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 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.
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.
There’s been some heat in the news recently, brought front and center by the New York Times, about the trouble solar giant Ausra has faced getting approval for a solar power plant in California. California Unions for Reliable Energy stonewalled the approval process with concerns for the negative impact the plant would have on desert wildlife. However, the same union made no move to stop the approval process for a BrightSource solar power plant that would also be in the desert, and also affect wildlife. Ausra’s take on this scenario–and pundits seem to have taken up the call–is that unions are putting pressure on companies to use union labor in the construction of their solar energy plants. If, like BrightSource, a company announces its plans to use labor from the outset, no problems seem to arise. This reflects what the state has seen as a trend in the utility industry, according to the NYT:
At proposed fossil-fuel power plants, the union group has long been accused of exploiting environmental laws to force companies into signing labor agreements. The tactic is a subject of perennial discussion in the California legislature, which has considered, but never passed, bills to strip labor of its right to participate in environmental assessments.
So on the one hand, maybe it’s nice that solar power plants are finally getting the attention they deserve from all quarters (however unwelcome). On the other hand, does this pose a serious hurdle to the future of solar power plants in California, and nationwide? Maria Elena Durazo, chief of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, feels strongly that jobs in solar and other renewables should be unionized. She says:
If we do not have new rules about union organizing…I can guarantee you that these new ‘green’ jobs, these new technology jobs are going to be low-end, poverty-level jobs. (LAT)
Poverty level? That seems a bit extreme for jobs that by default require a high degree of training and specialization. Even in a weak economy, solar workers represent a premium segment of the workforce. Not that they always make tons of money. On a small business rather than utility level scale, solar installers will often sacrifice profit for competitive bids. This happens across the construction industry, and it’s no picnic for those contractors who can’t afford to slash their profit margin. But business is business, and unionizing solar labor might put a real wrench in competitive pricing.
Not that I’m shouting down the unions. Solar workers have as much right to have secure jobs and healthy wages as any other laborers. But using the weight of the union to expedite or hinder the construction process of new solar power plants in order to put pressure on certain companies, if that’s what truly is going on, is a bullying tactic that could hurt solar and economic growth in California. These facilities create jobs and revenue for the state in a time when both are sorely needed.
This opinion article in the Seattle Times, along with its comments, is a great argument for why a unionized solar workforce is ideal. It focuses on the idea of “respect”: and that’s what the unions should be showing to the solar industry in turn. There must be a solution that does not involve slowing or halting progress on the constructon of new solar power plants, one of the most vital elements in the continued health of the solar industry.
Moving forward in what would be the world’s largest centralized solar power production project if realized, a consortium of 20 German businesses announced last week plans to finance Desertec, a solar project nearly as contentious as it is ambitious. The €400 billion ($555 billion) endeavor seeks to capture the ample sunlight of the North African desert and to convert it, through concentrating solar power (CSP), into electricity to be funneled back to Europe through high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines. The project (alternately known as the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative) has the capacity to fulfill 15 percent of Europe’s energy needs—a selling point illustrated on the website of the DESERTEC Foundation, which states that “[within] 6 hours deserts receive more energy from the sun than humankind consumes in a year.”
As befits such a grand undertaking, many multinational European and Mediterranean-area organizations have jumped aboard, especially since they were the ones to conceive the idea in the first place. The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), Eumena (the European Union, the Mediterranean and North Africa), the Union of the Mediterranean and the Club of Rome are all backers of Desertec, and Gerhard Knies, the coordinator of TREC, also acts as the chairman of Desertec’s advisory board. German insurance behemoth Munich Re is spearheading the initiative to pursue financing, supported by other German giants such as Siemens, Deutsche Bank and E.On, with a coalition-cementing meeting scheduled for July 13.
Despite the enthusiasm of Desertec’s corporate (and non-corporate) backers, The NY Times Green, Inc. article linked above pits the enthusiasm of the project’s supporters with the head-scratching and alarm of its detractors, presenting a diverse array of opinions.
In a collection of reactions gathered by Spiegel Online, several observers seemed to welcome the development.
“The project is sending a strong signal that investments in renewable energies don’t just make ecological sense,” wrote The Financial Times Deutschland, “they make economic sense as well.”
A reader at Green Inc. simply said: “Europeans need energy and have cash. Africans have sun and territory. It is quite logical to combine all this.”
At the same time, however:
“It must once again be pointed out that the most successful method of harvesting solar power is with rooftop panels,” wrote the German daily Die Tageszeitung. “In just three to five years, power from the roof will be cheaper than electricity from the wall plug. The economic bar for desert power is, in other words, high. Solar power produced in a decentralized manner will likely always be the cheaper variety.”
The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, meanwhile, quoted Frank Asbeck, the chief executive of SolarWorld, the largest German solar company, as saying, “Building solar power plants in politically unstable countries opens you to the same kind of dependency as the situation with oil.”
Gerhard Knies attempted to sweep away such concerns by looking on the positive side, arguing that the benefits will outweigh the costs.
“Well, when you look at the Mediterranean region, the most unstable country is Italy,” he said, adding that in any case, the investment in large-scale energy projects in these areas would provide income, jobs and the creation of a new industry — all of which, Mr. Knies said, were “a contribution to stability.”
He also suggested that the additional transmission costs of such a project would be smaller than the gains associated with improved solar radiation in the African desert. The additional power yield, Mr. Knies said, would more than compensate for the cost of transmission to European markets.
In addition to the above arguments against the Desertec cooperative, others still were upset by the imperialistic implications of such a project, drawing connections to the European legacy of resource exploitation in Africa.
What do you think, readers? Does such an enormous project seem feasible, and, if so, is it worth the investment and the costs?
NB: In case anybody is wondering—what’s the difference between Desertec and the Mediterranean Solar Plan, President Sarkozy’s nearly identical project from late 2008/very early 2009? Not much, apparently. According to a 2008 press release, “TREC is the father of the Solar Plan,” while the MSP has become the “flagship project” of the Union for the Mediterranean, a Desertec supporter. Torsten Jeworrek, a Munich Re board member, “reserved judgment on French participation,” commenting that the French “are still relying heavily on nuclear energy.” I’m still somewhat hazy on the differences myself, so some extra clarification would be most welcome.
In case you missed it, a few weeks ago Vermont established the first statewide feed-in tariff in the country. What’s a feed-in tariff, you say? In short, a feed-in tariff — or FIT — guarantees that an owner will receive a premium price for the electricity that’s generated by their distributed generation system, like solar panels. (You can read more about FITs here.) Such tariffs have been the preferred policy tool in Germany, where they’ve spawned a boom in solar installations, and recent chatter suggests that China may soon unveil its own preferential tariff for solar technologies, albeit one that accounts for regional variations in the cost of conventional power.
Vermont’s tariff is to be administered through the Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (SPEED) Program, which was established in 2005 to promote the in-state development of renewable energy. According to the new rules, all Vermont retail electricity providers will be required to purchase the power generated by eligible renewable energy facilities. Passed in May as part of the Vermont Energy Act (H. 446), the tariff is set to take hold for any systems commissioned after September 30, 2009. As relayed by IREC,
The proposed rates for the FIT are as follows: $0.30 [per kWh] for Solar; $0.20 for wind with rated capacity of 15 kW or less; $0.12 for methane derived from landfill or agricultural operation … These rates are subject to change; however, as the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) must conduct an economic analysis to either concur or adjust the rates based on criteria set-forth in the law.
For solar enthusiasts in the Green Mountain State, this is obviously great news. Solar power generation is to receive $0.30/kWh — a healthy margin above retail rates, which in 2007 averaged $0.12/kWh for commercial power, and $0.14/kWh for residential power. By guaranteeing a premium for electricity produced from renewable sources, the state’s tariff could go along way in expanding the development and deployment of solar, wind and other clean technologies. Still, Vermonters — especially homeowners angling to get solar — may wish to curb their enthusiasm for now, as it’s not clear whether residential solar power systems will be eligible under the new program. As one of our favorite information resources counsels,
It is not advisable to make project decisions based on this summary alone, as the rates and standard offer specifics, including eligibility, may change as a result of the PSB’s work. It is not clear how this program will impact net metering or whether or not residential installations will be eligible. The PSB’s preliminary determination will be complete by September 15, 2009, and final rules issued by January 15, 2010.
Still, from our perspective, it’s always encouraging to see a state put its money where its mouth is: Vermont has committed to a goal of producing by 2017 at least 20 percent of its power from renewable resources. Clearly, this won’t happen by itself. It’s hoped that Vermont’s new tariff will provide the added kick in the pants needed to boost the adoption of solar and wind, statewide.
Two bills that would improve the affordability and accessibility of solar in California have met with oppostion from an unexpected quarter: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), a utility company that has previously been a champion of solar within the state. The utility, in fact, manages the impressive and complicated state-wide California Solar Initiative solar PV rebate program. Everyone knew the bills under consideration would displease utilities state-wide, but outright opposition took the bills’ supporters by surprise, it seems.
The two bills would change California’s approach to net metering (get some background on net metering in California and one of the bills by reading my first post on the topic, here). AB 560 would effectively force utilities to extend net metering payments for years and years to come. AB 920 would make utilities responsible for compensating consumers for all net excess generation (NEG) by lifting the current one year “expiration date” on net metering credits.
Put simply, PG&E’s objection is that the two measures would make solar too popular. The utility says that would be unfair to its non-solar customers, who under existing law must subsidize rebates and credits paid to solar-power users.
But some supporters of the bills say PG&E’s real worry is about its own financial burden, since it sells less electricity to solar-power users.”The big picture, unfortunately — and counter to their public image — is that PG&E doesn’t like the idea of an unbridled solar market,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, director of clean energy programs at Environment California, a nonprofit statewide environmental group and sponsor of Assembly Bill 920. “Unfortunately, the business model doesn’t yet allow for a market in which customers generate their own electricity.”
This latter point is the crux of the problem. Utilities are required to meet government-mandated minimums renewable energy available in their portfolio. In order to do this, they need to make solar an attractive financial proposition for both residential and commercial consumers. The utilities do benefit by the simple expedient of not having to supply the kilowatt-hours now being produced instead by consumers’ renewable energy systems. This saves on both production and distribution costs. But what happens when so many customers are providing their own energy that the utility is no longer selling enough electricity to make a profit? For all the utility industry’s hype about this scenario, it’s surely a long way off–yet it is a valid point.
What do you think, readers? Do utilities have a responsibility to make solar affordable at the cost of their own profit?
