Judging from recent announcements, the Department of Veterans Affairs is aiming for a solar-powered future.

On November 20, the VA announced plans to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at a facility of the West Texas VA Health Care System. And today, via the Phoenix Business Journal, we learned that VA hospitals in Arizona, California and Nevada will also host solar PV systems over the coming year.

The West Texas system will be installed in the employee parking lot atop 230-foot long car ports, and is expected to produce over 240,000 kWh annually — about 7 percent of the facility’s annual electricity usage. The other solar projects, to be installed at VA facilities in Phoenix and Tucson — as well as at unnamed facilities in California and Nevada — will together amount to 1.7 megawatts of installed solar capacity. That’s enough oomph to power about 3,600 homes. What’s more, the projects are expected to result in the creation of 60 jobs in the three states.

REC Solar, a solar integrator based in San Luis Obispo, CA, was chosen to do the installation. (You can learn more about REC Solar on their GetSolar profile.)

The future of the renewable energy industry is directly tied to the upcoming climate change negotiations at Copenhagen. If binding emission targets from big emitters are achieved, producers and installers of solar and wind technologies are looking to see a big growth in business. Although a binding international treaty appears unlikely, the heaviest emitters from both the industrialized and developing worlds (the U.S. and China, respectively) recently placed their opening bids.

While Americans celebrated Thanksgiving this past Thursday, the State Council of China announced that the country plans to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 – 45% in 2020 from 2005 levels. This came a day after President Obama pledged the United States to an emissions cut in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. And so the pre-Copenhagen negotiations dance has begun.

Experts are divided on China’s announcement. Some argue that it is a huge step in the right direction, while others believe it is too weak and will not significantly alter China’s projected emissions trajectory.

What is interesting about the two is the difference in language. The U.S. has identified an overall emissions cut, whereas China has pledged a reduction in carbon intensity per unit of GDP. So how do they differ? An emissions cut is an overall future cap on the total GHG emissions, regardless of economic growth. Carbon intensity, on the other hand, is used to tie the amount of emitted GHG directly to economic output. By identifying carbon intensity as the means to emission reductions, China is standing by the belief that economic development will come first and that emissions should be “curbed” instead of “capped.” For more details, this Q&A released by Reuters does an excellent job explaining China’s choice of carbon intensity.

According to the New York Times, some believe that carbon intensity goals are a complete distraction from overall emission reductions. John Watson, who chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee that examined energy futures and air pollution in urban China and the United States, argued that

You can have carbon emissions increase substantially, but carbon intensity still goes down. The real key for global warming is the absolute number, not that relative number.

And one thing that neither country has detailed is exactly how this will affect the global economy, which is still unstable after the Wall Street meltdown of 2008. China, and other rapidly developing nations, have argued that if a cleaner path of development is to be pursued, then the industrialized world must be ready to provide both technology and financial assistance. China has suggested a figure that would translate to a price tag of more than $140 billion for the U.S. alone.

The good news is the two countries that most needed to announce some form of emission reductions have started the dialogue before delegates meet in Copenhagen next week. Without the leadership of the U.S. and China, other countries are less likely to follow. We’ll be sure to keep our eye on the climate negotiations and how this situation develops, as the renewable energy industry is poised to seriously benefit from a carbon-conscious world.

I’m no econ expert, but because I’m in the solar industry, I do try to keep an eye on solar shares. And because I’m no econ expert, man, do I ever love it when I come across a really good breakdown of market trends and forecasts. Keeping in mind that this is just one analyst’s informed opinion, of course, I’ve been mulling over renewable energy markets expert J. Peter Lynch’s recent posting on RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

We’ve all been feeling better about solar stocks of late, and why not? They have indeed been on the upswing. But the larger picture, while encouraging with respect to the market crash last year, is still sobering:

The average solar stock year to date has increased 25%, so on the surface it appears that 2009 has been a very good year for solar stocks. However, if you look a bit deeper you will see that while 25% is not bad it is lagging far behind the 36% gain that the NASDAQ has posted…[And if] you take out the two solar stocks with the biggest gains for 2009 – Canadian Solar (CSIQ) + 225% and Trina Solar (TSL) + 378% the average remaining 19 solar stocks actually dropped close to -5% year to date. As a result, while the market in general, and the smaller stocks in particular, have had outstanding years, the average solar stock has done poorly.

Lynch believes that the solar industry will soon go through a consolidation phase in which Darwinian economics will be in full swing. While every industry must go through this at some stage–at least once–and it can be a great time for innovations, he cautions that “it will also be a very dangerous time for investors who are not attentive and very nimble [his emphasis]. This is no place for the age old ‘buy and hold’ investment philosophy.”

Keeping in mind that solar will continue to be a viable, vibrant market with a lot of earning potential, what should investors look for? Lynch says there are three main criteria to look for when choosing companies in which to invest:

1. Cash reserves to last through 2010 without further financing;
2. Good relative market strength; and
3. Product differentiation.

The overall tone is one of optimism, seasoned with the necessity for extra caution in what will continue to be a turbulent era for the solar market. Staying grounded with respect to expectations is healthier than Pollyanna-ism. But compared to this time last year, solar is in a great place, and has a bright future ahead. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.

It may only be a matter of time before America’s Rust Belt sheds its image of faded glory for a new moniker that is about as green as it is snazzy, because a new industry has come to town and hit the ground running. At Solar Power International 2009, officials from Ohio sung praises of the Buckeye State’s potential for solar, despite its smoke-belching past and a history of Sunbelt governors trying to lure Midwestern businesses with tax breaks and a union-free workforce. But with federal incentives and a powerful “Buy American” mentality—as well as a growing national desire for energy efficiency, or so we like to think—to motivate renewable energy companies, at few of them have headed for Detroit and the Northeastern industrial states to set up shop.

[Solar] start-ups, wind turbine companies and electric carmakers from California and the Southwest migrate to the nation’s industrial heartland. They’re looking to tap its manufacturing might and legions of skilled workers, hit hard by the near-collapse of the United States auto industry and eager for work.

California-based car maker Fisker Automotive will be manufacturing its next plug-in electric hybrid car at a non-operational General Motors assembly plant in Delaware, whereas Silicon Valley solar power plant builder Skyline Solar has plans to produce its solar panels’ metal arrays through a subsidiary of automotive giant Magna International, located in Michigan. Stirling Energy Systems has already inked deals with two automotive companies to make components for its giant, mirrored solar dishes, not to mention the $30 to $40 million it has invested in the Detroit area over the past year. And the solar companies aren’t looking to the Manufacturing Belt just to save a few dollars here and there, or simply out of a sense of altruism—the connection to automobile manufacturing is closer than it appears.

The back of the mirror facet is a piece of stamped metal, and if you raise the hood of your car, what you see is a stamped metal frame,” said Ian Simington, chief executive of the solar division of NTR, the Irish company that owns Stirling Energy Systems, based in Scottsdale, Ariz. “Nobody stamps metal better than automotive manufacturers. So in a sense the choice to go to high-volume suppliers in the greater Detroit area was an easy one for us.”

And that’s not all—there are some even more fundamental similarities present.

For all of green tech’s futuristic sheen, solar power plants and wind farms are made of much of the same stuff as automobiles: machine-stamped steel, glass and gearboxes.

Today is a day most of us spend focused on family and friends and food. That’s as it should be, and we wish you joy of all three. We should count our personal blessings as well as remember those who are not so blessed, and could well use a bit of our abundance.

But what should we be thankful for as participants in this still-shaky economy, as businesses or as taxpayers? It has been a tough year for America: a lot of bad decisions, and even the unchecked repercussions of some good ones, brought us to an undeniable low point of finances and faith in our systems. Most of us have spent the past months feeling quite decidedly un-thankful for the mess we got ourselves into. For as much as we love to point to the big bad guys, this is a representative democracy and a capitalist economy, and each and every American is as responsible for the direction this country takes as we are entitled to enjoy the benefits of living here.

Perspective is the view from where you’re standing, and for a long time, most of us were standing at the top and looking down. But when we’re in the troughs, as we have been recently, you see the world in a whole new way. It also becomes necessary to prioritize. While the extremes are troubling, causing massive layoffs and reduced services, the upside is leaner businesses and better models. As the economy springs back, employers (as well as employees) may have a different take on what one can sacrifice and a new appreciation for the essentials.

In the solar industry in particular, which has had as bumpy a ride as any market (and bumpier than some), we can be thankful for strong and diverse support. Political leadership at the state and federal levels, companies re-inventing themselves to stay in the game, shareholders doing their best to find stable ground, and especially the consumers who continue to voice a call for solar power have all buoyed this industry.

The continued, widespread support for solar energy is also an indicator that the tide has shifted–perhaps for good–on the general attitude towards climate change. We should be grateful that there is finally enough public agreement on the need to address universal issues of environmental stewardship and future energy security that the real work is now getting done: where the energy will come from, how it will be integrated into our existing systems, and how we will manage resources moving forward.

We know this is a hard time for so many families across America, and it is our sincere hope that by this time next year, we can dispense with the gravity and return to just having a grand old time eating turkey. In the meantime: have a grand old time eating turkey (and cranberry sauce, and baked yams, and pie). Happy Thanksgiving!

President Obama is slated to speak in Copenhagen on December 9^th. Many hope that his address to representatives from around the world will set a positive tone for the negotiations. For the first time in over a decade, an American administration will be proposing emission caps. According to the New York Times, the President will pledge the United States to an emissions cut “in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.”

This Monday, I posted a piece on the importance of leadership from China and the United States at Copenhagen and the need for both countries to make emission reduction pledges. Without the initiative of these two powerhouses, the rest of the world is unlikely to follow. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has argued for emission cuts of 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels. At this point, it is unclear if Obama’s proposed cuts from 2005 levels are on par with the IPCC’s suggested target.

As a firm believer in the precautionary principle and the great potential of a growing renewable energy economy, it is my hope that Obama’s presence in Denmark will encourage the U.S. Congress to sign into law policies that support the long-term sustainability of our country–and inspire the rest of the world to follow.

A report by industry research and consulting firm New Energy Finance says that by the end of this year, the levelized cost of solar per kWh over the lifetime of a system will have fallen by 50 percent. While wind and geothermal costs also fell, it was only by about 10 percent. The press release announced:

Photovoltaic (PV) module prices across the board have continued their downward trend, although the rate of decline has tapered. Thin-film remains the low-cost leader in solar, with projects as low as $3/W, making thin-film projects 25% less expensive than crystalline silicon systems on a levelised basis. PV projects with tracking systems have seen the least reduction in costs due to the fact that the costs for single- and double-axis trackers have remained buoyant relative to panel prices.

The press release does not state sources or exact research, and until we have a chance to review the full report it is unclear from which sectors and countries the data have been obtained. But the report is in keeping with news we’ve had throughout the year of falling solar costs. Partly this is a product of a temporary solar panel glut and a weak economy, and the cost may float back up accordingly; but the cost reductions due to technology advances and a more established solar market will hopefully stay with us. Though why haven’t you noticed solar flying off the shelves? The cost to the end consumer has not decreased by a similar amount. Chairman and CEO Michael Liebreich says that the rising costs of financing solar have so far largely offset the price decreases.

To view the full press release, visit New Energy Finance and follow the link on the right-hand side of the page.

Considering its sun-bleached location, you’d think it was only a matter of time before Algeria went solar. According to Algerian state media, the North African oil and gas producer has plans to build a plant for the manufacture of solar panels, in an effort to draw 5 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015, Reuters reports. As proof of the government backing behind the project, state-owned utility Sonelgaz will invest $100 million in the factory and launch a round of bidding for contractors by the end of 2009.

[Algeria’s official news agency] said the factory, which is scheduled to open in 2012, will each year produce photovoltaic cells with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts, equivalent to about one tenth the capacity of a small nuclear power plant.

The announcement follows not too far behind the news of the Desertec Industrial Initiative earlier this summer, in which a consortium of European businesses plans to finance a €400 billion ($597.3 billion) project that generates power in North Africa and export it to Europe. The Desertec project has yet to significantly move forward, perhaps partially due to fears of exploitation from those on whom its progression rests.

Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil has expressed reservations about the project, saying earlier this year: “We don’t want foreign companies exploiting solar energy from our land.”

All things considered, Wisconsin runs a pretty decent solar rebate program. If you are a WI resident or business owner thinking about installing a solar energy system, you may want to apply now — the program’s current application period ends on December 31.

Dubbed Focus on Energy, the program provides funds for homeowners and businesses who install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar hot water (solar thermal) systems. For PV systems, the payment is indexed to expected performance — i.e., the owner will receive a set payment for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity that is expected to be produced by the system.

For the current application period, solar rebate funds are available according to the following :

• Systems up to 20 kW in size: $1.50/ annual kWh (residential and commercial solar installations), up to $35,000 or 25 percent of system costs, whichever is less; $2.00/annual kWh (non-profits and government entities), up to $45,000 or 35% of total system costs, whichever is less.
• Systems > 20 kW: $1.00/annual kWh (residential and commercial solar installations), up to $50,000 or 25 percent of costs, whichever is less; $1.50/annual kWh (non-profits and government entities), up to $75,000 or 35% of total system costs, whichever is less.

Customers must be located in the service territory of a participating electricity provider. (You can check your eligiblity here.)

To read more about solar energy incentives in Wisconsin, check out our WI page. And if you’re interested in getting connected with qualified solar installers in your part of the state, check out the info form on our homepage.

Green building industries could create millions of jobs and add hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy, according to a new report (PDF) from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, the Green Jobs Study predicts that nearly 8 million “green construction market” jobs will be created in the next four years, adding $554 billion to U.S. GDP.

What, exactly, qualifies as a green construction market job, you ask? The report takes a fairly wide interpretation, drawing from a 2008 definition from McGraw Hill:

We define green building as one built to LEED standards, an equivalent green building certification program, or one that incorporates numerous green building elements across five category areas: energy efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficiency, responsible site management and improved indoor air quality. Projects that only feature a few green building products (e.g., HVAC systems, waterless urinals) or that only address one aspect of a green building, such as energy efficiency, are not included in this calculation.

A few months ago, there was considerable debate over what constitutes a “green job” (see here, here and here), so it’s reassuring to see that the report’s authors nip that question in the bud (they address the issue of mushy definitions on page one of the report).

As for the numbers themselves, they’re the product of a macroeconomic modeling platform that discerns between direct and indirect impacts of the green building activities:

Direct effects are the initial economic changes to the industry impacted (e.g., a general contractor who constructs a green building). Indirect effects represent the increased economic activity generated for downstream businesses that provide supplies and raw materials for the industries directly affected (e.g., the general contractor purchases supplies from steel and lumber companies). Finally, induced effects capture the economic impact from the increased income of households that are directly and indirectly affected by green building expenditures (e.g., employees of the general contractor, the steel supplier, and the lumber supplier use their additional income from green construction spending to purchase products and services from food and gas to healthcare and education).

I, for one, wouldn’t know where to begin when trying to calculate how much an individual’s buying power increases because he/she lands a new (and presumably better paying) green-building job. Nor would I know what, in general, their purchasing habits would be and how that would, in turn, impact the overall growth of the U.S. economy. But I’m not an economist. Luckily, the teams from Booz Allen Hamilton and the USGBC have a few competent ones on staff.

The report was released two weeks ago at Greenbuild 2009 in Phoenix.