Tel: (845) 626-2627   Home   Contact  
Sun Volt

Sun Volt Solar

earth, the final frontier

Clean Energy, Clean Environment

We are at a cross roads in human history, we can choose to continue on as we have been, or we can make a change to improve our future and quite possibly the future for several generations to come. We are here to promote energy independence, a better environment, a secure future and a higher return on investment for your hard earned dollar. It is what I believe in, it is why I am in the solar business.

New York to revise its net metering laws

27 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment, Incentives, Solar Electric

Both the New York Assembly and the Senate has passed amendments to NY’s net metering rules.  The amendment (A.7557A/S.6700) is designed to increase the net metering for non-residential customers by correcting restrictions to the 2008 net metering regulations.   The original 2008 allowed for interconnections up to 2 MW but the wording was ambiguous and most new net metering accounts were residential since 2008.  By allowing larger commercial systems, businesses will be able to take advantage of solar and wind energy, helping to meet NY State’s goal of 25% renewable energy by 2013.

Net metering allows the owner of an on-site renewable energy system to receive a credit on his or her utility bill for any unused power supplied to the electric grid by the system. The credit then offsets the power received from the grid when the customer consumes more energy than the system is generating. In addition to acting as a hedge against rising energy costs and reducing overall stress on the electric grid, on-site renewable energy sustmers provide numerous environmental, public health, and economic development benefits to local communities.

This is the basis for all grid connected PV systems.  It is good that the government of NY realizes the benefits of renewable energy and are taking steps to help implement it here.

The question is, will all of this renewable energy replace fossil fuel based generation, or will it merely increase the energy capacity and thus use in NY?  There are indications that the latter is normally the case, unless fossil fuel based energy becomes too expensive for the average person of business.   After the energy efficiency increases in the 1970’s and 80’s, many people began building larger houses because they could now afford it.  History will repeat itself unless the true costs of energy are passed on to the end consumer and not the taxpayer.

Tags: ,

27 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment, Incentives, Solar Electric | Comments (0)

Energy rebates, incentives, tax credits, etc for YOUR area

20 Feb 10 | Incentives

electric meterCan’t make heads or tails out of the various energy rebates available in your area?  Check out this website:

Energysavvy.com

This website scans the incoming IP address and automatically displays the various residential energy rebates available for that area.

No need to wade through endless government websites trying to see what is out there, it is all done for you.  Good luck and happy rebates!

Tags: ,

20 Feb 10 | Incentives | Comments (0)

Energy Storage

17 Feb 10 | General

One of the main problems with solar power is that of storing energy for non-solar periods.  On any given point on earth, there are an average of 12 hours of sunlight per day over the course of a year.  Unfortunately, it is the times when the sun is not shining that we need it’s power the most.

With grid connected systems, during sunny periods, excess power is dumped into the grid, for a credit to be used later.  The problem with this approach is first, the grid has to be present.  If the electric utility is out, then no power is being generated by the solar array.  In most parts of the US, at least right now, this happens only occasionally, so it is not a big concern.  The second consideration is with fossil fuel based grid generation, there is something called the spinning reserve.  That is to say, a generator running at one half it’s rated capacity has the other half in reserve.  With any fossil fuel based generator, as the output from the generator drops, the efficiency drops as well.  Therefore, saving 1 kWh of electricity does not automatically correspond to a 3,412 BTU reduction in fuel input (or 5,732 BTU if considering 32% grid efficiency).  It would be some fraction of that, which is one of the reasons why renewable energy is such an up hill battle.

The real answer is better batteries.  The lead acid battery technology we are currently using has not been improved in over 100 years.  There have been some strides with things like laptop batteries and cell phone batteries, but those are relatively small.  The main issue is power density, e.g. very heavy large batteries storing not enough electrons.  In order for renewable energy to really be meaningful, better energy storage needs to be developed.  This would also help out things like plug in electric vehicles (PEV).

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is on it.  They are working on batteries for vehicles, but by extension, that technology could be applied to renewable energy as well.  This is one of the critical steps in solar development.  You can keep up on developments by following Venkat Srinivasan’s blog, This week in Batteries. He explains things much better than I ever could.

Tags: ,

17 Feb 10 | General | Comments (0)

How will Solar change the electrical contractor business

16 Feb 10 | Solar Electric

I read an interesting article yesterday regarding how the solar industry will change the job of electricians.  My experience is thus:  Electricians get asked a lot of questions about solar (photovoltaics mostly) by their customers.  Some attempt to give good answers, some may even look into doing solar installations a little, but most are not interested.  At least right now.

In the future, perhaps solar installation training will become part of electrical apprenticeship programs.  The main skill sets that a solar installer has, which an electrician does not, is the site analysis, system design and intimate knowledge of available incentives and grants.  System design is getting easier with the advent of microverters.  In new construction, at least some of the system design aspect should be up to the architect, e.g. a roof facing true south tilted at latitude.  In retrofitting existing buildings, however, compromise is often the case.  With performance based incentives, such as what is available in New York state, that can increase the system’s cost.

In general, green construction requires an integrated approach.  All of the various systems need to work together to reduce or eliminate traditional energy inputs.  Electrical contracting is but one part of that equation.  There are many other green technologies available to electricians, such as reduced power lighting, variable speed motor controllers, energy efficient appliances, smart building systems, etc.

The article is an interesting read and brings out many good points.

Tags: , , ,

16 Feb 10 | Solar Electric | Comments (0)

How clean is the electricity you use?

13 Feb 10 | Environment

The US EPA has a web site, Energy and You,  to help you find out. For the basic information and statistics, you simply need to know your zip code. This will show a break down of how much SO2, Nox and CO2 is produced per mWh (1,000 kWh) for electricity used in your area.  If you would like specific information about a home or business, then the annual electric usage in kWh for that structure is needed.

The breakdown of fuel types also gives a good idea of waste products.  Coal is the dirtiest fuel, not only in terms of emissions but in terms of byproducts after combustion.  Fly ash from coal burning power plants is ever present and represents a real disposal issue for the power plant operator.  Of course, nuclear, in it’s current configuration, generates hazardous materials that need to be stored for 10,000 years.  This, by the way, can be changed with a different type of reactor.

Oil and natural gas have the fewest byproducts, and of course, hydro is renewable.

All in all, a good source of information, goes along with the theme of the last few posts.

Tags: ,

13 Feb 10 | Environment | Comment (1)

Mountain top removal

11 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment

Every time anyone says “clean coal technologies” I cringe.  This goes back to what I wrote about in the last post, the true cost of energy in this country.  Everyone complains of high taxes, deficit spending and the like.  No one thinks twice about when they turn on a light switch, they just expect it to work.  Moving that switch from “off” to “on” is a part of your tax dollars at work.  Here are some of the things that money is paying for:

  1. Subsides for large oil and coal corporations to fund exploration and technological developments
  2. Payments into medicare, medicaid and other medical programs to treat persons near the mining sites for illnesses related to release of chemicals into air and water
  3. Payments into environmental funds to pay for cleanup and mitigation of pollution
  4. Payments into government assistance programs for displaced persons in coal mining areas
  5. Payments to medical entitlement programs to treat those near coal fired power plants for illnesses
  6. Losses incurred due to acid rain in east coast forests, lakes, ponds and streams
  7. Losses in the seafood industry due to increased mercury levels in higher fish species
  8. incalculable costs of added pollutants such as Uranium, Thorium, Mercury, Nickel, et. al in the environment and the effects such have on developing human beings

Then there is the human costs, as this video shows:

The old adage “out of sight, out of mind,” is what the coal companies and their congressional sponsors are hoping for. There is no such thing as clean coal.

Tags:

11 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (0)

Cost of Renewable Energy vs. Traditional energy sources

09 Feb 10 | Conservation

One point that always comes up in any solar sales presentation, why does it cost so much.  That is a very good question and there are several reasons:

  1. With solar energy systems, power producing equipment is installed vs. fossil fuels systems, where energy is purchased from a supplier.  There is no capital investment made, once the fuel is used, it is gone.
  2. Manufacturing, raw materials and research and development costs of solar power is higher than conventional system because of their smaller market share.  As solar expands, prices will come down and already have.
  3. Competition for raw materials, Photovoltaics in particular are competing for raw silicon against computer manufactures and other electronics manufactures, this is also decreasing.
  4. Fossil fuels prices are artificially low.  One estimate puts the actual price of a barrel of oil around $480.00 if all factors are considered.

In light of those factors, renewable energy, particularly solar is not expensive at all.  Consider this; we are burning through our reserves of oil much faster than new oil deposits are being discovered.  It is true, there are still billions if not trillions of barrels of oil yet in the ground.  However, most of that will never be extracted.  It is too expensive in terms of energy and capital to get to.  Therefore, it will stay where it is.  In the mean time, the amount we pay for our gas, oil, and electric in no way reflects the true costs associated with those products.

In light of those things, solar is pretty economical.  It is easier to pay the oil companies for their energy, but is it better?

Tags:

09 Feb 10 | Conservation | Comments (3)

Energy and the Federal Budget

02 Feb 10 | Commentary

I remain convinced that subsidizing oil, gas and coal companies to produce cheap energy is the wrong thing to do.  The President seems to agree with this position as the 2011 budget has removed about 2.7 Billion Dollars in subsides for those sectors.  Some people disagree:

This is the industry pulling in billions of dollars in profits. It is best placed to come up with ways to reduce the carbon intensity of fossil fuels and discover breakthrough technologies.

Because the fossil fuel industry has a record of clean energy investment, oh no wait… Because they strongly believe in climate change, thus have every intention of reducing their own product demand, no, no… Okay, I got it, they have been strongly advocating for the renewable energy sector in congress… Hmmm, I can’t really place my finger on it, perhaps because it is a bunch of BS.

The fossil fuels industries are the last group that a) need a subside, the first sentence from the block quote ably demonstrates that, and b) will do anything to hurt their market share in the US energy market.

I have opined here before, I’d like to see all energy subsides, including solar and wind go away.  Let everyone compete in an open market place, let consumers know the real value of the energy they are using.  This would greatly increase conservation efforts and spur on the development of renewable energy.

Tags:

02 Feb 10 | Commentary | Comments (0)