Periodic Grist contributor Gregory Dicum has an article in today's New York Times that does a great job of telling the story behind solar's explosive momentum. With state incentive programs closing the cost gap, homeowners make the investment for a variety of motivations. The article manages to work in quotes citing reasons that range from foreign policy ...
Mr. Felton, 67, said that a solar system did not make sense when he built his house in 2000, but that the rebate, as well as rising electricity prices, persuaded him to install the system last year. His pragmatic concerns were also informed by broader issues. "I'm not a hippie greenie," he said, pointing out that with a background in nuclear engineering, he strongly supports nuclear power. "But solar is certainly a way to get off foreign oil."
As a member of the military who has been deployed to the Persian Gulf three times, Dr. Leininger has been affected by the nation's foreign oil habits more than most. "The need for stable oil supplies is the big reason that we spend so much time in the Persian Gulf," he said. "Decreasing our national energy consumption is in my self-interest."
... to environmental concerns ...
Dr. Leininger estimated that his system had reduced his household carbon emissions by nearly 30 tons since it was installed in June, and that it was well on its way to zeroing out.
"It comes down to personal responsibility," he said. "If I can go electricity-neutral on my house, that's that much less coal we have to burn."
... to Benjamins ...
And much less money. "One of the most gratifying things is on a sunny day when the meter is spinning backward," Dr. Leininger said. "We have a guaranteed return on the system because we know we're not going to have an electric bill from now on."
Wonks will also appreciate how the article gets the policy factors right. Almost parenthetically, the article explains the importance of long-term incentives:
The theory was that supplanting the year-to-year incentive programs in place since 1998 with the long-term certainty offered by the initiative's 10-year, $3.2 billion program of rebates (one-third of which would likely go to homeowners) would stimulate the development of a robust solar sector -- which could then be weaned from subsidies as its growing scale brought down prices.
And a great description of net metering:
As recently as 10 years ago it was unheard of and, in fact, illegal for solar-powered houses in California to connect to the grid; now power companies are legally required to credit their customers for the excess power they produce.
The grid, in effect, serves to store power, replacing the bank of batteries that is a component of off-grid systems. At the end of the year, credits for solar power added to the grid are applied against charges for power taken from it, helping homeowners "zero out" their electricity bills. According to Borrego Solar Systems, the company that installed the long rows of solar panels on a hill next to Mr. Felton's house, two-thirds of its customers manage to do so.
Also note mention of the role of utility rate design:
In California residential electricity rates are tiered, and large users like Mr. Felton pay rates about three times higher than more modest consumers, making solar power even more attractive.
While California structures its rates to incentivize lower consumption by charging profligate consumers more, many other states have inverted tier pricing, where customers pay less the more they consume.
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 9:28 am
04 Jan 2007
Permalink
Adam Browning Posted 11:00 am
04 Jan 2007
A couple of years ago NREL issued a report on the energy payback for photovoltaic modules--that is the time needed for the panels to generate the equivalent energy that went into their manufacture. The report showed between 1 and 4 years, depending on technology. Check it out here (pdf). For a product with a 30 year life, that's pretty good.
Evergreen estimates the energy payback of it's string ribbon modules at 18 months.
And the thin-film CIGS technology like what Nanosolar and Miasole are producing are reportedly around 2 months.
Get Some Sun: http://www.votesolar.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:49 am
04 Jan 2007
http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/research/pv.pdf
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:08 pm
04 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
markbahner Posted 12:34 pm
04 Jan 2007
A coal-fired power plant generates about 1 kg of CO2 per kWhr generated.
EIA report on CO2 from electrical generation
That means about 12/44 or 0.27 kg (0.60 lb) of carbon per kWhr. So it would take 3333 kWh of coal-fired electricity to generate one ton of carbon.
If he has avoided 30 tons of carbon, that means he's avoided getting 30 x 3333 kWh = 100,000 kwh from the grid.
Since there are about 4400 hours in six months, that means a continuous average rate of 100,000 divided by 4400 = 23 kilowatts!
That's the same rate as 10 or more typical houses.
It's not very likely that he's avoided 30 tons of carbon emissions. And if he has, his house is an electrical pig of staggering proportions.
Mark Bahner
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:29 pm
04 Jan 2007
notes: $9/W, 7000W, 100W/m2 @ 10% net efficiency, 70m2, 1700W/m2/year sunlight
Permalink
ryanmaloney Posted 3:48 pm
04 Jan 2007
When someone says "carbon emissions", do they mean strictly carbon atoms (atomic weight 12 g/mol) or is it short for CO2 molecules (molecular weight 44 g/mol)?
I always assumed that it was the latter, but I notice in your calculation you factor the 1kg of CO2 by 12/44, which I believe would give you how much actual carbon atoms are emitted per kWhr? If carbon emissions means CO2, then your calculations would instead require a continuous rate of 23*12/44 = 6.3 kilowatts per hour for the house described.
(By the way, I'm new to Gristmill, so I appologize in advance if the above is wrong or if I completely missed something!)
Ryan Maloney
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:11 pm
04 Jan 2007
I am very happy to see some hard numbers show up in solar news reports. I hope news reporters start using calculators with follow up questions. Carbon metrics is important information.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:07 pm
04 Jan 2007
Adam, the detail that I found the most interesting is that solar users such as Mr. Felton and Dr. Leininger, being still connected to the grid, are willing to risk being prone to black-outs. Gregory Dicum makes the distinction between an "old school" of solar enthusiasts -- part of Mr. Denton's "hippie greenie" crowd? -- , for whom independence from the grid was a major value, and who themselves were their own solar engineers, and these "new school" types, who do not share those values at all. Are the "new school" types displaying a new sense of social responsibility? Do they represent a desirably mature and balanced approach to energy use by home-owners?
As I think I recall, in the course of the Seattle area's recent prolonged (and deadly) storm-induced power outtage, our Sunflower boasted that he was getting along just fine. My guess is, even if his wife considers him the most conservative of men, Mr. Denton might very well recognize him as a "hippie greenie."
Not being a home-owner (though we hope to get our co-op to consider putting solar panels on the building's roof), I do not have a dog in this fight, and ask only for information.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 3:27 am
05 Jan 2007
In California residential electricity rates are tiered, and large users like Mr. Felton pay rates about three times higher than more modest consumers, making solar power even more attractive.
While California structures its rates to incentivize lower consumption by charging profligate consumers more, many other states have inverted tier pricing, where customers pay less the more they consume.
Having BTDT on tiered rates, I can offer a bit of advice on the real world impact.
The underlying assumption is that economically well off people with their large houses are the 'prolifigate' users. Bear in mind that these tend to also be the folks with newer homes built to more efficient codes, newer appliances, etc.
Unless everyone is living in the same size house, with the same size family, the same heat source, etc., any decision (short of a BTU equivalent of all energy resources consumed) about what constitutes 'excessive' consumption is completely arbitrary.
Close to 60% of the folks billed for the upper tier of consumption at our utility were lower income folks living in older homes, usually rented.
Seattle tried the same type of approach trying to impact the 'McMansion' crowd and found about the same result we did, that over half of the folks affected were not the intended target class of customers.
We went back to a flat rate after two years of the tiered rate.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Adam Browning Posted 3:52 am
05 Jan 2007
Get Some Sun: http://www.votesolar.org
Permalink
Adam Browning Posted 3:58 am
05 Jan 2007
So, grid connection is less a social statement than a functional choice.
Get Some Sun: http://www.votesolar.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:59 am
05 Jan 2007
All you do by reverting to flat rates is reward energy pigs of whatever income level.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:26 am
05 Jan 2007
Permalink
Engineer Posted 5:53 am
05 Jan 2007
We've had a low income weatherization program since 1983. The target has been to spend at least 14% of our overall weatherization budget on low income projects each year. We fund it at 100% of cost (IE no out of pocket for them) and some people still choose not to do it. We don't have the authority to weatherize someone's house without a request and permission from them.
So, we can implement a tiered rate and increase their costs. Which then get paid by the local Community Action funds or some other social service organization. Or, they wait until they get a shut off notice, then put the bill in someone elses name (usually that was already living there...).
None of which saves any energy or emissions.
All you do by reverting to flat rates is reward energy pigs of whatever income level.
Most utilties perform a Cost Of Service Analysis (COSA), which is a complicated process, but the basic concept is to break down the costs of serving a particular class of customers (purchasing the power, delivering it, reading the meter, etc.) and collect revenue to cover those costs through the rate.
Since our wholesale costs are flat, a tiered retail rate is social engineering, not cost of service.
And, if we need to build/buy new resources at a higher cost, doesn't it make more sense to charge a higher flat rate for new construction, since without the growth, we wouldn't need those resources?
And, again...define energy pig!
Say you set a tier at 1,000 kWH. A single person in a 500 sq. ft. apt with gas heat and no laundry facilities on their meter uses 900 kWH and doesn't hit the higher tier. A family of 4 in a 1,500 sq. ft. all electric house uses 2,000 and gets the higher rate for the extra 1,000.
Yet, based per capita consumption, the single person is a much bigger 'pig' as far as electrical usage goes!
Penalties can be useful, but the rules need to be the same for both sides!
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 8:00 am
05 Jan 2007
The goal of tiered rates is to encourage a reduction of energy use.
We saw little increase in participation in the conservation programs and no reduction in energy usage during the two years that rate was in effect.
An overall increase in the flat rate accomplished both of those goals much more effectively, in a more equitable manner.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 8:09 am
05 Jan 2007
Agreed, you don't want a backfeed.
But, it is fairly easy and not terribly expensive to add a disconnect or transfer switch to isolate a backup generation system, be it renewable or fossil fueled, from a backfeed situation.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:15 am
05 Jan 2007
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc...
My enemy is coal. PV is worth about $1.60 per square foot per year @ $0.10/kWh. I don't know what CA pays for coal power but I am concerned silicon pv will do nothing towards reducing the market for coal power.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 11:38 am
05 Jan 2007
You ask, "When someone says 'carbon emissions', do they mean strictly carbon atoms (atomic weight 12 g/mol) or is it short for CO2 molecules (molecular weight 44 g/mol)?"
Yes, when someone says, "carbon emissions," if they aren't making a mistake, they are literally talking about only the carbon portion of the CO2 emissions.
If they are intending to say, "CO2 emissions," they should say that. "Carbon" is not a scientifically valid abbreviated way of saying "carbon dioxide." They are two different entities.
If he really meant 30 tons of CO2 in six months, that would indeed by 6.3 kilowatts continuously (for displacing 100 percent coal-fired electricity...the number would be far larger for California's true energy mix, which includes virtually no coal-fired electricity).
Even 6.3 kilowatts continuously would be well above the average consumption except for a mansion-type house.
Mark Bahner
Permalink
willa Posted 1:20 am
06 Jan 2007
That said, it's important to remember that the advantages of being off-grid are real. I calculated, a few years ago, the percent downtime at my (off-grid) house vs. at my sister's non-solar house nearby, and the difference was staggering. In 20 years, our system has been down for a total of less than 2 weeks, while her power is out several days each year, so it probably adds up to about 4 weeks of downtime just in the 9 years her house has been there.
Batteries are a slight pain to maintain--nothing major, but enough to brand users as "dirty hippies" and turn regular folks off the idea. In general, they tend to marginalize their users, so in that way I think it is a social statement; if you have a no-maintenance grid-tied system, you can show people that they can invest in solar and then be able to live their lives the same as they did before. When people come in my house and see that I have to unplug my cell phone charger when I'm done with it, that I have a $25 microwave that takes forever to heat things up because all the better ones have permanently-lit displays that would kill my system in a couple of days, it does make them think this is something they wouldn't want to get into.
Permalink
erinbean Posted 1:51 pm
07 Jan 2007
While the average home solar system is about five kilowatts, Mr. Felton's is 45 kilowatts
Forty five kilowatts is ENORMOUS. Take a look at your power bill, and I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a month where you use even 10 kilowatts. I'm glad that solar power's gaining traction everywhere, but in this case, it seems like the guy's using PV to ease his mind about his wildly irresponsible energy consumption. Truth be told, installing PV is one of the least eco-friendly actions he could take; reducing his energy consumption by 90 percent would be a more laudable accomplishment.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 am
08 Jan 2007
It's one of those propaganda talking points. Everytime it comes up someone states that pV can never generate enough power to offset the energy used to make them. Then someone else finds the facts, that the energy payback is a few years at most.
It's nice to see that solar PV is becoming a status symbol, even for republicans!
But so are McMansions still a status symbol, yikes. It's so much better to see these good faithbased folk wasting solar power than coal or nuclear power though. Good for them.
The energy revolution needs to incorporate conservation along with renewables though. If rates were tied to what the energy is used for it would encourage conservation.
Kwhs devoted to necessary energy use ought to be at the low rate, then over a certain home size per person the rates should rise. Allow the lower rate to apply for 500 ft2 per person in the home for instance. As far as fountains and other complete waste of energy, charge the highest rate.
Is it wise to give renewable energy rebates for wasteful energy use? I think it is, because that energy will still normally come from fossil or nuclear. But then charge wasteful use by wealthy individuals at the highest rate.
Here's where utility regulation comes into it though. In New Jersey, for instance, homeowners get to sell their clean energy credits, yielding this customer who installed a solar PV system 1200 dollars extra per year.
http://msmith.typepad.com/smithelectricco/
Note the 8 year payback for this installation. Assuming rates stay the same, which they won't, actually the payback will be even shorter.
And also note how much better information there is in this amatuer blog than in the NYT article. The homeowner is not a science journalist. Is the times reporter? I doubt it.
The corporate mass (delusional) media does a terrible job with these types of stories. But at least there is finally some ocasional coverage.
I think that state government level reform is the way to go. Go state by state to change regulation to give the homeowner the energy credits to sell instead of the power company. Also change the rate structure so those who generate renewable energy are payed the same rate for excess power that they are charged, even if it results in a profit for the homeowner.
Distributed renewable generation and storage needs these changes to get started and compete with heavily subsidized fossil and nuclear power.
Drop these corporate welfare subsidies to fossil, fuel farming, and nuclear to pay for the rebates for renewables, in the form of direct tax credits to consumers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenerBiker Posted 2:53 am
08 Jan 2007
A 5kW solar system means that at the highest amount of solar insolation (usually 1000W/m2, give or take depending on atmospheric conditions, latitude, time of year, etc) the system can provide an instantaneous capacity of 5kW. So, if you had 5 1000W hair dryers, you could run them simultaneously from your solar system without underpowering any of them.
In general, pv systems are rated on their capacity at maximum solar insolation...not on their energy production ability (which would be measured in kWh). You can predict, based on your local climate, days of cloudiness or partial cloudiness, etc., how many kWh per year you can glean from your system, but it's still an estimate.
On your electric bill, you are billed for your kWh consumption, not kW. Maybe other electric providers are different, but my bill only tells me how much energy I used (kWh) in the billing period, and does a quick average consumption per day calculation. If you consumed 10 kWh in one month, you'd probably have a $1.00 electric bill.
A real rough calculation, based on Shell Solar's 175W modules: to achieve a 45 kW system as stated above, assuming zero losses and maximum solar insolation, and no shading, you'd need about 258 pv modules. Factoring in wire, and inverter losses, that number will increase.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:57 am
08 Jan 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:25 am
08 Jan 2007
Average home use is around 10,000 kwh per year at an average price around 10 cents per kwh. the New jersey homeowner whose blog I linked generates about 6600 kwh per year from his solar system.
Many instances of homeowners reducing their power needs by over 50% on their own are now popping up in the news. Air conditioning and water heating are huge energy wasters that can be easily cured with geothermal cooling and solar water heating and water heater insulation.
Refrigerator cooling coils given access to cool ground temps in summer or cool outside air in winter can save a lot of energy also.
15% loss from dirt eyyh sunflower? I keep thinking how cost per watt for solar would come way down with solar concentrators.
It's cheaper to buy thin reflective aluminum to make trough collectors than expensive PV cells to cover a whole roof. that way maybe a quarter of the PV cells and their costs would produce the same number of kwhs per year from the same roof. Not only that, but the waste heat would be hot enough to heat water and even enough to heat the home for most of the heating season.
Another factor is the reduction in solar heating on the roof that would cut air conditioning.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 3:31 am
08 Jan 2007
Most states have net metering laws, requiring the utilities to connect customers with their own generation (usually limited to renewables under a certain capacity limit).
By allowing (requiring) the customer generation to slow the meter down, or even run it backwards, the customer automatically gets the same rate (IE, the utility can't distinguish the kWh's to bill them at different rates) for generation as consumption.
Washington recently enacted a law (it was Senate Bill 5101, not sure what the actual RCW number is) allowing customers to apply to the State Department of Revenue for a credit of $0.15/kWh for renewable energy generated, paid through the utility, which gets the tax credit. It also contains provisions for increasing the payment up to $0.54/kWh for using equipment manufactured in WA.
This requires installing metering to measure generation as well as consumption, but given that most retail rates are well below $0.15, it works in the customers benefit.
Under this law, the green tags/REC's/TRC's remain with the customer. In most markets though, they must be sold in full MWh increments. Given that the market for tags now is in the $3-$4 range, the per kWh payment is mouch more lucrative.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:59 am
08 Jan 2007
After seeing repugnant referenda here on the last ballot (gay marriage ban motivated marriage definition nonsense and the incredibly stupid death penalty referendum) we have decided to use this ballot option for something positive. Renewable distributed energy storage and generation. Trying to get v2G in there somehow too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
FreeSolarSystem Posted 4:26 am
08 Jan 2007
Having been in the alternative energy field for decades, rebates and incentives have come and gone, and when they go, so does the business. I saw this back in late '80's and once the ROI is not sensible, few would spend the money needed to go Green.
Fortunately, more people are environmentally aware now than ever before, but costs still get in the way of good decisions. For the first time, a company is solving the issue of costs, and now there is no concern to convert to solar electric power. Not only have costs been dropping every year, but the efficiency has been improving at the same time. Now there is an option no one should refuse. FREE-SOLAR-SYSTEM.com is the answer, the first no cost total installation for home owners in U.S. Make your FREE Reservation now for 2007 installations. No obligation, simple reserve your system today and make a difference forever.
Regards, Mike
NO COST POLLUTION SOLUTION
http://FREE-SOLAR-SYSTEM.COM
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:06 am
08 Jan 2007
Information about solar energy is a mess; a mixture of old cold-war era propaganda, wishful thinking, politics, and advocacy. If roof-mounted unsubsidized pv were cost effective (at least 10% ROI) then square miles of rack mounted pv would be deployed in the most sunny areas. Solar concentrator power is also not yet cost competitive (and also gets dirty). If more people believed in solar power then more people would just wait for technology to solve the global heating problem, an excuse to do nothing. So, I do not attract attention to existing solar energy nor emerging solar power technologies.
Like ethanol car power, solar power is an oversimplified response to fossil power pollution. Homes use oil and gas for heat and hot water. Rather than making ethanol from corn for cars, it would be much more economical to use corncob pellet stoves displacing oil and gas in homes, liberating much oil and gas for transportation. Passive solar heat and home efficiency improvements via insulation and window shutters makes far more sense than pv on roofs for lights, air conditioners, and electric cars. My passive 20 kW skylight displaces a lot of energy at 30 times less cost than pv. If you follow the least-cost path on energy then pv is at the end of the road.
I hope I do not get burned at the stake for this post.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:07 am
10 Jan 2007
Forget combustion for home heating. It's really unecessary and wastefull.
Corn should not even be used for animal feed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
billleininger Posted 12:14 pm
13 Jan 2007
I'll respond on two other topics. As for blackouts and battery back-up, our home has just a few hours of electricity loss per year. That minimal inconvenience didn't justify the cost of batteries to my wife and me. Additionally, battery use, maintenance, and disposal have an environmental impact we wanted to avoid. As for getting off the grid completely, we think staying on the grid is actually helpful. In Southern California, my system makes the most power during the sunniest (hottest) days of the year. So, we're putting electricity into the grid during peak use hours, thus decreasing (ever so slightly) the need to produce electricity from the most expensive sources. A big disappointment is when a rolling blackout takes my system off the grid.
On financial efficiency of solar PV for energy production and conservation. We agree that it's still more expensive than fossil fuel energy sources. However, those sources get a free ride (though maybe not for long) on their CO2 and other waste emissions. Additionally, using government support to promote renewable energy is one strategy to jump start the industry, and attract more private research and investment, in the hopes of achieving financial competitiveness and self-sustainment. On a personal note, we like knowing we're CO2 neutral on our home electricity use. As for other conservation strategies, we have: window film (reduces light/heat inflow); a programmable thermostat; almost 100% CFL lights; energy star appliances; tankless hot water; ceiling fans; good attic insulation.
Finally, for full disclosure, my wife is an enthusiastic Democrat. In my own defense, I'm a Republican trying to promote change from the inside.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:09 pm
13 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:04 pm
13 Jan 2007
Your comments on how you feel about your connexion to the grid are just the sort of answer to my question that I had in mind.
You refer to your use of window film and ceiling fans, and so I gather that you do not have air-conditioning. To your knowledge, is the climate of the San Diego area mild enough that many people who live there could forgo AC without great difficulty? In the much hotter swath of arid land to the east of you, from Imperial Valley (where my husband was born and raised; he says the AC in his house was on non-stop for most of the year) over to central Texas, where solar energy collection is in principle very practical, is AC use to be accepted as a fact of life, and an evil necessity? Do you believe that well-deployed solar systems can render homes even in, say, Phoenix and Tucson, which use AC heavily, CO2-neutral? No doubt there are green-architecture experts who have been thinking about cooling buildings in that climate with renewable methods, and I wonder how far they have got.
Meanwhile, in the Midwest and Northeast, AC use has become seasonally normal -- God knows how people survived the summers, in the past -- , but solar energy collection has not widely caught on, perhaps through fear of its alleged unreliability. Not enough of us know about Sunflower's solutions ...
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:08 am
14 Jan 2007
I experienced 128 F days in New Delhi which killed many people. I survived by taking showers every hour with my clothes on, and the dorm building was also cooled with evaporation cooling, water spayed on reeds behind a fan.
From what I've heard there is wet heat, dry heat, and daytime heat with cooler nights. For the latter two, buildings constructed with thermal mass, like adobe buildings in Santa Fe, require no mechanical cooling. Trees, like Eucalyptus trees, are effective for shade in places such as Phoenix.
Then there is the option of absorption chilling that uses an ammonia loop with a heat source (natural gas or concentrated solar) and this system uses very little power compared to electric AC. Such a system could also use district cooling with chilled water.
The best ROI is efficiency with white roofs, insulation, air to air heat exchangers, geothermal cooling, and window shutters.
Permalink
billleininger Posted 10:41 am
14 Jan 2007
Permalink
billleininger Posted 11:26 am
14 Jan 2007
This strategy opens the solar electric market to apartment/condo owner, small businesses, homeowners with inadequate sunlight, companies needing carbon credits, etc. The immediate availability lets purchasers move quickly when they have the impulse/desire and money, and they can buy in incrementally as finances allow. It took 4.5 months for me to go from decision to research to contractor hiring to installation to permit approval to electricity generation. And, I paid in a large lump sum.
For ongoing encouragement, "shareholders" could sign into a website that might show their virtual electric meter running backwards, or data on how many tons of emissions were avoided, or tree equivalents planted. With non-profits, no one likes their charitable donations to pay for an electric bill, but a Capital Campaign for Energy Independence might allow the group to buy enough shares of generating capacity to fully offset their electric bill, allowing more effective use of subsequent contributions.
While I'm not generally a fan of bigger government, this kind of proposal probably is most easily implemented with at least some level of government support. Economically, it seems that it would make the investment go further in creating electricity producing capacity, vice the rebates to homeowners. Other savings would come from avoiding new power plant construction (and avoiding the inevitable land purchases, infrastructure improvement, permitting, public hearings, and lawsuits). Tax benefits could incentivize "host sites" to allow construction on their property.
It's a complex issue, but I'd be curious to hear skeptical (or enthusiastic!) responses about problems or unintended consequences.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:04 pm
14 Jan 2007
> Instead of focusing on individual homeowners,
> install extensive solar arrays in opportune,
> little used areas - warehouse rooftops,
> airfield peripheries, parking lots
This is known as air-rights development.
thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/11/prisim_solar_li.html#comment-25707336
thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/11/prisim_solar_li.html#comment-25970537
google.com/search?q=%22air+rights+development%22
google.com/search?q=%22air+rights%22+%22low+intensity%22
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:12 pm
14 Jan 2007
> What we really need are homes designed (siting,
> eave size, thermal mass, etc.) to be
> intrinsically energy efficient
Eagle's Eye would be one example:
http://photos.itsa.info/thumbnails.php?album=26
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:15 pm
14 Jan 2007
Permalink