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.

Fixing the blame for the Gulf oil Spill

06 Jun 10 | Conservation, Environment

The Japanese have a very good saying, “Fix the problem, not the blame.”  With all of the anger flowing toward BP for their part in the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, I thought it might be interesting to examine those reactions a little bit.  I understand the frustration, especially of those that live and work on those waters.  Many of the fisherman have been doing that for all their lives, their father’s lives too.  Watching the brown goo wash up on shore, the horrible pictures of birds covered in oil, dead sea turtles, and sharks is heart rending.

Watching the enraged public demonstrating in front of BP service stations and the somewhat muted anger of our chief executive is an interesting contrast to the true situation.  Deep water drilling and production is a hugely complicated and expensive enterprise.  To be sure, no one at BP could foresee these events and perhaps the actions of the drill rig crew were a little lax.  But the truth of the matter is, BP would not be drilling in deep water if there were not customers for their product.  They certainly would not go through all that trouble, expense and exposure to produce a marginal product that might or might not be sold.

To be certain, BP and the drill rig operator, Trans Ocean are culpable, there is a long list of others that contributed.  All of those that drive cars, trucks, ships, ride on trains, aircraft, buses, use electricity from the electrical grid, and use petro chemical products like plastic containers are also responsible.  Without end users, BP would have no reason to be in deep water drilling for oil.   So, while it is all good fun to drive home after the demonstration and upload the photos to the internet, look in the mirror; you can blame that person too.

We know what the problem is, an addiction to oil, it is up to all of us to fix that problem, each in his or her own way.

Tags: , ,

06 Jun 10 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (2)

Off shore oil drilling: FAIL

02 May 10 | Conservation, Environment

I am sure that almost everyone is keeping track of the Deepwater Horizon disaster as it unfolds.  This has vast implications, from the almost incalculable environmental damage to the inevitable increase in oil prices both short and long term.

It really makes me angry when I think about how much effort was put into offshore drilling safety and technology and yet, this spill is about to eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.  When will we learn?  Where are all the “Drill, baby drill!” advocates now?

Lets get serious about ending the fossil fuel addiction before it kills us.

Tags: ,

02 May 10 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (2)

Smart grid and renewable energy

05 Mar 10 | Conservation, Solar Electric

I have been reading up on the smart grid technology.  I find it interesting for several reasons.  Our energy conversion to electricity is very inefficient, around 32% for the entire electrical grid in the United States.   Because of this, we are using much more energy than we need to generate electricity.

The aims of the smart grid are:

  • Self-healing from power disturbance events
  • Enabling active participation by consumers in demand response
  • Operating resiliently against physical and cyber attack
  • Providing power quality for 21st century needs
  • Accommodating all generation and storage options
  • Enabling new products, services, and markets
  • Optimizing assets and operating efficiently

According the the US Department of Energy website.

Renewable energy critics often cite the very small percentages that renewables currently contribute to electrical generation in the US.  The other argument against installing photovoltaics is their low efficiency, between 14-16 percent in most commercially manufactured silicone modules.  Others argue that the cost is too high and the reliability is low.  All of those statements are true in the context of the artificially low prices we are paying for energy today.  If the real costs of energy were reflected in one’s electric bill, the cost per kWh would be in the $0.25 to $0.40 range.  Currently, unsubsidized photovoltaic electricity is $0.218 per kWh ($7.31 per watt installed, over 25 year life span).  Our current utility electric rates are about $0.15 per kWh.  If only the Federal income tax refund were taken (30% of the installed system cost), that brings the cost down to $0.152 per kWh.

Behind the meter solar generation is much more efficient than conventionally produced power.  A coal, oil or natural gas fired power plant dumps about half the energy consumed into the environment as waste heat.  Another 10 percent or so is consumed as resistive losses in transmission lines, then there is the energy required to produce the fuel, mining, pumping, transportation, etc.  That is what is required to use whatever fossil fuel the power plant is burning.  The amount of original energy from the sun needed to produce a unit of fossil fuel (e.g. gallon of oil, cubic foot of natural gas, ton of coal, etc)  is almost incalculable.  If we were to compare solar energy inputs, photovoltaic panels are far more efficient than any fossil fuel could ever be.

Photovoltaics also produce peak power during peak demand times, which can help reduce costs associated with Time Of Use (TOU) metering.  They are a distributed generation technology, which spreads the failure risk out over many points of generation, reducing transmission losses as well.  A battery backup couple with a solar and or wind system will keep power on indefinitely if properly sized.

Tags: ,

05 Mar 10 | Conservation, Solar Electric | Comments (5)

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)

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)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; whats in it for me?

14 Feb 09 | Commentary, Conservation

I spent several hours this morning picking through the final conference report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (HR-1), also known as the “Economic Stimulus Bill.”  You can download and read all 647 pages of it here, if you dare. There are several sections that deal with Renewable Energy and solar power systems.  Here are a few of the highlights:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
For an additional amount for ‘‘Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’, $18,500,000,000, which shall be used as follows:
(1) $2,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment activities, to accelerate the development of technologies, to include advanced batteries, of which not less than $800,000,000 is for biomass and $400,000,000 is for geothermal technologies. (2) $500,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the programs authorized under 1 part E of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6341 et seq.).
(3) $1,000,000,000 shall be for the cost of grants to institutional entities for energy sustainability and efficiency under section 399A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1).
(4) $6,200,000,000 shall be for the Weatherization Assistance Program under part A of title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 11 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.).
(5) $3,500,000,000 shall be for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, for implementation of programs authorized under subtitle E of title V of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17151 et seq.).
(6) $3,400,000,000 shall be for the State Energy Program authorized under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321).
(7) $200,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the programs authorized under section 131 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17011).
(8) $300,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the program authorized under 3 section 124 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15821) and the Energy Star program.
(9) $400,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary to implement the program authorized under 7 section 721 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16071).
(10) $1,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for the manufacturing of advanced batteries authorized under section 136(b)(1)(B) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013(b)(1)(B))

Cliffnotes: $18.5 Billion for research and development, including biomass, geothermal and batteries, block grants, weatherization, conservation, energy star, battery manufacture, and other grants.

Those are all good things.  I find it interesting that batteries where specifically mentioned for R&D and manufacture.  It seems that one of the major shortfalls of PEV (Plug in Electric Vehicle) is the weight and distance limiting factors associated with batteries.  It would be great if these obstacles can be overcome.

The Department of Education also gets funding for renewable energy systems, under section 11 of the School Modernization section:

(11) renewable energy generation and heating  systems, including solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, or biomass, including wood pellet, systems or components of such systems

This will be administered by the states, which in New York State, means NYSERDA, know widely for its bureaucratic efficiency.

Perhaps the most interesting item, from a renewable energy contractor’s perspective is this:

GRANTS FOR SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY IN LIEU OF TAX CREDITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon application, the Secretary of Energy shall, within 60 days of the application and subject to the requirements of this section, provide a grant to each person who places in service specified energy property during 2009 or 2010 to reimburse such person for a portion of the expense of such facility as provided in subsection (b).
(b) GRANT AMOUNT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the grant under subsection (a) with respect to any specified energy property shall be the applicable percentage of the basis of such facility.
(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘applicable percentage’’ means—(A) 30 percent in the case of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (c), and (B) 10 percent in the case of any other property.
(3) DOLLAR LIMITATIONS.—In the case of property described in paragraph (2), (6), or (7) of subsection (c), the amount of any grant under this section with respect to such property shall not exceed the limitation described in section 48(c)(1)(B), 16 48(c)(2)(B), or 48 (c)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, respectively, with respect to such property.
(c) SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘specified energy property’’ means any of the following:
(1) QUALIFIED FACILITIES.—Any facility described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (9), or (11) of section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) QUALIFIED FUEL CELL PROPERTY.—Any qualified fuel cell property (as defined in section 48(c)(1) of such Code).
(3) SOLAR PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(4) QUALIFIED SMALL WIND ENERGY PROPERTY.—Any qualified small wind energy property (as defined in section 48(c)(4) of such Code).
(5) GEOTHERMAL PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (iii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(6) QUALIFIED MICROTURBINE PROPERTY.—Any qualified microturbine property (as defined in section 48(c)(2) of such Code).
(7) COMBINED HEAT AND POWER SYSTEM PROPERTY.—Any combined heat and power system property (as defined in section 48(c)(3) of such Code).
(8) GEOTHERMAL HEATPUMP PROPERTY.—Any property described in clause (vii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code.
(d) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES.—In making grants under this section, the Secretary of Energy shall apply rules similar to the rules of section 50 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In applying such rules, if the facility is disposed of, or otherwise ceases to be a qualified renewable energy facility, the Secretary of Energy shall provide for the recapture of the appropriate percentage of the grant amount in such manner as the Secretary of Energy determines appropriate.

There is a lot to wade through, however, the gist is instead of income tax credits, which may need to be carried over to a second year, a homeowner business owner can apply for a grant from the Department of Energy for 30% of the installed cost of a solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cell, or “Micro Turbine” which I take to mean microhydro turbine. They would receive this money within 60 days instead of waiting until the end of the year to file an income tax return.

I think that the grant options are a good idea for the average homeowner who is outlaying some serious cash for a renewable energy system. I would note that if the program gets too big, there will likely be some abuse, which could give the solar industry a black eye. Picture an NBC news fleecing of America segment. I, for one, am very keen on keep unscrupulous operators out of the renewable energy fields. They are bad for business.

I will reiterate my position on incentives once again. I don’t like them. I would prefer that congress remove the subsides for oil, gas and coal rather than subsidize renewable energy as well. That will not likely happen anytime soon, so until such time, incentives are necessary to level the playing field. One day, hopefully, someone will wake up and realize that we are wasting a lot of money and end the whole subside structure.

Tags: , , , ,

14 Feb 09 | Commentary, Conservation | Comments (0)

Ground Source Heat Pump; same as a coal stove?

03 Jan 09 | Conservation, Environment, Geothermal

I read a lot of information on a daily basis.  A few months ago, somebody commented that a Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump is the same as using a coal stove to heat your house.  The notion is that by purchasing and installing a GSHP, a homeowner is only pushing the problem further away (to the electrical generation plant), not actually reducing pollution.

Is that right?  Perhaps a little research is in order.

First, a little background.  A Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) uses a refrigeration cycle to move heat either to or from a heat sink which is typically a large coil of PEX pipe burried in the ground.  Wells, ponds and other sources can be used also.  The idea is that using the ground (or other source), which is a constant temperature of around 50 degrees F, a heat pump can be much more efficient than using resistance heating.

GSHPs are rated by a coefficient of performance, known as COP.  This is a comparison of the amount of electricity used by the heat pump vs. electricity used in resistance heating.  Thus a COP of 5 means the heat pump is producing 5 KW of heat for 1 KW of electric used.  The highest COP is about 6, or 600% efficiency compared to electric resistance heating. A COP of 5 is considered very good.

The electrical distribution system in the US is about 31.2% efficient.  Therefore, a head to head comparison of power used vs. heat produced would look something like this:

1 kWh = 3413 BTU

A GSHP using 1 kWh of electric with a COP of 5 produces 17,065 BTU heat.

The electric plant producing the current to run the GSHP burned 10,939 BTU of fuel to produce 1 kWh.  Therefore, a very well designed, well installed GSHP is about 156% efficient when all the energy requirements are considered.

A typical coal stove is about 60-65% efficient, therefore it would require 26,254 BTU to generate 17,065 BTU of usable heat.

Conclusion: A Ground Source Heat Pump ≠ a coal stove.  GSHPs are energy efficient and a good way to heat a home where solar resources are not available.  They are not 500% efficient, as some companies would have you believe, but are greater than 100% efficient if properly designed and installed.

Tags: , ,

03 Jan 09 | Conservation, Environment, Geothermal | Comments (10)

Cheap oil=Less solar?

18 Dec 08 | Conservation, Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water, solar thermal

The price of a barrel of oil has dropped more than 70% since it’s all time high of $147.00/bbl in July.  Prices for home heating oil, gasoline, propane and kerosene have dropped accordingly.  All of this seems like welcome relief and great news for the ordinary homeowner especially as this winter looks to be a bad one weather wise.

OPEC meet yesterday and agreed to cut production by 2.2 Million Barrels per Day (MBD).  Non-OPEC oil producers have promised to follow suit.  Will this have an effect on the plummeting value of crude oil?  Apparently not, as oil prices fell below $40.00 per barrel today.  What really seems to be driving the price of oil down is the recession and the fact that people are driving less.  How much less?  About 5% or so.

It might be reasonable to extrapolate a few things from this:

  1. A 5% reduction in driving translates to a 70% reduction in the cost of a barrel of oil, then a relatively small conversion (about 10-15%) of the US fleet to Plug in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) powered by solar, wind or non-fossil fuels would have a significant effect on the price of gasoline.
  2. Use of hybrid technology for public service vehicles, taxi’s, government business, mail delivery, police, etc could reduce government fuel use, costs, and reduce pollution.
  3. Rail transport is the most efficient way to move bulk goods across land.  A typical freight train can transport 1 ton goods 450 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel.  A typical Tractor Trailer (18 wheel truck, 80,000 lbs GVW) moves 1 ton of freight about 250 miles on one gallon of fuel.  Reducing cross country truck transport, using rail instead, then using truck for the last mile deliveries would significantly reduce diesel fuel usage, thus prices.

That is, if the markets are not manipulated by traders to drive up energy prices.  I have a strong feeling that in the next year or two we will find out that the $147.00 barrel of oil was a farce, just like the ENRON induced electrical shortages in California a few years ago.

To all those that say a 10 or 20% renewable energy target by 2015 will make not matter, I beg to differ.  Every little reduction matters.  Many many small reductions through improved efficiency, better technology, and renewable energy systems will add up to a large number.

If anything, the low price of oil shows that we are still vulnerable to unscrupulous operators that would seek to profiteer.  As energy prices drop, we should look at is as an opportunity to install renewable systems while prices are favorable.

For example, the cost of raw materials is coming down.  The price of copper (a significant part of solar thermal collectors are made from copper) has dropped from $9,000 per metric ton to a little under $3,000 per metric ton. Pure Silicon (major component in PV cells) is still high, but has dropped slightly over the last year.

One other possible bad effect of cheap oil.  The oil companies are not going to do any exporation and development of new fields as there is no profit in it for them.  Even if the regulations were relaxed and new leases signed, the whole “Drill baby, Drill” mantra may be met with “No thanks, we’ll just sell what we already have.”  In which case, we may indeed be driving ourselves over a cliff.

Tags:

18 Dec 08 | Conservation, Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water, solar thermal | Comments (6)

A false sense of security

19 Nov 08 | Conservation, Environment

I continue to watch in amazement as fuel oil prices (and energy prices in general) plumet from there summer time record highs.  Home heating oil has decreased by nearly 38%, from $4.80/gallon to the current price of $3.018/gallon.

The reason given on most news channels is the demand dropping off due to the bad economy.  Maybe, but I have another theory.  Demand is off by roughtly 5.2% over the same period last year.  The price per barrel of oil has dropped from a high of $147/bbl to about $56/bbl today, or a decrease of 62%.

Something doesn’t quite add up here.  Perhaps it has something to do with the less than transparent oil hedge fund speculation.  In fact, the hedge funds came to light last summer, when congress considered banning the practice, but choose not to.  So what is a hedge fund?

That is an investment that is betting on the price of some comodity will go up.  The idea is to buy low, sell high.  With oil, that was a pretty safe bet until recently.  Some hedge funds completely collapsed, leaving investors holding the bag.

As oil prices began to fall toward the middle of July, these funds began to dump there crude holdings, thus, the market became very soft for crude which lead to the price collapse.  So, was the the end of high oil/gas prices?

No, most experts agree that oil prices will go back up, even before the economy begins to recover.  Indeed, OPEC has already cut production once to prop up prices.  That effort was ineffective, so no doubt they will try again at their next meeting.

In the grand scheme of life, spending money, especially large amounts of hard earned cash, is always somewhat difficult.  The exact perfect time to invest in a renewable energy system may never arrive.  After all, there are many other things to spend money on, a new car, a new bathroom or kitchen, that trip the the Bahamas that you always wanted to take.  However, wouldn’t it be nice to know that you are not being manipulated out of your money by wealthy hedge fund operators?  Wouldn’t it be nice to know that you are not dependent on buying oil from people who don’t like us?  Wouldn’t it be nice to know that you have lessend your impact on the environment, even if it did cost a little more in the short run?

In the coming months, we may be called upon to sacrifice for the good of our country.  The time has never been better to install a renewable energy system, what better way to support the local economy, create jobs, reduce imports, reduce the trade deficite, improve the environment and take back control of your life.

Tags: , ,

19 Nov 08 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (0)
« Previous Posts