Solar power in the Sunshine State
Last week we discussed the Florida Public Service Commission's decision to deny a permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant near the Everglades, and how Florida Power and Light now proposes a nuclear power generating facility instead.
Like most states in the South, Florida is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy, with 80% of its electrical generating capacity based on non-renewable sources that pollute the environment. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Florida gets 37% of its power from coal, 21% from natural gas, and 22% from petroleum. Clean, renewable sources (wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar) represent only about 3% of Florida's power generating capacity, and the rest (18%) comes from nuclear power plants.
With growing political and environmental opposition to fossil fuel energy sources (not to mention the fact that they will eventually run out), and concerns about the safety and cost of nuclear power, what are the alternatives?
As the Sunshine State, Florida is uniquely situated to exploit cheap (practically free), clean, renewable solar power. In fact, so is most of the South. Only the Southwestern United States is better situated to most effectively utilize solar power:
(Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
To that end, Florida's 2006 Energy Act includes a solar energy incentives program to encourage installation of solar water heating and photovoltaic (PV) systems throughout the state.
The program provides cash rebates for qualifying solar hot water heating systems, solar pool heaters, and solar PV systems. For PV systems, the rebate is $4 per watt of rated capacity up to $20,000 for residential systems and up to $100,000 for commercial installations, including apartments and condos. Solar hot water heating systems are eligible for rebates up to $500 for residential and $5000 for commercial applications. Residential solar pool heaters are eligible for a $100 rebate. (This is in addition to federal solar energy tax credits of up to $2000).
The Florida Legislature allocated $2.5 million for rebates during the first year of the program, which started on July 1, 2006. So far, the program has paid approx. $2.2 million in rebates. (Other Florida energy incentives include $11.5 million in grants, $11 million in tax credits, and $4 million in sales tax refunds for renewable energy programs involving development of hydrogen and biofuel technologies.)
We spoke with Jim Tatum, Solar Programs Manager for the Florida Energy Office in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (which oversees the solar incentives program) about the program's success so far.
Mr. Tatum said that the program has been very popular. Since July 1, 2006, the FEO has received 2446 applications, and 1889 qualifying installations were approved for rebates. 1101 were for solar hot water heating systems, mostly residential, and 707 were for swimming pool heaters. According to Mr. Tatum, the solar system rebates represent an energy equivalent of 21 million kilowatt hours annually. (If our math is correct, this is enough energy to power 3500 homes.)
We were surprised to learn that only 76 applications for PV systems had been approved, but Mr. Tatum said that solar water heating systems are far less expensive to install and therefore more popular. He said, however, that the rebate program typically covers about 40% of the cost of installing a solar energy system.
There is no disputing that solar PV systems are still expensive. The payback period depends on a variety of factors, including system type and efficiency, geography, installation site, consumption, utility rates, incentives, and other considerations.
Using this calculator, we estimated that a typical residential PV system would cost approx. $37,500 and the payback period would be nearly 40 years for a home in Tennessee. Florida's incentives (and geography) would reduce this by more than half, with a payback of less than 18 years. These costs will continue to decrease as solar technology advances and manufacturing output increases with demand.
Mr. Tatum noted that some recent commercial PV installations in the Tallahassee area had maxed out at the $100,000 rebate limit. One is Notary Public Underwriters, which recently installed a 25.2 kilowatt PV grid-connected system. Another is the Tallahassee Antique Car Museum, which installed two 25 kilowatt systems which are eligible for a total of $200,000 in Florida solar rebates and $21,000 in federal tax credits. Another high profile installation is Ted's Montana Grill, which is owned by Ted Turner who recently started his own solar energy company.
One important, money-saving and environmentally friendly feature of solar PV systems is the ability to "net meter." In this configuration, the solar PV system is interconnected to the electric utility so that excess electricity is fed back into the power grid, effectively "running the meter backwards." This enables homeowners and businesses to sell excess power generated during periods of low demand back to the utility company, reducing both the amount of power needed from conventional sources and the related pollution they create.
Solar PV experts say this is far more efficient and cost-effective than expensive battery storage systems. Mr. Tatum said there is currently no Florida state law mandating net metering for grid-connected systems, but that "more and more utilities are agreeing to it."
Florida is clearly leading the way in solar incentives around the South. Here's a brief summary of solar water heating, photovoltaic, and renewable energy incentives, net metering regulations, and building energy codes in other Southern states:
(Source: North Carolina State University DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency)
It's interesting to note that some states are taking a more hesitant approach to net metering regulations. States listed as "limited" place various limits on the amount of energy that can be sold back into the grid, or exempt some utilities from net metering requirements altogether. For example, Kentucky exempts TVA from the state's net metering regulations. Although net metering may represent some technical challenges for local utilities, it's not difficult to imagine that some of these "loopholes" are the result of intense lobbying by big corporate utility concerns.
Uniform net metering regulations and interconnection standards would help promote distributed solar PV systems, as would more federal and state rebate/credit programs to help "jump start" solar technology development. These are environmental and economic policy issues that should be taken up in state legislatures and in Congress going forward.
Here are some other interesting solar PV energy facts from the U.S. Department of Energy:
• Compared with electricity generated from fossil fuels, each kilowatt of PV-produced electricity offsets up to 830 pounds of oxides of nitrogen, 1,500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, every year, according to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
• Studies have shown that, depending on the type of PV technology, the clean energy payback of a PV system ranges from one to four years. With life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy produced by PV systems will be free of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Today, the PV industry generates about 3,000 jobs for every $100 million of module sales. If the industry continues to grow at the rate we've seen in the last few years -- an average of about 36% -- it could employ some 150,000 Americans in high-value, high-tech jobs within 20 years (Solar Electricity: The Power of Choice, 2001).
• Contrary to some popular notions, the landscape of a world relying on PV would be almost indistinguishable from the landscape we know today. ... In the United States, cities and residences cover about 140 million acres of land. We could supply every kilowatt-hour of our nation's current energy requirements simply by applying PV to 7% of this area -- on roofs, on parking lots, along highway walls, on the sides of buildings, and in other dual-use scenarios. ... We still wouldn't have a land use issue, even if we didn't use roofs for PV. We would need only 10 million acres of land -- only four-tenths of one percent of the area of the United States -- to supply all of our nation's energy using PV.
Like most states in the South, Florida is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy, with 80% of its electrical generating capacity based on non-renewable sources that pollute the environment. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Florida gets 37% of its power from coal, 21% from natural gas, and 22% from petroleum. Clean, renewable sources (wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar) represent only about 3% of Florida's power generating capacity, and the rest (18%) comes from nuclear power plants.
With growing political and environmental opposition to fossil fuel energy sources (not to mention the fact that they will eventually run out), and concerns about the safety and cost of nuclear power, what are the alternatives?
As the Sunshine State, Florida is uniquely situated to exploit cheap (practically free), clean, renewable solar power. In fact, so is most of the South. Only the Southwestern United States is better situated to most effectively utilize solar power:
(Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
To that end, Florida's 2006 Energy Act includes a solar energy incentives program to encourage installation of solar water heating and photovoltaic (PV) systems throughout the state.
The program provides cash rebates for qualifying solar hot water heating systems, solar pool heaters, and solar PV systems. For PV systems, the rebate is $4 per watt of rated capacity up to $20,000 for residential systems and up to $100,000 for commercial installations, including apartments and condos. Solar hot water heating systems are eligible for rebates up to $500 for residential and $5000 for commercial applications. Residential solar pool heaters are eligible for a $100 rebate. (This is in addition to federal solar energy tax credits of up to $2000).
The Florida Legislature allocated $2.5 million for rebates during the first year of the program, which started on July 1, 2006. So far, the program has paid approx. $2.2 million in rebates. (Other Florida energy incentives include $11.5 million in grants, $11 million in tax credits, and $4 million in sales tax refunds for renewable energy programs involving development of hydrogen and biofuel technologies.)
We spoke with Jim Tatum, Solar Programs Manager for the Florida Energy Office in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (which oversees the solar incentives program) about the program's success so far.
Mr. Tatum said that the program has been very popular. Since July 1, 2006, the FEO has received 2446 applications, and 1889 qualifying installations were approved for rebates. 1101 were for solar hot water heating systems, mostly residential, and 707 were for swimming pool heaters. According to Mr. Tatum, the solar system rebates represent an energy equivalent of 21 million kilowatt hours annually. (If our math is correct, this is enough energy to power 3500 homes.)
We were surprised to learn that only 76 applications for PV systems had been approved, but Mr. Tatum said that solar water heating systems are far less expensive to install and therefore more popular. He said, however, that the rebate program typically covers about 40% of the cost of installing a solar energy system.
There is no disputing that solar PV systems are still expensive. The payback period depends on a variety of factors, including system type and efficiency, geography, installation site, consumption, utility rates, incentives, and other considerations.
Using this calculator, we estimated that a typical residential PV system would cost approx. $37,500 and the payback period would be nearly 40 years for a home in Tennessee. Florida's incentives (and geography) would reduce this by more than half, with a payback of less than 18 years. These costs will continue to decrease as solar technology advances and manufacturing output increases with demand.
Mr. Tatum noted that some recent commercial PV installations in the Tallahassee area had maxed out at the $100,000 rebate limit. One is Notary Public Underwriters, which recently installed a 25.2 kilowatt PV grid-connected system. Another is the Tallahassee Antique Car Museum, which installed two 25 kilowatt systems which are eligible for a total of $200,000 in Florida solar rebates and $21,000 in federal tax credits. Another high profile installation is Ted's Montana Grill, which is owned by Ted Turner who recently started his own solar energy company.
One important, money-saving and environmentally friendly feature of solar PV systems is the ability to "net meter." In this configuration, the solar PV system is interconnected to the electric utility so that excess electricity is fed back into the power grid, effectively "running the meter backwards." This enables homeowners and businesses to sell excess power generated during periods of low demand back to the utility company, reducing both the amount of power needed from conventional sources and the related pollution they create.
Solar PV experts say this is far more efficient and cost-effective than expensive battery storage systems. Mr. Tatum said there is currently no Florida state law mandating net metering for grid-connected systems, but that "more and more utilities are agreeing to it."
Florida is clearly leading the way in solar incentives around the South. Here's a brief summary of solar water heating, photovoltaic, and renewable energy incentives, net metering regulations, and building energy codes in other Southern states:
| Solar water heating incentives | Solar electric incentives | Renewable energy incentives | Net metering regulations | Building energy codes | |
| Alabama | Loans | No | Yes | No | Local option |
| Arkansas | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Florida | Rebates | Rebates | Yes | No | Yes |
| Georgia | No | No | Yes | Limited | Yes |
| Kentucky | Loans | No | No | Limited | Yes |
| Louisiana | Exemptions | Exemptions | No | Yes | Yes |
| North Carolina | Exemptions | No | Credits | Limited | Yes |
| South Carolina | Credits | No | No | No | Yes |
| Tennessee | Commercial | Commercial | No | No | Local option |
| Texas | Exemptions | Exemptions | Exemptions | Limited | Local option |
| Virginia | Exemptions | Exemptions | No | Limited | Yes |
| West Virginia | No | No | No | Limited | Yes |
(Source: North Carolina State University DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency)
It's interesting to note that some states are taking a more hesitant approach to net metering regulations. States listed as "limited" place various limits on the amount of energy that can be sold back into the grid, or exempt some utilities from net metering requirements altogether. For example, Kentucky exempts TVA from the state's net metering regulations. Although net metering may represent some technical challenges for local utilities, it's not difficult to imagine that some of these "loopholes" are the result of intense lobbying by big corporate utility concerns.
Uniform net metering regulations and interconnection standards would help promote distributed solar PV systems, as would more federal and state rebate/credit programs to help "jump start" solar technology development. These are environmental and economic policy issues that should be taken up in state legislatures and in Congress going forward.
Here are some other interesting solar PV energy facts from the U.S. Department of Energy:
• Compared with electricity generated from fossil fuels, each kilowatt of PV-produced electricity offsets up to 830 pounds of oxides of nitrogen, 1,500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, every year, according to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
• Studies have shown that, depending on the type of PV technology, the clean energy payback of a PV system ranges from one to four years. With life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy produced by PV systems will be free of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Today, the PV industry generates about 3,000 jobs for every $100 million of module sales. If the industry continues to grow at the rate we've seen in the last few years -- an average of about 36% -- it could employ some 150,000 Americans in high-value, high-tech jobs within 20 years (Solar Electricity: The Power of Choice, 2001).
• Contrary to some popular notions, the landscape of a world relying on PV would be almost indistinguishable from the landscape we know today. ... In the United States, cities and residences cover about 140 million acres of land. We could supply every kilowatt-hour of our nation's current energy requirements simply by applying PV to 7% of this area -- on roofs, on parking lots, along highway walls, on the sides of buildings, and in other dual-use scenarios. ... We still wouldn't have a land use issue, even if we didn't use roofs for PV. We would need only 10 million acres of land -- only four-tenths of one percent of the area of the United States -- to supply all of our nation's energy using PV.
Labels: energy policy, environment, Florida
32 Comments:
Exactly what are Florida homeowners supposed to do with these solar panels during a hurricane?
Many Homeowners Associations have deed restrictions (CC&R's) that prohibit solar panels or solar equipment on the roof of a house. I urge everybody to write their congresspeople to sponsor a bill to allow solar equipment even when there is an CC&R. This is a national security issue and people that don't like the way solar panels look can leave the USA.
This post has been removed by the author.
That doesn't answer the question -- all it does is tell you how to secure the panels against wind load tearing them off the roof. Solar panels will be useless for electricity generation during a hurricane, whereas centralized power generation (fossil fuel, nuclear) would at least have a chance of being available as long as the lines stayed up.
The Department of Energy pollution offset numbers don't make sense. First they should be based upon kW-hours not kW.
Next if you assume a kw PV produces full output for 12 hours a day you get 12*365+*kW = 4,380 kW-Hr. In practice you would be luck to get half of this number.
Divide the sulfur offset 1500 lbs by 4,380 and you get .34 lBs sufer per kW-H which is too high by at least an order of magnitude.
The CO2 and NOx numbers are similarly suspect.
While we are talking about numbers how much land do you need to cover with PVs to replace a real coal fired or nuclear plant? Good by Everglades.
I will start taking altenative energy press releases seriously when the numbers start to work out.
Bruce
(different anonymous)
I think a good point when selling PV or water heating systems to Floridians is to remind them of just how miserable it is to live here with no power. It's hot and humid but the cold showers are still REALLY cold. Air quality is awful - you sweat so much that the laundry has to go into the garage or it will stink up the whole house. And so forth.
A friend lost power for two weeks for both Frances and Jeanne back in 2004 - imagine that with two toddlers.
Three words: Thin-film Solar. Check out the wiki here and look at the video at Nanosolar. This technology is just being commercialised big-time now: expect great things of it. Whoever said tech fixes don't work?
Florida homeowners do the same with the solar panels during a hurricane as the utilities do with power lines.
A roof blowing off of a building will be a problem with or without panels on them. At least roofs are more likely to stay in place than the power lines.
oh and Bruce, obviously they wouldn't put them in the Everglades. There is more than enough desert to cover in PV
The anonymi are right. Just how much time have you spent in Florida, Ms. Sturgis?
Also, your link to "details on the requirements" of FL building code is to an advertising brochure for a solar pool heater.
Nice post. Very informative.
The rapid advances in technology might be holding back some people like myself who are considering solar energy for home. Why invest in a system today when a better and less expensive system is available tomorrow? It's the same reason that I don't have a HDTV yet. This is nobody's fault but it's a consequence of a rapidly growing and improving field.
I have to challenge the authors assumptions in this article. The tip off is "...on roofs, on parking lots, along highway walls, on the sides of buildings,..." PV arrays have to be properly sited to be effective. Even being generous, probably 1/3 of the roofs/buildings are shaded or facing the wrong direction. The other problem with PV is watt density. It is an extremely low power source.
But Florida is uniquely situated to tap another resource -- The Gulf Stream. Both it's 4knot drift Northward and its temperature differential represent a power source. More than once it has been proposed to develop underwater power turbines. And OTEC systems could make use of the temp differentials for generate power. The other advantage to both systems -- they are continous, not dependent on a day-night cycle.
Sir, go back to covering LifeStyle. It's safer on your intelligence.
Ah, I thought Anonymous #1 was asking what would happen when hurricane-force winds met up with PV panels (something I've wondered about).
S/he clarified: "Solar panels will be useless for electricity generation during a hurricane, whereas centralized power generation (fossil fuel, nuclear) would at least have a chance of being available as long as the lines stayed up."
Are you saying the panels won't work during a storm because it's dark and raining? Sure, that would impede power generation. But as anyone who's lived through a hurricane can attest, they pass pretty quickly. The day after Fran wrecked North Carolina, it was blue skies and sunshine -- perfect weather for PV.
But I and many of my neighbors lost power during that storm, and some of us were without it for a week or more, and our power company relies on a mix of nuclear and coal. It's not just about line problems: After Hurricane Katrina, coal-fired plants throughout the South reported storm damage, with some shut down as a result. And nuclear reactors are required to shut down in advance of a hurricane under certain conditions.
BTW, if you'd like to know more about the heightened risks nuclear power plants present in extreme weather conditions, check out the Nuclear Information and Resource Service's advisory "Nuclear Power and Hurricanes" online here.
I deleted an earlier comment I posted because, as one of the Anonymouses (Anonymice?) rightly pointed out, I linked to information that was in fact contained in promotional material for a product. I apologize. This is what the rest of the comment said:
Florida's building code does require homeowners to "hurricane proof" certain types of solar panels.
Net Metering will become a big problem if individual generation (solar, wind, etc) increases significantly. It requires utilities to accept uncontrolled, unscheduled generation onto the grid and still maintain stability. Also, true net metering allows the homeowner to effectively "sell" generated power at retail rates (which are typically 2 to 3 times the actual wholesale value) while the utility still has to maintain the power distribution system. Net metering will become completely unworkable if distributed generation actually becomes a significant contributor.
I live in Florida and have gotten tired of waiting for the Feds to do something. For about $150 I built a home power station. It's basically just a Wasl-Mart boat battery with a solar panel from e-bay. I haven't plugged my cell phone, palm pilot or laptop into a wall in 2 months. A briefcase solar panel folds up and stores easily. This may not be the answer for everyone, but at least no one has to go to Iraq and get blown to pieces just so I can keep my cell phone charged...
In CA at least, a HOA cannot prohibit a PV installation. BTW those numbers look a bit weird. Some people just cannot figure out the difference between kw and kw/h.
Another excellent article Sue.
Solar panels that are installed properly in order to be hurricane proofed, as the law calls for, are actually a godsend after a storm passes, which does farely quickly.
My father lived through a number of hurricanes in South Florida before moving to Ocala, and because of his solar, was not only able to keep his appliances running, but ended up helping to store food and feed neighbors because of it, along with outdoor grills.
And as stated, the weather following a hurricane is usually very clear and sunny.
Elaine at http://Nonuke.org
As a native Miamian (in temp. exile) of 50 years, I must say this sounds terrific, especially in the summertime, when the sun is intense and electricity for AC costs is exorbitant. I'm sure that there are ways of protecting from hurricane damage, and being able to have power right afterwards would be wonderful.
Hi! I guess with regard to this kind of power source, there will always be pros and cons! I just wish good luck to all the scientist and engineers who are doing all they can so as to decide what's the best option for acquiring energy which is both efficient and contains enough energy to power up a whole country/state! Thanks for sharing! :)
the answer to what would we do in florida about the panels during hurricane ! well i live in a house that has roll up and accordin shutters !! cost was around $15,000 12 years or so ! but if ur gonna spend the money for panels on your house whats anthor $2,000 to but shutters over the panels ??? or they have now panels that are installed flush in the tiles of roofs !!
another thing is do u really think that the gov wants solar power instead of big oil ? watch the movie "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR" and then look at what crap gm is trying to say is a step up !! LOL they had the technology 10 or 15 years ago !!! watch the movie and i guarantee u will be pissed at end of movie !! pissed of and disgusted !!
The answer to anonymous is,"Nothing".
Hurricanes do not present a problem to solar panels. They present a lower profile than solar hot water heaters and high winds from hurricanes haven't affected those. Also, just look along I 95 or the Turnpike. Every emergency phone is powered by a solar panel, and I have never seen any of them down after the four hurricanes I've been thru in the past few years.
Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.
Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!
Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"
There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).
Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.
We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.
For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!
This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.
Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.
Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst
12/1/2007
For anyone considering Solar Panel Installation, I would urge you to wait. By 2010, solar-film cells will be installable that ustilize the same amount of roof space, cost one-tenth as much, and do not contain harmful or dangerous components such as glass or silicon. These Nano-produced wafers spray a solar-film onto a rollable alumimium foil. They can then be rolled on (like wallpaper) to an existing roof, wall, garage door, car roof or anywhere else. They will cost about $1 per watt. For the average home, a 10kw system (cost $10,000) will provide them with all the electricity they use during daylight hours plus will send some back into the grid. The governments of the US, Germany, UK and Japan have invested heavily in this, as have Google, Microsoft and BP. In addition, power companies are working on joint geothermal/Solar-film power plants that would be situated on spots ideal for Geothermal energy collection. The geothermal energy is collected from underground and fed into a ground-level power plant. The solar film strips are placed over the plant and at ground level on any available surrounding land and feed energy into the same power plant. Solar power plants can be up and running in 9 months. Coal takes 10 years. Nuclear takes 15 years. These technologies will enable solar and geothermal energy to be generated in one part of the US and quickly transferred to another part of the US, taking advantage of all daylight across the entire continent.
So in addition to saving most of your daylight energy with a $10k cost, you will also see substantial cost reductions in your nighttime energy use as Solar plants that transfer energy from areas with light to darker areas while Geothermal power plants will transfer energy from where it is available in the ground to areas that need energy all year long.
Finally, with the plug-in electric car about to become a reality (Toyota's Gen III Prius, Chevy Volt, Mitsubishi Lancer and Colt EV, Tesla, etc), a greater amount of grid usage will take place, thus diluting the cost of line maintenance. Line maintenance is 40% of all electric bills, on average. If we switch to electric Vehicles (EV's) the amount of grid usage will increase by 75%, decreasing the line maintenance cost per Kw by a corresponding amount...
The energy revolution is <3 years away. Don't spend tens of thousands of dollars when you can just wait 3 years and get it for a tenth of the price....
Hurricane resistant flat Solar panels will continue to work during a hurricane though they will only produce smaller amounts of power than they would on a sunny day. Compare that with grid power which typically shuts down for several days during a hurricane...
Quote "another thing is do u really think that the gov wants solar power instead of big oil ? watch the movie "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR""
Totally agree with you, how can oil companies, electricity companies and the government charge you for somthing that is free? If they can't make money off it they don't want anything to do with it and will try very hard to bury it. Think about it how are you going to tax sunshine and then run a meter to charge how much your using? This is why they are not pushing for this technology. I whole heartly believe this.
Here is something some of you may be interested in...solar panels you RENT. I've been interested in a NetZero house for a long time but PV was just so expensive so I gave up on it until a friend of mine sent me a link to www.solarunion.net. These folks will allow me to get a system installed without seeing my electric bills go up. I'm pretty excited about it. I signed my house up for these rentals - costs me nothing until the panels get installed and if I change my mind or purchase my own system before they are installed - no big deal! I hope this helps some of you.
"Nuclear can be up in 15 years, solar in 9 months."
Please point out a solar electricity installation which produces 1000 MEGA watts of power.
Why even say solar takes nine months? A solar installation can be up in an hour, head over to radio shack and get a tiny little panel and give yourself a nice pat on the back.
Also I see lots of statements about how solar is right about to become cheap. Sounds familiar. MIT Technology review was ran an article in 2002 on thin film solar panels predicting 2004 as the date. Now it's 2010? Sounds familiar. Let's look at stuff that we can begin deploying now. Given that nuclear and other sources do have such a long lead time we need to start on them NOW.
If Solar really can be deployed SO quickly, then we can wait to start on it until the prices really do come down like so many people posting here have promised.
Regarding a solar installation that produces a large amount of power: In California, Stirling Energy Systems is seeking a permit to build a 750-megawatt plant in the desert east of San Diego. That would be the world's largest solar farm. You can read more about the project here.
Please, stop writing about the wonders of solar.
Start doing something about it.
Contact properties' owners and tell them that you'll give them a free estimate for the cost of a solar system.
You do need to get their last few months electric bills to see how much kWat hours they use and how much they can save.
You can contact some local solar company , like mine, and we send a trained person to check out the property and calculate all the figures. Federal and State incentives help. We can also finance the project. You get a nice referal fee as well.
So you can see dear friends,we can start a wave of affordable solar power systems that save everything from the first moment of operation.
A solar system can be installed within a week.
May the Sun be with us !
The Sun is on !
RSVP comments please.
Zak, The Solarman. Aventura. Fl.
Just to clear up the record, solar panels are not useless during a hurricane. You have to have batteries on a system for it to work, but most systems do have that. How it works: When the charge controller senses the grid has gone down, it will close off the system and draw from the batteries.
Ignorance is so fun to dispel.
As anon 8/5/2008 said you just need batteries to keep it going. I live in Cape Coral and built my own system that is not grid tied. Here are some pix
Ground mounted 2.4 kw array
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/trkarl/panels.jpg
Xantrex 4048 inverter, Outback Flexmax 80 charge controller, Outback x240 transformer, transfer switches, 240 ahr 48 volt battery bank.
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/trkarl/setup2.jpg
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/trkarl/setup.jpg
It runs my fridge and chest freezer 24/7 and during the day when the batteries are almost full I run other loads such as t.v. computer microwave coffee pot vacuum well pump and I have even ran my central a/c for a short time. It may not seem economically worth it compared to grid power cost but when the grid goes down my power is still on.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page