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.

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)

Carbon Dioxide; cap and trade, sequestration, climate change

02 Dec 09 | Commentary

I have been reading with interest the debate on the evils of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and various proposed methods to reduce its presence in the atmosphere.

First a few basic facts:

  1. Carbon Dioxide is a product of combustion, all combustion of any organic material creates heat and carbon dioxide.
  2. Carbon Dioxide is a know green house gas.  It traps heat in the atmosphere by reflecting long wavelength IR back to the surface of the earth
  3. Carbon Dioxide is an extremely resilient molecule because of the energy in the carbon – oxygen bond.  It does not readily break down in the atmosphere as other green house gases do.  The best proven way to break it down is by plants using photosynthesis.
Carbon Dioxide Molecule

Carbon Dioxide Molecule

The only sure fire method of reducing carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere is to reduce combustion.  Some fuels produce less CO2 than others, say natural gas over coal, for example.  However, the differences are not that significant, burning natural gas still releases tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each second of every day.

Cap and trade is a polution reducing scheme that was put in place by the first President Bush to reduce acid rain.  It was designed to reduce Nitric and Sulfur emissions from various industry types, most notably electric generating facilities.  Since both nitrogen and sulfur, particularly sulfur, can be remove from the combustion process before the fuel is burned and after with smoke stack scrubbers, it was a good incentive for polluters to clean up their act.  CO2 on the other hand, cannot be removed from the combustion process, it is like saying you are going to remove the wet from water.  Cap and trade would then have to be based on the type of fuel burned, since natural gas produces less CO2 per BTU than coal or oil, most electrical power plant operators would be forced to convert to natural gas.  That would be hugely expensive and in the long run, net little result in reduction of CO2.

CO2 sequestration is an even sillier idea.  In order to store CO2 in the ground, it would have to be liquified, which requires reducing the temperature to -70° F and keeping it there.  Underground temperatures at oil well depth are generally 150° F and higher, thus it would be difficult to keep the CO2 underground.  A leak from a CO2 storage facility could potentially displace the Oxygen in the surrounding area, creating a hazard for those living and working nearby.  Further, storing vast quantities of CO2 under ground could lead to things like atmospheric Oxygen depletion.

And to what end?  The roll that CO2 is playing in climate change is still debatable.  The best way to reduce CO2 and all other emissions that come from burning fossil fuels is to install renewable energy systems.  Wind, Solar, Hydro, Wave power and even Nuclear Power (although nuclear is not a renewable energy source) have zero CO2 emissions.  Zero emissions is far better than any “clean coal” technology (which doesn’t exist), Cap and trade schemes for CO2 (which will not work) and CO2 squestration (which seems dangerous).

Tags:

02 Dec 09 | Commentary | 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)

Do solar panels increase global warming?

01 Aug 08 | Environment

I have had several people tell me that solar panels, both photovoltaic and thermal, increase climate change, aka global warming due to the local “Heat Islanding” effect.

Others have said the cost (in CO2) of manufacturing and shipping solar panels is more than there subsequent use would eliminate.

Solar panel Heat Islanding

There is some validity to the first concern. If you take an area that was normally light reflective and put a solar panel in it, less light is being reflected and thus more heat is being generated. However, in the case of a solar thermal panel, most of that heat is then conducted away by Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) for use or storage. A typical solar thermal panel is 65-70% efficient at converting and removing the energy striking it. The remaining 30-35% of the energy is either reflected off of the glazing or the absorber plate or it is lost due to heat transfer inefficiencies, insulation losses, etc. In short, a solar thermal panel is very efficient at collecting energy and removing it. Having a solar thermal panel on the roof of your house would reduce the solar gain because most of the heat energy is being removed to another location and the panel shades the roof it is attached to.

Photovoltaics however, are not as efficient as solar thermal. The average PV panel in use today is around 15% efficient. Some of the energy passes through the panel and some of it is reflected. Therefore, about 80% the energy striking the panel is converted to heat. The average insolation on earth at mean sea level is 1,000 watts per square meter per hour.

A 4.3 KW grid tied solar system has 24 Sanyo HIP190BA3 PV modules. Each Module is 1.16 M2. The total area is 26.78 M2. Therefore the total energy striking this array is 26.78 KW/hr. The total heat being generated by this array on a sunny day is about 22 KW/hr or about 75,000 BTU/hr. In the mean time, it is producing 4.3 KW of electricity. The average peak sun hours in the Hudson Valley is 4.5 per day so this system can be expected to produce an average of 19.35 kWh per day or 7063 kWh per year. Electricity production in the United States is about 32% efficient. Therefore, that 19.35 kWh if purchased from the power company, would have produced 60.41 KW of waste heat and 32.9 pounds of CO2 vs 99 KW of waste heat and zero pounds of CO2. This system will save 12,000 pounds of CO2 per year or 150 tons of CO2 over a 25 year life.

This should trigger two questions; How much of the sun’s energy would have been absorbed by the surface of the earth and turned into heat regardless of the solar panel and what importance does CO2 have on climate change. To answer the first question is rather complicated. It depends on the color of the surface, the angle of the sun striking the surface and the atmospheric insulative effect. The second question is a little easier to answer

CO2 in the production of solar panels

It takes about 3.6 years (in average insolation) for a PV cell to make the energy used in its production. Therefore, over a PV cell’s 25 year life, it will produce electricity and contribute 86% less CO2 than electricity generated by fossil fuels. This reducing in CO2, a known Green House Gas (GHG) which is thought to be significantly contributing to the global rising in temperatures more than off sets the local heat island effect that PV panels have.

Solar thermal panels take much less time to payback because they are made mainly from copper (absorber plate and piping), aluminum (frame and mounting), insulation and glass. These materials are readily recyclable which greatly reduced the energy required for extraction and refining.  Additionally, a solar thermal panel is much more efficient at collecting energy, so the energy payback comes in about 1.5 years.  Most solar HW systems have some type of AC pump.  Taking that into consideration, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) while the system is operational is about 15, or for every 1 watt of electricity used, 15 watts of energy are gained.  In the Hudson Valley, a two panel SDHW system can expect to save about 3,350 kWh per year. That equals about 5,690 pounds of CO2 per year or 71 tons of CO2 over a 25 year life span.

Tags: , , ,

01 Aug 08 | Environment | Comments (0)

How long do Solar Systems last?

26 Jul 08 | Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water

That is a very common question. The answer is, it depends. Solar systems, like all other mechanical systems require some maintenance. Last week, I came across a solar hot water drain back system that was 28 years old. The great thing is, it was still working just like the day it was installed. The only problem the home owner had encountered was a bad circulator pump, which the plumber replaced.

Properly installed drain back solar hot water systems using distilled water could, in theory, last almost indefinitely. Solar Hot water systems that use antifreeze will likely last only 30 years or so. Still, that is a great payback. For either system, over the course of its operational life, it should easily pay for it self 4 to 5 times over.

Photovoltaics are said to last 25 years however, their output slowly declines over time. After 25 years, most current photovoltaic panels will be producing about 80% of their rated power. Still, that is not bad, and a well designed photovoltaic system should pay for itself at least two to three times over its operational life (with current incentives).

The advantages of renewable energy systems, for those that are in it for the long haul, are:

  1. Stabilizes energy prices at or below their current levels, gives the property owner more control over expenses.
  2. Increases the property value of the residence or building they are installed on.
  3. Reduces emissions and environmental pollutants from nearby electrical plants.
  4. Reduces overall electrical load on grid, thus reducing the need for more power plants and high tension distribution lines.
  5. Spreads out electrical generation capacity, thus making it more difficult for any one catastrophic event to cause a regional blackout (distributed generation).
  6. Reduces the use of fossil fuels and thus dependence on other countries to provide energy for us.

As you can see, there are many advantages to a solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, or microhydro system

Tags: , , ,

26 Jul 08 | Solar Electric, Solar Hot Water | Comments (0)

Gravity Film Heat Exchangers or GFX

29 Dec 07 | Conservation, Environment, Solar Hot Water

Update: Sun Volt Solar is now an authorized dealer of ECO-GFX gravity film heat exhangers!  For more information, check out our GFX web page.

I am always looking for ways to improve efficiency, especially in energy use. I came across something called a Gravity Film Heat Exchanger or GFX system. These units recover heat from waste water and return it to the hot water tank. Since 80-90 percent of household hot water heat goes down the drain, literally, what a great way to recover some of that energy and reuse it.

Here is how they work: Hot water from a shower or sink runs down the drain and out into the sewer. If there is a vertical run of pipe, the water, because of adhesion, runs down the wall of the pipe (and not the center). If the pipe is metal, heat is transfered from the water to the metal pipe wall until the pipe is the same temperature as the water. All of this happens in any sewer line. If the vertical section of pipe has a heat exchanger attached to the outside of it, the heat from the metal pipe is conducted away to be reused. Most often cold water feed into the hot water tank is run through the heat exchanger. The system efficiency depends on the difference in temperature between the waste water and the incoming cold water. The greater the difference, the higher the efficiency.

This system only works where there is simultaneous hot water use and immediate drainage, say a show or sink. Something like a bath or laundry would not work well because the hot water is drawn off, used, then drained away.

It appears that the system is around 45-50 percent efficient. Therefore, if you use 70 percent of your hot water in showers or sink use, you would recover 30-35 percent of your total hot water energy. Not too bad.

These systems would work very well with solar hot water systems. I am contemplating installing one at my house to see if they work as advertised. The only requirement is that they be installed vertically. In fact, in order to work properly, great care should be taken to make sure the unit is perfectly vertical. For more information, see the NREL website on waste water heat recovery or this .pdf file called Heat Recovery from waste water using Gravity Film Heat Exchangers.

Tags: , , ,

29 Dec 07 | Conservation, Environment, Solar Hot Water | Comments (0)
« Previous Posts