The Fourth of July: fireworks, steak tips, beer and American flags. I’m writing from Boston, where the historical connection is particularly strong, and the fireworks celebration especially excellent. We love our Independence Day. But how many of us try to relate the meaning of the Fourth to the state of the world today? We’ve been an autonomous country, for good or for ill, since 1776. Two hundred and thirty-three years. We’re good buddies with our former sovereigns, and while taxes remain contentious, they’re not sparking any secessionist wars (at least not yet, eh, New Hampshire?).

The Boston Tea Party was staged to demonstrate resistance to the idea that we were subsidizing other countries’ profits at the expense of our own. The colonies were being told to pay more tax on tea so that, in essence, the British could woo the East India Trading Company with lower import tariffs while not losing any money themselves. Nice deal for the mother country, but the colonists weren’t standing for it. The Tea Party was three years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it was this sense of desire for fiscal independence that precipitated that world-shaking event.

Okay, you are probably saying, why am I reading a history lesson about tea on GetSolar? Because independence–fiscal and otherwise–is still something near and dear to American hearts, and energy independence is one of the most vital issues facing our country today. In 2008 we imported nearly half of our petroleum: we may be ranked #3 in oil production, but we have the singular honor of being ranked #1 in consumption (Energy Information Administration). Our needs, habits, and trade systems mean we are eminently vulnerable to fluctuations in the cost of fuel. While world trade demands we be interdependent rather than independent, it’s still nerve-wracking to contemplate the degree to which we rely upon foreign products to maintain our way of life.

Solar power plants, wind farms, hydropower, biomass: renewable energies present an escape route. We don’t have to be trapped by rising import costs if we’re importing less. And yes, solar energy and other renewable technologies are very expensive. Yet I like to think of it as buying a house instead of renting. All that money we throw at other oil-producing countries to feed our insatiable appetite for energy, and what do we get out of it? Sure, we get energy, and a functioning (sort of) world economy. But putting money into domestic renewables is the investment that keeps on giving.

Cost does need to come down. Grid parity, the point at which the cost per kilowatt-hour of renewable-generated energy works out to be the same as the energy from traditional sources, is the holy grail of the solar industry. We’re on our way, though. President Obama has stood behind promises he made on the campaign trail and thrown heavy funding behind renewables development. Perhaps not quite as he envisioned–the stimulus funds were an emergency transfusion. All the same, we’ve been seeing positive signs in this country of renewable energy adoption. The EIA sees a sharp growth in the percentage of our energy that will come from renewables over the next 15 years or so:

This forecast puts solar power and other renewable energies as a 14.2 percent slice of the energy pie by 2030. Not bad, right? At the end of 2008, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) tallied 9,183 MW of installed solar power capacity in the US, with another 6,000 in the pipeline–and that number has undoubtedly risen since the end of the March, when the report was last updated (full report here/PDF). An attainable goal in the near future of 20,000 MW of solar capacity equates power for about four million homes. You can see that the burden of energy production in this country is not going to rest squarely on the shoulders of the solar industry, but at the same time, solar can sure do some heavy lifting.

We love our freedom in the United States of America. To pursue freedom from the bonds of imported energy is a mission in keeping with our nation’s history as well as with our sense of national identity. We need imports, but we also need options. Solar power can and should be part of the greater energy solution.

To end on a lighter note, you’ve got to check out the Census Bureau’s “Fun Facts” about the Fourth of July. Did you know that Georgia leads the nation in watermelon production, for instance? Happy Independence Day, everyone!

Good news for homeowners and businesses in Maine looking to get solar: the state has re-opened its solar energy rebate program. Here’s a quick rundown of the solar rebate levels:

• Solar thermal systems are eligible for a rebate worth up to 25 percent of installed costs, capped at $1,000.
• Solar photovoltaic (PV) panel systems receive a rebate of $2.00/watt, up to $2,000

Capped at $2,000, the PV rebate is admittedly modest. But every little bit helps. In combination with the 30-percent federal tax credit — or, for businesses that install solar in 2009 or 2010, a 30-percent federal renewable energy grant — the Maine solar rebate will undoubtedly help reduce installed costs. If the past is any indication, Mainers will be clambering to apply: previous application cycles have been oversubscribed due to strong consumer interest and limited funding. By no means is Maine’s rebate program alone in this regard.

Interesting side note: it appears some of that federal stimulus money is finally starting to hit the pavement, so to speak. On Tuesday, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) announced that the current round of rebate funding has been made possible by combining existing state resources with new federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

To be eligible, the system must be installed by a professional certified by the PUC. The Maine Solar Rebate Program will begin accepting applications (again) on Monday, July 6. Go here for details.

[UPDATE: For an interesting look at where the federal recovery dollars are going, check out this cool interactive U.S. map, from Recovery.org.]

In a state that has long provided thought leadership on the government’s role in deploying solar power, bids are now being solicited for solar projects on public buildings. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has set aside $20 million in stimulus funds–about 40 percent of the total stimulus funds for energy initiatives–to bankroll 16 new megawatts of solar capacity in the state. Earlier this year, the state created a buzz when it announced it was going to try for 30 new MW of solar power on public facilities.

Governor Patrick has been a staunch supporter of renewable energy in the state for some time–there have been hiccups, but by and large, he’s been firmly behind incentivizing the installation of solar power, wind power, biomass and more. For some background, let’s get it from the horse’s mouth (er, the Governor’s June 30th press release):

The Commonwealth had approximately 4 MW of installed solar power when Governor Patrick took office and setting the goal of 250 MW of solar power by 2017. Today, the state has over 11 MW of installed solar, plus 6.5 MW in the pipeline but not yet installed through the Commonwealth Solar rebate program.  The Massachusetts Solar Stimulus could add up to 21 MW more – 16 MW funded through ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009] State Energy Plan monies, plus roughly 5 MW more paid for with State Revolving Fund revenue for green infrastructure projects at drinking and wastewater treatment facilities, also financed by ARRA.

In the coming weeks, the DOER plans to issue several additional RFPs for solar projects at state-owned properties around the state. DOER selected projects through an Energy Task Force convened by the Governor’s office in preparation for receipt of ARRA funding. The Task Force identified over 13 MW of potential roof- and ground-mounted PV solar installations at a variety of state facilities, and an additional 5 MW at water and wastewater facilities. A Municipal Task Force pinpointed a number of additional projects. Future solicitations are expected to seek bids for solar installations at more colleges and housing projects, transportation facilities, and public buildings such as the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.

The state aims to have contracts for this round awarded by the midle of September, with work commencing a few months later. Here are the sites in question for the first round:

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Deer Island Administration Lab Building — 160 kilowatts (kW)
• Deer Island North Main Pump Station — 60 kW
• Carroll Water Treatment Plant Operations Building — 450 kW
• Carroll Water Treatment Plant Post-treatment Building — 50 kW
• Carroll Water Treatment Plant Generator Building — 40 kW
• Carroll Water Treatment Plant – Ground mount — 500 kW
• Biosolids Processing Facility — 400 kW
• Clinton Treatment Plant East PV Location — 90 kW
• Clinton Treatment Plant West PV Location —140 kW

Department of Housing and Community Development
• Somerville Housing Authority, 2 Mystic River — 300 kW
• Somerville Housing Authority, 1 Clarendon Hill — 250 kW

Massachusetts Port Authority (Logan Airport)
• Terminal A — 750 kW
• Terminal B — 500 kW
• Terminal C — 750 kW
• Terminal E — 750 kW

Westfield State College
• New Residence Hall —150 kW

As Margaret has pointed out here, the benefits of harnessing solar power for an urban environment are many. This WSJ article provides an example of the advantages of solar microgeneration from the other side of the world—in Italy, a rapidly expanding solar market with plenty of sun to spare. In order to lessen the pain of high energy costs, Italian households and small companies have begun adopting renewable energy microgeneration projects, the most popular of which are rooftop solar panels and wind turbines. These efforts at small-scale, in-house electricity production also have the potential to lift a heavy burden from Italy’s energy infrastructure, which is “severely hampered” by the country’s notorious bureaucracy.

Furthermore, Italy—whose electricity demand is forecast to grow an annual average of 0.6 percent between 2009 and 2013—aims to generate 17 percent of its energy from renewable energy by 2020, a goal whose feasibility some have cast doubts upon. In a country known for its bureaucratic red tape, which greatly hinders the completion of large power plants, some have suggested that small-scale utilities may be the way to go. Further adding appeal to microgeneration is its potential for increased energy security, no small deal for a country that imports over 80 percent of its energy supplies.

“I’d say about 20% of Italian buildings could be used for microgeneration,” said Giovanni Battista Zorzoli of ISES Italia, a technical-scientific nonprofit association, which organizes courses on renewable energy. “The incentives are such that families, thanks also to bank loans, can easily make such investments.”

And what exactly would incite banks to provide loans so readily?

According to energy research body Institute Osservatorio sull’Industria delle Rinnovabili, “building-integrated” photovoltaic investments in Italian buildings could potentially amount to about EUR42 billion in the 2009-2020 period. ISES Italia’s Zorzoli estimates photovoltaic power could generate about 6% of Italy’s electricity needs in 2020.

The article uses the case of a suburbanite mother with two kids to further illustrate its point.

In 2007, Miriam Di Palma, a married, working mother of two teenage girls who lives on the outskirts of Rome, installed 5 kilowatts of panels for about EUR37,000, which included some roof work.

She sells the power generated, in excess of her needs, to the grid for a heavily subsidized price, while buying power back when she needs it by paying the lower usual market rate to her local utility, pocketing the profit. Di Palma receives EUR0.42 per kilowatt-hour while the average price of electricity her utility charges is about EUR0.20/kWh.

…

Such investments have what amounts to a state guarantee of a fixed return for a fixed period, a degree of security against which banks are very willing to make loans, experts said.

Granted, Italy is by no means a perfect solar correlation to the United States. Different cities in the U.S. can have wildly different variations of insolation, and not all tax rebates are created equal. Add to that worries over Italy’s solar sector overheating, and the situation is not perfect. But it is an example of how solar can make sense for city-dwellers and suburbanites alike—especially when the financial incentives are good.

Early Friday evening, the House narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a monumental — and mammoth — piece of legislation (PDF) that, among other things, aims to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Reactions to the bill’s passage have been varied. Republicans, by and large, have been critical of the bill’s perceived cost and complexity. As to be expected, Democrats have been broadly supportive. Greenpeace has outright deemed it a failure, aruging that the cap-and-trade scheme envisaged doesn’t go far enough in restricting emissions over the short term. Other environmental organizations have been notably more positive, with the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council calling the bill’s passage a “dramatic breakthrough for America’s future.” Meanwhile, President Obama Administration has welcomed the 219-212 vote in favor of ACES:

I think this was an extraordinary first step. You know, if you had asked people six months ago — or six weeks ago, for that matter — whether we could get a energy bill with the scope of the one that we saw on Friday through the House, people would have told you, no way. You look at the constituent parts of this bill — not only a framework for cap and trade, but huge significant steps on energy efficiency, a renewable energy standard, huge incentives for research and development in new technologies, incentives for electric cars, incentives for nuclear energy, clean coal technology. This really is an unprecedented step and a comprehensive approach.

In addition to expressing his support for Friday’s vote, Obama was quick to downplay the bill’s provisions for establishing carbon tariffs, in a bid to allay concerns over U.S. protectionism. The Administration also honed in on the Senate, which is set to take up the legislation later this year — and where much stiffer conditions for passage are expected.

In the end, the problem with politcs — or, more accurately, policy making — is that it’s a messy, imperfect process. Regardless of whether you think the House bill goes too far, or doesn’t go far enough, the fact remains that something resembling a nationwide energy/climate policy has passed the first hurdle (albeit narrowly). I’ll be the last person to suggest that ACES is flawless. But impeccable policies — especially nationwide ones — are rare. Let’s at least celebrate the fact that our leaders in Washington care enough about our future generations to engage the carbon/climate policy debate. And let’s be confident that, regardless of the pitfalls that will invevitably arise when it comes to implementation of the bill’s final version, our economy — our workers, our knack for ingenuity, and our appreciation for smart solutions — will rise to the occasion.

• RT @kate_sheppard CSPAN says 219! #ACES #
• RT @bradplumer Final vote for climate bill: 219-212. Eight Republicans voted for it. #ACES #
• RT @bradplumer GOP substitute amendment failed in a big way. Final vote for passage of the climate bill going on now… #ACES #
• Remember that solar does work on cloudy days. A refresher course on the factors of solar panel performance: http://tinyurl.com/kr4zmb #
• RT @JoshChernin @cleaner_energy: Solar industry to see faster than expected growth – The Associated Press http://ff.im/-4l0NP #SOLAR #
• RT@SolarFred via solar_4_all: Spread the word – AB560 needs to pass #ecoMonday, #solar, #green http://tinyurl.com/lsxmv4 #

If when you think of solar panels, you envision stretches of the desert filled with the deep-blue glint of enormous solar arrays, you’re not wrong. That’s the environment in which solar power is both most efficient and most cost effective. But did you realize that solar panels on your townhouse or high-rise in an urban environment can also be incredibly useful?

If you live in an apartment building, getting approval for roof use can be tough. However, small condo buildings or co-ops tend to be easier nuts to crack. Your condo association or co-op board may even want to consider mounting solar panels on the roof in order to provide power for the building’s common areas: laundry, kitchens, meeting or rec rooms. The major financial incentives for residential and commercial solar panel installations in this country are a combination of tax benefits and cash rebates: the installation costs may not be as high as you think.

One reason urban solar makes sense–and is even specially incentivized in some cities–is that densely populated areas create the largest burden for the grid. Distributed power generation, which is what solar panels on your home or business provide, relieves pressure from the grid during the busiest times of day. It’s in the utilities’ best interests to move some of the responsibility for producing power off their own power plants, and onto yours.

Solar panels do require some space to spread out and do their job. A good rule of thumb is 100 square feet of south-facing, unshaded roof area for every kilowatt of system size. Newer, more efficient solar panels are working to slim that space requirement down. But think about it: if you own a flat-roofed garage or warehouse in Manhattan or San Diego, you could probably host an easy 20 kw of solar power and see immediate, significant reductions in your monthly electric bill.

The moral of the story? Even with limited space, solar power could make sense for you if you live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, New York City, Boston, Miami, Newark…well, the list goes on. Contact us to find out more.

As lawmakers continue to make headway on climate change legislation, and as the EPA weighs in on the likely costs and implications of a cap-and-trade system as outlined by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a new clean-energy initiative has recently crossed onto my radar. The “Gigaton Throwdown,” as its called, is a group of leading CEOs, venture capitalists and academics who have come together to identify scalable clean-energy technologies. Specifically, their new report centers on technologies that are each believed capable of delivering by 2020 a billion tons — or, a gigaton — in greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Members of the initiative were in Washington, DC yesterday to brief policymakers on their findings.

Researchers identified seven technologies/measures that could be scaled up over the next decade to achieve “gigaton” status: biofuels, building effeciency, concentrating solar power, contruction materials, nuclear, solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind. The group identified an eighth technology — geothermal — that “could scale up after additional research and development and deployment of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS).” As noted on the Gigaton Throwdown website, “[o]f the 8 technologies, only one, wind power, is currently growing fast enough to achieve gigaton scale.” Finally, researchers noted that, while plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) show promise, ten years is not a realistic time frame over which to deploy such technologies in meaningful numbers.

Now, it’s clear these technologies won’t just crop up overnight. Nor, for that matter, will they be free — a LOT of investment (read: cash) will be needed. As outlined by the Gigaton report, “[a]nnual private investment must grow by more than three times in the next 10 years to scale up renewable energy technologies to meet climate stabilization goals. This level of growth is feasible, but policy action is needed immediately to support it.” Currently, the cleantech industry is expected to attract about $4 trillion in such investment over the next decade, about $4 trillion short of what the group views as necessary to have chance at stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 450 million parts per million, a level advocated by many climate scientists.

The timing of the report is interesting, especially given the EPA’s new analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (see link above). As reported on WSJ Environmental Capital,

According to page 27 of the analysis, published Tuesday, the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, would actually result in slightly less new renewable energy generation capacity by the year 2020 than if the U.S. continued on a business-as-usual path with no emissions caps. The reason for this, the EPA says, is twofold.

First, the bill’s efficiency measures – such as those that requiring more efficient buildings and appliances – would reduce overall electricity demand “significantly.” Less demand means less need for new generation, including power from the wind, sun and biomass.

The bill also won’t sufficiently drive up the price of dirty fossil fuels to encourage a big switch to renewables, the analysis says. (Here’s how that sounds in untranslated EPA-speak: “Allowances prices are not high enough to drive a significant amount of additional low or zero-carbon energy . . . in the shorter term.”)

There’s some irony in here somewhere… to avoid run-away costs and convince stakeholders to get on board, lawmakers are doling out free emissions allowances. In doing so, however, they may be eroding one of the main incentives to invest in clean-energy technologies — namely that of pricey fossil fuels.

Anyway, check out the Gigaton Throwdown — it’s founded on the kind of public-private thinking and funding that, in my opinion, is desperately needed to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.