Renewable Energy Financing News...
Today’s post: Weds, 6-25-2008
We’ve posted before on how individuals, small businesses, & larger companies & government & other nonprofit organizations often cannot afford to lay out the capital or startup funds for installing solar or wind generation or energy efficiency upgrades – even when they would like to do so or even cut their energy & operating costs on a monthly basis by doing so.
In our area today it was announced that a large solar power installation for the new biotech campus of UCSF in San Francisco is being financed by a national company that specializes in exactly such financing.
The company is MMA Renewable Ventures & its website is:
http://www.mmarenewableventures.com/
Here is their company overview directly from their website:
“MMA Renewable Ventures coordinates the financing, installation, and operation of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency projects. As a comprehensive power solutions provider, we partner with investors, energy project developers, and customers to design and implement innovative green energy solutions. Our mission is to deliver exceptional investment opportunities while providing competitively priced renewable energy and energy efficiency products.
As a wholly owned subsidiary of MuniMae (OTC: MMAB.PK), MMA Renewable Ventures is uniquely positioned to bring considerable investment management expertise to renewable energy projects and energy efficiency solutions. Driven by MuniMae’s mission of “Integrity, Innovation and Service,” MMA Renewable Ventures’ portfolio and pipeline of projects elevate the sustainable energy and energy conservation industries to meet the rigorous investment standards of low-income housing and other tax credit funds.
In 2006, MMA Renewable Ventures closed $39 million of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) projects, capitalized 1 MW of solar PV capacity, and provided capital for 3.5 MW of solar PV capacity in two solar investment funds. Solar Funds III and IV are scheduled to close in 2007. Our growing portfolio and pipeline include $400 million of solar projects and $900 million of wind and bioenergy projects.’
They do solar, energy efficiency, wind, & bioenergy financing. And they also do financing of desirable combinations of these.
Here are some of the customer benefits to setting up a power purchase agreement with them for a solar installation.
“Advantages of a Power Purchase Agreement
No capital outlay--projects can be cash flow positive from day one
Customer only pays for power the system generates
Predictability-- features long-term fixed energy price for term of contract
Includes option to purchase system after sixth year of operation”
That is also from their website.
Let me repeat the important one for emphasis.
“No capital outlay--projects can be cash flow positive from day one“
The bad news is that the credit crunch has somewhat restricted the funds available.
The good news is that both for social benefit reasons & expected superior returns to their investors, their parent company is giving renewable energy financing priority, favored, status as a place to invest their funds.
And, the other piece of good news is that they have offices all over the United States & one in London.
In the Western half of the US, they are in San Francisco, Irvine, & Denver.
Int the East, they are in Baltimore, Boston, Tampa, New York, Atlanta, & Washington DC.
In the Mid West, they are in Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, & St Paul.
And, the following quote from their about us section reveals they very likely have coverage through their growing list of partners almost everywhere in the United States.:
I’ve put that part in bold.
“"MMA Renewable Ventures is helping to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by directing strategic, institutional investments into renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for customers using innovative financing solutions.
What sets us apart is our business model: we finance, own and operate renewable energy systems and assets. Our in-depth understanding of innovative project financing allows us to carefully manage risks and returns. And our deep technical expertise in the technologies and operations of solar, wind and other renewable energies ensure our customer projects are led by industry leading developers.
The result? MMA Renewable Ventures can help drive significant growth in alternative energy adoption while delivering sound institutional investments.
MMA Renewable Ventures partners with project developers, contractors and suppliers throughout the country to provide flexible financing solutions that can be customized and combined to meet short and long-term needs.
A wholly owned subsidiary of MuniMae, MMA Renewable Ventures is uniquely positioned to bring considerable investment management expertise to finance clean energy projects."
In my view, this company & its efforts are some of the best news I’ve seen on energy in the last ten years.
To solve global warming, we need a huge amount of renewable energy & energy efficiency development & we need it everywhere in the United States. And we need it right away.
This company looks to be a big step in that direction.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Criteria for good energy policy...
Today’s post: Weds, 6-18-2008
In his book, The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker listed several key ways the effective executives he’d met used to be so effective.
Three that relate well to energy policy are:
1. Focus on Contribution What is the most useful & valuable purpose of my efforts? And, how can I best contribute to achieving that purpose?
2. Refuse to be limited or stalled by what you cannot do. Find the most promising things you CAN do & do as many of those as you can.
3. When you make a major decision, think through in advance what criteria or characteristics an ideal decision would need to have. He called these criteria boundary conditions.
In energy policy here are some of what I see as being these boundary conditions or criteria for energy policy for the United States.
a) Will the decision prevent severe economic problems in the short run?
b) Will the decision prevent severe economic problems in the near future & far future?
c) Will it help us or hinder us in lowering CO2 emissions in time to prevent the foreseeable huge problems not doing so will cause?
d) Will it help us or hinder us in removing & ending our over-dependence on oil and coal as energy sources?
e) Will it serve as a good example to other countries in the world in reaching these objectives?
f) Will the technologies, products, & services – and businesses developed be helpful to countries in the world in reaching these objectives?
g) Will it make the United States self sufficient in its energy supplies and end our dangerous over-dependence on energy sources elsewhere in the world?
If you have been paying attention to the news & want an energy policy that does a good job, I think you’ll agree that these are the right boundary conditions.
The bad news is that the only one of these the outgoing Bush administration has done a good job on is the first one.
They have done some work on the others here and there. But so little that it’s clear these are not priorities for them.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Republicans in our congress & their Presidential nominee, John McCain, seem to be only focused on the first one & the last one.
I’d be just as happy to support Republicans as I would Democrats who would make ALL of these priorities. I am registered as a Republican largely because I am pro business. And, I even campaigned for a Republican not long ago who would support ALL of these boundary conditions & understood why that’s necessary.
But most of today’s Republicans now in office are stuck in the outmoded thinking of the outgoing Bush administration.
In my view, we court economic disaster & devastation of the security of the United States if we keep these people in office.
We simply no longer can afford such incomplete & dangerous energy policies.
To be specific, this group has suggested much more domestic oil production by drilling in coastal areas & in Alaska that are now off limits to drilling for oil. They also have voted against taxing oil companies who decline to invest some of their large, current profits in transitioning to renewable energy sources in part because it would take funds & management attention away from extracting more oil from within the United States.
They have proposed efforts to burn coal more safely with far less CO2 release & large increases in nuclear power plants.
To be sure these would increase our domestic energy production & help to slow down the near term rise in fuel prices which looks like it would be of some help in protecting our economy in the short run and would lessen our dependence on energy supplies for a while.
Although it is very difficult to do with sufficient safety and is thus very, very expensive to do well enough to be safe to use, more nuclear power may well serve most of these boundary conditions. As I recently posted on, doing this is a good bit more doable than most people realize. And, energy-wise it would generate a lot more energy than it would cost to build in the amount of energy used to do it.
In addition, we now use so much coal that it’s clear we do need a way to reduce the CO2 released by coal burning power plants while we transition to other sources.
The two pieces of bad news are that their emphasis on drilling for more domestic oil and NOT having any significant emphasis on energy efficiency or dramatic increases in renewable energy generation are totally wrong policies.
As just one example, if we obtain more domestic oil by drilling in places now off limits, the world supply of oil will at least temporarily go up. More will be burned & more CO2 will be released. And, it will make it look as if it’s economically safe to ignore the pressing need to address these other issues.
This would generate MORE CO2 when it’s extremely important to use less. And it tends to postpone action on other ways to protect the economy short term that help us speed the transition to renewable sources that do not do this
If we must insist that all these boundary conditions be met -- and I think it’s clear we must, then this policy is not just wrong, it’s incompetent.
I’d love to have Republicans who understand these issues. And, as I’ve said I campaigned for one, precisely because he did.
But the current crop of them does not & seemingly will not.
Unfortunately, at this time, that looks as if it includes John McCain.
There is no guarantee that Barack Obama will be able to solve these problems as they are very challenging indeed. But he has a chance. He hasn’t run on his energy policies as well as I think he could & should have. But it’s clear he does know we need decisions that meet all these criteria.
But, I think John McCain is looking like his policies would be sure to prevent him from doing much better than George Bush who has done far too little, too late.
To me that makes McCain look like a very bad choice on the most important set of issues today.
Today’s post: Weds, 6-18-2008
In his book, The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker listed several key ways the effective executives he’d met used to be so effective.
Three that relate well to energy policy are:
1. Focus on Contribution What is the most useful & valuable purpose of my efforts? And, how can I best contribute to achieving that purpose?
2. Refuse to be limited or stalled by what you cannot do. Find the most promising things you CAN do & do as many of those as you can.
3. When you make a major decision, think through in advance what criteria or characteristics an ideal decision would need to have. He called these criteria boundary conditions.
In energy policy here are some of what I see as being these boundary conditions or criteria for energy policy for the United States.
a) Will the decision prevent severe economic problems in the short run?
b) Will the decision prevent severe economic problems in the near future & far future?
c) Will it help us or hinder us in lowering CO2 emissions in time to prevent the foreseeable huge problems not doing so will cause?
d) Will it help us or hinder us in removing & ending our over-dependence on oil and coal as energy sources?
e) Will it serve as a good example to other countries in the world in reaching these objectives?
f) Will the technologies, products, & services – and businesses developed be helpful to countries in the world in reaching these objectives?
g) Will it make the United States self sufficient in its energy supplies and end our dangerous over-dependence on energy sources elsewhere in the world?
If you have been paying attention to the news & want an energy policy that does a good job, I think you’ll agree that these are the right boundary conditions.
The bad news is that the only one of these the outgoing Bush administration has done a good job on is the first one.
They have done some work on the others here and there. But so little that it’s clear these are not priorities for them.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Republicans in our congress & their Presidential nominee, John McCain, seem to be only focused on the first one & the last one.
I’d be just as happy to support Republicans as I would Democrats who would make ALL of these priorities. I am registered as a Republican largely because I am pro business. And, I even campaigned for a Republican not long ago who would support ALL of these boundary conditions & understood why that’s necessary.
But most of today’s Republicans now in office are stuck in the outmoded thinking of the outgoing Bush administration.
In my view, we court economic disaster & devastation of the security of the United States if we keep these people in office.
We simply no longer can afford such incomplete & dangerous energy policies.
To be specific, this group has suggested much more domestic oil production by drilling in coastal areas & in Alaska that are now off limits to drilling for oil. They also have voted against taxing oil companies who decline to invest some of their large, current profits in transitioning to renewable energy sources in part because it would take funds & management attention away from extracting more oil from within the United States.
They have proposed efforts to burn coal more safely with far less CO2 release & large increases in nuclear power plants.
To be sure these would increase our domestic energy production & help to slow down the near term rise in fuel prices which looks like it would be of some help in protecting our economy in the short run and would lessen our dependence on energy supplies for a while.
Although it is very difficult to do with sufficient safety and is thus very, very expensive to do well enough to be safe to use, more nuclear power may well serve most of these boundary conditions. As I recently posted on, doing this is a good bit more doable than most people realize. And, energy-wise it would generate a lot more energy than it would cost to build in the amount of energy used to do it.
In addition, we now use so much coal that it’s clear we do need a way to reduce the CO2 released by coal burning power plants while we transition to other sources.
The two pieces of bad news are that their emphasis on drilling for more domestic oil and NOT having any significant emphasis on energy efficiency or dramatic increases in renewable energy generation are totally wrong policies.
As just one example, if we obtain more domestic oil by drilling in places now off limits, the world supply of oil will at least temporarily go up. More will be burned & more CO2 will be released. And, it will make it look as if it’s economically safe to ignore the pressing need to address these other issues.
This would generate MORE CO2 when it’s extremely important to use less. And it tends to postpone action on other ways to protect the economy short term that help us speed the transition to renewable sources that do not do this
If we must insist that all these boundary conditions be met -- and I think it’s clear we must, then this policy is not just wrong, it’s incompetent.
I’d love to have Republicans who understand these issues. And, as I’ve said I campaigned for one, precisely because he did.
But the current crop of them does not & seemingly will not.
Unfortunately, at this time, that looks as if it includes John McCain.
There is no guarantee that Barack Obama will be able to solve these problems as they are very challenging indeed. But he has a chance. He hasn’t run on his energy policies as well as I think he could & should have. But it’s clear he does know we need decisions that meet all these criteria.
But, I think John McCain is looking like his policies would be sure to prevent him from doing much better than George Bush who has done far too little, too late.
To me that makes McCain look like a very bad choice on the most important set of issues today.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Energy upgrades needed to protect the economy....
Today’s post: Weds, 6-11-2008
Relying on fossil fuels for energy, we are now realizing, is NOT environmentally safe. This is particularly true for burning coal; but it’s also true even if to a slightly smaller extent for burning natural gas.
What is still often missed even with the recent run up in the price of oil -- & of gasoline in the United States, is that it is no longer ECONOMICALLY safe.
When they are healthy, economies grow. And, usually populations grow. So the demand for energy will reliably increase as economies can only grow if they have access to more energy.
Since our supplies of fossil fuels are finite, & our effective access may even have begun to shrink, this means that the time has come or will very soon that prices will go up & that will likely accelerate if we continue to use fossil fuels only. It’s also incredibly important that we have put other sources in place well before we run out totally.
In addition, to these last comments that were in last week’s post, here are some more related points.
Severe weather, droughts, floods, &disruptions to water supplies can & do cost millions & millions of dollars. They also can cause health problems & deaths.
And, flooding of developed & populated coastal areas can create similar problems. Some things can be located to higher ground & some areas be protected with dikes as the Dutch have done for centuries. But not all of the people & economic value can be salvaged given such flooding world wide. And, these protective steps cost a lot of money.
Increases in tropical & insect borne diseases from global warming have similar risks & costs.
If we can prevent or minimize all these things, by adding renewable energy on a massive scale, sharply increasing energy efficiency, & likely also adding a good bit more nuclear power, the money saved will likely be larger than the costs, however high, of these energy upgrades & transitions.
Here’s a recent report suggesting it really is necessary to do all of the above.:
“$45 trillion needed to combat warming
By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 6, 7:06 AM ET
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
2008
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.
Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.
The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.
The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.”
As I remember, this report also said that a large number of new nuclear plants would need to be built as well.
But there can be no doubt that we must “massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy” whether or not we add more nuclear power if we are to avoid severe economic collapses at some point in the next 20 to 50 years.
Of course, 1.1 % of the entire world economy is a LOT of money. But it IS doable.
Meanwhile, in the United States, two measures to move in the needed direction were defeated recently.
1. Oil companies currently have the money to invest in beginning to shift their businesses to providing energy & transport fuels with renewable sources – not just oil.
I’d strongly prefer that they do this themselves as it seems to me to be prudent management on their part. And, I personally prefer businesses to do things rather than be pushed by government regulation.
But the need is clear. We are already 10 to 25 years late in starting to make these changes & are running out of time.
The largest oil companies have simply NOT done the job & begin to look as if they are incapable of it on their own.
So, when the bill for the US government to step in with tax policies to jump start this change—which is actually in the best interests of the oil companies in my view, was defeated recently, I think every legislator who voted against this bill, should be replaced in the next election for that district. It does NOT matter if they are Republicans or Democrats, I think they should be opposed next time if they run for election again in BOTH the primaries & the actual election.
We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.
2. Similarly, the current bill to renew R & D tax credits & existing tax credits for renewable energy lost recently.
If this situation is not repaired, the United Sates will become less economically competitive due to reductions in R & D spending. And we will GO BACKWARDS on implementing renewable energy at a time we should be quadrupling our efforts.
The legislators who either introduced killer amendments or riders to this bill or voted against it, must be replaced at the next election.
We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.
Our economy, our survival, & our way of life may well depend on replacing these people with legislators who will help speed the solution to these problems instead of voting against solutions or delaying solutions.
Today’s post: Weds, 6-11-2008
Relying on fossil fuels for energy, we are now realizing, is NOT environmentally safe. This is particularly true for burning coal; but it’s also true even if to a slightly smaller extent for burning natural gas.
What is still often missed even with the recent run up in the price of oil -- & of gasoline in the United States, is that it is no longer ECONOMICALLY safe.
When they are healthy, economies grow. And, usually populations grow. So the demand for energy will reliably increase as economies can only grow if they have access to more energy.
Since our supplies of fossil fuels are finite, & our effective access may even have begun to shrink, this means that the time has come or will very soon that prices will go up & that will likely accelerate if we continue to use fossil fuels only. It’s also incredibly important that we have put other sources in place well before we run out totally.
In addition, to these last comments that were in last week’s post, here are some more related points.
Severe weather, droughts, floods, &disruptions to water supplies can & do cost millions & millions of dollars. They also can cause health problems & deaths.
And, flooding of developed & populated coastal areas can create similar problems. Some things can be located to higher ground & some areas be protected with dikes as the Dutch have done for centuries. But not all of the people & economic value can be salvaged given such flooding world wide. And, these protective steps cost a lot of money.
Increases in tropical & insect borne diseases from global warming have similar risks & costs.
If we can prevent or minimize all these things, by adding renewable energy on a massive scale, sharply increasing energy efficiency, & likely also adding a good bit more nuclear power, the money saved will likely be larger than the costs, however high, of these energy upgrades & transitions.
Here’s a recent report suggesting it really is necessary to do all of the above.:
“$45 trillion needed to combat warming
By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 6, 7:06 AM ET
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
2008
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.
Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.
The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.
The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.”
As I remember, this report also said that a large number of new nuclear plants would need to be built as well.
But there can be no doubt that we must “massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy” whether or not we add more nuclear power if we are to avoid severe economic collapses at some point in the next 20 to 50 years.
Of course, 1.1 % of the entire world economy is a LOT of money. But it IS doable.
Meanwhile, in the United States, two measures to move in the needed direction were defeated recently.
1. Oil companies currently have the money to invest in beginning to shift their businesses to providing energy & transport fuels with renewable sources – not just oil.
I’d strongly prefer that they do this themselves as it seems to me to be prudent management on their part. And, I personally prefer businesses to do things rather than be pushed by government regulation.
But the need is clear. We are already 10 to 25 years late in starting to make these changes & are running out of time.
The largest oil companies have simply NOT done the job & begin to look as if they are incapable of it on their own.
So, when the bill for the US government to step in with tax policies to jump start this change—which is actually in the best interests of the oil companies in my view, was defeated recently, I think every legislator who voted against this bill, should be replaced in the next election for that district. It does NOT matter if they are Republicans or Democrats, I think they should be opposed next time if they run for election again in BOTH the primaries & the actual election.
We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.
2. Similarly, the current bill to renew R & D tax credits & existing tax credits for renewable energy lost recently.
If this situation is not repaired, the United Sates will become less economically competitive due to reductions in R & D spending. And we will GO BACKWARDS on implementing renewable energy at a time we should be quadrupling our efforts.
The legislators who either introduced killer amendments or riders to this bill or voted against it, must be replaced at the next election.
We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.
Our economy, our survival, & our way of life may well depend on replacing these people with legislators who will help speed the solution to these problems instead of voting against solutions or delaying solutions.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Financing to speed Renewable Energy Transition....
Today’s post: Weds, 6-4-2008
Relying on fossil fuels for energy, we are now realizing, is NOT environmentally safe. This is particularly true for burning coal; but it’s also true even if to a slightly smaller extent for burning natural gas.
What is still often missed even with the recent run up in the price of oil -- & of gasoline in the United States, is that it is no longer ECONOMICALLY safe.
When they are healthy, economies grow. And, usually populations grow. So the demand for energy will reliably increase as economies can only grow if they have access to more energy.
Since our supplies of fossil fuels are finite, & our effective access may even have begun to shrink, this means that the time has come or will very soon that prices will go up & that will likely accelerate if we continue to use fossil fuels only. It’s also incredibly important that we have put other sources in place well before we run out totally.
The good news is that solar photovoltaics & solar thermal electricity are already approaching being LESS expensive ways to generate electricity than burning fossil fuels to do so.
And, now that increasingly, regulation will be used to put some of the environmental cost of burning fossil fuels into their cost, fossil fuel prices will rise faster than the economy can easily adjust to.
We may be able to solve that problem in part with increased use of nuclear energy as we have posted about before here. But the costs of being absolutely sure that it is done safely, though it looks doable, will keep the costs from being low of electricity generated by nuclear energy.
In addition, the political resistance of people concerned with these safety & security issues will guarantee that to the extent we do use nuclear energy, in the near term it will not come online quickly.
So, that means we are facing real economic disaster maybe within 20 or 30 years & possibly even sooner from rising fossil fuel prices if we fail to put massive amounts of solar generated electricity & other renewable sources of electricity in place very soon.
Meanwhile, many homeowners, owners of rental properties, & businesses do NOT have the cash or safe to use credit to finance installing solar electric power generation at their home or facilities.
To some degree, governments & utility companies will solve this problem by building solar electricity generation in more concentrated & centralized facilities. Some utilities are already doing so, which is an encouraging sign. And, Nanosolar is working to have many city governments do likewise – using its products of course. But they make a convincing case for it.
But these programs take time to bring online & they are NOT enough by themselves to produce all the solar generated electricity we need.
The good news is that if the financing was somehow available so that property owners in favorable locations could install solar photovoltaic panels on their property, it looks quite likely that increasingly the cost per month of the financing will be LESS & then MUCH LESS than the cost of buying the same electricity from fossil fuel powered sources.
And, if this financing were available, any given property can have the installation done in less than two months & less than 3 weeks in many cases.
This means that if the financing were available, hundreds of thousands of property owners or even millions could install solar in just a few years.
Although it is not available to everyone or desirable for everyone, the good news is that some such financing is actually available NOW.
It seems that there is a company called Tioga Energy in San Mateo, California with website: http://www.tiogaenergy.com/ that makes such financing available to some businesses.
Their conservative mathematical analysis in the paper they offer on their website shows that by historical standards a qualifying business has about a two thirds chance of paying less for the contract payment to Tioga Energy per month than they would pay if they continue buy fossil fuel energy, particularly in California.
It looks to me that the chances are quite a bit closer to 100% & that the savings will be at least triple the payments to Tioga Energy over the time period of the contract they put in place.
And, they make the excellent point that business paying them have predictable costs that will NOT suddenly double in two years or worse. Businesses getting electricity from sources that burn fossil fuels may well have those problems.
There are basically 3 constraints; & so far only businesses can apply:
1. The facility of the business must be in an area where enough solar electricity will be generated to produce enough electricity to make the numbers work.
2. Only stable businesses that own their facility & property will be able to do the long term contract necessary.
3. Solar systems are not yet well designed to be folded back for new roofs to be installed. So a new roof with enough reliable life must be in place or installed. And, it must be financed separately.
Even with the constraints though, this is an extremely good idea. And, I think it will save those businesses that do become customers a LOT of money.
And, since this is already in place, as solar cells come down in price & go up in efficiency, solar installations become designed to be moved easily for roof repairs or replacement or fire access, & the price of fossil fuels doubles again & again, I think this business will grow.
And, I think governments may well step in to make it possible & economic for businesses that lease their facilities & home owners & owners of residential rental estate to do a deal with the government agency so that they can also participate in such financing.
Lastly, if you have a qualifying business, one of the great advantages of the service provided by Tioga Energy is they deal with all the permitting & incentive paperwork for the solar installation.
Unfortunately, this is so complex & difficult now, in a business where the owners or executives need to get the work of the business done, they simply may not have the time to orchestrate a solar installation. In that event, Tioga Energy can get the solar installation done with no time needed from the management of the business.
Today’s post: Weds, 6-4-2008
Relying on fossil fuels for energy, we are now realizing, is NOT environmentally safe. This is particularly true for burning coal; but it’s also true even if to a slightly smaller extent for burning natural gas.
What is still often missed even with the recent run up in the price of oil -- & of gasoline in the United States, is that it is no longer ECONOMICALLY safe.
When they are healthy, economies grow. And, usually populations grow. So the demand for energy will reliably increase as economies can only grow if they have access to more energy.
Since our supplies of fossil fuels are finite, & our effective access may even have begun to shrink, this means that the time has come or will very soon that prices will go up & that will likely accelerate if we continue to use fossil fuels only. It’s also incredibly important that we have put other sources in place well before we run out totally.
The good news is that solar photovoltaics & solar thermal electricity are already approaching being LESS expensive ways to generate electricity than burning fossil fuels to do so.
And, now that increasingly, regulation will be used to put some of the environmental cost of burning fossil fuels into their cost, fossil fuel prices will rise faster than the economy can easily adjust to.
We may be able to solve that problem in part with increased use of nuclear energy as we have posted about before here. But the costs of being absolutely sure that it is done safely, though it looks doable, will keep the costs from being low of electricity generated by nuclear energy.
In addition, the political resistance of people concerned with these safety & security issues will guarantee that to the extent we do use nuclear energy, in the near term it will not come online quickly.
So, that means we are facing real economic disaster maybe within 20 or 30 years & possibly even sooner from rising fossil fuel prices if we fail to put massive amounts of solar generated electricity & other renewable sources of electricity in place very soon.
Meanwhile, many homeowners, owners of rental properties, & businesses do NOT have the cash or safe to use credit to finance installing solar electric power generation at their home or facilities.
To some degree, governments & utility companies will solve this problem by building solar electricity generation in more concentrated & centralized facilities. Some utilities are already doing so, which is an encouraging sign. And, Nanosolar is working to have many city governments do likewise – using its products of course. But they make a convincing case for it.
But these programs take time to bring online & they are NOT enough by themselves to produce all the solar generated electricity we need.
The good news is that if the financing was somehow available so that property owners in favorable locations could install solar photovoltaic panels on their property, it looks quite likely that increasingly the cost per month of the financing will be LESS & then MUCH LESS than the cost of buying the same electricity from fossil fuel powered sources.
And, if this financing were available, any given property can have the installation done in less than two months & less than 3 weeks in many cases.
This means that if the financing were available, hundreds of thousands of property owners or even millions could install solar in just a few years.
Although it is not available to everyone or desirable for everyone, the good news is that some such financing is actually available NOW.
It seems that there is a company called Tioga Energy in San Mateo, California with website: http://www.tiogaenergy.com/ that makes such financing available to some businesses.
Their conservative mathematical analysis in the paper they offer on their website shows that by historical standards a qualifying business has about a two thirds chance of paying less for the contract payment to Tioga Energy per month than they would pay if they continue buy fossil fuel energy, particularly in California.
It looks to me that the chances are quite a bit closer to 100% & that the savings will be at least triple the payments to Tioga Energy over the time period of the contract they put in place.
And, they make the excellent point that business paying them have predictable costs that will NOT suddenly double in two years or worse. Businesses getting electricity from sources that burn fossil fuels may well have those problems.
There are basically 3 constraints; & so far only businesses can apply:
1. The facility of the business must be in an area where enough solar electricity will be generated to produce enough electricity to make the numbers work.
2. Only stable businesses that own their facility & property will be able to do the long term contract necessary.
3. Solar systems are not yet well designed to be folded back for new roofs to be installed. So a new roof with enough reliable life must be in place or installed. And, it must be financed separately.
Even with the constraints though, this is an extremely good idea. And, I think it will save those businesses that do become customers a LOT of money.
And, since this is already in place, as solar cells come down in price & go up in efficiency, solar installations become designed to be moved easily for roof repairs or replacement or fire access, & the price of fossil fuels doubles again & again, I think this business will grow.
And, I think governments may well step in to make it possible & economic for businesses that lease their facilities & home owners & owners of residential rental estate to do a deal with the government agency so that they can also participate in such financing.
Lastly, if you have a qualifying business, one of the great advantages of the service provided by Tioga Energy is they deal with all the permitting & incentive paperwork for the solar installation.
Unfortunately, this is so complex & difficult now, in a business where the owners or executives need to get the work of the business done, they simply may not have the time to orchestrate a solar installation. In that event, Tioga Energy can get the solar installation done with no time needed from the management of the business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)