Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Everything They Tell You About Solar Is Wrong - Travis Bradford

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:04 PM
Original message
Everything They Tell You About Solar Is Wrong - Travis Bradford
http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features-and-interviews/1/1022-travis-bradford-everything-they-tell-you-about-solar-is-wrong.html

Everything They Tell You About Solar Is Wrong - Travis Bradford

by: Hard Assets Investor posted on: August 15, 2008

Travis Bradford thinks that the solar energy industry is going to change the world ... and soon. The founder and president of the Prometheus Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to accelerating the deployment of sustainable technology, Bradford is author of Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry, which confidently predicts solar energy will become a dominate energy source over the next 10 years.

He spoke recently with the editors of HardAssetsInvestor.com.

HardAssetsInvestor.com (HAI): You say in your book that solar energy is going to change the way the energy industry works, and that it will become a dominant player in the field. It's such a niche player right now. What's going to change that?

Travis Bradford, founder and president, Prometheus Institute (Bradford): The thing that determines the energy choices we make are both the cost of generation and the cost of getting electricity from where it's made and to where it's needed. Solar is going to end up being cheaper in both regards.

By putting energy nearer to the point of use, solar is going to change the electricity network from a very centralized network - almost like a mainframe computer - to a very distributed network; more like wireless laptops, where a lot of the processing power is at the end of the network instead of in the middle. It has the ... ability to change the way the electricity architecture functions.

The economic and the system repercussions of that change are going to allow solar to become a dominant player in the energy architecture. In fact, it's the only technology that can do these things. Everything else is limited by the way the networks are built today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Solar Cost Curve from Forbes Magazine last year
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/solar-energy-co.html
"Forbes has a whole feature on Solar Energy this week. Within, I found a chart that I have been seeking for a long time - a chart tracking the declining cost of electricity generated by photovoltaic surfaces."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech3149 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:16 PM
Original message
While this is encouraging, it only address PV
Solar thermal is a basic technology that could be implemented quickly and cheaply. The primary expense is initial construction and maintenance will be less than a coal or gas generating plant.
I can't understand why all these big thinkers don't look at the simple technologies that could be effective and implemented right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. Which "Solar Thermal" are you referring to?
For example, there's solar thermal heating of water for homes. That's relatively cheap and simple. Then there's concentrating solar thermal to run steam turbines to generate electricity. Then there's dish Stirling (still thermal) to generate electricity.

The great advantage of PV is its mechanical simplicity. Unless you have a tracking system, there are virtually no moving parts, no pumps, no fluids to leak…
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. Advice
Perhaps you should start your own company to take advantage of all the opportunities all those "big thinkers" are missing out on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. "putting energy nearer to the point of use"
This works well where towns are small enough to use solar and wind resources effectively.

Not so well in larger cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And your evidence for this bogus claim is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Why not so well in larger cities? Don't they have enough roof space? IT seems all those tall
buildings would be great platforms for some Wind power generators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Couldn't windows of tall buildings be photovoltaic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. It's largely a matter of scale- and with solar in particular, low power densities
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 04:04 PM by depakid
Of course, intermittancy of power generation is a problem in either case.

Here's an except from one of Dr. Cutler Cleveland's excellent pieces:

Power density is the rate of energy production per unit of the earth’s area, and is usually expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2). The environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has documented the important differences between fossil and renewable energies, and their implications for the next energy transition. Due to the enormous amount of geologic energy invested in their formation, fossil fuel deposits are an extraordinarily concentrated source of high-quality energy, commonly extracted with power densities of 102 or 103 W/m2 of coal or hydrocarbon fields. This means that very small land areas are needed to supply enormous energy flows....

The high power densities of energy systems has enabled the increasing concentration of human activity. About 50% of the world's population occupies less than 3% of the inhabited land area; economic activity is similarly concentrated.

Buildings, factories and cities currently use energy at power densities of one to three orders of magnitude lower than the power densities of the fuels and thermal electricity that support them. Smil observes that in order to energize the existing residential, industrial and transportation infrastructures inherited from the fossil-fueled era, a solar-based society would have to concentrate diffuse flows to bridge these large power density gaps.

Mismatch between the inherently low power densities of renewable energy flows and relatively high power densities of modern final energy uses means that a solar-based system will require a profound spatial restructuring with major environmental and socioeconomic consequences.

Much more: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4238#more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The Dr. Conveniently ignores the environmental costs (lead CO2) and social costs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I guess larger cities are plum out of luck...
I guess you could never do solar in cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas because they're just too big.

Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. No sunshine there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Not so well in larger cities, like New York City for example
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 04:37 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://media-newswire.com/release_1070627.html

New York Expands Renewable Net Metering and Green Roof Incentives

New York Governor David Paterson signed a legislative package on August 5 that will encourage people throughout the state to install grid-connected solar and wind power systems, systems that generate power from farm wastes, and green roofs. Most of the bills relate to net metering, which allows homeowners and businesses to earn credit for any excess power that they feed back into the electric grid.

(Media-Newswire.com) - New York Governor David Paterson signed a legislative package on August 5 that will encourage people throughout the state to install grid-connected solar and wind power systems, systems that generate power from farm wastes, and green roofs. Most of the bills relate to net metering, which allows homeowners and businesses to earn credit for any excess power that they feed back into the electric grid. Senate Bill 7171 expands net metering to include non-residential solar power systems up to 2 megawatts in capacity, or equal in size to the customer's peak load, whichever is less, and increases the maximum solar power system size for residential customers to 25 kilowatts, up from 10 kilowatts. The bill also attempted to increase the limit for farm-based anaerobic digesters to 1 megawatt, but a separate bill, S. 8415, knocked the limit down to 500 kilowatts, which is still an improvement over the previous limit of 400 kilowatts. S. 7171 also requires each utility to develop a model contract and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for net metering of non-residential customers, and to develop safety standards for interconnecting these customers. It also includes a requirement for an external disconnect switch, which is rarely needed for modern grid connection equipment.

Senate Bill 8481 applies similar changes to net-metered wind power generators, allowing farms to net meter wind turbines as large as 500 kilowatts, up from 25 kilowatts, and expanding net metering of wind turbines to include non-residential customers, who can net meter wind turbines as large as 2 megawatts or the customer's peak load, whichever is less. As with S. 7171, S. 8481 requires utilities to develop model contracts and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for non-residential customers wishing to net meter their wind turbines.

Two additional bills relate to tax abatements for buildings in New York City with solar power systems and green roofs. S. 8145 creates a four-year real property tax abatement of up to $62,500 per year for buildings owners that install solar power systems, with a greater tax abatement available for systems installed before 2011, and a lesser tax abatement for systems installed in 2011 or 2012. S. 7553 creates a similar tax abatement for buildings that install green roofs, which are rooftops covered with vegetation. The one-year tax abatement applies to buildings that cover at least half of their rooftop space with vegetation and is equal to $4.50 per square foot of green roof, up to the tax liability on the building or $100,000, whichever is less. The green roof tax abatement is in effect from 2009 through 2013. Both laws apply only to properties located in cities with populations of one million or more, which limits them to New York City. See the governor's press release.
http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0808083.html

Won't he feel like an idiot once he realizes that solar power won't work in New York City!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. You miss the point entirely
Solar is small potatoes -actually, more like potato chips in relation to the energy flows required to power a city like New York.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. And solar is just ONE technology that is going to be part of the mix.
There is more than enough solar, geothermal and wind to power NY.

Your claim is simply bullshit. Any individual chunk of coal isn't enough to power NY either - it only works when you aggregate the effects on many chunks of coal, or PV panels, or wind turbines, or geothermal plants etc.

The fact is you don't WANT it to work so you manufacture endless unsubstantiated bullshit. The basic premise ofyour thinking seems to be that the grid is as it is and it is a permanent unalterable entity that all future options must conform to if there is to be order in your tiny little universe. The words "small minded" come to mind...


There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.

I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.

We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.


http://blog.algore.com/2008/07/a_generational_challenge_to_re.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. OK So... let's say a resident of NYC saves a watt by errecting a solar panel on their roof
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 05:13 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Is that a bad thing? OK, how about a few gigawatts?

Here's the introduction from a 2007 report. (Follow the link for the entire report.)

http://www.bcc.cuny.edu/institutionalDevelopment/cse/CUNYPV_%20PolicyAndBarriersStudy.pdf

New York City’s Solar Energy Future



Introduction


Sunlight is New York City’s largest potential source of locally available energy, and recent studies argue that the City could meet a significant percentage of its future energy needs using solar power. Solar energy development has also been promoted as a strategy for mitigating rising fuel prices, blackouts, air pollution, environmental justice concerns, and climate change.

This report is the second in a two-part study focusing on solar energy’s potential in America’s largest urban center. The first report, entitled The Market for Photovoltaic Systems in New York City, sought to quantify the potential contribution of solar power to the City’s energy supply. The report concluded that at the end of 2005, there were 45 photovoltaic (PV) systems, totaling 1.1 megawatts (MW), installed in the five boroughs. These installations supplied approximately 0.002% of the City’s electricity. Considering that the technical potential for PV within New York City has been estimated to be between approximately 6000 MW (Ettenson, 2006) and 15,000 MW (Chaudhari et al., 2005), there is enormous potential for PV market growth.

This report explores whether the PV market in New York City can meet its projected technical potential through existing policies. Although the current installed capacity is small, the City’s PV market has grown rapidly during the past four years at rates comparable to the global average (i.e. between 20% and 50%). New York City’s market is relatively new, however, and it remains unclear whether this growth trend represents the beginning of a sustained expansion or a temporary surge.

The world’s leading PV markets have been driven by substantial, long-term incentives and enabling regulations (Osborn et al., 2005). This report will examine the policies that affect PV deployment in New York City and discuss their implications for market sustainability. Section 1 surveys the federal, state, and local policies that target PV and analyzes their impacts. Section 2 identifies barriers to large-scale solar energy growth in New York City while Section 3 presents a set of policy recommendations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. "Is that a bad thing?" Of course not!
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 06:02 PM by depakid
but it's not the cornucopia that some promoters make it out to be. Like every source of energy, it has inherent limitations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Sure, it has limitations
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 06:25 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Most importantly, one day, the Sun will flare out!

But seriously... solar power has tremendous potential, even in a place like NYC (especially with the technological advances that we've seen just in the past few days!)


Silly Pendantry: "Panacea" may be a better word than "cornucopia" for what you have in mind. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. The malaprop was intentional...
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Once again, the DOE is wasting taxpayers' money
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 06:14 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.doe.gov/news/5137.htm
News Media Contact(s):
Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 For Immediate Release
June 20, 2007

DOE to Provide Nearly $60 Million for Solar Energy Research

Strengthens the President’s commitment to increasing the use of clean energy technologies

NEW YORK, NY – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will make available nearly $60M to increase the use of solar power across the country, building on the President’s commitment to further the development of clean, renewable energy technologies. Secretary Bodman announced: up to $2.5 million for Solar America Cities cooperative agreements, in which thirteen selected cities will receive awards to promote increased use of solar-powered technologies throughout each city; the issuance of a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $30 million for universities to research near-term improvements in solar products; and the competitive selection of ten cost-shared Photovoltaic (PV) Module Incubator projects that will receive up to $27 million in DOE funding over 18 months.

“We believe these projects will stimulate activity in the marketplace and create a ripple effect that will boost the use of solar energy across the country,” Secretary Bodman said. “Harnessing more of the sun’s power is central to reaching the President’s goal of increasing our nation’s energy security by pushing forward clean, renewable technologies that will allow us to become less reliant on imported sources of energy.”

Secretary Bodman made today’s announcements while delivering keynote remarks at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York. Secretary Bodman highlighted President Bush’s Solar America Initiative (SAI), which seeks to make solar energy cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015, and is integral to the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI). The AEI seeks to change the way we power our homes, offices, and vehicles by increasing the use of clean, renewable energy technologies

UP TO $2.5 MILLION FOR SOLAR AMERICA CITIES

The 2007 Solar America Cities are: Ann Arbor, MI; Austin, TX; Berkeley, CA; Boston, MA; Madison, WI; New Orleans, LA; New York, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; Salt Lake City, UT; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; and Tucson, AZ.


http://www.solaramericacities.energy.gov/Cities.aspx?City=New%20York%20City

New York City, NY

New York City plans to create a strategy for supporting large-scale solar energy market growth that complements its PlaNYC 2030. This plan outlines the city’s long-term sustainability planning efforts and greenhouse gas reduction goals. New York City’s strategic partnership with DOE through Solar America Cities is an important component in the city’s broader long-term goal to ensure clean, reliable energy for every New Yorker.

Project Description

The City of New York hopes to foster a solar electric (photovoltaic or “PV”) market that will be a competitive and economically sustainable industry while providing the City with clean, reliable, affordable electricity. It will do so using a three-part strategy that will:
  1. Lay the foundation to support a growing industry by reducing barriers and educating the labor pool
  2. Use the City’s resources to spur the market and create economies of scale to lower prices
  3. Create the institutions to plan and monitor future growth.
The City has set a goal to increase its installed PV capacity within the five boroughs from 1.1 MW in 2005 to 8.1 MW by 2015. This is the maximum allowed under current regulations. The target will be adjusted if the current capacity cap changes

Project Activities

  • Develop a long-term solar energy plan.
  • Facilitate PV projects and support workforce development to reach the city’s aggressive goal of increasing installed solar capacity.
  • Conduct a feasibility study of real-time pricing for PV installations.
  • Evaluate best integration of solar energy into emergency planning and demand-reduction programs.
  • Create new municipal solar energy incentives.
  • Address interconnection and code barriers through a collaborative stakeholder process.
  • Explore innovative financing and ownership structures to accelerate the pace of solar energy development.

Project Partners

  • New York City Economic Development Corporation (Project Lead)
  • Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability
  • City University of New York
  • New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
  • State and city stakeholders.


The idiots! You should straighten them out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Those idiots in NYC. They think they have a long range plan that includes renewables (esp. solar!)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_energy.pdf

Solar energy

Of all the renewable energy sources, solar currently has the greatest potential to generate electricity within the five boroughs. The technology is commercially available, our abundant roofs offer ample space for panels, solar energy is most available when the city needs it most—during hot, sunny days.

Estimates of solar potential by Columbia University, the City University of New York, and NYSERDA range from 6,000 MW to over 15,000 MW, with one study claiming solar can contribute 18% of peak load by 2022. But solar energy is still not as cost-effective as gas-fired electricity. And New York City is uniquely expensive: our taller buildings require more wires and cranes to carry equipment to rooftops, while extensive interconnection requirements and inspections delay implementation. For these reasons, installed costs for solar are approximately 30% higher than in New Jersey and 50% higher than in Long Island.

As a result, even with incentives from the Federal government and the State, the City has only been able to achieve 1.1 MW of solar capacity. To ensure solar meets its long-term potential to contribute more significantly to our supply, we must employ a range of strategies to develop a more competitive market.

We will create a property tax abatement for solar panel installations

We will increase use of solar energy in City buildings through creative financing

We will work with the State to eliminate barriers to increasing the use of solar energy in the city

That Bloomburg! He's such a Loonie Lefty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. City Urged To Encourage Solar Power
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 05:56 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/city-urged-to-encourage-solar-power/83019/

City Urged To Encourage Solar Power

By BENJAMIN SARLIN, Special to the Sun | August 1, 2008

The city should look for new ways to encourage New Yorkers to install solar power, energy experts and elected officials said at a public forum organized by the City Council in Manhattan yesterday.

Currently, building owners who wish to install solar power have to go through a costly process in order to connect their solar panels to Con Edison's grid, Council Member Daniel Garodnick said yesterday at the event.

He suggested the city look into creating "solar empowerment zones," in which buildings could band together and go through the process simultaneously in order to reduce the costs of installing the necessary infrastructure for solar power. According to Mr. Garodnick, these "solar empowerment zones" could eventually lower the cost for other neighborhoods to follow suit and install solar panels.
Fools! Dreamers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. The bragging rights are priceless. Just
savoring my electric bill, negative $65.50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Question
At that rate, what do you figure the payback time is for your system? I'm thinking about putting a system on my house and I'm curious...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I don't know. I had the system installed 7 years ago,
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 05:06 PM by roody
and I use 6 or 7 kw per day average, free on average. The system cost me $9,000 after rebates and tax credits. Then you have to figure in the value it adds to the home. I'm in it for the bragging rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. LOL
At least you are honest :)

Sounds like you got a pretty good deal, $9000 is very cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. To save money (when I add on more panels)
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 06:05 PM by roody
I would buy the components, install the panels myself, then have an electrician hook everything up. A lot of the cost was labor. The contractor has a set price for installing that system, regardless of ease or difficulty of installation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JFreitas Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Here in Portugal...
Here in Portugal the government is now licensing home producers to sell the excess electricity they have back to the grid at subsidized prices. Because this entails installing a totally new meter and a little gizmo at home, they are doing it in phases, so you have to apply every couple of months. They are licensing biomass and wind, including microwind, but not PV yet. It will start in a few months.

I've installed a solar thermal panel here and now get about 80% of my hot water (three people living here) from it. My water heater is "smart" and turns on the gas flame when the water in the solar reservoir is not hot enough. At the rate gas prices here are going, three to four years are enough to payback the panel. I am also installing the PV panel in a few days. It should be enough to power ALL of the home's appliances (although I couldn't have the TV, the dishwasher and the clotheswasher all turned on at the same time, and we switched to laptops only a year ago, which saved power too). I will apply for a license to sell back to the grid later this year, although I doubt I'll be able to produce much excess. Still, I seriously think that I can make back the cost in a few years depending on where the price of kwH is going in Portugal. I'm also in this for the bragging rights, but also because my house is totally paid for and being free from mortgage, rent or most utility bills will probably be a luxury ten years from now. So, since I can afford it now....

I would add that there's much to commend on using simpler, more durable technologies. In a future of much less industry and energy, repairing PV panels may be a lot more difficult and expensive than the simpler solar thermal machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Once a year, my electric utility zeroes out with me.
I get about 50 dollars to start back at zero. Solar hot water and thermal heat are my next projects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC