How to Get Voters to Go Green

Watching Libyan strongman Moammar Ghadafi scramble for his life this week offers some highly relevant lessons for the renewable industry:

1. The Rixos Hotel has a wonderful swim-up bar and free Wi-Fi, but the front-door security can be really spotty.

2. Keep a suitcase full of brightly colored robes and oversized sunglasses packed at all times.

3. Don’t forget your constituents.

That third one might be the most important. Like the other deposed dictators in the region, Gadhafi fell because he forgot — time and time again — to placate his subjects. Even in legitimate governments, politicians might bow to lobbyists, but they should live in constant fear of the people they lead.

The renewable industry has surged when voters get angry. History reveals:

–Senator Nelson Aldrich — “a man with extensive interests in the food industry [who] believed that government had no right to prevent consumers from poisoning themselves,” writes Edmund Morris in Theodore Rex — strangled Roosevelt’s Pure Food Act in committee. After the publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, Aldrich retreated. The Act passed 63 to 4.

–The original Earth Day drew one million largely middle-class demonstrators into the streets in 1970. George Fallon, a powerful Congressional Representative from Maryland who opposed environmental regulations, shockingly lost a bid for re-election that fall.

In the following months, Nixon — a raving lefty by contemporary standards but a moderate conservative back then — proposed the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, among other pieces of legislation. Most passed with overwhelming majorities.

–This year, Angela Merkel proposed a plan to phase out nuclear power in Germany after bruising election losses. Her conservative Christian Democrats may try to form a coalition with the Green Party.

–In Japan, current Prime Minister Naoto Kan has proposed increasing renewables to 20 percent of Japan’s power mix by 2020 in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

–In China, analysts believe that the carbon and coal regulations currently contemplated by the government stem in part from the chronic series of coal riots in the countryside.

–In California last year, voters turned back an initiative, funded by oil and coal companies, to roll back the state’s carbon legislation. Then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Secretary of State George Shultz helped sway public opinion in the final weeks before the election.

Note also how environmental causes easily cross party lines. Roosevelt, Nixon, Schultz and Schwarzenegger all served as Republicans and the Chinese Communist Party is the pro-business incumbent. George Bush the First created the first cap-and-trade scheme for acid rain.

Gadhafi’s teachable moment comes at an opportune time too. Most of the visceral emotion leading up to the 2012 election exists on the anti-environmental side. Presidential candidate Rick Perry the Cable Guy claims that scientists distort their findings on climate change to win grants. The EPA  routinely gets trashed as a job killer.

For a few years, many on the renewables side believed that a charismatic leader could create a broad-based constituency for green technology. We have such a leader. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton has already served two terms, so the industry will have to fight dirty.

The situation, luckily, can likely still be reversed. As the examples above show, voters will go green — and their leaders will follow like a cow with a ring stuck through its nose — when a direct, concrete nexus exists between their own lifestyle and new regulations. Some ideas:

–State and National Feed-In Tariffs. Academic economists often dislike feed-in tariffs because they can be inefficient and difficult to set. FITs, however, come with a huge benefit: anyone can become a power producer. Suddenly, consumers have an economic incentive to see the industry grow. If renewables became widespread, farmers and ranchers in conservative states would become some of the most staunch advocates. Clean power would be as tough to eradicate as liquor sales in the ’20s.

The U.S. to date has opted for tax credits, which tend to benefit financial institutions more than individuals. Joe the Plumber doesn’t trade renewable energy credits. He probably can’t participate in tax equity funds, either. And if he found out how they work, he might get even more bent.

–Emphasize Pollution, Not Climate Change. In the U.S., you either believe in climate change or you never will. It’s the new Roe v. Wade. But here’s something we can all agree on: no one wants to live down the street from a coal or natural gas plant.

Pollution is a very real, tangible problem. Earth Day got its start because the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and Santa Barbara experienced an oil spill. The air in Los Angeles at the time was about as thick as Progresso Minestrone soup. The environmental recovery in the U.S., Europe and Japan remain unambiguous achievements.

The same problems are returning. The BP oil disaster wiped out the fishing season in the Gulf. In Los Angeles, the air quality improved — until 2002, venture capitalist Steve Westly recently pointed out. Since then, it has become worse. Approximately 25 percent of the particulate matter over the city comes from Asia, he said. Unless you want to start hosing coal dust off the side of your house, you will want to see renewables expand.

–Domestic Content Standards. Domestic buying requirements, in the abstract, are not a good thing. But we don’t live in an abstract world. U.S. entrepreneurs say it is virtually impossible to break into the Chinese or Indian market without a local partner.

Domestic content regulations would even out the playing field. More importantly, they would convince fence-sitters and skeptics that subsidies and tax credits aren’t disguised corporate giveaways. Regulations can be limited to emerging technologies or could come equipped with phase-out provisions.

Fossil fuel companies get a tremendous amount of their support from pushing the ‘Made in the USA’ button. Few voters in Kentucky like mountain top removal, but they do like the jobs mining creates. Natural gas ads make it sound patriotic to run your dryer. Why the renewable industry allows the fossil companies to dominate this part of the debate remains a mystery.

–Enlist the Army. The branches of the military all have aggressive green programs. Put an enlisted soldier on TV: “I’m tired of fighting for your car.”

–Play the China Card. China will have two gigawatts’ worth of solar in the ground by the end of the year. It will double that figure within a year. The nation’s scientists and business execs increasingly dominate the cutting edge of this emerging industry. Didn’t we used to have a strong science curriculum?

–Emphasize construction. Construction jobs aren’t as steady, arguably, as manufacturing jobs, but the U.S. has one heck of a lot of unemployed contractors. The New Deal was one big building project, after all.

“With geothermal, you’re replacing fossil fuels with labor,” Paul Thomsen, director of policy and business development at Ormat, told me. It’s one of the best quotes I’ve heard this year

–Repeat Yourself. Like I’m doing here. Or like Michele Bachmann does. And like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did. I am not politically conservative, but I’ve admired for decades the hard-bitten relentlessness of some conservative candidates in staying on message. It might take some acting classes, but politicians and business leaders who want to see clean tech take off should sign up.

by Michael Kanellos
For Green Tech Media

The Prospect of Renewable Energy

With the devastation caused by recent oil spills and nuclear reactor meltdowns, it is clear that we must begin to put into place a renewable energy program in order to insure the health of the planet. The United States, relies heavily on coal, oil and natural gas for energy; sources that will eventually dwindle, and clearly are not a strong environmental choice. Renewable energy, on the other hand, coming from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat, replenishes naturally.

Is it a viable concept for a nation or even a planet to expect that these sources can power the world? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world CAN get 80 percent of its power from these renewable sources by 2050.

To meet the standards set by the IPCC, the renewable energy production will need to increase twenty-fold to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. If the “full range of renewable technologies were deployed”, the report states, we could get to nearly 80 percent clean power in under 40 years, keeping the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million. Scientists say the carbon concentration should be 350.

The United States, the world’s biggest energy consumer, is currently politically deadlocked regarding issues that would bring solutions to these problems. Of course, the political debate revolves the expense of this project. The cost would be around 1 percent of the global GDP annually, an estimated $240 billion.

Rather than focus on the enormous monetary cost, we must focus on the tremendous health benefits to our population as well as the planet in general. In addition to creating a vibrant environment, a global clean-tech industry would contribute to economic health as renewables are expected to play a greater role than either nuclear or carbon capture and storage by 2050.

Continue Reading…

A Burning Question: Should Waste-to-Energy Qualify as Renewable?

When you think about renewable energy sources, what comes to mind

When you think about renewable energy sources, what comes to mind? Solar panels or wind turbines, maybe even hydropower? You’re probably NOT thinking about trash, or to be more precise, municipal solid waste.

Covanta Energy wants you to think differently. They already turn your trash into energy and New York State already calls it renewable. Now they want New York to add Waste-to-Energy (WtE) production into the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

This has ‘problem’ written all over it. Here’s why.

Across the country, 33 states have RPSs, policies states use to ensure that certain levels of renewable energy production are met, although the definition of ‘renewable’ varies. Federal law recognizes WtE technology as renewable and so do the laws of 26 states (including New York), the District of Columbia and two territories, but only 21 states (not New York) and the District of Columbia have added WtE to their RPS. New York’s RPS goal is to obtain 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Technologies currently in New York’s RPS include biomass, landfill biogas, hydroelectric (the predominant technology) and wind. Covanta wants the state to add WtE into that 30 percent mix.

According to the Energy Recovery Council, nationwide there are 87 WtE plants with a power generating capacity of nearly 2,700 megawatts of electricity. These facilities generate approximately 17 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year—enough to power approximately 2 million American homes. This type of energy is considered baseload power that can operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

According to Covanta, for every ton of municipal solid waste burned in the WtE process:

• 520 kWh of power are generated;
• 500 lbs of metal are recycled;
• The need to import one barrel of oil or mine one-quarter ton of coal is avoided;
• Almost one ton of greenhouse gasses are avoided; and
• There is less reliance on landfills and shipping waste over large distances.

Sounds pretty great, right? But consider this. It’s basically another form of incineration and, as is the case with all incineration, it comes with emissions issues. In fact, when the trash being burned contains items like household batteries and tires, the emissions can be quite toxic. Heavy duty pollution controls help minimize emissions, but problems persist.

Adding WtE to New York’s RPS could have several unintended consequences beyond air emissions issues.

If WtE were added to the RPS it would become eligible for funds paid for by ratepayers at approximately 25 cents per month and totaling approximately $175 million. According to the Executive Director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Adrienne Esposito, “[WtE] facilities could receive funding under the RPS, redirecting limited funds away from legitimate renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. “

In addition, there could be less incentive for the state as well as local municipalities to create effective waste minimization solutions such as waste prevention, composting and recycling. Cases exist where municipal recycling is not promoted or is even discouraged because waste management contracts require municipalities to deliver a minimum volume of municipal solid waste to incineration companies.

By adding WtE to the RPS, New York State could get burned. WtE is a treatment for the symptoms of our desire for too much energy and our generation of too much trash. Let’s stop treating symptoms and start treating causes. Let’s start thinking in terms of improving on truly renewable energy solutions and finding and implementing effective waste management options, instead of using ratepayers’ money to burn garbage.

Originally posted on Ecocentric blog.

A Solar Panel on Every Roof In U.S., Still a Distant Dream?

Daunted by high up-front costs, U.S. homeowners continue to shy away from residential solar power systems, even as utility-scale solar projects are taking off. But with do-it-yourself kits and other innovative installation approaches now on the market, residential solar is having modest growth.

It seems like the ultimate in green technology for an emissions-savvy citizen of the 21st century: solar panels on your roof, providing carbon dioxide-free electricity whenever the sun is shining. But as huge utility-scale solar and wind projects continue to make news and the economy continues to struggle, the state of the residential solar sector in the United States remains decidedly mixed.

From the first quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter, installations of U.S. residential solar systems rose from 62 megawatts to 74 megawatts (enough to power about 15,000 homes), and the Solar Energy Industries Association reports that the first quarter of 2011 saw similar gains over the same period in 2010. Considering that the total installed solar capacity in the U.S. — residential, commercial, and industrial-scale of all types included — still hasn’t cracked 3,000 megawatts (enough to power roughly 600,000 homes), this feels like progress.

Yet if you look at residential solar’s share of the total U.S. solar market, the picture is less bright. In 2009, 36 percent of all installed solar systems were on homes; this dropped to 30 percent in 2010, and some experts think that

“The way the U.S. solar market is really headed is toward utility projects,” said MJ Shiao, a solar markets analyst with Greentech Media Research. He noted that the growth from the first quarter of 2010 to 2011 was about 14 percent in the residential market, compared with an impressive 119 percent for non-residential sectors. Just last week, the U.S. Interior Department approved First Solar’s 4,100-acre solar project in the California desert, which is expected to generate enough electricity to power 165,000 homes.

“These other market sectors are really taking off,” Shiao said. “That’s not to say that residential isn’t growing. It’s sort of plodding along.”

In some European countries — most notably Germany — generous government incentive programs and ambitious renewable energy targets have created a far more robust solar sector, including residential solar. In 2010 alone, Germany installed 7,400 megawatts of photovoltaic systems — more than double the entire existing solar capacity in the U.S. About 700 megawatts came from 100,000 small, residential-sized systems. Shiao said that Germany’s and Italy’s solar markets have traditionally been driven by residential and small commercial installations.

The primary issue stopping most U.S. homeowners from putting solar panels on their roofs is cost. Solar systems are expensive — on the order of $20,000 to $25,000 or more, depending on the system’s size and other factors. And even though these systems can end up paying for themselves in the long run with lower electricity bills, most families cannot find tens of thousands of dollars for the upfront costs. Prices of solar panels are steadily coming down, but are still not low enough to prompt a mass movement to solar, especially at a time of economic stagnation.

Because of this, the main drivers of residential solar installations are state and federal incentives that help defray those costs, yet even these are in jeopardy as governments at all levels slash budgets. Everyone in the country can take advantage of a federal renewable energy tax credit; this reduces the costs of a solar installation by 30 percent, and since 2009 there is no maximum on the total amount. Beyond that, several states dominate the market because their incentives are so strong.

The California Solar Initiative has helped make the country’s biggest state also the biggest residential solar market. So far, more than 50,000 installed systems have a total capacity of more than 240 megawatts; another 10,000 applications are waiting to add another 50 megawatts to the total. The initiative allows homeowners an upfront rebate based on how many installed megawatts the state has — the idea being that as the market takes off and as costs of solar drop, people will need less government help to prosper and the rebate will drop in value. At the moment, the initiative is in step 8 out of 10, meaning that a residential system can get back 35 cents per watt; this is down from $2.50 per watt when the program began. A typical installation ranges from two to 10 kilowatts, meaning the rebate can be upward of $2,000.

While California matches its sunny reputation with a relatively strong solar market, other states have emerged as less likely solar powerhouses. New Jersey trails only California in total installed solar power, and as of late July the state surpassed 10,000 total installed solar arrays. The bulk of the market is for commercial-sized projects, like a giant 9 megawatt array on the roof of the Gloucester Marine Terminal, but state policies have also pushed residential solar. However, under Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey ended its upfront rebate program last year, although it still offers ongoing incentives through the Solar Renewable Energy Certificates program. Christie also abandoned the previous administration’s goal of getting 30 percent of the state’s power from renewable sources by 2020, reducing that target to 22.5 percent.

Looking a few years out, the federal 30 percent tax credit for commercial solar projects will drop to 10 percent in 2016, and may disappear altogether for residential projects. The unanswered question is whether the solar industry can thrive without such strong federal and state financial incentives.

Some experts, though, don’t think the incentives are the only driver of the residential solar market. According to Michael Woodhouse, an analyst with the National Renewal Energy Laboratory, the economics of solar photovoltaics are better than many make them out to be.

“When people say PV will never compete without subsidies, that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me,” Woodhouse said. “That’s a really incomplete picture.” The key, he said, is to look at the cost of electricity on a regional and state level rather than overall. Woodhouse has conducted analyses of several specific locales. For example, in Santa Barbara, California, he said that right now, when the 30 percent federal tax credit for solar is included, residential solar power costs about 13.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average price of electricity across the state, meanwhile – meaning, from all sources – is 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. In other words, solar power might already have achieved “grid parity” in Santa Barbara.

In other places, solar power is not close to grid parity. In St. Louis, Missouri, the cost of residential solar power is more than double the 8-cent per kilowatt-hour average of traditional electricity sources.

“The best economics for PV are in places where you have a good solar resource and expensive traditional electricity,” Woodhouse said. “There is no simple answer for this: when will PV compete with fossil fuels? It already does, it just depends on where we’re talking about.”

For one subset of the population, there is a way around at least some of the upfront costs involved with a home installation: install it yourself. In recent years, do-it-yourself solar has begun to go mainstream, with stores like Home Depot now selling solar installation kits. At Lowes, a package of 13

“The most promising trend in residential solar power is the third-party ownership model. 185-watt panels (enough for a small 2.4 kilowatt system) and all the hardware required to install them costs $9,219.”

On the other end of the spectrum from the do-it-yourselfer lie people who would like to have solar panels on a roof in theory, but don’t want to pay for them, install them, or even have the responsibility of owning them at all. Enter the most promising trend in residential solar power: the third party ownership model.

Adam Shuster of Ashland, Massachusetts took advantage of this model, under which a company installs, maintains, and owns a home’s panels and charges a fixed rate for the electricity they generate. In 2008, Shuster looked into putting solar panels on his family home’s roof, but decided it simply cost too much. But his ten-year-old son, Kenny, kept pushing him to look a bit harder.

“At one point I said to [Kenny], ‘You know, it could look kind of ugly on the house,’” Shuster recalled. Kenny countered: “Would you rather have an ugly planet and a good-looking house, or a good-looking planet and an ugly house?” In September 2009, the ten-year-old got to flip the switch that turned on a 20-panel, five-kilowatt photovoltaic system. His family is now generating about a third of its home’s power needs from the sun, saving about $75 per year on total electricity bills, and producing a third less carbon emissions as a result.

Several companies – notably SunRun, Sungevity, and Solar City – now will install a solar system on a homeowner’s roof for little or no upfront cost. The homeowner pays a set price to the installing company for the electricity the system generates, and the company also takes care of maintenance and repair.

Susan Wise, a spokesperson for SunRun, said her company grew at 300 percent in 2010 and expects to at least double again in 2011; she says that they now install $1 million of solar panels every day. “We let homeowners switch to solar without having to put thousands of dollars up front,” she said. “And they don’t have to deal with owning the technology. That’s a huge thing for lots of people. They don’t want the panels, they just want power.”

Though SunRun’s installations rarely are big enough to produce all of a home’s electricity, Wise said, the price of the solar portion of a home’s power tends to be five to ten percent lower than the utility’s portion at the start of the contract. Also, the third-party owners offer 18- and 20-year contracts with a locked-in price. Since utility electricity rates historically have risen consistently, a homeowner could save thousands of dollars over the life of a contract.

This corner of the market seems to be the fastest growing. Shiao of GTM Research said that in January of 2010, none of the solar installations in Colorado — which is among the top states for total solar installations — were third-party owned; only a year later, third party ownership accounted for 35 percent of the solar arrays installed. Notably, though, these companies rely on federal and state incentives, as well, and tend to follow the money to certain states. SunRun currently installs systems in nine states; Sungevity is in eight.

Another promising long-term trend for residential solar is that solar panels continue to drop in cost, and fairly drastically. Woodhouse said that in 2008, the price of a manufacturing a solar panel was about $4 per watt. Now, $1.50 per watt or below isn’t out of the question.

“The cost reductions in PV are really remarkable,” he said. “And there is every reason to believe that they will continue. We’re not even close to hitting the bottom of cost reduction potential.”

Wind Power and its Advocates talk Twenty Percent or Better

Wind is in the forecast for the energy business, if advocates for the technology have their way.

Shrugging off criticism that double-digit targets for share of the country’s energy grid could be difficult to obtain, a panel of analysts this week showed confidence in the sector’s ability to reach a 20% target of total US power capacity by 2030.

Today four wind advocates offered their insight on the future of the wind industry in the United States, agreeing that it is on track to supply 20% of the country’s electricity by 2030. The four had significant confidence in the industry’s ability to reach its target and level the playing field in terms renewable energy sources.

“I think that 20-30% is a good figure for any one renewable source whether it would be wind, solar, or geothermal,” said Head of Training and Development for the Americas Region for Siemens Energy Earl Walker. “I think it should be a nice blend.”

The wind industry’s future was the subject of an Energy Collective webinar titled “Growing Wind Power: The Future of Wind and the Quest for Cleaner Energy.” Along with Walker, panelists included President of Orion Energy Michael Haas, Project Manager in the Environmental and Permitting Services at GL Garrad Hassan Ellen Crivella, and VP for Public Affairs for the American Wind Energy Association Peter L. Kelley.

Twenty Too Small?

Of the four, Kelley expressed the greatest support for the future of the wind industry claiming that if anything, 20% may be too small a target. According to Kelley, the industry is currently ahead of schedule and has a powerful argument to present to Congress in efforts to extend its use of tax credits.

Hass also agreed that 20% was an obtainable target, although he said only a small percentage of that would come from offshore sources due to higher costs. Instead, he predicted a change to a renewable portfolio standard and said focusing on transmission capacity would best help the industry.

By Stephanie Spanarkel

Solar Deals Speed Up Reality of Clean Energy Adoption

From a media perspective, a lot of theoretical ink has been spilled over the past few years over the merits of clean energy. Algae has been grown, wind has been blown, bio-fuels tested and greenhouse gases contested. For every inconvenient truth pushing the clean energy agenda forward there are usually a few red herrings thrown into the mix to keep confusion and debate alive. Until now. I think GE Energy’s recent investment in eSolar will change the clean energy conversation forever.

According to a press release on eSolar’s web site, GE Energy has entered into an investment and licensing agreement with eSolar that enables GE to deploy Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) technology to customers worldwide. Under the agreement, GE will license and incorporate eSolar technology into its offers of cost-effective ISCC and standalone solar thermal power plants. The companies expect the transaction, which will establish GE as a minority shareholder, to close within a month. Financial terms are not being disclosed.

According to the press release, an ISCC project is a combined-cycle system including a gas turbine, steam turbine, generators and a heat recovery steam generator, with a field of mirrors that focus sunlight on a tower to produce high temperature steam. Steam generated in the solar field is fed into the water-steam cycle of the combined-cycle plant, increasing the power of the steam turbine and creating extra megawatts of electricity without using any additional natural gas.

Why is this a big deal? According to Paul Browning, president and CEO – thermal products for GE Energy, “GE has the world’s largest installed base of gas turbines that are being used in ISCC power plants, but these plants used higher cost and lower temperature trough technology and combined-cycle technology that have limitations in flexibility.” eSolar’s technology will be integrated with GE’s  FlexEfficiency 50 Combined Cycle technology to create a highly efficient and reliable ISCC plant with the capability to achieve better than 70 percent fuel efficiency and reliable power.
Efficiency. Reliability. These are the hallmarks of a sound clean energy strategy. If a company as large and influential as GE is getting into bed with eSolar because the company can enable these attributes, we will definitely become less reliant on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Another serious player in the solar game is BrightSource Energy. Similar to eSolar, BrightSource builds solar thermal power stations that deploy vast fields of mirrors called heliostats that focus the sun on a water-filled boiler that sits atop a 459-foot tower. The resulting steam drives an industrial turbine that generates electricity. According to a recent Forbes blog, BrightSource would offer utilities power plants the flexibility to generate electricity after the sun sets.

By: T.D. Clark

Ten Reasons to go Solar in 2011

10 Reason to Go Solar

Last September, the Frank family home began generating its own electricity from the sun, with a solar photovoltaic system installed on our roof. Our monitoring system tracks how much electricity is being generated by our system as well as how much electricity our home is consuming. Since our system went into service on Sept. 1, it has generated more electricity than our home has consumed. In other words, our electric meter is spinning backwards. Not only are we saving money on our electric bills, but we are getting money back from the electric company every month. I’m eager to share this information, and to let Las Cruces know why now is the best time to go solar.

Here are some of the top reasons to put solar on your priority list for 2011:

1. Southern New Mexico is one of the best places in the world for solar. We enjoy a very favorable combination of sunshine, altitude and temperature that makes our area one of the best in the world for producing energy from the sun. It just makes sense to harness this plentiful resource to power our homes and businesses.

2. Incentives for going solar in New Mexico, and specifically in the Las Cruces area, are very favorable. In addition to the obvious benefit of not having to pay for the electricity that is generated by your own solar system, there are many additional incentives that make going solar possibly one of the best and smartest investments a homeowner can make.

3. Prices on solar equipment have come down. Manufacturers of solar equipment are very competitive, and this has resulted in adjustments that have made solar systems more affordable.

4. Solar systems are virtually maintenance-free. There are basically no moving parts in a solar electric system, and the components have been shown to be extremely reliable. Most solar modules are warrantied for 25 years, but are expected to last 40 or 50 years. Once a system is installed, there is little to nothing to do, except to save money and collect your Renewable Energy Certificate checks.

5. There is no question that electric rates will continue to go up. Investing in a solar electric system today is a way to lock the price per kilowatt-hour electricity for the next 25 years or beyond. The cost of not going solar is staggering.

6. Financing is available. There are several financing options available in our area that allow people to finance a solar system at a rate low enough that they begin saving money with a positive cash flow right from the start. When the 40% tax credits are claimed in the following year, you may pay down the principle of the loan, or spend it however you want.

7. Increased property value. There are several studies that show that homes with solar electric systems sell faster and for more money than those without. According to a recent University of California at Berkeley study, homes in California with solar panels sold for a premium that reflected roughly the net amount of the investment to the original homeowner after tax credits. Think of it from a homebuyer’s perspective. Which is worth more to you: a home with a net zero electric bill for the year or a home with electric bills that will keep going up over the years?

8. Solar energy produced at your home is clean and efficient. While it does take energy to produce solar equipment, research shows the average solar panel will pay back the energy used to manufacture it in less than four years. On the other hand, fossil fuels are an inefficient source of energy that create pollution and require more and more energy (and cost) to extract and convert to usable energy.

9. It is good for the country. There is no doubt that America has become more and more dependent on foreign fossil fuels to produce the energy we need. Producing more energy through local production of a local, renewable source of energy helps reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources.

10. It is good for the planet. In the eleven months since our own solar electric system was installed, it has reduced our carbon footprint by 12,759 pounds of carbon monoxide, which is equivalent to not driving 12,634 miles in a standard car, or to planting 142 trees grown for 10 years. That’s a really good feeling!

Are We Investing Enough in Clean Energy?

Consider the following recent news from Ernst & Young about investment in cleantech companies this quarter:

• US Department of Energy announced loans and guarantees of $32 billion, including over $10 billion for solar projects.
• First Solar secured $4.5 billion in loan guarantees.
• A group of 11 wealthy US families formed The Cleantech Syndicate to invest $1.4 billion in renewable energy companies over the next five years.
• Google and SolarCity create a $280 million fund to provide solar panel leases and ppas to households – the largest residential solar financing scheme to date.
• BofA and partners are financing $2.6 billion in commercial rooftop solar arrays — the largest distributed solar deal in history.
• GE announced a $600 million investment to manufacture solar panels — in a factory slated to be the largest in the US.

So there’s no doubt that billions of dollars are flowing into this market from government, private investors, banks and major corporations.

The question is — is it enough?

Is it enough to stimulate the economy? Is it enough to combat climate change? Is it even enough to keep up with China?

Despite the billions in loan guarantees and investments this year, there is still no clear federal policy on funding clean energy. But amidst all the sound and fury of the debt ceiling debate, however, some quiet steps were recently taken to change that.

In mid-July, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the Clean Energy Financing Act of 2011 with a rare unanimous vote. If that kind of broad bi-partisan support can sustain a vote on the floor, the bill would establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or CEDA. Commonly referred to as a “Green Bank,” CEDA would be an independent institution providing affordable financing for clean energy technologies who’ve had funding difficulties. A similar Green Investment Bank was recently launched in the UK, and even the conservative the US Chamber of Commerce supports the CEDA legislation.

While there are still questions about how the program will be funded, and which technologies should be included, the idea also has support from the influential American Energy Innovation Council, a group of America’s top business executives who’ve developed a plan to make America a global leader in energy technology innovation. The Council’s members include Bill Gates; John Doerr, partner at Kleiner Perkins; Chad Holliday, chairman of Bank of America; and Jeff Immelt, chief executive of GE.

These business leaders have several recommendations for making CEDA successful, including: #1 — Creating an independent national Energy Strategy Board, and #4 — funding ARPE-E at $1 billion per year. But they warn that if their second recommendation is not met “our other recommendations will not matter much.”

So what is their 2nd recommendation? Invest $16 billion per year in clean energy innovation.

Currently we’re only investing $5 Billion per year. For comparison, the China Development Bank Corporation plans to finance more than $30 billion in clean energy each year, according to the Center for American Progress.

To keep our economy strong, and remain competitive, the business leaders on the Council say the US needs “sizable, sustained investments in clean energy innovation. We believe that $16 billion per year — an increase of $11 billion over current annual investments of…

Continue Reading…