Berkeley. It's a solar-electric system(you can tell by the metallic grid-pattern on each panel, each metal string being the path for electrons to travel. [Hot water panels don't have these metallic lines; they're also thicker than pv panels and have thick plumbing pipes leading to and exiting the panels; basically black boxes with tubing inside that heats up the water.]

I liked this installation because the panels have a clean look, neatly configured at the same angle/pitch of the roofline. Most the panels(14) are facing south, the best orientation for a house in the Northern hemisphere. Also, they're hard to see, but there are 3 west-facing panels on the roof-eave to the left of the upper-floor windows. This homeowner was probably trying to use all of the available UNSHADED roofspace for the panels. Remember that even a little shade on a panel can substantially REDUCE its output.

Hard to guess the total DC watt rating of the system, but just for fun, if each panel averages 150 watts, it's probably a 2.5kW system, meeting most of the house's electricity need, and with a pricetag probably between $13,500 - $15,000.

Not bad for at least 25 years' worth of green energy, feeling good, a major carbon emission reduction and cheaper than most cars!!

Keep looking roofward,
--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, renewable, EconomicsOfSolar, calculations, SolarSightings
solar

Hand-held Solar Rechargable Devices

2006-03-08T16:33:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Just browsing news at google and saw this headline about a "SolarTV" and small electronics that get charged using solar energy. I guess it is true that more and more of us plug all types of devices into the wall these days to recharge them, especially cell phones, so it makes sense to use the power of the sun to keep these things going, because when we charge up with traditional electricity, that means it's coming from natural gas, or worse, nuclear and coal power plants.

My only question, admitting I haven't really researched these devices, is the practicality of putting a cell phone or mp3 player in direct sunlight to be recharged. Their website does state that you don't need direct sunlight, but who knows how many hours of sun are necessary for these products and how well they can be charged with low or ambient light.

Good idea, just gotta research the nuts and bolts/practicality of recharging with the sun. For now, solar will continue to have its biggest impact supplying electricity to homes/businesses from the roof.

Food for thought . . .
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, green, energy, alternative, sustainable, renewable,
solar

You REALLY Gotta go solar if you're in Oregon; Find rebate info in other states as well

2006-03-07T20:20:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

The economics look really good if you want solar electricity or hot water panels up on that roof in Oregon. Today I'm going to talk about the great rebate/tax credit environment for solar in Oregon, but I'd also like to mention a website where you can check out the available incentives in whichever state you live. Just go and check out http://www.dsireusa.org/. They list incentives for solar installation by state and the different kinds and amounts of incentives within your state. Check it out!

So, for lucky Oregon, beyond their state rebate program and the federal tax credit, they have a refund run by a non-profit called the Energy Trust of Oregon, paid for by a "public purpose" surcharge on utility bills with the following goal:

We began work on March 1, 2002, with a mission to change how Oregonians produce and use energy. Through innovative programs, the Energy Trust invests in efficient technologies and renewable resources that develop new sources of clean energy, help Oregonians lower their energy bills, stimulate the economy and protect the environment.

Using rough calculations, the net cost for solar installed after the state, federal and Energy Trust rebate comes out to about $4.00/watt in Oregon for a business after all rebates. To compare, in California the cost would be about $4.50/watt after rebates. So a 5 kW system in Oregon: about $20,000; in California: about $22,500. But both great deals, with both systems probably being completely paid off in less than 10 years, and then possibly 20 more years of free electricity.

Remember, now is still the best time we've ever had to buy solar, even with recent increases in silicon prices. It's ABSOLUTELY the best time for businesses to go solar with a shorter payback time than for residential.

My rallying call: if they can do it in the Northwest in Oregon, and Northeast in Massachusetts(see Saturday's post), all of us in between and south of these states should definitely follow their example.

later,
--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, renewable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar

Organizing Solar Posts by Categories

2006-03-06T22:30:00.000-08:00

(http://www.shannonigans.com/laughs/calvin.htm)

Hey solarDwellers:

I'm experimenting with the blog, mainly because the host "blogspot" doesn't support any easy format to list previous posts by "topic" or "category."

So, as a workaround from blogfresh, if you click on one of the links under "Categories", a new window will open to web-based bookmark site called name of del.icio.us. For example, if you look to the right side of my blog, and click on the category

"How much: Solar Econ 101" you'll go to a page which will list all the post I've done about the cost of solar/economics of solar. The same goes for the other categories:

How: Solar PV System Tips . . . it's a recent addition, but my goal is to give tips about buying/caring for a PV system

Where : Solar Sightings . . . this bookmark lists all my posts/photos of solar installations in my neck of the woods that I've come across. Good examples tempt others to do it!!!

Kill-o-what? : posts I've done about making electricity calculations when you're thinking about installing solar. How much will the system produce and the conversion from DC to AC.

I hope it makes it easier and for the reader that would like to seek out information in these specific areas related to solar energy, without having to use word search or scroll through all my posts.

Hope it helps in your readings . . .

--the solarDweller

Solar . . In Massachusetts? Now that's a good sign

2006-03-04T12:59:00.000-08:00

At Minute Man National Historical Park, the Battles of Lexington and Concord
http://www.nps.gov/mima/education.htm

Hey solarDwellers:

All ye residents, cities, agencies of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah . . I mean basically all territories South and West of Massachusetts!!! Thy people shall have no excuse to not go for solar. If this northern state can go for the solar gusto, with fewer sun-hours per day than others that are blessed with more sun, we must get our ______ (you shall fill in the blank)in gear as well.

Here's a nice description from the article onRenewable Energy Access(again, a go-to site to know what's going on in the sustainable energy world):

Solar PV Installed at Park Stimulates Renewable Energy in Region
March 1, 2006
The 30 kW photovoltaic (PV) installation has 108 solar panels, which will assist the growing energy needs for the facility through the use of renewable resources, generating more than 33,000-kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year.
"Over the 35-year lifetime of this PV installation, the 30 kW solar electric system will replace the energy equivalent of 150 tons of coal or 31,000 gallons of gasoline and avoids 756 tons of carbon dioxide emissions," said Rodney Powell, president and COO of WMECO. "Photovoltaics produce clean, free energy. Because climate change, air pollution, and depletion of natural resources are some of the most significant problems facing the world today, we're excited about implementing this progressive approach to using clean, renewable energy at the Technology Park."

Think of that again: the same as 31,000 gallons gasoline-equivalent of energy. If we imagine 30kW of solar is enough for about 12 households (30kW/2.5kW per house), let's put it in terms of gasoline consumption of 12 cars. That's like 6-years' worth of gasoline equivalent for each household if their cars get 24mpg and drive 10,000 miles per year. Of course solar doesn't replace the amount you drive, unless you plug an electric car into the grid(which has been done), but the comparison gives a homeowner who puts solar on his/her house the idea that the positive impact of that installation is like not driving for 6 years. Wow, that's a lot of pollution savings!

Another good reason to go solar!
--the solarDweller
P.S. and just get a plug-in hybrid to go with that solar

Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, renewable, alternative, pv, solar+power, solar+energy, who

solar

Powerlight: puttin' solar on new home construction

2006-03-03T22:54:00.000-08:00

(Powerlight corp. solar shingles)

Hey future solarDwellers:

The best way to use solar is to include it in original, new home construction. Much easier and cost effective than adding a pv system to an existing house. It's also smart if the new house is built with it's roof oriented to receive maximum rays (South facing surface) and with good insulation and energy efficient appliances and fixtures.

Check out the solution Powerlight Corp. of Berkeley has with new homebuilders in this article(homes in Sacramento area) and also this article (homes in So Cal).

Check out the marketing from the Victoria Homes website. I'd go for the green house if I had the choice (and even close to the money for Cali real estate!!!).

How does a Zero Energy New Home work?
By combining today's most advanced energy efficiency features with on-site solar electricity, these unique state-of-the-art homes generate as much energy as they use.

Most importantly - our Zero Energy New Homes make financial sense! When rolled into a new home mortgage, your additional monthly loan payment for a Zero Energy New Home is more than offset by your monthly utility savings. This means you start saving money on this investment - from the day you become a homeowner.

The key is giving new homeowners control over their energy supply, making solar a "standard" option and having the whole thing be cash flow positive.

Finally, from the article, check out all the home's GREEN features!!:

GrupeGreen homes are designed to put homeowners in control of their energy consumption, reduce month utility costs, and enhance comfort, quality and the overall value of their home. Each home features a PowerLight SunTileTM (2.4 kW) roof-integrated solar system - the most efficient and advanced solar electric residential product on the market today. SunTile solar panels seamlessly interlock with roof tiles and shingles, while they virtually disappear into the home's roofline. The SunTile product also features natural ventilation, enabling the solar array to maintain optimal performance in high temperature climates. The state-of-the-art energy efficiency elements also incorporated in GrupeGreen homes include: tankless hot water heaters, energy efficient windows, high-efficiency furnaces and air conditioning systems . . . and energy-efficient lighting, enhanced attic insulation, and a foam-wrapped building envelope. . .

Go solar!
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, BIPV, shingle, architecture
solar

Quick solar tip: approved PV panels in California; STC vs PTC

2006-03-03T19:22:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Make sure before you buy those panels, make sure it's on the California Energy Commission's official list of eligible equipment for rebates. (Tip is for those do-it-yourselfers out there, because a professional installer would already know this).

The list is also very useful in comparing the wattage ratings from one panel to the other when you're thinking of buying. Panels come with two wattage ratings: Standard Test Conditions(STC) and Performance Test Conditions(PTC). Think of the STC rating as under ideal, controlled environment testing conditions in the factory or the too-good-to-be-true rating! Think of PTC as more realistic, real world-type conditions, meaning the panels will produce less than the manufacturer's "ideal" STC rating.

For example, you could have a choice between a 175 watt(STC)panel from Shell or a 175 watt(STC)panel from BP Solar. But check it out! The California Energy Commission gives the rebate on the panels based on the PTC rating of the panels. In this case the BP Solar panel has a rating of 154 watts PTC, but the Shell has a rating of 158 watts PTC. In other words, the Shell panel will produce more watts than the BP in the real world, plus you'll get more rebate money back from that panel. If the prices on the two panels are close enough, it would be worth it to go for the Shell panel that produces more "real world" watts!

Just some silicon for thought . . .

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, pv, panel, tips, stc, ptc, solar+power
solar

Didn't know that Nuclear is "renewable" energy . . .

2006-03-02T22:36:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Just a quick post today . . . couldn't let a soundbite by our current President during a press conference in India regarding their "deal" to sell nuclear fuel for civilian power generation, even though India isn't part of the non-proliferation treaty.

Bush actually said nuclear(nuculer) will help the world energy situation because it is "renewable energy." Wowwww!!! Granted, nuclear's advantage is that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but Rove has gone over the top on this one. No mention of the huge waste problem. His calculus: no carbon emissions = use the
term "renewable." Make it sound green, in the same breath with solar and wind. Just blurring, nay, erasing the distinction between non-carbon emitting and renewable. Nuclear may not emit like a coal plant, but last I checked, uranium is sucked out the ground like oil, and not quite "renewable", unless Bush's energy department has learned how to turn dirt into nuclear fuel.

Finally, Bush's argument is that supporting nuclear energy in India helps the whole world's energy situation because there's just not enough of that fossil fuel to go around. I heard one radio commentator say the translation is: "China and India: don't use all "our" oil; please conserve." Can you say SUV or weak CAFE standards??

I see how nuclear is a controversial energy "solution," and how some could favor it because of their worry of greenhouse gases from coal/oil, but, come one, "renewable"???!!! Let's come back to reality. Kind a sounds like "Clear Skies Initiative." When they speak on the environment, think the opposite.

More solar nuggets tomorrow . . .

--the solarDweller

Categories: nuclear, renewable, energy, solar, politics
solar

House too shaded? Apartment dweller? Go "Community Solar"!

2006-02-28T21:26:00.000-08:00

Picture credit: www.caritassanmiguel.org.ar/images/Compartir.jpg

Good day solarDwellers:

Today I turn from the idea of yesterday's post of larger investors putting money together to install and maintain solar for businesses that don't want to pay the up-front cost of solar, to a similar and I would say "more awesome" idea going on in Ashland, Oregon (link to newspaper article). But this idea is to let the little guy or gal, small business, homeowner or even apartment dweller, participate in a "local community" solar market without having to invest in their OWN solar panels.

So the idea these enlightened local leaders in Ashland is as follows: let's generate some local, distributed solar power that our neighbors can buy into. The city or county installs panels, let's say, on a large city building roof. To help pay for it, local residents can buy a "share" of that large solar pv installation, whatever share they can afford. From the article:

"Residents could invest in those panels, with their electric bills credited proportionately for the amount of energy their share of the panels generated."

The city would use federal clean energy bonds, "bonds provided under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The act allocates up to $500 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds for government bodies." The bonds would be paid for by the money those community residents put up to buy "shares" of the community solar installation.

Future solarDwellers, this just looks like a creative way to get together locally and use that federal bond help to supply ourselves with more solar energy, to do SOMETHING against the federal energy plan, which is to simply depend "less" on foreign oil and drill more on U.S. soil.

Maybe our best solution these days is to go with a "local", green energy policy.

--your apartment dwelling future solarDweller
Categories: solar, green, EconomicsOfSolar, energy
solar

Rent-to-own or lease solar power--from Renewable Ventures

2006-02-28T16:08:00.000-08:00

(From Renewable Ventures website)
Hey solarDwellers:

A while back I made a post about a company called Sun Edison and their financing model that leases solar equipment to companies with plenty of roof space soaking in the sunshine. Now, check out this article from Red Herring magazine, which talks about a "solar lease" model offered by Renewable Ventures out of S.F., Cali for organizations that want to use solar power, but shy away from the up-front costs:

"Instead of investing in startups, Renewable Ventures will finance, own, and operate solar projects for businesses, government agencies, and nonprofits that want to go solar but donÂt have the capital to pay for the upfront costs of buying and installing a system.
In exchange, those customers will agree to buy the power for about 20 years for a fixed or adjustable rate lower than the current utility rates for electricity, said CEO Matt Cheney. He compared the financial model to that of car leases and home loans. The customers also have the option to buy the system."

The article goes on to state that the investors that fund such installations get a return on their investment in the "high single digits or low double digits."
The key here is that now big-time investors are going for solar not only for a steady financial return, but also "green marketing." From their website:

"Double bottom line benefits of saving money while using clean energy -- Solar energy facilities are double bottom line investments offering both financial benefits and public relations/marketing/brand benefits valued by their customers."

They're banking on the same thing that YOU would bank on if you put in YOUR OWN small pv system: that utility electric rates will continue to go up, and that buying your "electricity in advance" in the form of solar pv panels, you protect yourself against these increases, and can count on a guaranteed long-term payback on your investment. And you'll feel grrrrreat, grrrreeeen and happy, of course!

Solar's going mainstream, little by little.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar

How much juice could a PV panel produce ?

2006-02-27T16:23:00.000-08:00

Hola solarDwellers:

". . . if a panel could produce juice?" Kind of like the riddle: "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" The solar question of how much your solar panels will produce can be like a riddle to those looking into installing solar. A good installation company will include this calculation in their proposal to install your panels, but it's good for YOU to have a ballpark figure before that estimate, so you can ask them if it seems like they're "overestimating" or "underestimating" how much your system will produce.

PART I: How much AC or "usable energy" should your DC panels produce after it's converted to that AC

Let me start with the "conclusion" I've come to, about what percentage of electricity loss there is from the solar panels as it travels from roof to your appliances, from AC to DC(in case you don't want to read all the details below in Part II of how I came to my conclusion).

The "loss" figure I'd recommend using in PV electricity production calculations is about 28%, better than the conservative 35% amount I discussed in a previous post. In other words, if your panels' wattage rating adds up to 3000 watts, or 3kW DC, your panels should produce an estimated max AC electricity or "usable energy" of 72% of those 3kW(DC): 3KW x(1-.28) or 3kW x .72 or 2.16 kW or at LEAST in that "ballpark."

The worst conversion rate I found from HomeEnergy Magazine(see below) was 65%(35% loss)of DC, which for the 3kW would be 3kW x .65 or 1.95 kW. The best conversion rate I found from NREL(see below) is better at 77%(23% loss) of DC, which for the 3kW would be 3kW x .77 or 2.3kW.

So, for a 3 kW system, you know to expect a reasonable estimate of an AC power output of between 1.95kW and 2.3KW.

IF the estimate were below 1.95kW in the above example, you would look for a different installer whose PV system has more decent efficiency. If the estimate were much above 2.3kW, you might ask if it's realistic that the installer gets so little electricity loss. If you know the ballpark, you'll know when and what to ask your installer.

(Read on if you're the one who always asks "Why? WHy?? WHY??!!)

Part II for the curious: how I came to that 72% conversion factor (DC to AC)

The low range I mentioned in the abovementioned post was about a loss of 35%(from a 2003 analysis from HomeEnergy Magazine of real installed pv systems in California), meaning if your panels add up to 3kW(DC), they'll produce (3kw x .65) = 1.95 kW(AC). This figure is probably too conservative considering that today's PV is better than the PV systems analyzed in that article, which were installed in 2000. So, what's a more realistic figure? Let's go to "the source" for the info . . . The question: what percentage of loss is there?

First, we travel to the CEC A GUIDE TO PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION(pg 9) produced by the California Energy commission (CEC), which kindly offers this nugget of info from their research: "So the "100-watt" module output, reduced by production tolerance, heat, dust, wiring, ac conversion, and other losses will translate into about 68 Watts of AC power delivered to the house panel during the middle of a clear day (100 Watts x 0.95 x 0.89 x 0.93 x 0.95 x 0.90 = 67 Watts)."

So, no big difference, down to 33% loss(67% of DC) from the other article's figure of 35% loss. So, my last source serves to bring us to more current data, since the CEC's data is from 2001, and a lot happens in 5 years in solar time.

Our last data trip is to the Mac Daddy of research on renewable energy data, from the government folks at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who have a calculator called PVWATTS . They describe how they figure out the "derate factor" or "percentage of" AC you get from DC that we've been so doggedly trying to nail down in this post:
"Overall DC to AC derate factor= 0.95 x 0.92 x 0.98 x 0.995 x 0.98 x 0.99 x 0.95 x 0.98 = 0.77
The value of 0.77 means that the AC power rating at STC is 77% of the nameplate DC power rating."

(Don't freak about all those multipliers; they each just represent each step along the path from panels to your house that cause the system have electricity loss.) In other words, the PVWATTS calculator says that your panels will produce 77% of their DC rating("nameplate"), or a 23% loss.

So, there you have it, future solarDwellers. When I do my PV calculations, I'll just multiply the panels' DC rating by an average of 72%(a loss of 28%) to get the "real AC juice" they'll give me inside my abode. I hope it works for you too!

Later,
--your solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, calculations
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Solar sightings: Napa Solar blogging: Makin' wine with solar!

2006-02-27T15:48:00.000-08:00

Hello solarDwellers:

I've been curious about how solar might be taking off in wine country--its the perfect combination of making a product with "greener" solar energy, along with the greater tax benefits these days to install solar in a commercial application.
Lo and behold, on a recent bike trip this month around Yountville and Napa, the heart of wine country, I came across the following installations: not huge, but a nice addition to the landscape. I'm sure this is only a small percentage of what's going on in this greenest of valleys, especially going forward.

Maybe we are beginning to learn from the greatest solar energy converters on earth, those things called plants!!!

Cheers,
--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings

solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Solar power for All-- with a Hollywood boost

2006-02-26T19:41:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

First a shout out to Unplugged Living , a site you should definitely check out, and not just because they mentioned your humble solarDweller during the masterful "Green blogathon" over the last couple days(Check out sustainablog and shea gunther for more on that green-posting party).

And for today's topic: the massive spread of solar love, to the masses! The last thing one wants is solar power to be this elitist, chic thing for cool people on top of their Malibu mansions to heat up their hot tubs, while sipping on a cool glass of chardonnay. Granted, technology gets implemented first by those who got the cash, but then the hope is that it goes "mainstream."

To that end, I previously have mentioned a "solar great" non-profit called "Grid Alternatives" out of the S.F. Bay area, who uses volunteers to install solar equipment, which is purchased by lower-income folk with county low-interest loans. In effect, bringing solar to those who need it MOST: those whose electricity bill makes up a sizable portion of their income.

So, take a look at this article that talks about how Hollywood celebrity types that install solar to be so green and posh at the same time, donate equipment at the same time to get PV installed on less decadent, lower-income homes:

Hollywood stars heat up solar power

A partnership between BP and celebrities is helping low-income families go green.
(Business 2.0) - Los Angeles homeowner K.J. Lee never expected solar power to make her feel like a celebrity . . . The solar-energy system that has powered her home since March came completely free, courtesy of the BP Solar Neighbors Program.

Celebrity do-gooders
Dreamed up by movie star Edward Norton, the program tackles the dual issues of affordable housing and clean energy. When a celebrity purchases a home solar system from BP, the energy giant donates the same equipment--including solar panels and an in-house wireless display, worth between $10,000 and $40,000--to a low-income family in Los Angeles. "It helps families that wouldn't ordinarily have the resources to use solar energy and gives them more money to spend on other necessities like food," says Irene Brown, director of California community affairs at BP.

And . . . the West Coast is the ideal place for solar power to prosper: "One thing you know about California is that the sun will rise again."

So, let's push for solar for as many sectors of the economy as possible: business, residential and government buildings. Another great application for solar is on public school buildings: the rebates are even better than commercial, and since most schools are out during the summer, just about all of the peak electricity produced by the solar panels during the summer gets credited toward the school's electricity use during its 9-month school year.

--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
Categories: EconomicsOfSolar, PyschologyMarketing

Green Building: listen to Architect Sim Van Der Ryn online

2006-02-22T22:29:00.000-08:00

(KQED public radio, San Francisco and online)

Hey solarDwellers:

Just happened to hear an interview with Sim Van Der Ryn, an inspiring sustainable architect out of Berkeley; he has been MAJORLY influential in the green building field. I especially appreciated his lament of seeing all those huge box building rooftops when flying into Oakland or San Francisco, mainly devoid of solar photovoltaic systems.

Forum welcomes architect Sim Van Der Ryn, who practices and promotes sustainable architecture.
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests:
Sim Van Der Ryn, He is a professor of architecture at UC-Berkeley, and his most recent book is "Design for Life."

You can listen to the archive interview by going to this link, and clicking on, you guessed it, "listen," for the program on Wed, Feb 22, 2006.

Good listening,
--the solarDweller
(An afterthought: don't follow your spellchecker's advice. My spellchecker would have had me written "meagerly" instead of "majorly", "potbellied" instead of "photovoltaics", and Michael "Krishna" instead of "Krasny." Maybe when pigs can do photosynthesis or when talk show hosts become deities!!! Night, night.)
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Higher silicon prices II: another criticism of pro-solar policies

2006-02-22T21:47:00.000-08:00

Hello future solarDwellers:

This is part II, analyzing why that Slate article is so wrong about saying investing in solar is not a good idea now since silicon prices are high. I think it's good to hear the critique of the cost of solar power, forcing solar advocates, like the solarDweller, to put the pro-solar argument to the test. So . . . . .

Why it's not a good argument to delay support for solar: solar prices have come down 7% a year for the last ten years, precisely BECAUSE state rebate programs have given the solar panel manufacturers confidence to keep increasing production to try to keep up with demand. Kind of like all those subsidies the traditional oil-drilling industry enjoys. The silicon manufacturers have only recently fallen behind a bigger-than-expected solar demand, and will catch up to that demand shortly. Please! Argue against oil subsidies before you yank solar or wind subsidies!!! Which technology has a more important, cleaner, bigger future? Pahh-lease! Let's try out the same logic from the oil company perspective. Imagine this Dept. Of Energy hypothetical announcement:

"Uhh, yeah, all car-driving U.S. citizens, we have an announcement to make: since oil prices have gone up by a crazy 57%, while solar has gone up by 20% over the past two years, ahem, a supply "glitch", we are going to STOP all support of the oil industry until they get their supply and prices back under control. Meanwhile, you shouldn't purchase that over-priced, inefficient gasoline, but use public transportation, bike or walk until this expensive oil problem is resolved"

Let's send THAT policy memo to the President. But, in the face of record oil prices and profits, instead of saying oil is "too expensive to be practical"(as a solar critic might argue about expensive silicon), our President argues for more domestic oil-drilling (drum-roll) SUBSIDIES, because he understands that with more supply, oil prices will come down. And when is the last time oil subsidies DECREASED?

The solar subsidy, being very considerate and decent, on the other hand, is not permanent: the new California Solar Initiative reduces rebates by 7%/year so that the subsidy will "go away" once economies of scale push the price of solar down enough that it can survive in the market on its own.

Secondly, the article says states shouldn't support solar since most of it produced these days is the expensive silicon-based panels. The problem: state rebates don't restrict what "kind" of solar a consumer buys. Under the current rebate program, more consumers can decide to put their rebate dollars toward buying the cheaper "thin film" or flexible solar panels, which use less silicon, for their property, especially if the traditional panels seem too expensive for them. The temporary high price of silicon will naturally encourage investment in non-silicon solar, with or without rebates.

Finally, we should thoroughly debate about possible clean energy policies and plans. For example, if wind energy were as feasible to implement on a small house-by-house basis as solar is now, and at a cheaper price, I might be thinking of being the future windpowerDweller. It would be a smarter way to invest green energy dollars. I'm all for a balance between what form of green energy is doable NOW, and which is also the most efficient, cost-effective green-energy option. But, we have to start with what we have NOW, and build on it so the price will eventually fall.

Regards
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Slate says its the "wrong time" to push for solar . . . I disagree

2006-02-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

Hello solarDwellers:

Check out today's article at Slate magazine, which basically says that since there's a shortage of silicon for solar panels right now, the author would have wished to put all solar-based federal tax credits and state rebate programs on hold for two years, and all consumer purchases of solar panels on hold, for that matter, until silicon panel prices come down by 20%.
From the article:
"[In two years more silicon factory production will come on line and], following the law of supply and demand, the price of the material should fall. Solar panels will probably be at least 20 percent cheaper in two years, according to Scott Sklar, president of the Stella Group, a solar consulting firm."

First off, how does this "Slate" advice affect YOU if you want to install solar??? You might pay a little less for solar if you wait for two years, but you might also pay MORE. It's hard to predict.

The Positive scenario if you wait two years:

Today's before-rebate price for a 3-kilowatt(DC) system is $27,000 and after rebates and tax credits your net price is $16,600. If solar panel prices decrease by 20% in two years, it will only decrease your total system cost by 10%, because the panels themselves only make up 50% of the total cost to have a solar-electric system installed. So, the installed price before rebates would be ($27,000 x .90) or $24,300, and your net price after rebates and would be $15,100 instead of the current price of $16,600, a savings of $1,500. (Note: the savings is less than you might have expected, because the CA rebate that gives you money back for solar purchases will ALSO go DOWN by 7%, from $2.80 to $2.40/watt over two years; scenario also assumes that the $2,000 fed tax credit will get renewed for 2008).

The Negative scenario in waiting two years:

First, let's say silicon panels only come down 10% in price over the next two years, for a total system savings of 5%. So, the installed price before rebates would be ($27,000 x .95) or $25,650, and your net price after rebates would be $16,450 instead of the current price of $16,600,a savings of only $150. BUT, (and this is an essential "but")the two-year delay to install those solar panels will "cost" you as well. Instead of those two years of waiting, if you had gone ahead and bought those panels, they would have given you 2-years' worth of electricity bill savings of about $1255. So, technically, you must add the "opportunity cost" of having lost out on $1255 of savings since you waited two years: ($16,450 + $1,255) or a real "negative scenario" cost of $17,705, which is more more than the current price of $16,600. But that's still before the biggest risk of waiting: if the $2,000 solar fed-tax credit expires at the end of 2007, like the wind tax credit did last year, you're looking at a price of ($17,705 + 2,000) or $19,705 instead of today's $16,600!!

The point is, regardless of price fluctuations, you have to factor in the BENEFIT of the two-years' $1,255 of energy bill savings if you install "today", and those savings help to mitigate the "risk" of buying now, while solar-silicon prices potentially edge down during the next two years.

To avoid getting too long here, now that I've talked about the risks along with the possible benefit of waiting to install solar, my next post will talk about why it's bad policy to "delay" state and federal solar tax benefit and rebate programs.

My message: if you want to go solar, there's no "big" benefit and very real risk in putting it off two years. If you're motivated, take advantage of today's rebate and tax benefits and start SAVING on energy bills TODAY!!

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Bush: solar sound bites, but the real plan is drill, drill, drill, drill

2006-02-21T22:38:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

I haven't wandered too much into non-solar specific topics, but since national energy policy affects us all, and of which solar is a part, the solarDweller shall indulge.

It's hard to keep up with all the pro-oil policy headlines of the current administration, which leads me to doubt the sincerity (duh) of an alternative energy commitment, at a time when we need a "green energy" Apollo program. Today's Washington Post for example: "Energy Program Trumps Wildlife,"

Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A01

PINEDALE, Wyo. -- The Bureau of Land Management, caretaker of more land and wildlife than any federal agency, routinely restricts the ability of its own biologists to monitor wildlife damage caused by surging energy drilling on federal land, according to BLM officials and bureau documents.

The officials and documents say that by keeping many wildlife biologists out of the field doing paperwork on new drilling permits and that by diverting agency money intended for wildlife conservation to energy programs, the BLM has compromised its ability to deal with the environmental consequences of the drilling boom it is encouraging on public lands.

Any Presidential attention to green energy, or a comment on "addiction to oil" or a photo-op at a thin-film solar production company, seem more and more like cynical, focus-group planned events and not true to this observer. Who can expect an oil dynasty administration to cut off the oil? Do they really have solutions or just enough sound-bites until the next election?

The answer is cutting down our total use of oil, which is a more accurate way of saying "reducing our dependence" on oil. Hybrids, drive a lot less. Our car society just doesn't want make such a lifestyle change or know how to. Couldn't a leader/politician step in here to make the argument about less fuel consumption = less oil dependence, and tap into people's desire to "do what it takes" to use less oil?

--the solarDweller

The solar future: On-grid or Off-grid?>>> S.F. Chronicle

2006-02-21T21:21:00.000-08:00

Buenas noches, solarDwellers:

Browsing through the San Francisco Chronicle today, it was interesting to see the article entitled: VENTURING OFF THE GRID Innovative families save money, gain power with solar, propane, other energy sources.

First, off-grid means the property/homeowner is REALLY into the alternative energy thing. They went ahead and literally cut the cord with the utility company, on purpose!!!! or they live out in the bush where the power company's power lines don't hang. In other words, they produce their own power from various sources: solar,wind,propane, highly-efficient generators, and, in order to have power when the sun don't shine or the wind aint blowin', they have a battery bank to store excess energy. These are the dedicated folk, living on the green-energy frontier, and quite possibly philosophically opposed to big, centralized, polluting, utility large-scale power plants. Here's a quote from the article extolling some of these virtues:

". . .it's increasingly mainstream and propelled by Americans' desire to eliminate electric bills, keep homes juiced during blackouts, minimize U.S. dependence on fossil fuel and, for activists, send a gesture of defiance to the power companies."

But, hey! Those "hippies"(not) have some long-term economic smarts too. Observe:

". . .while self-reliance is its own reward, Peltz emphasized, the biggest appeal is cost: After several years, you save more than you've spent."
"I've saved $200 a month for the last 20 years," Parkinson said. "That's my kids' education right there that I would have given to PG&E."

This last point speaks to the idea in a previous post of mine: when you have a long term view, solar is ALREADY a cost-effective, smart energy solution, not to mention mega GREEEN. And that guy who did it 20 years ago, he's got that nice, green citizen fuzzy feeling PLUS the money in the bank.

Now, for On-Grid solar and the rest of us. This is the most cost-effective type of solar electricity, for most city and suburb dwellers. This type of system is a hybrid: your solar panels are "tied" into the utility's electric grid; when there's no sun, you buy utility power at "nighty-time" prices(cheaper); when there's a plentitud of rays, you sell that juice BACK to the utility grid, at higher "day-time" prices. (This ebb and flow is called "net-metering with time-of-use(TOU) metering.) At the end of the year, the utility balances the energy books with you, and hopefully, your bill ends up at $0, meaning you produced enough solar to cancel out any you used from the utility. The downside: when the utility power goes out, your lights go out too, since you're "tied" to them. Not a big deal if power rarely goes out in your area; maybe a big negative if your utility power fails often.

Finally to sum up the slap-down rumble between the hard-core off-grid'ers, and those urbanite on-grid'ers, the folks at Humboldt State University decided to go for practicality, and not necessarily stay tied to the more-rebellious idea of "off-grid only/no utility imperialist power for me,"

"students formed the Campus Center for Appropriate Technology. Today CCAT -- the campus' largest organization -- is renowned for its quirky alternative-energy projects, such as pedal-powered exercise-bike laptops, blenders and VCRs.

The center, which has an annual budget of $34,000 that doubles every five years, installed solar panels in 1984. Controversy struck in 2000 when the students chose to plug back into the grid to earn rebates from PG&E, contribute energy to the power company and ease the grid's overall load.

"It makes the whole thing cheaper," said Richard Engle, a Humboldt State research engineer. "CCAT could stubbornly stay off the grid and tout renewable energy as 'sticking it to the man,' but we -- those supporting the move -- felt it sent a more powerful message" to supply additional energy to the grid.

On-grid, Off-grid: each energy consumer can decide what's best for them. They each have their pros and cons, but both are tempting ways to DECREASE global warming emissions, control more of your energy sources, and be more energy independent.

--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Check out Solar Hydrogen on Public T.V now

2006-02-17T20:55:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

Nice to happen to catch a part of a new green energy episode of the program "California Connected", dealing with our "energy future"(check it out interactively online here and here.

There was the host of the program, talking about renewable energy, standing in front of a field of huge windmills, majestic, quixotic looking to me. "But, oh my god, they're such a scar on the landscape," some people might say. Although they are not our silver bullet, energy answer, they definitely are a beautiful option when comparing aesthetics between those wind machines and coal plants or the tar sands of Canada. Wind and solar need to at least to play as big a part as we can give them. A professor talks about the psychology of "clean" energy with the following example from Japan that would be awesome to see here in the U.S., where so many are looking to impress thy neighbor:
"It’s become such a status symbol in Japan to have solar panels on your roof… that there is a company in Japan that sells fake solar panels so that you can put them on your roof and pretend to your neighbors that you have solar panels on your roof."

This particular episode of cali connected discusses the problem with hydrogen: it takes a lot of energy to produce it! And if we produce it with coal or gas electricity plants, we're just trading in car pollution for electricity plant pollution. Also, consider you, solarDweller, that about 70% of our air pollution/emissions problem comes from electricity use and power plant production, while only 30% comes from cars. So hydrogen cars would only tackle 30% of the problem. We need clean options first for electricity, like using solar and wind to produce hydrogen, as is outlined in the T.V. program noted above.

If you want a chance to see a replay in the next few days, it will be on kqed 9 in San Francisco Sunday, Feb 19th at 4:30p.m; KCSM in San Mateo Sunday, Feb 19th at 7:30am; and KTEH 54 in San Jose on Saturday, Feb 18th at 1:00am (gotta record that one) and at 5:30pm, or check out program listings here

Happy viewing, and keep looking roofward,

--the solarDweller
solar
hydrogen

Another solar blog: check it out

2006-02-16T22:51:00.000-08:00

Hey solarDwellers:

In my last post I mentioned a blog called debris.com by matthew mcglynn, in reference to keepin your solar panels clean. I just wanted to post again to specifically recommend that you visit his blog to check out the solar section. Why you might want to read his blog? He says, "DEBRIS.COM good for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm"

Not only does he talk about what he has learned about solar finance, payback and environmental benefits of solar and solar politics, it also documents step by step his decision to install a pv system on his house in 2003, and how he monitored its performance over the last couple years.

And here's today's "quote of the day" from his blog. I guess matt was a wee bit upset when the "million solar roofs" legislation (SB 1) went down in the flames of partisan bickering in Sacramento last summer. Check out the post here.
Oh, I apologize in advance to my mom, who has been known to check out this blog, for the objectionable language in matt's letter to the California legislature, and to unions in general(my prob is more with lobbyists on BOTH SIDES that kill good legislation), but I believe it faithfully captures the sentiment we little people sometimes have regarding partisan bickering . . . Luckily, the funding for solar rebates was brought back to life by the California Public Utilities Commission at the beginning of 2006!!

--the solarDweller

solar

Solar tips: keepin those panels clean

2006-02-16T22:12:00.001-08:00

Hey there solarDwellers:

For those of you closer to making that "solar decision", or for those who are already solarDwellers(me jealous of you), I hereby inaugurate a topic on this humble blog that I shall name "solar tips." Every once in a while, I'll post ideas regarding your system's output, how to size your pv system according to your energy usage, and how to calculate how much juice your pv system should actually produce.

Tip for the surface of those panels: do your best to avoid ANY shade, especially during the peak hours of 12noon-6pm. Even shade hitting a small cell or two within a single solar panel can reduce that panel's production. Check it, from the folks at solarelectricpower.org

"Shading just a few cells will drop the module's output to less than half."

And also check out matthew mcglynn's eclectic blog. He's got a whole section on solar, describing his experience from 2003 forward having a system installed at his home, and then his process of monitoring it. Worth a look. Here's what he said in his post about keeping his panels clean:

Sunday, May 23rd, 2004

time for a bath

Sun Power has done extensive research and has consistently seen that clean panels produce 8% more than those panels that have accumulated dust from the atmosphere. For this reason, we suggest that you wash down your panels at the beginning of the summer. This is as simple as hosing them down with plain water.
Ours were indeed covered with grime. Simply hosing them off didnÂt do the job, either; I made a pass with a clean scrub brush to knock off the grit.

Keep shining,
--your future solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, renewable, sustainable, green, alternative, tips
solar

Solar too expensive???? Why it's a good deal and worth doing.

2006-02-15T15:11:00.000-08:00

Hello solarDwellers:

My last post discussed how solar has come down in price, but is still about 50% more expensive than tradition fossil-fuel electricity. So, I wanted to quickly post my "pro-solar" arguments, especially for those who say its price prohibits its use. And although nobody or almost nobody chooses solar based on economics alone, the latest decreased cost, combining rebates and recent increased federal tax credits, makes possible the argument that solar is now a good long term investment, in strictly economic terms.

So, the solarDweller, pro-solar arguments:

1**It is the cleanest, greenest option available that allows a family to produce all or the majority of its own electricity, helping to majorly reduce emissions of carbon, greenhouse gases and mercury from traditional utility-run power plants. Try producing your own power with a coal power plant on your roof.

2**Your neighbors will think you're cool being so green.

3**Electricity price inflation: your neighbors will be at the mercy of utility electricity prices, which will continue to follow the pattern of increasing by 6% or more per year. Your $16,000 investment works out to about $.22/kWh over the 20 year life of the PV system (see previous post). Although your neighbor is paying $.15/kWh to the utility today, in eight years they'll be paying the same as you are, $.22/kWh; and in 15 years, they'll be paying $.33/kWh. And by the way, as prices go up, the utility pays you that increased price for the solar electricity you sell back to them on the grid. Now who's looking smarter? It pays to be a long-term energy planner!

4**Economic payback: your system is guaranteed to pay for itself between 15 and 20 years, and it probably will be producing electricity up to 25 years, so those last years of production are actually pure profit. The payback time represents a return on your investment of about 4-6% per year. And if you sell your house before that, you can include the future value of the PV panels' electricity production in the resale value of the house. So, strictly on economic terms, solar is a good long term decision. When is the last time your car paid you back 100%?

As for me, the main motivation would be the provided environmental benefits of solar, and that it's something concrete that I can do to help clean the air. I'm also in the category of people willing to pay more for this "better" green energy; but solar only costs "more" for the short term. Long term, I can also now justify making the solar decision because of the predictable return on my investment.

Sincerely,
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Correction--Long Term Cost of Solar and DC to AC Energy Loss

2006-02-14T21:17:00.000-08:00

Hello solarDwellers:

In the spirit of being as objective as I can, I was reading over a previous post on the long term cost of solar, and realized I didn't make the clear distinction between PV production measured in DC(direct current) vs. AC(alternating current).

The example in that previous post was a hypothetical family whose electricity needs require a system that that produces 2 kW in power. After the calculations including rebates and tax credits, I came to the conclusion that the 2 kW system would cost $10,900. So far, so good.

Now, the problem: The family's need (according to the hypothetical that was swimming around in my head) is a system that gives them 2 kW of household electricity generation, which is AC. The $10,900 cost above was based on a 2kW PV system, but measured in DC(direct current). But, of course, those 2kW DC will not produce 2kW of household AC. When those little electrons travel from your rooftop panels, through the inverter, and to the outlets in your house, a substantial part of the DC energy is lost.

So, how much energy is lost in this process?? It's different for every PV system and depends on sun/weather conditions of each locations, but I'll use a higher (pessimistic) figure I've seen, which is a loss of 35% when converting DC to AC, combined with other factors such as sun irradiance level, voltage loss in the wiring, dirt on the panels, etc. In other words, if your solar panels are rated for DC at 1000 watts(1kw), they'll produce as few as 650 watts. And so, the 2kW DC system our hypothetical family installed, could produce as little as 1300 watts or 1.3 kW AC, not the 2kW household AC they would need.

How big a system would they need to generate those 2kW AC, then??? In order to get AC generation of 2000 watts(2kW), we have to find how big a DC system would produce 2000 watts AFTER you account for the electricity loss of 35%,
or (X watts)x(65%) = 2000 watts, or 2000/.65 = 3077 watts or roughly 3 kW.

The family needs a 3kW system(DC), not the 2kW $10,900 system in the original example. So, the new price tag will be: $16,600. This assumes installed cost of $9.00/watt, minus CA rebate of $2.80 per watt and minus the new fed tax credit of $2,000.

Finally, to recalculate how much this system costs over 20 years/kWh produced AC, we do $16,600/73000 kWh = .227/kWh. Remember we pay PG&E about .15/kWh to get the good ole fossil-fuel based electricity.

Conclusions . . . the example above uses a low-ball, almost worst-case figure of how much the 3kW system might produce, so the family might well be able to buy a less-expensive 2.5 kW system for $13,500 to get the production they need. Secondly, solar power has gotten less expensive, but it is still about 50% more expensive than coal/gas traditional electricity retail.

But doesn't this make logical, market sense, like the comparison I made in a previous post about why we would pay more for a Prius than a Pinto? If you were in the business of selling electricity, wouldn't the electrons from the renewable, green energy of the sun command a higher price than the electrons produced from carbon/mercury-laden coal? It comes down to the individual decision if one can afford it and if its worth it to spend ballpark $15,000 up-front, or even a monthly 5-year loan payment of about $200, to be a green, solar energy producer.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power

Solar growing pains--the silicon factor

2006-02-09T22:47:00.000-08:00

(Silicon ingots)

Hello future solarDwellers:

There's been a lot in the news lately about the near term constraints the lack of silicon production is putting on the solar market. (see Business Week, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 What's Raining On Solar's Parade)

You might have heard that since demand, especially from Germany, has increased so much for solar panels and the silicon they use, that there is now a shortage in production of these panels. From what I've read, it looks like there will be more demand than supply through 2007.

The assumption now is that since states like California and places like Germany are making long-term commitments to back favorable solar policies, that silicon/panel producers will invest in increased production; but it takes time for the new supply to reach the market.

It's just a fascinating mixture of factors going on the market right now: slowly increasing silicon prices, making solar panels more expensive, but with the best state/federal rebates in years. The net effect, even with increasing silicon prices, there is the new federal solar tax credit, is still the chance to have a final cost that is lower than you could have done last year on a fully installed solar pv system, especially for commercial solar (which I spoke about in my last post)

--the solarDweller

-solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming
More blogs about solar.

Solar Sightings No. 5 -- Why solar is cheapest for business installations

2006-02-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

Hello future solarDwellers:

Check out the interesting curved mounting structure holding these solar-electric panels. This is a commercial building in Oakland, CA, a realty company

The single most economical and best market, hands down, for solar-electric(PV) installations is the commercial/small business market. Why? The tax benefits combined with solar state rebates, and especially the new federal tax credit, make solar pv substantially cheaper for commercial installations than for residential, especially on larger systems.

A simple (rough) example: a very large 10kW residential system would cost about $95,000 - 28,000(CA rebate) = $67,000. Then, the fed tax credit is 30% of that amount, but with a max credit of $2,000 for residential:
$67,000 - $2,000 =

$65,000 for residential 10 kW system.

The same 10kW system for a commercial/business installation would be the same after the CA state rebate ($67,000), but instead of capping the new federal residential tax credit at $2,000, you could take off another FULL 30%:
$67,000 - $20,100 = (Wow! Take off $20,000 instead of $2,000!!!)

$46,900 for commercial 10 kW system!

Same size systems, but the homeowner's cost is $65,000, and the business owner's cost is only $46,900. Is that an incentive for businesses or what???

On top of that, businesses receive the additional tax benefit of accelerated depreciation, reducing their taxes even further.
I guess there's nothing new here: tax/rebate systems, politically and economically speaking, have always favored the business owner vs the average consumer.

So, business owners, here's your golden chance to step up, market yourself as a green business, take advantage of this tax-favored status until the end of 2007 and reduce emissions from our power plants, making our air cleaner. Green for the environment; green for your bottom line!!!

Power on,
--your solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming
More blogs about solar.

Eureka! The price of solar: closer to utility retail than you think

2006-02-06T15:24:00.000-08:00

Attention solarDwellers: please see a post I just made (here) subsequent to this one to correct the way in which I calculated the scenario of a hypothetical cost of a family's "2 kW" system below in this post. I got my AC mixed up with my DC, meaning this solarDweller must have been "out of it" that day! My goal is to use objective data, and argue the merits of solar not based on what some might wish, but on the reality of economics combined with its environmental benefit!! Thanks for reading!!!

To determine if the crown was pure gold, all Archimedes had to do was find a piece of pure gold that displaced the same amount of water as the crown and compare the weights of the two. If the crown was pure gold they should weigh the same.

It is this revelation, the story goes, that prompted Archimedes to leap from his tub and run naked through Syracuse shouting
"Eureka! Eureka!"(from California State Website)

Dear solarDwellers:

In a previous post about the psychology/economics of solar power, I claimed that since purchasing solar power isn't nearly as common as comparison shopping for a car, it's predictably more difficult to compare the "value" of electricity that comes from fossil fuels vs solar-based, than it is to compare the "value" of, say, a Pinto to a hybrid Prius. In car buying, people quickly understand why they pay more for one car or another: quality, reputation, status. I'm obviously saying the traditional, fossil fuel-based power is the "Pinto" of electricity. So, if solar, clean energy is the "Prius" of electricity, what's the price comparison between the two? Specifically, let's compare traditional vs. solar electricity in terms of dollars and cents, and you can judge if it's "worth it" to you.

Traditionally, critics have claimed solar is too expensive; but they come at it from the wrong perspective: the perspective of the utility company, not the small consumer/prouducer of solar power. They say that solar electricity costs about 20-25 cents/kWh for the utilities to produce wholesale(which is accurate these days); whereas, they can make electricity from coal, gas and even wind for 4-9 cents/kWh. So, the market argument goes, without huge subsidies, utilities shouldn't try to produce solar, since they can produce other forms of electricity much more cheaply and charge consumers less. The market from the "supplier" side says solar is too expensive to sell for a profit.

But let's look at it from the consumer/small solar prouducer's perspective. We have to look not at wholesale, but the RETAIL price of electricity or what the utility charges on your bill. Remember, we want to know if it makes sense for a small consumer to produce solar electricity, even if the utility says solar is "too expensive" for them to produce and resell to consumers. When we the consumers make the comparison we should start with how much fossil or traditional electricity costs us at home first: in California, its about 14 cents/kWh. So, using THAT price, we can compare it to how much it will cost us to produce our own solar electricity.

[The following paragraph is the main point I have corrected, here, in a subsequent post]

[So, how to calculate how much a solar power system will cost you to install, and the important part . . . PER kWh, so we can compare it to the 14 cents/kWh electricity currently costs us at home? To make it easy, lets say a 2 kW solar-panel system (I should have said "AC" here) will meet all your electricity needs. The final cost would be about $10,900 after rebates. ($18,500 -$5,600(CA rebate) - $2000(fed tax credit).]

Well, maybe it's too expensive for utilities to centralize it and make a profit off it, but its not too expensive in the long term for we little consumers to install our own distributed power stations on the roof, and sell it back to the utility. We, today, can be producer/consumers of solar electricity.

And I understand the problem of putting 20 years' worth of solar energy on your roof, and then selling your house 5 years later. It's not a problem: you could easily demonstrate to the new buyer the "value" left in those solar panels you're going to sell them, and build that in to the resale value of the house. They'll be happy to pay a locked-in 22 cents/kWh for the next 15 years as their neighbors' utility rates continue up at 6% per year!!! And that's being conservative: you could increase the selling price more if you include the 6% per year increase in electricity prices in the resale price of the panels' electricity, because down the line, the new owners will be selling their solar power back to the utility at these increasingly higher retail rates.

Solar is not as expensive as we are lead to believe, especially in these days of increasing gas and oil prices, decreasing solar prices and increasing solar rebates. I think we're in a sweet spot for solar.

Please send me your criticisms comments via the "comments" link below, or to solarisbetter@comcast.net.

Regards,
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming
More blogs about solar.

SunEdison--a unique solar financing model

2006-02-06T14:38:00.000-08:00

(Solar installation on top of a Staples building in Rialto, CA, from SunEdison website)

Hello solarDwellers:

Just cruising the web and found an interesting company called SunEdison. They want to solve the problem of the barrier most larger/commercial solar projects face in getting off the ground: up-front capital costs to build the project.

So, SunEdison went out and partnered with BP Solar and Goldman Sachs financing to offer a solution: SunEdison finances, installs and maintains the solar PV system on the roof of a large business. In return for the "green energy," the business signs a long-term contract to pay SunEdison for the kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed at or BELOW retail electricity rates. The company gets the benefit of locking in current electricity rates and no maintenance, while SunEdison gets the benefit of making money on the solar installation after its paid off (7-10 years).

Just today SunEdison signed a contract to build an 18 mW installation in Nevada, which would be the largest in the world after a 10 mW installation in Germany done by Berkeley's own Powerlight Corp.

Here are some links for the solar curious: SunEdison website; News release about Nevada installation; News release about California plans.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Those Eco-Spanish are buying up the sun in Nevada

2006-02-02T21:11:00.000-08:00

The sun is concentrated via trough mirrors onto the suspended tube, super-heating liquid in the tube, which makes steam for an electricity turbine.(Photo from Solargenix website)

Hey SolarDwellers:

Although I usually refer to solar in the context of distributed generation solar photovoltaics(electricity via silicon panels) and solar hot water, the following article grabbed my attention. It regards the "centralized" version of solar technology: "concentrated" or "solar thermal" energy. Basically, it can be a utility-sized power plant that makes electricity by heating up fluid that passes through many, large, solar parabolic dishes or mirrors. The super-hot fluid then generates steam to run an electricity-producing turbine.

What's impressive about these installations is the size: the solar plant in Nevada will be 64 megawatts, or enough electricity for about 32,000 houses. Check out the article . . . .

Feb. 2, 2006, 11:48AM
Acciona to Buy 55 Percent of Solargenix
Â© 2006 The Associated Press
(Link to article)

--the solarDweller
solar

Solar Greats, part 3 Find a good solar contractor!

2006-01-31T21:27:00.000-08:00

Queridos solarDwellers:

It's been a while since our last chapter in the "book" of solar greats, great organizations or people promoting solar energy.

Today's member to be nominated is a website sponsored by the Solar Energy Industries Association It's called "Findsolar.com". A couple neat features: one is called "the solar estimator," where you can estimate what size of system you need and its cost. Cool to fiddle around with. The other feature is called "find a solar pro", which is a MUCH better way to find the companies that install solar (by state and county), complete with ratings and reviews.

hasta luego,
--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Info about new Federal Solar Tax Credit

2006-01-31T20:49:00.000-08:00

Dutiful solarDwellers:

Found this article on Renewable Energy Access news website(by the way, a great source for renewable energy news that I go to often) mentioning a report prepared by SEIA, the Solar Energy Industry Association, regarding the new federal tax credit for solar installations: 30% tax credit, limit $2,000 for residential; 30% tax credit, no dollar limit for commercial installs.

Can you see why commercial installs should grow like crazy this next two years?: a FULL 30% off the price, after the California rebate of $2.80/watt.

You can request that the report be e-mailed to you via the SEIA website.

I've sent for a copy and will post any interesting details.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Borrego solar installs two more systems in Berkeley

2006-01-31T20:37:00.000-08:00

Hello there solarDwellers:

Just a quick "bringing-to-your-attention" of the following article, which says how Borrego Solar, I believe one of California's leading installers, has completed two projects in Berkeley. From the article:

206 highly efficient Sharp mono-crystalline solar modules line the rooftop of Access Softek's Berkeley headquarters, and provide the electrical power for everything in the building except the company's server room.

Just around the corner, and within eyesight from Access soviet's front entrance, Borrego Solar, Inc. has installed another system of photovoltaic modules atop the contemporary looking complex of three-story condominiums called 'Greenpads'.

Keep your eye skyward. This trend shall just accelerate in 2006,2007 and 2008. 2006-7 because the new Federal tax credits are in effect for solar, and 2008 because the price of silicon should stabilize, go back down again as production catches up with demand.

--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Sightings No. 4 --check out these solar hot water systems!

2006-01-28T21:23:00.000-08:00

Hey Future solarDwellers:

I've been noticing more and more solar hot water collectors going up on larger apartment buildings during my recent meanderings through S.F Bay Area neighborhoods. I surmise that building owners decide to put these systems up when the owners pay the hot water bill or the hot water is "included" in the rent of the residents. Since the owner has to pay the bill for these large water heaters in their building, they get immediate benefit when the solar hot water system can cut that bill in half. Basically, the sun "pre-heats" water that flows into traditional natural gas water heaters which heat the water the rest of the way. It's a way to use much less gas and let the sun do some of the work!!!

Without further adieu, here are a few recent hot water systems I've seen . . .

Let the trend be your friend . . .

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings, HotWater
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

How will I know--is it a solar hot water panel or electricity (PV) panel?

2006-01-28T20:49:00.000-08:00

Hello Future solarDwellers:

Just a quick primer on how to tell during your travels , when you see those black or blue rectangular panels going up on roofs, hopefully many roofs, whether they are for heating water or producing electricity.

Solar electric panels are generally smaller than water panels, and they contain silicon, which gives them a shinier, bluish/black look. You can also usually see a grid of metallic lines going up and down and across electric panels; these metal lines conduct the electrons between the silicon squares in the panel.

Solar hot water panels, called collectors, are generally thicker and larger. They are basically black boxes with water-carrying, copper coil tubing running through them, with a plate of clear glass serving as a cover. Even from a distance you can tell if its a hot water system by one or two thick white or black plumbing tubes leading down from the water panels to the roof.

Also of note: solar hot water is cheaper to do than solar electricity, since the solar hot water panels (collectors) use simple copper/metal/glass materials, whereas, solar electric panels use silicon, which increases the cost.

Keep looking roofward,

--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Psychology and Economics of "The Solar Decision" Ford Pinto or Toyota Prius?

2006-01-28T19:57:00.000-08:00

Hey there future solarDwellers:

I wanted to continue on the economic vs psychological factors behind purchasing a technology such as solar energy. Specifically, I think its very possible these days, as the price of solar has come down especially over the last 10-15 years, to refute the traditional argument that solar isn't ready for mass adoption, mainly because it has been labeled as "too expensive." (I'll cover the dollars and cents comparison between tradition fossil-based electricity and solar electricity in my next post). Secondly, I argue, the "value/worth" of solar power is already very high these days and affordable, especially when compared with combination of price and negative effects of traditional fossil fuel-based utility electricity. So, finally, the key to a wider adoption and acceptance by a wider public of solar energy is simply getting the word out that: in terms of economics, it's not soooo expensive any more, and in fact, is very close in price to traditional fossil-based electricity when viewed over the long term; and, in terms of consumer psychology, solar energy should be seen as a BETTER (cleaner) source of electricity, holding an inherently higher value than coal or natural gas-based electricity.

I used the simple car metaphor in the title of this post: if electricity were a car, isn't the Prius (clean energy) worth more than Pinto (fossil-based energy)? We are so adept at making the buying decision when it comes to cars, being such a part of our daily lives, that most people EASILY see the difference in "value" and price between a Prius and a Pinto. If the purchasing experience for electricity were as present in our lives as the car buying decision, in terms of being able to evaluate and choose our source of electricity, I think a LOT more people would be purchasing solar power based on its superior characteristics. Heck, they might even be willing to pay MORE for solar based on its higher "value"!!! But there's a bonus: even though solar has so much more "value" than coal or natural gas-based, polluting electricity, it's price is VERY COMPARABLE when viewed over the long term (the 25-year life of most solar panels).

And don't worry, future solarDweller, besides covering the attractive economics in dollars and cents of solar power these days, tomorrow's post will also cover the worry of some homeowners: what if I purchase those panels, or 25-year's worth of electricity, but sell my house after 7 years? The short answer: you won't have to donate the 18 years' worth of electricity left in those panels to the buyer of your home.

--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, green, sustainable, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

How much $$$ to install, part deux. Its even easier with a loan!!!

2006-01-25T18:03:00.000-08:00

Hello Future solarDwellers:

Coincidentally after writing about how much solar costs in yesterday's post, I saw an article (link) in today's San Francisco Chronicle also talking about how now is a very good time to go solar, to go "green" electricity.

The writer comments on whether solar makes sense to install on his San Francisco home (in a part of S.F. without so much fog, which does exist, believe it or not). He comments on an financing angle I didn't discuss yesterday: paying for a solar installation using a home equity or consumer loan. It's a smart way to avoid paying "up-front" the $13,500 cost of the hypothetical installation I mentioned yesterday.

Bottom line: his electricity bill pre-solar is a low $75/month. The 15-year loan to pay for a solar panel set-up would cost him about $145/month. So, basically, he'd be paying an extra $70/month: call it a "green energy" premium. But, also think of it this way. He is protected against future electricity rate increases. His electric bill 10 years from now could easily be $100+, making that $145 loan payment look not so bad. And from year 16 to year 25, the warranted life of the system, he is free and clear with NO MONTHLY ENERGY COSTS! As his neighbors continue to pay the electric company more and more money each year, the value of the energy his solar panels is producing goes up as well.

The real bottom line on the "solar" decision: The "payback" time is between 12-15 years these days, 7 years if you have $150+ elec bills. But the real question: how much is having 100% green, solar electricity really WORTH to you?? Using the above case, is the benefit of paying $0 to the electric company WORTH paying an extra $70 per month for your own solar power plant on your roof? Would you be happy paying an extra 70 bucks for the satisfaction of producing clean electricity???

Personally, paying an extra $70/month would be worth it for green energy for my home. "But solar energy is more expensive and has too long a payback time," isn't a persuasive enough argument for me to avoid making the solar purchase. The question to me is: "Is the benefit of green energy affordable for ME?"

Taking out a loan that only adds $70/month to my electricity costs seems like a practical, doable way to become a "green" energy producer, and a CO2 reducer.

--the solarDweller

Next post: more on the psychology/economics of the "solar decision," further debunking the "barriers" of a long payback time and higher cost of solar electricity. Hint: what is the difference between the "value" and "price" of clean energy vs traditional carbon-based energy? Is one type inherently worth "more" than the other in terms of price?
Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, alternative, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

How much does solar cost to install? Good article summary

2006-01-24T21:50:00.000-08:00

Hey there Future solarDwellers:

If you want a good summary of what the economics of solar are looking like for the average homeowner in California, which have gotten better recently with a new federal tax credit (up to $2,000) combined with the roughly 30% rebate you get from the state when you install solar, take a quick look at the article linked below.

Here's the link to the article mentioned above:Solar-powered home incentives funded. And a small quote from the article:

John Schaefer, president and founder of Real Goods, said the average size of the array Real Goods installs is about 250 square feet, and could reduce electricity bills from $150 per month to $30 per month.

Schaefer said installation of a system that size generally costs around $15,000 out of pocket, with an additional $10,000 being picked up by state and federal programs.

Schaefer said the combination of federal and state programs beginning this year make a solar energy system one of the best investments available.

"It returns 10 to 15 percent," he said. "That's better than anything in the stock market or any CD. You'd be crazy not to buy."

Schaefer said he expects to see a 50 percent increase in his business in the next year.

For a quick idea of the cost comparison, a 2500 Watt (2.5 kW) system would cost about $22,500 at the going "fully installed" average contractor rate of $9.00/watt in California. After the California $2.80/watt rebate, the total comes down to $15,500 (-$2.80 x 2500 watts). After the new federal $2,000 tax credit, the total is down to $13,500.

And the payback?? Such a system would produce or "pay you back" about $685 worth of electricity every year, or a return on your investment of about 5%. And assuming rates go up every year, the electricity your pv system produces 10 years from now will be worth even more: about $965/year, or about a 7% return on investment if electricity bill rates keep going up a conservative 3% per year. Your system will be totally paid off in about 15 years, but your panels will produce for 10 years beyond that!!! That's truly great: the electricity your solar panels produce gets more valuable over time, because electricity rates go up over time. In other words, when the electric company raises its rates, they have to pay you more to buy back/give you credit for the electricity you produce.

Seems like a pretty ideal time for solar to me . . .

--the solarDweller

Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, alternative, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

They're doing WHAT with solar? Makin' hydrogen

2006-01-23T22:10:00.000-08:00

TAKEN FROM:

Hey 'Dwellers:

The problem with the future "hydrogen" economy has been two-fold: technical/cost problems with the storage, distribution, use of hydrogen in fuel cells, their operation in very cold climates, AND the fact that it takes a lot of energy just to produce the hydrogen in the first place. It's one step forward, one back, if the emissions from a fuel cell car are clean, but it took lots of electricity powered from coal or natural gas to produce that energy.

One elegant solution: use "clean" electricity to produce the hydrogen; i.e., wind and/or sun power! Without further adieu, take a look at the following story from a university that is exploring the idea of using solar panels to produce hydrogen:

Napier University to Produce Hydrogen From Solar Energy
23 January 2006

Author:
Provider: Fuel Cell Today

Scientists at Napier University are set to use solar panels at their Merchiston campus to produce hydrogen fuel.
In the first project of its kind in Scotland, Professor Tariq Muneer and his team at the School of Engineering want to use the electricity produced by the solar panels to create hydrogen gas through electrolysis. It involves passing a current of electricity through water to separate hydrogen from oxygen.

The hydrogen gas produced can then be stored under pressure for use later in a fuel cell.

When there is a demand for electrical power, the two gases are passed through the fuel cell and create an electric current. The atoms then recombine and join with the oxygen to become water again. No carbon is produced.

Professor Muneer, director of research at the School of Engineering, said the project would cost around £70,000 and should be working by 2007

Regards,
--the solarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Sightings No. 3

2006-01-23T21:21:00.000-08:00

Good evening, Future SolarDwellers:

Just wanted to continue an installment of "solar sightings," in which I point out solar electric or hot water installations I've noticed in different neighborhoods, so far in the S.F. Bay Area. The more you see, the cooler they seem, and, hopefully, the more you will want to install such a system.

Today's chapter is a bonus two-for-one edition: two properties I saw within one block of each other in the green city of Berkeley!!!

House Number one:

on Ellsworth St in Berkeley, this shiny, new solar PV installation jumped out at me from two blocks away with the sun bouncing off the nice, sleek, solar panels. I would be proud to support such an array on my abode. Looks like 18 panels; and if we use an average/estimate of 150 watts per panel, this system is 150w x 18 panels = 2700 watts = 2.7 kilowatts(kW). That's about the size to meet all the electricity needs of your single family home. Sa-weeeet! Thank you Ellsworth house, for keeping all that co2 out of the air!

House Number two:

also on Ellsworth in Berkeley. Almost missed this one, and was interested to see the PV panels poking up barely above the roofline. Looks like this owner decided to tilt his panels at a very shallow angle, almost parallel to the roof, making them hard to see from the street. Personally, I would want to show off my panels, but people also like the idea of making their panels as "inivisible" from their street/neighbors as possible. Or, of course, certain neighborhoods or housing associations can be strict about what and how you slap on your roof. As long as they can catch some rays, dude!

Stay tuned, SolarDwellers. . . .

The SolarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Plan Approved in California--Subsidies GOOD!

2006-01-12T22:29:00.000-08:00

Hey Futuro SolarDwellers:

I guess this is the obligatory post about news you've already heard about today (all over the news and green blogs). But just in case . . . . (article).

So, what with the argument: "Why should I pay $12/year on my electric bill to subsidize my neighbor's solar electricity???" I'm fine with the idea of a subsidy to help a green technology. And I think its also fine if everbody pitches in about $12 per year on the electric bill for the benefit of California having cleaner air, as we produce less electricity from polluting sources like natural gas and coal, and more from solar, wind, etc. The main idea is that if my $12/year is going to help my neighbor install a solar PV system, I'm happy that my neighbor is contributing green energy to California!

From the above article, the emphasis is helping Californians have more power to CHOOSE the source of their electricity/hot water . . .

"Our hope is that solar will become a major part of California's energy portfolio," said commission President Michael Peevey. "This solar program simply offers one more alternative to Californians concerned about a clean energy future."

Here's to being aggressive when it comes to Green Energy . . . .

--the SolarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, alternative, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Gimme more Solar Hot Water

2006-01-12T21:34:00.000-08:00

Future SolarDwellers:

From another blog I ran across (see here), more reasons to go for solar hot water, which is even more economical than solar electricity. If you want to get going in that solar direction, solar hot water is an easy way to do it.

The above blog also mentioned a website which looks like its got good info on how solar works practically, for electricity and water: WaterHeating at builditsolar.com

Thanks to Kitty Davidhizar over at buildingmyhouse.blogspot.com.

Your Future SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Walgreens Does Solar . . .Big!

2006-01-11T21:34:00.000-08:00

Buenas noches, SolarDwellers:

Just had to pass on the big news that Walgreens has decided to install solar on about 100 of its buildings in California and New Jersey,

"the largest solar energy project ever done in the United States"(see article)

A small excerpt from the article explains some of the benefits:

"Solar roof tiles will enable each store or distribution center to generate between 20 percent and 50 percent of its own electricity on site. The stores will host solar electric systems that will replace energy equivalent to more than 22 million gallons of gas and avoid hundreds of tons of carbon dioxide emissions comparable to growing more than 5 million tree seedlings, the companies said in the announcement."

When big companies choose solar, like when FedEx went big with solar, and now Walgreens, we can conclude that something BIG is happening in the green energy market. These companies don't just throw money away: they know they're getting the double benefit of being and marketing themselves as a "green business", while cutting their energy costs over the long term.

There is a Long's Drug and a Walgreens within walking distance of where I live: through which automatic sliding door do you think I shall choose to walk???

Sweet dreams, Future SolarDweller

--the SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Greats, part 2; and take action in Cali

2006-01-09T22:13:00.000-08:00

Hello SolarDwellers:

In the second installment of "solar greats" I would encourage you to take a look at an organization that works to promote pro-solar legislation and initiatives in various states. The non-profit is called Vote Solar.

While you're checkin' out their website, click on the "take action" tab if you're in California. The Public Utilities Commission is about to vote on a ground-breaking measure which will aggressively promote, commit and financially assist the development of solar energy over the next 11 years. They really do count those e-mails!!!

Until the sun rises next,
Your Future SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

No brainer: solar hot water

2006-01-09T21:07:00.000-08:00

Hello future SolarDweller:

When you think of solar power, its smart, more efficient and cheaper to think solar hot water heater before you think of installing those silicon-based solar panels to power your home with electricity. Ideally, solar hot water AND solar electricity would be a part of your home's energy mix, but if you take it step by step, you get more energy bang for your buck by starting out with solar hot water.

From a T.V. news report out of Florida . . . .

Federal government offers tax break for solar power heating systems
Last Update: 1/3/2006 2:33:18 PM

Soaking up the sunshine is nothing new to Floridians, and now the federal government hopes you'll take full advantage of the constant rays. Beginning this year, the government is offering a 30% tax break on new solar heating systems.

It's wonderful, says Mark Glenn. It's what the industry's been waiting for, for years.

Glenn owns American Solar Energy in Jacksonville. HeÂs had a solar water heater in his home for the past decade and says he's saving big bucks.

ÂWith a hot water system, what we do is lower the homes operating cost by taking over the water heating cost by 80-90%, which comes out to the average consumer anywhere from $30-50 in savings per month or $400-600 per year in energy savings.

Glenn says after incentives, a solar water heater can cost as little as $1,500. By comparison, a regular hot water will run between $400-600.

While a solar water heater system can look complicated, they're really quite simple. Water in one tank is transported by pipes up to the roof where it's warmed using solar panels. Water then comes back down the pipes into the tank at a warm temperature, all warmed by the sun.

As long as there is sun on the solar panels, it continues to circulate and it will raise the temperature of the tank anywhere from 50 to 70 degrees over what the tank temp started at, says Glenn.

Of course, water temperatures aren't the only thing soaring. Fuel costs are on the rise a swell, which is why Glenn believes we're going to see a dramatic increase in the use of solar energy, thanks to Mother Nature and now the federal government.

For the past three years, JEA has also offered incentives to consumers switching to solar systems.

SO, really pay attention, SolarDweller, if the continuing increase in the price of natural gas has you thinking about the future economic squeeze you'll feel when your water's getting heated up in your old-fashioned natural gas-fired water heater.

Compare the prices: to get started with an average size 2 kilowatt solar panel electricity system for a single-family home, you'll spend about $11,000 in California, after the state solar rebate and the NEW federal tax credit of $2,000 for residential installations. (This doesn't seem expensive to me for the huge benefit and satisfaction that you're producing mean, green clean electricity, and avoiding sending all those greenhouse gases into the air, day after day, year after year)
--but hey, I'm fanatically into this solar/green revolution idea, being a future SolarDweller... I understand that many green-minded people might get a little sticker shock before plunking down $11,000 to produce their own electricity. So, DO your hot water with solar for as little as $1500. BONUS!!! This little baby could save you $30-50 per month. Your return on invesmeaslys a measley 2- 4 years. It's all paid off, with many future years to come of water heated by the sun!

Now that's a sweet no-brainer.

Regards,
The SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

California's long-term solar plans

2005-12-21T19:40:00.000-08:00

Hey there future SolarDwellers:

Just a quick link to an article that really stresses the positive effect of having an energy policy that is committed to solar/wind etc in the long term: a predictable growing market with decreasing prices as production increases (following Japanese model).

A Bright Future with the California Solar Initiative
by Donald Osborn

Also, if your interested in Japan's success over the last 10 years--they're up there with Germany as the top two solar installation countries--check out this report done by a great non-profit called EnvironmentCalifornia:

"Bringing Solar to Scale: California's Opportunity to Create a Thriving, Self-Sustaining Residential Solar Market"

Happy Solar Holidays and see you for more SolarDwelling in the New Year!!

Regards,
The SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Time for Businesses to Go Solar! $$$

2005-12-21T18:26:00.000-08:00

Hello Future business SolarDwellers:

Just a "heads-up" to consider solar for your business beginning January 2006; OMG, that's only two weeks away!!! Get going!

Here's why it's compelling beginning in '06. The going rate to for solar fully installed these days is $9.00/watt. The proposed California Emerging Renewables Program rebate for solar installations is $2.60/watt, down from $2.80/watt in '05. "But, SolarDweller," you ask,"that doesn't sound like the rebate situation is better. It sounds worse!" Be patient, I say, for the rest of the story . . .

So, with California rebates, were at a price of $9.00 - $2.60 = $7.40/watt installed. Not bad: 28% rebate amount. Now, the rest of the story . . . THE NEW FEDERAL TAX CREDIT FOR SOLAR. Yes, my friends, somehow in the latest huge federal energy bill, mostly laden with tax credits for oil and gas exploration, the solar industry was successful in lobbying for a 30% tax credit for solar installations, capped at $2,000 for residential systems, but, pay attention business owners, the 30% rebate for commercial systems is UNCAPPED.

So, now we're at a price after the CA rebate of $7.40 - $2.22 = $5.18/watt!!!! Plus, a business would subtract accelerated appreciation on top of that, making it even cheaper. A system (6kW) costing $30,000, would generate about $38,000 worth of electricity in it's lifetime. Now that makes environmental and business sense!!

Doing solar now for a business is the cheapest it has ever been, and, thus, the time to get on it before all those other business start marketing themselves as "green and solar powered" before you do.

--the SolarDweller-
Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, alternative, EconomicsOfSolar
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Greats

2005-12-19T20:04:00.000-08:00

Hello SolarDwellers:

This is first the installment of Solar Greats, where I plan to mention great organizations working for more green energy, especially solar power. I will also mention great publications or books discussing the creative use of solar power!!!

For today's installment, I would like to mention a non-profit working in the San Francisco/Bay Area in California. They are called Grid Alternatives. What's really neat about them is they try to apply solar energy, and other alternative energy, to the needs of people or communities in need. Solar shouldn't only help those who have enough money to buy themselves a system to save on their monthly energy bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. An electricity bill can be a substantial part of your income if your family doesn't have the fortune to be higher up on the economic pay scale. Therefore, getting a solar electric system at a very reduced cost, reducing the monthly electricity bill to almost $0 can be a BIG HELP.

Please check this group out, make a donation or even offer to be a volunteer. You can go out into the community and help install solar-electric systems for people. We were just working on one in San Francisco this past weekend!!

Until later, keep enjoying the sun . . .

The SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar '70's Retro--not gonna die out this time

2005-12-16T21:50:00.000-08:00

Hello future SolarDweller:

You will hear quite a few skeptics out there, saying solar is just going through a "fad" as it did during the last oil shock of the 1970's. The problem with this argument: it's not the same old solar left over from those times. We're looking at several new catalysts:

1) The Energy Department recently reported the following concerning a new era of higher energy prices:

Business Archive
Feds rescind prediction of oil price drop

December 13, 2005

BY H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON -- Oil prices are projected to remain well above $50 a barrel for years to come, resulting in a greater shift to more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy sources, according to an analysis released Monday by the Energy Department.

The analysis reflected a sharp change from the department's projections a year ago when it predicted oil prices in constant dollars -- not counting normal inflation -- would decline to $31 a barrel by 2025
(http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-gas13.html)

Basically--get used to an era of higher energy prices. Note the following quote from the owner of an online alt energy store:

But Sascha Deri, president of the Alternative Energy Store said, "I think it's here to stay this time," he said. "This fuel crisis is not really a crisis, but a permanent change in prices."

2) Solar technology has improved and, as opposed to traditional up-trending energy prices, solar is getting less and less expensive. . .

Boom time for solar energy -- or is it?
By LANCE GAY
Scripps Howard News Service
December 16, 2005

The industry . . . has matured over the last 30 years and produces equipment that has 20- and 25-year warranties guaranteeing it will work. "In the '70s, there was a rush to bring out technologies that were not ready for prime time," he said.

California solar entrepreneur John Schaeffer, who opened his solar store Real Goods in 1978, said the equipment he's selling now is much more efficient and less costly than when he started.
"I think we've broken through the issue of economic viability," Schaeffer said. "With the economics that we are seeing now, I think we can hit the mainstream."

And 3) Today's solar customer is a different customer than the '70's customer . . .

Deri (from the Alternative Energy Store) and his 14 staff members sell solar heaters, windmills and other energy-saving devices through the Massachusetts-based Internet store he launched in 1999. He said business has doubled yearly since he began, and the customer base is changing - it's not just the Birkenstock crowd looking at solar for environmental reasons or for their grid-deprived mountainside second homes, but suburbanites trying to cut their electricity bills.(By LANCE GAY
Scripps Howard News Service December 16, 2005)

solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Article: CA Solar rebates next year

2005-12-16T21:29:00.000-08:00

Hey Dwellers:

Just another article explaining the increased funding for solar installation rebates in California next year.

Check it . . .

California Solar Rebates Tripled for Next Year
Vote to allocate $300 million for next year is first stage in new, long-term solar plan by Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com (article link)

This, my solar friends, is a statewide commitment to bring California's solar portion of total electricity production up to 5% of all electricity produced; and that's way up from the current <1% of electricity produced by solar today!!!

If Germany can do it in much greater volume than the U.S. can, something's wrong. We have so much more land area, especially at more southern latitudes that get more sun-hours per day by far!

Here's to our catching up on the 'green energy' super-highway . . .

regards,
The SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Sightings--No. 2

2005-12-16T16:44:00.000-08:00

Good day, Future SolarDweller:

Time for my second installment of "solar sightings", through which you hopefully vicariously get inspired, or at least interested in solar, by seeing that people in the "neighborhood" are definitely doin' it!!!

I present to you, solar-electric dwelling in Berkeley, CA, on Ashby Avenue. I caught the last afternoon sun hitting these panels. I climbed up an adjacent parking structure to get this nice shot.

The system looks big enough (22 solar panels--if each panel is about 150 watts, that would be a 3300 watt, or 3.3 kW system) to provide enough electricity for the total home's use. Niiiice. PG&E electric bill at the end of the year: $$$0!!! I like it.

Once the "mainstreamers" catch up to what's going on in the "green energy" field, they'll look at those panels as aesthetically pleasing as well. "But the panels are ugly," does not compute with this SolarDweller! They're more like "cool," "chiq," and "sleek," to me!!

Keep looking "roofward" for those PV systems popping up in YOUR neighborhood. And hey, even send me a digital pic and location via e-mail(solarisbetter@comcast.net) of a system you might see in your solar travels, so it can be given it's "green" credit in a future installment of our "solar sightings" . . .

Until then,
The SolarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

California's Going for Solar: BIG TIME!

2005-12-13T22:27:00.000-08:00

Photo Credit: Dwell magazine website. The architects designed cool, industrial looking panels that go across the roof and down one wall like a vertical awning.
Hello Future SolarDweller:

I've been involved with moving from one apartment to another here in beautiful Berkeley, and between boxes, trying to keep current with my faithful solardweller readers!! Pardon my dust and recent absence!

Just in case you missed it, this past Summer in California, a very ambitious solar incentive program proposal, in the form of CA senate bill 1, the Million Solar Roofs Bill, went down to defeat. It had TREMENDOUS public support, evidenced by polls showing up to 75% of Californians in favor of using more solar energy, but got messed up during the heated run-up to Gov. Schwarzenneger's special election. The Guv was a huge supporter, but the Democrats, even though THEY themselves were in favor at first, didn't want to give him the satisfaction of a "victory" if they passed the bill. Basically, partisan politics that always results in nothing getting done in the end. I hate these cynical, political strategies! Nothing good gets done for 'the people'!!!

To wit, the Public Utilities Commission just announced a plan to finance a 10-year rebate incentive program for solar on new and existing structures. In effect, a funding plan similar to the defeated bill mentioned above, without all the PARTISAN gamesmanship!!! See the article excerpted below, which says the PUC should vote on this proposal in early January '06.

CPUC Releases Long-term Solar Energy Plan for California
by Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com

Los Angeles, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com; UPDATE: 9:34 p.m. EST] The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released a major proposal that will effectively act as a replacement for the ill-fated SB1, or Million Solar Roofs Initiative. And like the SB-1 bill it supplants, the CPUC plan, called the California Solar Initiative (CSI), will be the largest solar energy bill in U.S. history.

According to solar industry sources and the draft plan released by the CPUC, the plan will be noteworthy in a few major ways: it will establish an 11-year solar rebate program running from 2006 through the end of 2016 for new and retrofit installations of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. It will also provide substantial funding of $3.2 billion with $2.8 billion of that coming from the CPUC and $400 million coming from the CEC.
"What the PUC is doing is really producing the most important piece of the puzzle: the incentive dollars and the long-term policy, those elements are most important," Hochschild said. "The bottom line is that about three billion dollars over ten years will be the biggest solar incentive in the country and second biggest in the world behind Germany."

Both Del Chiaro and Hochschild said the Governor's support has provided a tremendous level of public support. They each cited numbers between 45,000 and 50,000 of people who have written to the PUC in support of a major solar program.

"It has broken the record on any issue the PUC has received on any issue including the energy crisis," Hochschild said. "We're finally seeing the popularity of solar translate into real dollars."

This broad, PUBLIC support for solar is what we need. It becomes a mandate from this "public" in California saying: "WE WANT GREENER, SUSTAINABLE sources of energy!" IT is possible, desirable, for the government to set and support a policy direction, with money behind it, especially if "green energy" is something Californians want for the future!!!

(We shall leave the issue of what to some people is a dirty word until a future post: subsidies--for solar. Hint: Libertarian says, using a gruff tone: "Solar subsidies are really bad for the "free market!!" And the Forward Thinker's cagey, sarcastic response: "Please, Mr. Libertarian. Now our government doesn't subsidize oil or nuclear or anything that might emit a few carbon molecules into the atmosphere--e-hem, like, the Hummmer SUV, or does it???!!!)

Until later,
Your future SolarDweller
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Solar Sightings

2005-11-29T21:51:00.000-08:00

Good Day Future Solar Dweller:

Today is the first installment of the abovementioned "Solar Sightings." I like to put my eyes "roofward", always scanning for that new, sleek, chique solar installation in my or other neighborhoods. These "sightings" are happily becoming more and more common, as people are getting inspired by the potential of solar!

My quest: to find and document as many "solar dwellings" as possible, in my neck of the woods or even in YOUR neck of the woods.

You Can Participate: If you happen to come upon a new, sleek or even oldish solar installation in your or any neighborhood, jot down the address or basic area and shoot me an e-mail at j.coolman@comcast.net or solarisbetter@comcast.net. Super Bonus: if you like taking digital photos, take a shot of that awesome solar installation and send me a photo as well.

The Result: On this blog, you and I, marshalling our resources, will create quite a nice list of solar installations for people to ponder, see photos of, and , heck, even get inspired to do it themselves (as it becomes soooo obvious how many people already ARE "SolarDwellers!")

So, without further adieu, my first solar sighting . . . .

A house in my neighborhood (Berkeley, CA 94703)that I saw on a recent Solar Homes Tour this past October, sponsored by a cool, non-profit solar org called NorCal Solar. This owner implements interesting triangular-shaped solar pv panels to fit those tricky spaces on the roof. He even charges his electric car from his solar panels. Now is that green, clean living or what!!!??? No gasoline!

Til next time and Go Solar,
Jason C.
Categories: solar, energy, SolarSightings
solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Happy Solar Holidays

2005-11-25T12:49:00.000-08:00

Happy holidays future solar dweller.

Officially today is “black Friday” when retail stores go into “the black” and make 50% of their profits in the last couple months of the year. Well, from this future solar dweller to another, I hope you are happy this holiday season, and have somehow avoided the consumer frenzy/crush at the malls today.

But we should be dreaming of a SOLAR holiday season. Check it:

Solar holiday myth:

"Solar dwellers are so sad in the wintertime, for their panels produce such little electricity in the blustery, cold winter climate. What shall we do, oh, solar dweller?"

Solar holiday fact:

Solar panels are oh so much cooler in cold temps!!! Your solar panels will produce more electricity on a COLD, sunny day, given that solar cells are more efficient operating at lower temperatures. Specifically, about a .5% electricity production increase on average for every 1oC decrease in solar panel temperature!!! So, if its 10 degrees C cooler on a given day, your panels will produce 5% more electricity. Solar panels during winter: no problem!

Happy solar holidays and just remember to follow the Winter sun too.

--Jason C.

solar
sustainable
green energy
renewable
solar power
global warming

Why solar is not "too expensive" and is getting popular. . .

2005-11-19T11:54:00.000-08:00

Message to future solardwellers/readers, Day 2 of SolarDweller's life:

Just ran across a really good article in the Albany Times Union about how solar energy HAS been rediscovered and reborn to a growing number of solardwellers!!! The title of the article could be my own motto: "Turning solar power into any everyday affair." Let's take a look at the article's opening:

Nov. 16, 2005 12:00 AM
CHARLTON, N.Y. - If solar power is going to become commonplace in the United States, more people like Aaron Dyer are going to have to buy it. Dyer, 34, is a firefighter in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. He has a truck and a motorcycle. He's a big-time snowmobiler. He's an average guy. The only thing unusual with Dyer is that he has installed 32 solar panels on the roof of his garage. They generate about 500 kilowatt hours of electricity a month for his newly built home here. He turned on the system Sept. 16. It generates enough electricity to supply 90 percent to 100 percent of his electricity needs, saving him roughly $60 a month. "I couldn't wait to turn it on," Dyer said. "It was pretty awesome really. It still is."

My "takeaway" from this opening is not so much the financial calculations Dyer went through to make the purchase, but the "pretty awesome" feeling he got from making that solar choice. Once we reach that threshold of "positive feeling" received from any kind of purchase, we're talking about the emotional/psychological factors that drive our behavior.

Another important section speaks to solar power's "rebirth" and the new financial realities:

Dyer is part of a new breed of solar energy user. Many of the initial adopters of the technology are people in their 50s and 60s who lived through the 1970s oil crisis. But Michael Stangl, co-owner of Renewable Power, said Dyer is part of a new generation that is not only interested in conservation but is alsoextremely savvy when it comes to their finances and combating rising energy costs. "Somehow they picked up on the fact that energy is an important issue in our lives," Stangl said. "He's kind of like the second generation."

Here's where it gets interesting and where the pieces come together. Now we have the positive emotional feeling of doing a cool, good thing, combined with the economic reality of a technology which was super expensive during that '70's oil crisis, but is much lower in price now in the 21st century era of "peak-oil."

People's perception about how "expensive" solar power is is based on the expensive solar technology of 30 YEARS AGO. (We'll save the discussion on the subsidized price of solar for a future discussion, which causes me no problems, but I digress). Now the (green) energy consumer can rationalize this tech purchase by putting it into an everyday economic perspective. "Hey! I can finance a solar, clean energy system ($20,000 in Dyer's case, a larger system than many would need), for less than the amount at which many, many people finance their cars without a thought. It's just a matter of time before more and more people make this "rationalization": "I pay $250/month for a car for the power and freedom to transport myself easily, so why can't I pay $100/month on my mortgage loan for a solar energy supply which is much cleaner (higher quality electricity) than my utility's fossil fuel-generated and more polluting power, while having a much lower utility bill???".

Of course, right now, solar power is more expensive than gas or coal electricity. But thinking of my car example above, why is a Mercedes more expensive than a Honda, or a Toyota Prius more than a Toyota Corolla?? The answer is: people make rational decisions to pay MORE money for things of better quality. And I say solar power is therefore worth MUCH MORE than gas or coal electric power. And we must remember the proven trend of solar pricing is DOWN and gas and coal electricity pricing is UP. It won't take too long for those gas/coal electricity bills to be more expensive than the $$$ you put into a solar power system.

So, future solardwellers, solar power has been reborn and it is easier than many imagine to choose the better, cleaner, higher quality energy solar power provides. Until next time, Go Solar!
--the solarDweller
Categories: solar, energy, sustainable, alternative, EconomicsOfSolar

Good Enough for FedEx...

2005-11-18T23:54:00.000-08:00

"You go now, solar panels
sitting right there on FedEx's roof
making all that delicious solar
electricity!" --Anonymous

Dear Solar Reader:

You might not know it yet, but solar is about to be way cool. Way, way cool; as in solar chique; as in engaging your significant other(s) or friends with the question, "Thy neighbors just upgraded to a sexy, solar roof; why aren't we doing that???" Take a look around your neighborhood or neighborhoods around you: solar is working for a lot of people lately!!

If FedEx can do it, http://www.powerlight.com/case-studies/transportation/fedex.shtml with all their cut-throat competition and cost control stress, I go out on a limb to say: the planets, sirs and madams, are, for real, this time aligned!!!

Keep your eye on this blog for a solar enthusiast's take on why solar has gotten so hot in it's "rebirth" and will get hotter month by month. And keep an eye out on this blog for my take on why homeowners and businesses could discover that NOW is the time to make the jump to solar juice for their abodes!!

Just remember, the green energy trend is your friend: Natural gas prices for power plants . . . . they're not going to go down in the next decade or so. Solar power . . . . get it now, and lock in a low price.

And, oh yeah, your solar panels won't be emitting "power plant" stuff we call pollution into the air either. You control your energy destiny, young Skywalker. This is something, that yes, you CAN do. Think of it as the BMW or Mercedes of electricity production--cleaner, cooler and just darn nicer than that Ford Pinto power plant down the street.

All for much less than the monthly cost so many of us, in the midst of our car/sleek appliance culture, plunk down for our car, plasma, house, etc., etc payments. It's just a matter of a shift in perspective and possibility.

I look forward to keeping you curious, engaged and entertained by the coming solar power BOOM! Here is your front-row seat to get uncontrollably psyched, jazzed, dare I say, inspired by what electrons running through solar panels can do for YOU, dear future solar dweller.

--Jason C. (j.coolman@comcast.net)