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)

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)

This is Solar Power, Part III

04 Nov 09 | Commentary, Environment

A review off all the energy systems powered by our sun, either directly or indirectly.

Part III: Liquid Bio Fuels

Renewable: Yes
Environmental impact: Moderate
EROEI: Low
Cost: Low to High
Maintenance cost: Depends

Corn Field prior to harvest

Corn Field prior to harvest

Bio fuels and bio mass can be anything that was grown for the purpose of conversion to a fuel.  A wood lot use to provide fuel for a wood stove to heat a house can be considered bio fuel.  For our purposes, however, I will limit the discussion to liquid fuels mostly used to replace fossil fuels in the transportation sector.

Plants convert sunlight and CO2 into starches, complex sugars and O2 via photosynthesis.  The process of photosynthesis is not fully understood and has not been replicated in a non-living organism.  Some plants, such as corn, sugar beets, sugar cane are good feed stocks for ethanol production.  Other plants, such as soy, corn, palms are good feed stocks for vegetable oils, which can be burned in their raw state, or turned into bio diesel.

The advantages are mainly that these fuels can be used in existing cars and trucks with little or no modifications.  They are lower carbon emitters than conventional fossil fuels because the feed stocks remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  They also produce less non-carbon pollutants such as sulfuric acid, sulfuric oxides and nitric oxides.

The intrinsic value of liquid fuels is high for the transportation sector.  Liquid fuels are easily shipped, stored and transferred between storage and use facilities using existing infrastructure.  Liquid fuels are the densest form of conventional energy and are easily converted to both heat and mechanical motion.  For that reason, many are viable even with low EROEI numbers.  It would be extremely difficult to power a car or truck on solid bio mass such as wood or switch grass.

The down side, especially for corn based ethanol is it increases food costs for two reasons.  Corn used as feed grain is diverted to the energy sector, and farmers who might grow wheat or some other crop end up growing corn because the government subsides are better.

There is also some very serious questions about bio fuels being able to meet the demands for especially the transportation sector

Tags:

04 Nov 09 | Commentary, Environment | Comments (0)

Oil 101

11 Jul 09 | Commentary, Environment, General, General Business

Back in the mid 1980’s, there was a book that was all the rage called The Art of War, which had been written in china around the 6th century BCE by Sun Tzu.  It might aptly be subtitled “Common sense for the military strategist.”  One of the chapters deals with knowing your rival better than you know yourself.

oil-101

To that end I purchased a book called Oil 101.  It is, indeed, a fascinating book that details the complexity of our current energy structure.  The book is an excellent primer on the oil industry, it is well written and easy to understand.  Anyone who drives a car, uses oil to heat their house, uses plastics or any other petroleum product should read this book.  That is to say, everybody should read this book.

What strikes me is how much effort is put into exploration, extraction, refining and shipping.  We take all of this for granted in this country, but any failure in any one of those steps would create a disaster of epic proportions.  Think Hurricane Katrina for the whole county.  The fact that so much of this energy depends on technology, specialized methods, and huge capital outlays should be at least slightly alarming.  That, and our entire economy is build on the availability of cheap energy.  As we have just seen, economic down turns can really put a damper on large cumbersome corporate operations.

It may seem natural to be angry at the oil companies when gas is $4.25 a gallon and electricity is $.20 a kWh.  However, when I read about all of the work and investment these companies have to make, all of the variables from bad weather to bad governments they have to deal with, it also makes me respect the oil companies for all that they do.

Tags:

11 Jul 09 | Commentary, Environment, General, General Business | Comments (0)

Solar future or no future

25 Jan 09 | Commentary, Environment, Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water

Our sun, either directly or indirectly, powers almost everything we do.  The only non-sun power used on Earth is nuclear energy, the production of which, as of 2005, amounts to about 6.3% of the total energy used.   The rest of the world’s energy is solar energy, either directly, indirectly by use of hydro or wind power, or through energy stored in fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Latest EIT image courtesy NASA

Latest EIT image courtesy NASA

The process that created these fossil fuels is complex and took several millions of years to complete.  Humans began to uses fossil fuels as primary energy sources during the 1850’s.  Since Then, the use has grown exponentially because the use of coal and oil allowed larger, more powerful machinery to extract and transport more coal and oil. What took nature hundreds of millions of years to create, humans have burned through in about 160 years.

The process for creating fossil fuels begins with photosynthesis.  The sun’s energy provides the engine for plants and other vegetative matter to fix carbon molecules from CO2.  Carbon fixation is the process that generates oxygen (O2) in our atmosphere and is the central process that allows life to exist on earth.

Once carbon is released from CO2, it is bound into long and short chains with sugars and starches that create plant structures.  These plants either die and decompose or are consumed by animals which in turn die and decompose.  The organic material is then broken down into carbon and hydrogen compounds in various forms.

There is no substitute for photosynthesis when it comes to carbon fixation.  In short, plants are the most efficient way to break up CO2 into its base elements creating the building blocks for life.  Basically, we are burning through our energy supply a million times faster than it can ever be replaced.  Surely this system is not sustainable and eventually will run out of fuel.  If the peak oil theory is to be believed, that will happen sooner, rather than later.

As outlined in the post “The Sun Powers Everything,”  even if all of the variables are considered, there is more than enough energy strikes the earth everyday to power all of our current needs and then some.  With the current technology, we can tap that power and make a useful and significant reduction in our fossil fuel use.  As technology evolves and more efficient devices are designed and manufactured, more of that power can be converted directly into heat and electricity for us to use.

Without solar power, humans will run out of energy and the life and society that has taken thousands of years to develope will colapse.  This is the most pressing issue of our time, all else pales by comparison.

Tags: , , ,

25 Jan 09 | Commentary, Environment, Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water | 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 (8)

Developments in LED lighting

31 Dec 08 | Environment, Solar Electric
Philips Lumiled high power light emitting diode

Philips Lumiled high power light emitting diode

As part of a general trend toward more efficient energy use, LED (AKA solid state) lighting shows promise.  From EE times.com:

White organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are already producing more light per watt than incandescent bulbs, according to engineering professor Stephen Forrest, but it is trapped inside the device. By fabricating a tandem system of grids and micro lenses on a white OLED, the device can achieve a brightness of over 70 lumens per watt, compared with 15 lumens for incandescent bulbs–almost as much as fluorescent tube lights (90 lumens).

And from Scientific Blogging:

Current white LED’s require a substrate made of sapphire and an additional mirroring layer to reflect light that would otherwise be lost… Researchers at Purdue University have found one method of significantly reducing the cost of a white LED by eliminating the expensive layer of sapphire. Instead, they used silicon as the substrate (the material the diode is printed on) and zirconium nitride as the reflector.

And from RPI:

Solid-state lighting that replaces incandescent and fluorescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes can reap enormous savings in cost, natural resources and pollution, according to a recent study by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. RPI’s Troy, New York-based Smart Lighting Engineering Resource Center claims that over the next 10 years savings of more than $1.8 trillion will eliminate the need to burn almost a billion barrels of oil in power plants that would otherwise produce 10 gigatons in the carbon dioxide emissions.

Lighting accounts for 22% of all electrical consumption in the United States.  If even half of the reduction claimed in the RPI report is realized, a significant step has been made toward reducing pollution and increasing energy efficiency.  For most people, the current color rendition of solid state lights (SSL) is harsh with too much blue light used.  This problem is being worked on.

Further, SSL systems are great companions to off grid PV systems that can use DC power distribution.  In an AC (alternating current) system, losses come from inverters, power supplies, and the LEDs themselves.  In a DC (direct current, e.g. 12 or 24 volt) system, the only losses are the LEDs.

Look for more developments in SSL in the near future.

Tags: , , , ,

31 Dec 08 | Environment, Solar Electric | Comments (0)

Is this coal clean?

27 Dec 08 | Environment

The dam around a retaining pond a TVA’s coal fired Kingston power plant burst and an estimated billion (B) gallons of coal ash and sludge flowed out covering more than 300 acres of adjacent land.  Several neighbors had to be evacuated from there homes as fears of water and airborne contamination spread.

There is no technology that can get rid of coal ash, also known as fly ash, which is a byproduct of coal combustion.   The TVA insists that fly ash is non toxic, however the EPA is of a different mind, from the New York Times:

A draft report last year by the federal Environmental Protection Agency found that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal to produce electricity, does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and retains the heavy metal present in coal in far higher concentrations. The report found that the concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold.

The post industrial revolution development scheme tends to use the strategy of building super regulated subdivisions miles away from power plants or other industrial activities.  After all, who want there back yards to look like this:

This merely pushes the problem further away, which allows the problem to grow bigger and bigger and bigger until it takes over and ruins the entire area. Our coal use should be getting smaller with an eye toward phasing it out all together. Soon.

Tags: ,

27 Dec 08 | Environment | Comments (0)

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