Solar Thermal arrives from Ausra....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-29-2008
As I’ve already posted about in this blog before, I was lucky enough to see a presentation made by one of the founding executives of Ausra, a California company that builds solar thermal “farms’ to make electricity from solar heat in hot sunny places.
Ausra’s recent opening of a 5 megawatt solar farm built by Ausra in Bakersfield in Southern California made our local newspapers.
But both stories left out the three most critical facts that explain why this event was so incredibly important. It was so important that California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger was there. But the news stories did NOT say WHY this event was so important.
That’s the subject of today’s post. We list the 3 key reasons this event was so important.
(The quotes below are from Ausra’s Press releases on its website www.ausra.com .)
Here are those 3 points.
1. Solar thermal farms make a 100 % renewable economy a real possibility.
“PALO ALTO, Calif.—March 6, 2008—Ausra Inc., the developer of utility-scale solar thermal power technology, has published a peer-reviewed study showing that over 90 percent of the U.S. electric grid and auto fleet's energy needs could be met by solar thermal power.”
I’ll add that this means that very nearly all the electricity needed to run plug-in hybrids and electric cars can come from this one renewable source.
And, when you add increasing the energy efficiency of our lights and devices that use electricity and the very nearly as large or larger potential of solar photovoltaics in all of the United States, Canada, & Mexico plus any geothermal and hydropower that proves cost effective, this means that 100 % of our electricity use now PLUS robust economic growth throughout North America AND supplying our cars can all be generated from renewable energy.
And, as you can see, solar thermal companies such as Ausra move this possibility from maybe to for sure doable.
The next point clinches that one.
2. The Ausra founding executive I heard speak explained that unlike solar photovoltaic produced electricity that is only most available at certain times of day, because the recapture of energy from the solar heated media is or approaches 96 %, solar thermal power can provide electric power about 16 hours a day.
I’ll also add that since the band of appropriate parts of North America in the Southwest United States and Northern Mexico goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, that means by installing solar thermal farms in each part of this region that spans three time zones and adding the appropriate transmission lines, solar thermal farms can approach supplying electricity 18 to 19 hours a day.
3. We already are using about twice our planet’s capacity to remove CO2 by our current burning of fossil fuels. And the scientists who have studied this extensively say that unless we completely turn to sources of electricity and energy that do NOT burn fossil fuels in the next 10 to perhaps 25 years, the human race and its economy may become very burned toast. Worse, the scientists say the process likely will then be irreversible.
It’s totally definite that it borders on the irresponsible to do things that increase our use of oil and coal for energy. Yet that process is still continuing in both the United States and China.
The thing that’s exciting about solar thermal power is that its potential is so huge and so realizable, adding solar thermal to the mix provides us with a viable alternative. We CAN power robust economic growth AND wean our economy away from petroleum and coal.
Even better, despite the Ausra solar thermal farm that just opened in Bakersfield being over twice as large as the Applied Materials installation that we posted about as showing the very large potential of solar parking lots, the 5 megawatt Bakersfield solar farm is only about a 35th of the 177 megawatt solar farm that Ausra will launch soon.
When you realize that it’s completely possible to open 1000 solar farms THAT size, you begin to see the real potential of solar thermal.
“In November 2007, Ausra and California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced a power purchase agreement for the 177-megawatt power plant in central California. When completed, Ausra's Carrizo facility will generate enough electricity to power more than 120,000 homes.”
X* X* X* X* X*
Here are the press releases of interest on Ausra’s website.:
“10.23.2008 Solar Power Company Ausra Launches First Solar Thermal Plant in California in Nearly 20 Years
10.01.2008 Ausra Secures $60.6 Million in Funding
06.30.2008 Ausra Opens First U.S. Solar Thermal Power Factory
03.06.2008 Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet”
There are several other press releases listed that you might find of interest.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Two new breakthroughs for solar power....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-22-2008
Here’s a story I found online by searching all news for “solar energy” on Yahoo news last Monday. (I’d also seen a different story earlier than that about this breakthrough.)
“New solar cell material achieves almost 100% efficiency,
could solve world-wide energy problems “
“TG Daily - Oct 20 12:01 PM Trendwatch By Rick C. Hodgin Monday, October 20, 2008 13:32 Columbus (OH) -
Researchers at Ohio State University have accidentally discovered a new solar cell material capable of absorbing all of the sun's visible light energy. The material is comprised of a hybrid of plastics, molybdenum and titanium.”
The story is technical but goes on to explain that in solar photovoltaic cells, the sun’s light knocks some electrons loose that are available to be harvested as electricity and that are available for that purpose a very short time.
Someone at Ohio State found or realized that there might be a way to make more electrons available for a longer period of time in some kind of solar cell material. The researchers there then developed a material that does knock more electrons loose; but of even more importance it makes them available to be harvested over 7 million times longer than before. This material that they found by doing research on materials on a supercomputer apparently absorbs light from all the spectrum of light instead of just part of it and then delivers nearly 100 % of the energy absorbed as generated electricity.
It has yet to be found if this material can be made at low enough cost to be cost competitive with current technology. And, if they have made progress on solving this problem or on developing technology to do so, it wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Also, given the huge size of the potential uses of such efficient solar panels, the availability of the molybdenum and titanium used in such huge quantities at reasonable cost may be a constraint.
That said, there will be applications right away where high electricity generation from such photovoltaic panels in a limited area for the panels will be valuable.
For example, a company that wants or needs to generate all the electricity it needs onsite, may be able by using solar photovoltaic panels with this technology and installing them both on the roofs and over the parking lots for their company, they may be able to do so while this is not possible today.
And, as with the first material for incandescent light filaments led to new ones, it may be that there are less expensive ways to generate this effect and which will be discovered.
2. Mankind now has two important problems.
One is that we use electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Solar light and the electricity we can harvest from it are available only during the day and the amount of light solar panels receive during the day varies with the time of day and the weather.
Second, we are using up the reserves of fresh water in some areas of the world and in others, there is now less rainfall than before, likely because of global warming. These things are jeopardizing our supply of drinking water and water to grow our food crops.
MIT researchers may have found a solution to both these problems, particularly when combined with the first breakthrough described above. They have worked out a way to use solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. By then storing the hydrogen and oxygen and running them through a very efficient fuel cell when you want or need electricity when the sun is not shining or you are getting less sunshine, you can make solar photovoltaic generated electricity available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
And, it may be possible to also use this same technology to desalt sea water to provide a new supply of fresh water for drinking and for crops. (The bonus is that when you turn the hydrogen and oxygen into fresh water, you get to re-harvest the energy as electricity.)
The constraints on using this technology to store solar photovoltaic generated electricity are in making the overall process cost effective, in particular by making the fuel cells to retrieve the electricity at reasonable costs. That may well require technology we do not have yet.
But these two breakthroughs are of particular interest and potential value. So I wanted to use this blog to get the word out that they exist.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-22-2008
Here’s a story I found online by searching all news for “solar energy” on Yahoo news last Monday. (I’d also seen a different story earlier than that about this breakthrough.)
“New solar cell material achieves almost 100% efficiency,
could solve world-wide energy problems “
“TG Daily - Oct 20 12:01 PM Trendwatch By Rick C. Hodgin Monday, October 20, 2008 13:32 Columbus (OH) -
Researchers at Ohio State University have accidentally discovered a new solar cell material capable of absorbing all of the sun's visible light energy. The material is comprised of a hybrid of plastics, molybdenum and titanium.”
The story is technical but goes on to explain that in solar photovoltaic cells, the sun’s light knocks some electrons loose that are available to be harvested as electricity and that are available for that purpose a very short time.
Someone at Ohio State found or realized that there might be a way to make more electrons available for a longer period of time in some kind of solar cell material. The researchers there then developed a material that does knock more electrons loose; but of even more importance it makes them available to be harvested over 7 million times longer than before. This material that they found by doing research on materials on a supercomputer apparently absorbs light from all the spectrum of light instead of just part of it and then delivers nearly 100 % of the energy absorbed as generated electricity.
It has yet to be found if this material can be made at low enough cost to be cost competitive with current technology. And, if they have made progress on solving this problem or on developing technology to do so, it wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Also, given the huge size of the potential uses of such efficient solar panels, the availability of the molybdenum and titanium used in such huge quantities at reasonable cost may be a constraint.
That said, there will be applications right away where high electricity generation from such photovoltaic panels in a limited area for the panels will be valuable.
For example, a company that wants or needs to generate all the electricity it needs onsite, may be able by using solar photovoltaic panels with this technology and installing them both on the roofs and over the parking lots for their company, they may be able to do so while this is not possible today.
And, as with the first material for incandescent light filaments led to new ones, it may be that there are less expensive ways to generate this effect and which will be discovered.
2. Mankind now has two important problems.
One is that we use electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Solar light and the electricity we can harvest from it are available only during the day and the amount of light solar panels receive during the day varies with the time of day and the weather.
Second, we are using up the reserves of fresh water in some areas of the world and in others, there is now less rainfall than before, likely because of global warming. These things are jeopardizing our supply of drinking water and water to grow our food crops.
MIT researchers may have found a solution to both these problems, particularly when combined with the first breakthrough described above. They have worked out a way to use solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. By then storing the hydrogen and oxygen and running them through a very efficient fuel cell when you want or need electricity when the sun is not shining or you are getting less sunshine, you can make solar photovoltaic generated electricity available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
And, it may be possible to also use this same technology to desalt sea water to provide a new supply of fresh water for drinking and for crops. (The bonus is that when you turn the hydrogen and oxygen into fresh water, you get to re-harvest the energy as electricity.)
The constraints on using this technology to store solar photovoltaic generated electricity are in making the overall process cost effective, in particular by making the fuel cells to retrieve the electricity at reasonable costs. That may well require technology we do not have yet.
But these two breakthroughs are of particular interest and potential value. So I wanted to use this blog to get the word out that they exist.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Good news for renewable energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-15-2008
1. 3600 likely large sites, mostly solar, in & around California can generate over 6 times all the current electrical generation capacity that exists now in California.
Since many of these sites can be solar thermal, the electricity can be provided from 16 to 17 hours a day.
And, by adding the much greater photovoltaic installations possible on homes, businesses, and other buildings--& on covered parking lots, that’s an enormous potential. And, by adding all of these in the other states in the South Western United States from California to West Texas and the Rocky Mountain states and North Western Mexico -- and adding wind power and transmission lines, this part of North America can come close to providing all the electricity needed by all of North America including the future increased electricity needed over the next several decades. (The link to the report is below.)
This data suggests that Al Gore’s 100 % renewable goal is achievable or very close to it. And, from just this part of North America.
2. The new Solar company, Solyndra, may make photovoltaic solar for covered parking lots and flat roofs of commercial buildings and business facilities faster to install, more efficient, and less expensive. (See their press release below.)
3. Rolls of LED’s make may make walls & ceilings & even window shades the light source for rooms at reasonable cost & with much less electricity use than incandescent or compact fluorescent light bulbs in lamps and ceiling fixtures. And, it sounds like it may cost a good bit less than LED bulbs in lamps and ceiling fixtures. (The AP story about this GE advance is referenced below.)
1. The 3600 site info comes from a study done by the engineering firm, Black & Veatch. (The heads up was in the Bottom Line column in the business section of the San Francisco Chronicle.)
See http://links.sfgate.com/ZEZW
or http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/documents/2008-08-16_PHASE_1B_DRAFT_RESOURCE_REPORT.PDF .
2. Solyndra’s press release:
FREMONT, Calif., October 7, 2008 — Solyndra, Inc. today announced a new solar photovoltaic (PV) system for the commercial rooftop market. Solyndra's PV system is designed to generate significantly more solar electricity on an annual basis from typical low-slope commercial rooftops with lower installation costs than conventional PV flat panel technologies. Commercial rooftops represent a vast, underutilized resource and huge opportunity for generating solar electricity. Since its founding in 2005, Solyndra has been developing technology and ramping manufacturing capacity to produce its proprietary CIGS-based thin film PV system. Solyndra is currently shipping its systems, comprised of panels and mounting hardware, to fulfill more than $1.2 billion of multi-year contracts with customers in Europe and the United States.
THE NEW SHAPE OF SOLAR
Solyndra's panels employ cylindrical modules which capture sunlight across a 360-degree photovoltaic surface capable of converting direct, diffuse and reflected sunlight into electricity. This self-tracking design allows Solyndra's PV systems to capture significantly more sunlight than traditional flat-surfaced solar panels, which require costly tilted mounting devices to improve the capture of direct light, offer poor collection of diffuse light and fail to collect reflected light from rooftops or other installation surfaces.
Conventional flat PV panels must be mounted at an angle and spaced apart for optimum energy production. The sunlight striking the spaces between the panels is not collected and thus is wasted. Solyndra's panels perform optimally when mounted horizontally and packed closely together, thereby covering significantly more of the available roof area and producing more electricity per rooftop on an annual basis than a conventional panel installation.
COST-EFFECTIVE INSTALLATION
To meet rooftop wind loading requirements, conventional flat solar panels must be anchored to commercial roofs with either ballast or rooftop penetrations, which are inherently problematic. Together with the need for tilting, the resulting complex mounting systems require significant investment in labor, materials and engineering. Conversely, because wind blows through Solyndra panels, no rooftop anchoring is required. Further, the low weight of the Solyndra system enables the installation of PV on a broader range of rooftops.
For typical conventional PV installations, a solar panel is only half the cost of a complete installation; the other half includes additional expenses such as installation, cables, and inverters. The horizontal mounting and unique air-flow properties of Solyndra's solar panel design substantially simplify the installation process for Solyndra's PV systems. The ease of installation and simpler mounting hardware of Solyndra's system enables its customers to realize significant savings on installation costs.
"By eliminating the need for roof-penetrating mounts and wind ballasts, PV arrays with Solyndra panels can be installed with one-third the labor, in one-third of the time, at one-half the cost," said Manfred Bachler, Chief Technical Officer at Phoenix Solar AG, one of the largest solar power integrators in Europe and a Solyndra customer. "For commercial rooftops, PV module installation time can now be measured in days, not weeks. For flat commercial rooftops this is game-changing technology."
According to Solyndra founder and CEO Chris Gronet, "Solyndra's system uniquely optimizes PV performance on commercial rooftops by converting more of the sunlight that strikes the total rooftop area into electricity while also providing for a lower installation cost and lower cost of electricity."
ABOUT SOLYNDRA
Solyndra designs and manufactures photovoltaic systems, comprised of panels and mounting hardware, for the commercial rooftop market. Solyndra employs high volume manufacturing based on proven technologies and processes to meet the needs of the global solar market. Using proprietary cylindrical modules and thin-film technology, Solyndra systems are designed to provide the lowest installed cost per system and the highest solar electrical energy output for typical low slope commercial rooftops. Headquartered in Fremont, California, Solyndra operates a state-of-the-art 300,000 square foot fully-automated manufacturing complex. Learn more at www.solyndra.com.
3. The story on this was in: "Flexible OLEDs could be part of lighting's future" (AP) Posted on Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:20AM EDT
In NISKAYUNA, N.Y., an industrial building contains a machine that prints sheets of LED lights. “. The OLED printer was made by General Electric….”
Summary: these 3 reports show that we are indeed on our way to having a much more energy efficient economy that is all or very nearly all powered by renewable energy.
That’s good news indeed.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-15-2008
1. 3600 likely large sites, mostly solar, in & around California can generate over 6 times all the current electrical generation capacity that exists now in California.
Since many of these sites can be solar thermal, the electricity can be provided from 16 to 17 hours a day.
And, by adding the much greater photovoltaic installations possible on homes, businesses, and other buildings--& on covered parking lots, that’s an enormous potential. And, by adding all of these in the other states in the South Western United States from California to West Texas and the Rocky Mountain states and North Western Mexico -- and adding wind power and transmission lines, this part of North America can come close to providing all the electricity needed by all of North America including the future increased electricity needed over the next several decades. (The link to the report is below.)
This data suggests that Al Gore’s 100 % renewable goal is achievable or very close to it. And, from just this part of North America.
2. The new Solar company, Solyndra, may make photovoltaic solar for covered parking lots and flat roofs of commercial buildings and business facilities faster to install, more efficient, and less expensive. (See their press release below.)
3. Rolls of LED’s make may make walls & ceilings & even window shades the light source for rooms at reasonable cost & with much less electricity use than incandescent or compact fluorescent light bulbs in lamps and ceiling fixtures. And, it sounds like it may cost a good bit less than LED bulbs in lamps and ceiling fixtures. (The AP story about this GE advance is referenced below.)
1. The 3600 site info comes from a study done by the engineering firm, Black & Veatch. (The heads up was in the Bottom Line column in the business section of the San Francisco Chronicle.)
See http://links.sfgate.com/ZEZW
or http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/documents/2008-08-16_PHASE_1B_DRAFT_RESOURCE_REPORT.PDF .
2. Solyndra’s press release:
FREMONT, Calif., October 7, 2008 — Solyndra, Inc. today announced a new solar photovoltaic (PV) system for the commercial rooftop market. Solyndra's PV system is designed to generate significantly more solar electricity on an annual basis from typical low-slope commercial rooftops with lower installation costs than conventional PV flat panel technologies. Commercial rooftops represent a vast, underutilized resource and huge opportunity for generating solar electricity. Since its founding in 2005, Solyndra has been developing technology and ramping manufacturing capacity to produce its proprietary CIGS-based thin film PV system. Solyndra is currently shipping its systems, comprised of panels and mounting hardware, to fulfill more than $1.2 billion of multi-year contracts with customers in Europe and the United States.
THE NEW SHAPE OF SOLAR
Solyndra's panels employ cylindrical modules which capture sunlight across a 360-degree photovoltaic surface capable of converting direct, diffuse and reflected sunlight into electricity. This self-tracking design allows Solyndra's PV systems to capture significantly more sunlight than traditional flat-surfaced solar panels, which require costly tilted mounting devices to improve the capture of direct light, offer poor collection of diffuse light and fail to collect reflected light from rooftops or other installation surfaces.
Conventional flat PV panels must be mounted at an angle and spaced apart for optimum energy production. The sunlight striking the spaces between the panels is not collected and thus is wasted. Solyndra's panels perform optimally when mounted horizontally and packed closely together, thereby covering significantly more of the available roof area and producing more electricity per rooftop on an annual basis than a conventional panel installation.
COST-EFFECTIVE INSTALLATION
To meet rooftop wind loading requirements, conventional flat solar panels must be anchored to commercial roofs with either ballast or rooftop penetrations, which are inherently problematic. Together with the need for tilting, the resulting complex mounting systems require significant investment in labor, materials and engineering. Conversely, because wind blows through Solyndra panels, no rooftop anchoring is required. Further, the low weight of the Solyndra system enables the installation of PV on a broader range of rooftops.
For typical conventional PV installations, a solar panel is only half the cost of a complete installation; the other half includes additional expenses such as installation, cables, and inverters. The horizontal mounting and unique air-flow properties of Solyndra's solar panel design substantially simplify the installation process for Solyndra's PV systems. The ease of installation and simpler mounting hardware of Solyndra's system enables its customers to realize significant savings on installation costs.
"By eliminating the need for roof-penetrating mounts and wind ballasts, PV arrays with Solyndra panels can be installed with one-third the labor, in one-third of the time, at one-half the cost," said Manfred Bachler, Chief Technical Officer at Phoenix Solar AG, one of the largest solar power integrators in Europe and a Solyndra customer. "For commercial rooftops, PV module installation time can now be measured in days, not weeks. For flat commercial rooftops this is game-changing technology."
According to Solyndra founder and CEO Chris Gronet, "Solyndra's system uniquely optimizes PV performance on commercial rooftops by converting more of the sunlight that strikes the total rooftop area into electricity while also providing for a lower installation cost and lower cost of electricity."
ABOUT SOLYNDRA
Solyndra designs and manufactures photovoltaic systems, comprised of panels and mounting hardware, for the commercial rooftop market. Solyndra employs high volume manufacturing based on proven technologies and processes to meet the needs of the global solar market. Using proprietary cylindrical modules and thin-film technology, Solyndra systems are designed to provide the lowest installed cost per system and the highest solar electrical energy output for typical low slope commercial rooftops. Headquartered in Fremont, California, Solyndra operates a state-of-the-art 300,000 square foot fully-automated manufacturing complex. Learn more at www.solyndra.com.
3. The story on this was in: "Flexible OLEDs could be part of lighting's future" (AP) Posted on Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:20AM EDT
In NISKAYUNA, N.Y., an industrial building contains a machine that prints sheets of LED lights. “. The OLED printer was made by General Electric….”
Summary: these 3 reports show that we are indeed on our way to having a much more energy efficient economy that is all or very nearly all powered by renewable energy.
That’s good news indeed.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
California Energy propositions....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-8-2008
All or most of the readers of this blog are ardent supporters of renewable energy.
Here in California there are 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy.
Proposition 7 says it will boost the installation of renewable energy. And the campaign for it says so and that the utilities that oppose it are doing so because they don’t want renewable energy.
Proposition 10 says it will increase the use of renewable fuels for cars and trucks. And, the radio ad for it makes it out to be a good thing for renewable energy.
So, it would seem as if people who support renewable energy would vote for both of them.
But two of the organizations that most strongly support renewable energy and have the staff to analyze these two propositions BOTH urge a NO vote on each of them.
Here’s the overview from the Union of Concerned Scientists.:
“Based on our thorough analysis of each proposition, the Union of Concerned Scientists urges you to vote:
NO on Proposition 7, which is loophole-ridden and so poorly drafted that it could actually hinder the development of new clean, renewable energy sources in California, like solar and wind power.
NO on Proposition 10, which would throw nearly ten billion taxpayer dollars into a program promoting natural gas and other transportation fuels that could achieve little or no reductions in smog or global warming pollution.
Since I have not seen the details of the propositions, I then emailed the Sierra Club for their analysis.:
“No on Prop. 7: So Close, Yet So Far Away
By Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California
Normally, Sierra Club volunteers and staff would eagerly line up behind a measure proposing that half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.
But Proposition 7, an initiative on the November ballot, doesn’t do enough to save our state and our planet from fossil fuel dependence. In fact, by cementing loopholes that would hold back the growth of the renewable energy industry, it actually could worsen our current energy situation.
Proposition 7:
1. Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
2. Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
3. Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.
The lack of a sound, steady source of funding represents one major flaw that’s sure to get in the way of a 50% renewables goal. Instead of setting up such a funding stream, Prop. 7 would force renewable power generators to depend upon an uncertain system of penalty monies. It also locks in energy rate raises to just 3% annually, even though there are no limits for nonrenewable power sources.
Existing loopholes in enforcement and archaic policies that tie the price of renewable energy to the price of natural gas-generated energy would be locked in place. In fact, Prop. 7 even lowers some penalties.
Prop. 7 also would obstruct Sierra Club’s efforts to establish community choice for energy policy, since it removes local control over energy policy. Community choice promises to increase the energy-buying power of local communities, giving them more authority.
Consider how a neighborhood “co-op” store is able to stock more grocery choices because it has more buying power than a smaller store operated by one family. Similarly, a community that bands together could have more choice over what type of energy it chooses to buy.
Lastly, Prop. 7 would decrease environmental protections, in the guise of “streamlining” the permitting process for renewable power. Local chapters wouldn’t be able to introduce new evidence of environmental harm when appealing a proposed permit.
Sierra Club isn’t standing alone against this potentially harmful law. The Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council, among other groups, have taken a stand against Prop. 7. California’s Democratic and Republican parties and major utilities also oppose Prop. 7.
Voters should defeat Prop. 7 and clear the way for real progress on renewable power.”
“Vote No on Proposition 10: The Wrong Road Toward Cleaner Vehicles.
by Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California
Sierra Club opposes Proposition 10, The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, because it would put California on the wrong road to cleaner vehicles.
Proposition 10 would provide $5 billion in general obligation bonds for four main purposes: 1) alternative fuel vehicles rebates and research ($3.425 billion), 2) renewable energy ($1.25 billion), 3) renewable energy demonstration ($200 million), and 4) "clean tech" education and training ($125 million).
The primary proponent and funder of the initiative is Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which, according to its website, is the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America, and also builds and operates natural gas fueling stations.
The initiative’s backer would benefit financially from its passage, because the main thrust of the measure is to provide close to $3 billion dollars in bond funds to be distributed as rebates to buyers of “clean alternative fuel vehicles.”
The measure has several drawbacks. First, the initiative sets a low bar for “clean alternative vehicles,” which it says must produce “no net material increase in air pollution” relative to gasoline or diesel. Vehicles that meet this standard would do little, if anything, to reduce air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions in the state.
Second, the state already provides significant incentives for natural gas and alternative-fuel vehicles, including a $200 million clean fuels program paid for by fees.
Third, we question the use of bond funds for rebates. Traditionally, bond funds pay for large public works projects that would normally be too expensive for the state to afford. Proposition 10 doesn’t set up a system to pay back the state’s big borrowing; instead it relies on future state tax collections.
Last, we worry that Proposition 10 could lead to the creation of environmentally harmful dams, as it includes all classes of hydroelectric power as renewable energy. This conflicts with existing state law that generally limits the “renewable” designation to smaller hydroelectric installations, and to facilities that don’t impound additional water. Defining dams as “renewable” could also create confusion in utilities’ attempts to comply with the California Renewable Portfolio Standard law.
Prop. 10’s promise of more clean alternative vehicles sounds good on its surface. However, the initiative would accomplish little to facilitate real, sound alternative energy or technologies, and its reliance on long-term borrowing for short-term benefits and potentially obsolete technology would put us on the wrong road.
Joining Sierra Club in opposing Proposition 10 are the League of Women Voters, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, the Utility Reform Network, and California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.”
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
These 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy each have two major flaws.
They each add narrow and inflexible rules that are not in place now that will prevent the kind of multiple efforts and, in their early stages, experimental, efforts to bring renewable energy online.
That’s devastatingly bad. For that reason alone, please join me in voting no on these two propositions.
The second one is nearly as bad. You cannot get good effects by legislating laws that cause problems if the realities of the situation don’t match the assumptions on which the laws are based. Both of these propositions do that.
Utilities will leave the state or go bankrupt if you make it illegal to increase prices when their costs go up. And, global warming looks very likely to make hydropower in California very unreliable within the next few decades. Further, mandating natural gas as a fuel already looks likely to be undesirable due to the development of renewable biofuels and electric cars and plug-in hybrids that run on solar or wind generated electricity.
So, please vote no on California propositions 7 and 10.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-8-2008
All or most of the readers of this blog are ardent supporters of renewable energy.
Here in California there are 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy.
Proposition 7 says it will boost the installation of renewable energy. And the campaign for it says so and that the utilities that oppose it are doing so because they don’t want renewable energy.
Proposition 10 says it will increase the use of renewable fuels for cars and trucks. And, the radio ad for it makes it out to be a good thing for renewable energy.
So, it would seem as if people who support renewable energy would vote for both of them.
But two of the organizations that most strongly support renewable energy and have the staff to analyze these two propositions BOTH urge a NO vote on each of them.
Here’s the overview from the Union of Concerned Scientists.:
“Based on our thorough analysis of each proposition, the Union of Concerned Scientists urges you to vote:
NO on Proposition 7, which is loophole-ridden and so poorly drafted that it could actually hinder the development of new clean, renewable energy sources in California, like solar and wind power.
NO on Proposition 10, which would throw nearly ten billion taxpayer dollars into a program promoting natural gas and other transportation fuels that could achieve little or no reductions in smog or global warming pollution.
Since I have not seen the details of the propositions, I then emailed the Sierra Club for their analysis.:
“No on Prop. 7: So Close, Yet So Far Away
By Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California
Normally, Sierra Club volunteers and staff would eagerly line up behind a measure proposing that half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.
But Proposition 7, an initiative on the November ballot, doesn’t do enough to save our state and our planet from fossil fuel dependence. In fact, by cementing loopholes that would hold back the growth of the renewable energy industry, it actually could worsen our current energy situation.
Proposition 7:
1. Contains serious, inherent flaws that could get in the way of achieving its goal of 50% renewable fuels by 2025.
2. Actually works against Sierra Club-backed energy policies that would allow communities to choose the source of their energy.
3. Decreases environmental review of proposed power plants.
The lack of a sound, steady source of funding represents one major flaw that’s sure to get in the way of a 50% renewables goal. Instead of setting up such a funding stream, Prop. 7 would force renewable power generators to depend upon an uncertain system of penalty monies. It also locks in energy rate raises to just 3% annually, even though there are no limits for nonrenewable power sources.
Existing loopholes in enforcement and archaic policies that tie the price of renewable energy to the price of natural gas-generated energy would be locked in place. In fact, Prop. 7 even lowers some penalties.
Prop. 7 also would obstruct Sierra Club’s efforts to establish community choice for energy policy, since it removes local control over energy policy. Community choice promises to increase the energy-buying power of local communities, giving them more authority.
Consider how a neighborhood “co-op” store is able to stock more grocery choices because it has more buying power than a smaller store operated by one family. Similarly, a community that bands together could have more choice over what type of energy it chooses to buy.
Lastly, Prop. 7 would decrease environmental protections, in the guise of “streamlining” the permitting process for renewable power. Local chapters wouldn’t be able to introduce new evidence of environmental harm when appealing a proposed permit.
Sierra Club isn’t standing alone against this potentially harmful law. The Union of Concerned Scientists, California League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council, among other groups, have taken a stand against Prop. 7. California’s Democratic and Republican parties and major utilities also oppose Prop. 7.
Voters should defeat Prop. 7 and clear the way for real progress on renewable power.”
“Vote No on Proposition 10: The Wrong Road Toward Cleaner Vehicles.
by Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California
Sierra Club opposes Proposition 10, The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, because it would put California on the wrong road to cleaner vehicles.
Proposition 10 would provide $5 billion in general obligation bonds for four main purposes: 1) alternative fuel vehicles rebates and research ($3.425 billion), 2) renewable energy ($1.25 billion), 3) renewable energy demonstration ($200 million), and 4) "clean tech" education and training ($125 million).
The primary proponent and funder of the initiative is Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which, according to its website, is the largest provider of natural gas for transportation in North America, and also builds and operates natural gas fueling stations.
The initiative’s backer would benefit financially from its passage, because the main thrust of the measure is to provide close to $3 billion dollars in bond funds to be distributed as rebates to buyers of “clean alternative fuel vehicles.”
The measure has several drawbacks. First, the initiative sets a low bar for “clean alternative vehicles,” which it says must produce “no net material increase in air pollution” relative to gasoline or diesel. Vehicles that meet this standard would do little, if anything, to reduce air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions in the state.
Second, the state already provides significant incentives for natural gas and alternative-fuel vehicles, including a $200 million clean fuels program paid for by fees.
Third, we question the use of bond funds for rebates. Traditionally, bond funds pay for large public works projects that would normally be too expensive for the state to afford. Proposition 10 doesn’t set up a system to pay back the state’s big borrowing; instead it relies on future state tax collections.
Last, we worry that Proposition 10 could lead to the creation of environmentally harmful dams, as it includes all classes of hydroelectric power as renewable energy. This conflicts with existing state law that generally limits the “renewable” designation to smaller hydroelectric installations, and to facilities that don’t impound additional water. Defining dams as “renewable” could also create confusion in utilities’ attempts to comply with the California Renewable Portfolio Standard law.
Prop. 10’s promise of more clean alternative vehicles sounds good on its surface. However, the initiative would accomplish little to facilitate real, sound alternative energy or technologies, and its reliance on long-term borrowing for short-term benefits and potentially obsolete technology would put us on the wrong road.
Joining Sierra Club in opposing Proposition 10 are the League of Women Voters, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, the Utility Reform Network, and California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.”
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
These 2 propositions that seem to be favorable to renewable energy each have two major flaws.
They each add narrow and inflexible rules that are not in place now that will prevent the kind of multiple efforts and, in their early stages, experimental, efforts to bring renewable energy online.
That’s devastatingly bad. For that reason alone, please join me in voting no on these two propositions.
The second one is nearly as bad. You cannot get good effects by legislating laws that cause problems if the realities of the situation don’t match the assumptions on which the laws are based. Both of these propositions do that.
Utilities will leave the state or go bankrupt if you make it illegal to increase prices when their costs go up. And, global warming looks very likely to make hydropower in California very unreliable within the next few decades. Further, mandating natural gas as a fuel already looks likely to be undesirable due to the development of renewable biofuels and electric cars and plug-in hybrids that run on solar or wind generated electricity.
So, please vote no on California propositions 7 and 10.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Solar parking lots have a HUGE upside....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-1-2008
All kinds of businesses and organizations have facilities that they need electricity for. These range from shopping centers, to manufacturing companies, to municipal buildings and more.
As the cost of solar photovoltaic collectors, systems, and installation continues to fall relative to power from the grid that is produced by burning natural gas, petroleum, and coal it will become both cost effective and a superb hedge against rising prices or reduced supply of natural gas, petroleum, and coal for all kinds of businesses and organizations to install solar photovoltaic power systems.
I also think that within 10 years all utilities will pay for electricity fed back into the grid in excess of the electricity taken out. (Many of them now will zero out the electricity part of your bill but give you no incentive to generate or supply them with electricity beyond that.)
However, these businesses and organizations are now constrained by the size of the roofs for their facilities, and by the kind of roofs they have in place in some cases.
So, if they had a way to site additional solar panels at their facility, it might now and will soon for sure pay them to do that.
Most of them do have this extra space now!
Except for high-rises in downtown areas, they virtually all have parking lots over which a roof or canopy can easily be built to hold more solar panels.
In fact, one recent and large solar photovoltaic installation in the Silicon Valley shows that solar parking lots can more than double the amount of available solar electricity many companies or organizations can generate at their facilities.
A story on the "solar parking lot" at Applied Materials was in the Saturday San Jose Mercury News, of 9-20-2007.
The story was based on the original Press release. And, that press release came from SunPower instead of Applied Materials since SunPower provided the installation & possibly the solar cells.Here's the important part of the SunPower release from Friday, 9-19-2008.
(Note that of the 2.15 Megawatts, 1.2 or 55.8 %, more than half, comes from the parking lot installation --NOT the roof of their building. Great job!!)See:
http://investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=335603
(The release also had a picture.) "(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080919/AQF026) "
"Applied Materials Activates Largest Solar Deployment on a Corporate Campus in U.S.
SILICON VALLEY, Calif., Sept 19, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -
- Applied Materials (Nasdaq: AMAT) and SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWR) today announced completion of two SunPower solar power systems totaling 2.1 megawatts at Applied Materials' corporate facilities in Sunnyvale, Calif. The systems represent the largest solar power deployment at a corporate facility in the United States.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080919/AQF026)
"This is another exciting milestone in the adoption of solar power in California," said Mike Splinter, president and chief executive officer of Applied Materials. "More companies are realizing the wisdom of integrating solar as a non-intrusive, clean, silent form of energy generation into our businesses and communities. We've converted our parking lots to power plants and we encourage others to join us in making solar power a meaningful part of the energy supply."
The system includes a 950 kilowatt SunPower PowerGuard(R) installation and a 1.2 megawatt SunPower(R) Tracker installation atop an elevated parking canopy.
The SunPower Tracker follows the sun as it moves across the sky, increasing sunlight capture by up to 25 percent over conventional fixed-tilt systems. Both systems use SunPower solar panels, the most efficient panels available on the market today. SunPower uses Applied Materials' Baccini technology in its solar cell manufacturing process. "
But the good news on solar parking lots is even better.
This story is unusually significant because, of the 2.15 megawatts total, 1.2 megawatts, or more than half the total comes from the solar cells over their parking lot.
Here's more on why that's so important:
From the a separate story that ran in a Sunnyvale newspaper: "We've converted our parking lots to power plants," Applied Chief Executive Mike Splinter said in a statement.
Covered parking lots for employees also mean less hassle getting to and in and out of their cars in rainy weather for their employees.
And, the shade from the "parking canopy" & solar cells on it also means the employees also will burn less gasoline running their car air conditioners in sunny and hot weather.
And, it provides a significant part of the power needed to run their whole business from clean, renewable energy.
Why not do this in every large company and shopping center parking lot in the whole Bay Area?
Why not do it everywhere in California?
Why not do it everywhere?
If we just did it here in California, it would help PG & E and Southern California Edison become able to hit very ambitious renewable energy goals.
It also help will protect the businesses who do it from future increases in the price of natural gas.
So, the evidence this story gives that "solar parking lots" ARE doable and have that much potential for solar energy is a HUGE story.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-1-2008
All kinds of businesses and organizations have facilities that they need electricity for. These range from shopping centers, to manufacturing companies, to municipal buildings and more.
As the cost of solar photovoltaic collectors, systems, and installation continues to fall relative to power from the grid that is produced by burning natural gas, petroleum, and coal it will become both cost effective and a superb hedge against rising prices or reduced supply of natural gas, petroleum, and coal for all kinds of businesses and organizations to install solar photovoltaic power systems.
I also think that within 10 years all utilities will pay for electricity fed back into the grid in excess of the electricity taken out. (Many of them now will zero out the electricity part of your bill but give you no incentive to generate or supply them with electricity beyond that.)
However, these businesses and organizations are now constrained by the size of the roofs for their facilities, and by the kind of roofs they have in place in some cases.
So, if they had a way to site additional solar panels at their facility, it might now and will soon for sure pay them to do that.
Most of them do have this extra space now!
Except for high-rises in downtown areas, they virtually all have parking lots over which a roof or canopy can easily be built to hold more solar panels.
In fact, one recent and large solar photovoltaic installation in the Silicon Valley shows that solar parking lots can more than double the amount of available solar electricity many companies or organizations can generate at their facilities.
A story on the "solar parking lot" at Applied Materials was in the Saturday San Jose Mercury News, of 9-20-2007.
The story was based on the original Press release. And, that press release came from SunPower instead of Applied Materials since SunPower provided the installation & possibly the solar cells.Here's the important part of the SunPower release from Friday, 9-19-2008.
(Note that of the 2.15 Megawatts, 1.2 or 55.8 %, more than half, comes from the parking lot installation --NOT the roof of their building. Great job!!)See:
http://investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=335603
(The release also had a picture.) "(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080919/AQF026) "
"Applied Materials Activates Largest Solar Deployment on a Corporate Campus in U.S.
SILICON VALLEY, Calif., Sept 19, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -
- Applied Materials (Nasdaq: AMAT) and SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWR) today announced completion of two SunPower solar power systems totaling 2.1 megawatts at Applied Materials' corporate facilities in Sunnyvale, Calif. The systems represent the largest solar power deployment at a corporate facility in the United States.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080919/AQF026)
"This is another exciting milestone in the adoption of solar power in California," said Mike Splinter, president and chief executive officer of Applied Materials. "More companies are realizing the wisdom of integrating solar as a non-intrusive, clean, silent form of energy generation into our businesses and communities. We've converted our parking lots to power plants and we encourage others to join us in making solar power a meaningful part of the energy supply."
The system includes a 950 kilowatt SunPower PowerGuard(R) installation and a 1.2 megawatt SunPower(R) Tracker installation atop an elevated parking canopy.
The SunPower Tracker follows the sun as it moves across the sky, increasing sunlight capture by up to 25 percent over conventional fixed-tilt systems. Both systems use SunPower solar panels, the most efficient panels available on the market today. SunPower uses Applied Materials' Baccini technology in its solar cell manufacturing process. "
But the good news on solar parking lots is even better.
This story is unusually significant because, of the 2.15 megawatts total, 1.2 megawatts, or more than half the total comes from the solar cells over their parking lot.
Here's more on why that's so important:
From the a separate story that ran in a Sunnyvale newspaper: "We've converted our parking lots to power plants," Applied Chief Executive Mike Splinter said in a statement.
Covered parking lots for employees also mean less hassle getting to and in and out of their cars in rainy weather for their employees.
And, the shade from the "parking canopy" & solar cells on it also means the employees also will burn less gasoline running their car air conditioners in sunny and hot weather.
And, it provides a significant part of the power needed to run their whole business from clean, renewable energy.
Why not do this in every large company and shopping center parking lot in the whole Bay Area?
Why not do it everywhere in California?
Why not do it everywhere?
If we just did it here in California, it would help PG & E and Southern California Edison become able to hit very ambitious renewable energy goals.
It also help will protect the businesses who do it from future increases in the price of natural gas.
So, the evidence this story gives that "solar parking lots" ARE doable and have that much potential for solar energy is a HUGE story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)