Los Angeles Ready to Add 300 MW of New Solar Energy Capacity

250 MW would located outside the city, while 50 MW would be distributed in the city.

Virginia, USA -- The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is moving forward with multiple agreements for a large 250-MW solar array in Kern County while also spurring development of another 50 MW of solar power within the city of Los Angeles.

“This is a great milestone in the City of L.A.’s efforts to expand renewable energy and a win-win for the businesses and people of Los Angeles who will benefit from solar power development right in the city,” said Board President Mel Levine in a June 5 statement. “These solar projects will help spark economic development and jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants, and meet L.A.’s renewable energy mandates.”

“These agreements put us within reach of our targets of 25% renewable energy by 2016 and 33 percent by 2020,” said Marcie Edwards, LADWP General Manager.

The agreements, which require approval by the City Council, pave the way for the 250-MW Beacon Solar Project, which will be built 14 miles north of Mojave, Calif., along Highway 14, while rounding out the full 150 MW Feed-in Tariff (FiT) Program. Last year, LADWP launched the FiT Set-Pricing Program for 100 MW, becoming the largest city in the nation to offer a FiT program.

The Beacon land, acquired by LADWP in 2012 and previously permitted for a solar development, has been divided into five sites. Four sites will be developed through four separate power purchase agreements for a total of 200 MW. Each of these contracts is tied to developing a group of small-scale FiT solar projects within LADWP’s service area in Los Angeles. Altogether, these “bundled” agreements will mean construction of 50 MW of local solar.

Through a competitive bid for the Beacon 200-MW Bundled Solar Program, the LADWP Board awarded two of the sites (88 MW) to SunEdison, and two sites (112 MW) to Hecate Energy. In conjunction with the large solar projects, SunEdison is obligated to develop 22 MW of local solar and Hecate will build 28 MW of solar within Los Angeles.

The fifth solar project that will be installed on the Beacon property is a 50-MW project that is not “bundled” with a FiT component. This contract was awarded to Hecate Energy.

Randy Howard, LADWP Senior Assistant General Manager-Power System, said: “These new solar projects will add to the existing Pine Tree wind and solar projects, and form a cluster of renewables in this area to help LADWP meet its renewable energy objectives near the Los Angeles Basin.”

To support the increase in renewable energy in Kern County, LADWP has begun construction of the Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP), which will expand the capacity of its existing transmission to bring these new renewables home to LADWP’s customers. Under the agreements, LADWP will provide all transmission and distribution infrastructure to support the Beacon Solar Project. The work involves expanding the Barren Ridge Switching Station and building a switchyard for the Beacon project as well as expanding the transmission line itself.

As part of the transmission project, LADWP has begun construction of a new switching station in Haskell Canyon near Santa Clarita, which will improve overall reliability by adding a second connection to the Castaic Power Plant. The Castaic Power Plant serves as “pumped storage” for solar and wind energy and is considered vital to integrating the renewables into the electric grid.

Source: Barry Cassell, Chief Analyst, GenerationHub. 

Global Carbon Emissions Increase Much Faster Than Expected

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) latest report, which explores ways to cut carbon emissions, put the world on notice. Despite efforts in the United States, Europe and developing countries such as China to ramp up energy efficiency and renewable energy, global carbon emissions have been increasing at a much faster clip than they were just a few decades ago. To avoid the worst of the worst, IPCC scientists say emissions will have to be reduced 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050 and warn that we only have a 15-year window to reverse course.

"We cannot afford to lose another decade," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who co-chaired the committee that wrote the report. "If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization."

As Edenhofer points out, the cost of doing nothing likely would dwarf whatever we might spend today to address climate change. That said, it makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels with the most cost-effective, safest, carbon-free and low-carbon options that can be deployed as quickly as possible.

For the biggest source of U.S. carbon pollution — electric utilities — the best solution is wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies, which, according to the new IPCC report, "have achieved a level of technical and economic maturity to enable deployment at a significant scale." In other words, renewables are now a lot cheaper and better than they were when the last IPCC report came out seven years ago.

Nuclear Not Economic

What about nuclear power? Although it now provides the most carbon-free electricity in the country, without a national carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, it's not economical, even with more than 50 years of generous federal subsidies.

Over the last decade, the estimated price tag for a new reactor has skyrocketed, jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to as high as $12 billion today. Wall Street won't finance a project unless Uncle Sam co-signs the loan, which leaves taxpayers on the hook if a project fails. So while Southern Company and its partners, with the help of an $8.3 billion federally guaranteed loan, are building two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia, it's unlikely the industry will be able to muster more than two or three more in the next decade. As recently as five years ago, utilities applied for licenses to build more than 25 new reactors.

At the same time the nuclear industry's hoped-for renaissance has fizzled, older reactors are shutting down. Four reactors closed last year because of prohibitively expensive safety upgrades or competition from cheaper energy sources, namely natural gas and wind. Economics will close a fifth reactor, Vermont Yankee, this fall, and the nation's largest nuclear plant operator, Exelon, said in February that unless market conditions improve, it will announce plant closings by the end of this year.

Wind, Solar More Affordable

Unlike new reactors, the cost of solar and wind has dropped dramatically. Solar panel prices have plummeted more than 75 percent since 2008, and the cost of generating electricity from wind turbines declined more than 40 percent over the past three years, sparking a construction boom. Last year, solar installations in the United States amounted to a record 5.1 gigawatts, boosting the national total to nearly 13 gigawatts -- enough to power nearly 2.2 million typical American homes. And by the end of December, there were enough wind turbines across the country to power 15.5 million homes and cut annual electric power sector carbon emissions by 4.4 percent.

Given solar and wind's exponential growth, experts see tremendous potential. The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example, projects that wind and solar could produce 15 percent of U.S. electricity by 2020, 27 percent by 2030, and 50 percent by 2050.

Still, naysayers harp on the fact that wind and solar power are intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine, they say, and the wind doesn't always blow. That may be true, but it's not a deal-breaker. Studies by NREL and electricity grid operators in the United States and Europe conclude that larger contributions from solar and wind would not create significant technological problems or impose higher costs.

"Meeting demand in the face of variability and uncertainty is old hat for grid operators," said Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who used to work at NREL. "They're already doing it with wind and solar here in the United States and in Europe."

"Besides, spreading wind and solar installations over a large enough area would help address the intermittency issue," he added. "The wind is always blowing somewhere, and if we increased the percentage of wind and solar to 30 percent — which we should be able to do within the next 15 years — the system's flexibility to manage supply and demand, along with a updated grid, should be able to integrate that power."

Renewables Provide More Resilience

Ramping up renewables not only would cut carbon emissions, it also would diversify the national electricity system and make it more resilient, according to a new UCS report. That system — which includes power plants, transmission lines and fuel delivery networks — was not designed to withstand all of today's extreme weather events, many of which have been linked to climate change.

Sea level rise, for example, threatens nearly 100 coastal electricity facilities, including power plants and substations, the UCS report found. Water temperature and availability also pose major problems. Older coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants rely on a "once-through" cooling process that draws hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons of water daily from the closest water body. When that river, lake or ocean gets too hot, which is happening with greater frequency, the plants have to cut back production or shut down temporarily. Likewise, droughts can substantially reduce water availability, while flooding from extreme rainfall can overwhelm a plant, as it did in June 2011 when a record-breaking Missouri River flood forced the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant near Omaha to remain shut down after a scheduled refueling outage two months earlier.

Renewables don't suffer from the same limitations. Rooftop solar panels and wind turbines, for instance, rely on smaller, more distributed units, which make it less likely that extreme weather events would have the same dramatic impact. Moreover, renewables are less vulnerable to drought and heat because they don't require water.

Source: Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists This article was originally published on the Huffington Post. May 01, 2014 

Study: Metropolitan Areas Contribute Less Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Than Suburbs

BERKELEY —According to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers, population-dense cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than other areas of the country, but these cities’ extensive suburbs essentially wipe out the climate benefits.

A CoolClimate Map of Seattle’s carbon footprint by zipcode tabulation area shows a pattern typical of large metropolitan areas: a small footprint (green) in the urban core but a large footprint (orange and red) in surrounding suburbs.

Dominated by emissions from cars, trucks and other forms of transportation, suburbs account for about 50 percent of all household emissions – largely carbon dioxide – in the United States.

The study, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), uses local census, weather and other data – 37 variables in total – to approximate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the energy, transportation, food, goods and services consumed by U.S. households, so-called household carbon footprints.

“The goal of the project is to help cities better understand the primary drivers of household carbon footprints in each location,” said Daniel Kammen, Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy in the Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy, and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. “We hope cities will use this information to begin to create highly tailored climate action plans for their communities.”

A key finding of the UC Berkeley study is that suburbs account for half of all household greenhouse gas emissions, even though they account for less than half the U.S. population. The average carbon footprint of households living in the center of large, population-dense urban cities is about 50 percent below average, while households in distant suburbs are up to twice the average.

“Metropolitan areas look like carbon footprint hurricanes, with dark green, low-carbon urban cores surrounded by red, high-carbon suburbs,” said Christopher Jones, a doctoral student working with Kammen in the Energy and Resources Group. “Unfortunately, while the most populous metropolitan areas tend to have the lowest carbon footprint centers, they also tend to have the most extensive high-carbon footprint suburbs.”

Taking into account the impact of all urban and suburban residents, large metropolitan areas have a slightly higher average carbon footprint than smaller metro areas.

Developing sustainable cities
“A number of cities nationwide have developed exceptionally interesting and thoughtful sustainability plans, many of them very innovative,” Kammen said. “The challenge, however, is to reduce overall emissions. Chris and I wanted to determine analytically and present in a visually striking way the impacts and interactions of our energy, transportation, land use, shopping and other choices. Cities are not islands: they exist in a complex landscape that we need to understand better both theoretically and empirically.”

The UC Berkeley researchers found that the primary drivers of carbon footprints are household income, vehicle ownership and home size, all of which are considerably higher in suburbs. Other important factors include population density, the carbon intensity of electricity production, energy prices and weather.

“Cities need information about which actions have the highest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their communities,” explained Kammen. “There is no one-size-fits-all solution.”

Increasing population density alone, for example, appears not to be a very effective strategy for reducing emissions. A 10-fold increase in population density in central cities corresponds to only 25 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, and “high carbon suburbanization results as an unintended side effect,” Jones said.

Increasing population density in suburbs is even more problematic, he said. Surprisingly, population dense suburbs have significantly higher carbon footprints than less dense suburbs, due largely to higher incomes and resulting consumption.

“Population dense suburbs also tend to create their own suburbs, which is bad news for the climate,” explains Jones.

So if increasing population density alone is not a one-size-fits-all solution, what urban design strategies may yield the greatest climate benefits? The project website includes a tool that calculates carbon footprints for essentially every populated U.S. zip code, city, county and U.S. state (31,531 zip codes, 10,093 cities and towns, 3,124 counties, 276 metropolitan regions and 50 states) as well as an interactive online map allowing users to zoom in and out of different locations. Households and cities can calculate their own carbon footprints to see how they compare to their neighbors and create customized climate action plan from over 40 mitigation options.

In some locations, motor vehicles are the largest source of emissions, while in other locations it might be electricity, food, or goods and services. California, for example, has relatively low emissions associated with household electricity, but large emissions from transportation. The opposite is true in parts of the Midwest, where electricity is produced largely from coal.

Tailored emission lowering strategies 
The real opportunity, say the authors, is tailoring climate solutions to demographically similar populations within locations.

“Suburbs are excellent candidates for a combination of solar photovoltaic systems, electric vehicles and energy-efficient technologies,” said Kammen. “When you package low-carbon technologies together you find real financial savings and big social and environmental benefits.”

The authors argue that cities need to step out of traditional roles in planning urban infrastructure and learn how to better understand the needs of residents in order to craft policies and programs that enable the adoption of energy and carbon-efficient technologies and practices.

One example of this is the Cool California Challenge, a statewide carbon footprint reduction competition to name the “Coolest California City.” The program, run by Jones and Kammen and sponsored by the California Air Resources Board and Energy Upgrade California, will be accepting applications for new cities in February. Each city creates its own, targeted strategy to reduce barriers and increase motivation to engage residents in climate action.

“People need to act within their own spheres of influence, where they feel they can make the most difference,” Jones said. “We hope the information provided in these tools will help individuals, organizations and cities understand what makes the most impact locally and to enable more tailored climate strategies.”

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the California Air Resources Board.

Source: US Berkely News Center. By Robert Sanders, Media Relations. January 6, 2014

Obama Administration Championing Solar

The Obama Administration announced Thursday, April 17th that the Energy Department is pledging $15 million to help communities develop aggressive plans for installing more solar energy.

The announcement was just one news piece among several that are promising for continued solar industry growth.

“As part of the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, solar energy is helping families and businesses throughout the U.S. access affordable, clean renewable power,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a statement. "The Energy Department is committed to further driving down the cost of solar energy and supporting innovative community-based programs – creating more jobs, reducing carbon pollution and boosting economic growth.”

The $15 million Solar Market Pathways funding is meant to help individual states, communities and tribal nations find ways to cut through red tape to make solar installation more affordable and to educate consumers on the desirability and affordability of solar energy.

In addition to the Pathways money, the Obama administration announced it aims to spur solar industry growth in other ways.

The Department of Defense, the country’s biggest single energy consumer, has committed to installing 3 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation on military bases around the world between now and 2025.

The Energy Department also announced that it would fund up to $4 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

The Climate Action Plan also calls for federally-assisted housing to install more 100 megawatts of solar by 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency also announced that it aims to double its use of onsite renewable energy generation by the end of the decade.

Additionally, the Agriculture and Energy departments are partnering with rural utility cooperatives to develop tools, templates and financing options for increased distributed solar and other renewable energy generation.

The Energy Department announced $2.5 billion in loan guaranty funds that could be used to support distributed generation and energy storage projects.

All of these announcements were made in front of some of the solar industry’s most influential leaders, who gathered in Washington, D.C. to discuss opportunities and challenges facing the solar industry. The Champions for Change Solar Summit was streamed live on the Obama Administration website.

Aside from new funding and the President’s “phone and pen” push to double the amount of solar installed in the US by 2020, the group expressed optimism about the industry’s future.

The primary concern is grid integration and cooperation with utility companies, an issue that is becoming increasingly important as utility companies protest net metering policies.

Source: Amanda Miller. Clean Energy Authority. April 21, 2014  

EV – PV: An EV Owner’s Realization that Solar Makes Perfect Sense in Seattle

One of our clients, Steve Coram, wrote this great blog post!  It is wonderful to hear from a homeowner's experience and real world application.

EV = Goodbye Gas

EV

Why did you buy an electric car? Or, why would you buy an EV? Is it the ultra-ECO Nissan LEAF? Or are you into the totally chic Tesla Model S? Whatever your reasons, there is no hiding the fact that there are some very real monetary motivations to going EV too!

One’s decision to ultimately buy an EV also means that there will be an investment. An investment of time is necessary to fully understand and realize the financial benefits of the purchase. Here’s the short version:

The U.S. federal government subsidizes EV sales by providing owners an income tax rebate on their overall tax burden during the year the EV was purchased. It’s an awesome fringe benefit, but the buyer should do some tax prep to be sure that the full $7500 rebate will come back at tax time. This federal incentive is a use-it-or-lose-it affair. Otherwise, leasing is an excellent option, wherein the $7500 tax benefit applies immediately at the point-of-sale with a resulting low, low lease rate for the new EV driver.

In Washington state, where my family lives, EV adoption is also incentivized by forgoing state sales tax on the purchase of any new electric vehicle. Again, though, one needs to research this perk as some plug-in vehicles qualify (Nissan LEAF), and others do not (Chevy Volt).

The longer that an EV driver can keep the car in service, substantial long-term financial advantages will be realized too. With little to no maintenance costs to keep the vehicle on the road, EV drivers can benefit from the fantastic financial return for money not spent on their car. Windshield washer fluid and a new in-cabin air filter once a year is about it.

Lastly, there is so much money not spent on “fuel.” At 15,000 miles driven a year, an average medium-sized ICE (internal combustion engine) car costs about $0.15 per mile in gas. As compared to a Nissan LEAF, for example, that costs less than $0.03 per mile in electricity.

Made in Washington, Itek Energy Solar Panels

PV

Last summer, after trading in our Mazda CX-9 for a second Nissan LEAF, I started researching incentivized energy options. The next bang-for-the-buck “going green” play was the installation of photovoltaics (PVs) on our roof. Our new PV system will actually be more financially beneficial than our EVs!

The easiest way to explain the cash benefits is to show it on a simplified graph:

The above graph represents after-tax incentives and rebates. This is important to clarify because the cash rebates and incentives are provided at different times in that first year of a PV system being installed. Also, these incentives are a mixture of federal, state (Washington), and local (Snohomish County PUD) programs. Others’ cash benefits may differ, depending on location.

For those living in Washington and receiving electric service through the Snohomish County PUD, this is the breakdown:

Year One: Approximately $12,000 Cash

Federal Tax Rebate: 30% tax rebate*
State Incentive: Solar production cash incentive of $0.54 per kWh generated**
Local Incentive: Snohomish County PUD cash incentive of $2500***

Years Two Through Six: Approximately $3,100 Cash Annually

State Incentive: Solar production cash incentive of $0.54 per kWh generated

Now to explain all of those asterisks!

*The federal tax rebate is used at tax time for 30% of the PV installation cost. In our case, the $21,050 project will allow for a a tax rebate of just over $6,300 on our 2014 federal income taxes. And unlike the EV federal tax credit, if one does not have the tax burden to get the full rebate amount, the 30% rebate can be stretched over multiple years so that the whole amount is realized.

**Washington state is incentivizing PV solar production. The base incentive rate is $0.15 per kWh produced. This is if the solar panels and inverter(s) are made outside of Washington state. If Made in Washington panels and inverter(s) are used on the PV project, the state will reward those who buy local with a $0.54 per kWh cash incentive.

Estimating what the annual solar production will be requires the use of a sophisticated program (Not my brain, silly people!). We can expect the first year solar production to total about 5,800 kWh as measured by AC net output with the System Advisor Model. Our state production incentive will be about $3,100 annually, but our first year payout will be a bit less due to the PV installation happening partway into the calendar year.

The Washington state production incentive is accrued annually as a cash incentive. However, the state production incentive program will expire on June 30, 2020. Thus, the state production incentive in year seven is half of the preceding years.

***Snohomish County PUD incentivizes its electricity costumers to install PV by providing a $2500 cash incentive. This is a $500 per kWh installed incentive, up to $2500 total. Since our PV system has a DC rating of 5.4 kW (solar production measured at the solar panels), we’ll get the full $2500.

We have a 10-year loan for the PV system, therefore will have a negative net cashflow (approx. -$2,500/year) for years 8-10. However, once the system is paid off, we’ll benefit from lower utility bills for as long as we live in the house. And when it comes time to sell our house, we’ll benefit from increased property value from the PV system.

There it is…Eee-Vee (EV), Pee-Vee (PV), and one of the true pleasures of EV ownership: becoming savvy about all of the financial opportunities for going green.

This post originally appeared on Steve’s EV Road Trip Blog.  You can check it out by clicking here.

Source: http://insideevs.com/author/stevecoram/

Concentrating Solar Power Under Fire

The Ivanpah CSP plant brought online in January has been heavily criticized for its environmental impacts, namely solar glare.

Utah, USA -- Currently the world’s largest solar thermal plant, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System has been in full operation less than two months and already concerns have been raised about its environmental impacts. Complaints from pilots flying near the concentrating solar power (CSP) plant state that on numerous occasions, the intense reflective glare coming from the plant’s heliostat mirrors has caused pilots to become momentarily blinded. Ivanpah is located roughly 40 miles from McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, and approximately 25 miles from the Jean Sport Aviation Center in Jean, Nevada.

While it might be easy to dismiss this issue as a “glaring” oversight on the part of its planners (Ivanpah is owned by BrightSource Energy and NRG Energy) further investigation reveals that issues of glint and glare from the plant’s reflective arrays were addressed during the Application for Certification submitted to the California Energy Commission in 2007. The first detailed analysis was included in a 2008 response from CH2M HILL to the CEC’s review of the application.

In their response, CH2M HILL stated that beam safe intensity calculations had been performed and that “the likelihood of random heliostat beam hazard to aircrafts flying in the area is infinitesimally remote.” CH2M HILL is a Colorado-based engineering company contracted by state and federal agencies for design and construction consultation.  CH2M HILL has offices in Bellingham and Bellevue, WA.

Subsequently, the Heliostat Positioning Plan and Tower Luminance Plan, which described even greater analyses of potential glare hazards, was submitted in 2013.

Frank “Tex” Wilkins, executive director of the Concentrating Solar Power Alliance and formerly of the Department of Energy, said the conversation about glare and CSP plants is not a new one. Wilkins took part in discussions in 2009 that looked into the issue. “The FAA convened a panel,” Wilkins said, “where extensive studies were performed on the topic. The final determination was made that glare from CSP plants, in particular glare from power towers, would not create an issue for pilots.”

Cause and Effect

Although it has been reported elsewhere that the incidents may have occurred as a result of pre-launch testing and repositioning of heliostats that took place in August of 2013 — which coincides with the same time frame during which two complaints were filed with the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Safety Reporting System — Clifford Ho of Sandia National Laboratories’ Concentrating Solar Technologies Department thinks otherwise.

“I believe some of the glare that’s being viewed is taking place when the heliostats are in a standby mode,” Ho said.

During peak daylight hours, it is common for a number of heliostat mirrors to be taken offline to prevent heliostats from directing more thermal energy to the turbine than it is capable of receiving. Ho said that during standby, these heliostats are focused on aim points next to the receiver, forming a ring of glare above the tower.

According to Ho, the sunlight reflected from heliostats that are in standby mode could be having an exacerbating effect on the amount of reflection being emitted.

In examining photos of the glare taken by passengers flying over the Ivanpah plant, Ho said it’s apparent to him the intense light is emanating from the heliostats not in use. “You can clearly see the difference between what’s just the diffuse reflection from the towers versus one or more heliostats that are in standby mode and reflecting light toward the observer.”

Ho has performed helicopter surveys of heliostats in standby mode at Sandia National Laboratories’ National Solar Thermal Test Facility. “It’s bright,” he said, emphasizing that the Sandia CSP array is much smaller than that of Ivanpah. “When you’re close, it can be like looking into the sun.”

Requests for Remedy and Possible Solutions

On March 10, the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) sent an official notification of complaint to BrightSource Energy, the California Bureau of Land Management, and the California Energy Commission. In the docket, the CCDOA requested that BrightSource take a number of actions to “respond to and address any complaints about adverse visual impacts to pilots.”

Included in the docket are requests for BrightSource Energy to take measurements of any observed glare and to determine if that glare is within the “maximum permissible exposure.” Ho indicated plans are already in motion to respond quickly.

“We will be doing some additional monitoring of the glare at the site,” Ho said. In addition to helicopter surveys of the area surrounding the Ivanpah plant, ground-based evaluations will also be performed.

One possible solution, as suggested by Ho, is to reposition heliostats that are in standby mode so that they stand vertically — thus reflecting the glare toward the ground instead of upward. Regardless of whether that’s done, Ho believes it is imperative that pilots are briefed on the location of the plant so that they will be aware of potential glare issues.

Ian Gregor, Public Affairs Manager for the Pacific Division of the FAA, concurs. “The FAA is aware of potential glare from concentrating solar plants and is exploring how to best alert pilots to the issue,” Gregor said. “The final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ivanpah project includes mitigation measures that address the issue of glare, which the aviation community raised during the EIS process.”

Sandia National Laboratories currently offers a Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool that Ho helped to create, which he says is fundamental to preventing similar issues from arising in future solar development projects. “The solution is to be aware of the potential issues of glare during the planning stage, to ensure it doesn’t become a hazard.”

Source: Vince Font, Contributing Editor, Renewable Energy World 

Solar Decathlon Houses Make Up a Solar Village to Test Microgrid Technology

A new project at Missouri Science and Technology will be used as a test ground for innovative research on advancing renewable energy, energy storage and microgrid technology.

New Hampshire, USA -- In yet one more example of the rising interest in how microgrids that incorporate renewable energy and energy storage will change the energy landscape, Missouri University of Science and Technology (MST) has created what it says is the first “Solar Village” in the U.S.

Consisting of a grouping of Solar Decathlon houses that students at MST built for competitions between 2002 and 2009, the solar village is a project created in collaboration with Missouri S&T students, faculty and staff, along with members of the university’s microgrid advisory board (Investor-owned utility Ameren, City Utilities of Springfield, Rolla Municipal Utilities and Electric Power Research Institute), several Missouri manufacturers (Milbank and Ford Motor Company) and the Army Corps of Engineers. The engineer-of-record and installer for the project was Microgrid Solar, a U.S. and Caribbean solar developer, installer, and engineering company based in St. Louis, MO.

The project has been in the works for two years and is expected to be complete by the end of next month.  A utility grant and the DOE Sunshot Initiative contributed funding for the project.

Project Specs

There are four former Solar Decathlon houses in the microgrid. The buildings each have 5- to 10-kW PV systems and there is a mix of crystalline silicon PV and thin film.  The buildings also have solar thermal systems for hot water.  The energy storage components consist of two 100 kW / 100 kWh lithium-ion iron nano-phosphate battery racks that were donated by A123 Systems. There is also a fuel cell and a heat recovery unit as part of the microgrid.

Graduate students currently live and work in the houses, which also include electric vehicle charging stations. The microgrid is built so that it can island from the utility grid indefinitely.

Even though the military has been designing microgrids for ten years now, the project is a first “from the perspective of testing new designs and new equipment in a very closely monitored research setting,” according to Marc Lopata, PE, the Principal Engineer on this project and President of Microgrid Solar.  “We have the capability to power any of the houses independently from the grid or the central plant,” he said. “And we have the capability to plug in new equipment for testing and do graduate level experimentation.”

Tony Arnold, Assistant Director of the Office of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engagement at MST said in a statement that the solar village will be used “as a research tool and testing center for microgrid technology, battery technology and system communications.”  He believes that projects like the solar village need to be “scalable, replicable and flexible, so that we have the opportunity to test as many different scenarios as possible.”  According to Arnold, major utilities, companies and the U.S. Army’s Prime Power School have expressed interest in the project.

Advancing the New Energy Paradigm

Microgrids are of growing importance across the globe.  Last month, Renewable Energy World visited the Nice Grid in Carros, France. The Nice Grid uses solar PV, demand response and three different levels of energy storage in order to achieve a smarter grid that is able to “island” for up to four hours. 

The Missouri project, although much smaller in scale, will be used to test new equipment, software and firmware, as well as procedures for controlling the loads and supplies and procedures for how they communicate with utilities, according to Lopata. “Plus, I’m sure, a plethora of as-yet-to-be-imagined research topics,” he said adding that Microgrid Solar installed extra conduits in all the houses for potential future use.

Microgrid Solar installs microgrids in remote places such as the Caribbean and Lopata emphatically stated that microgrids “are not for everyone.”  Today, the cost of installing a microgrid that includes energy storage (a must in order to firm the power supply and dispatchability) is at least twice that of a normal utility grid connection and could be as high as five times that cost.  Lopata said microgrids only make sense in places where there is no existing grid, no utility, no local distribution or the power is unreliable or too expensive.  But all of that said, in locations where those conditions do apply, installing a microgrid could cut the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) significantly and improve the power supply, according to Lopata.

Source: Jennifer Runyon, Chief Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com 

Solor 101 Workshop hosted by Solar WA

New Poll Shows Bipartisan Support for Rooftop Solar in Florida

77% of Florida voters support current rooftop solar policy

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., March 12, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new poll, commissioned by The Alliance for Solar Choice, finds that more than three out of four Florida voters (77%) support net metering, a successful renewable energy policy that gives residents, schools and businesses full retail credit for the excess solar energy they put back on the grid. Utilities sell that clean energy to the customers' neighbors at the retail rate even though they paid nothing to generate, transmit and distribute it.

Harstad Strategic Research Inc surveyed 801 likely Florida voters from February 6-11, 2014. Poll results show that broad, bipartisan support for net metering and rooftop solar energy exceeds 75 percent across all key voter groups in the state. Only 13 percent of voters oppose net metering, with 10 percent unsure.

"Preserving net metering and alleviating barriers to financing will keep the Florida solar industry poised for growth," said Dr. Stephen Smith with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

"Turns out that Floridians really do want to put the sun in the Sunshine State. That slogan isn't just for license plates – it's a call to action," said Adam Browning, Executive Director of Vote Solar. "People are looking for leadership to tap into a powerful source of energy for the state."

Seventy-one percent of Floridians oppose changing the existing rooftop solar policy by imposing a new fee on net metered solar customers. This policy change has been proposed by large utilities companies in other states as an effort to boost their profits and kill customer choice.

"This poll sends a strong message to Florida utilities that customers won't stand for attacks on rooftop solar," said Bryan Miller, President of the Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and VP of Public Policy for Sunrun. "The findings are consistent with polls nationwide that show overwhelming public support for rooftop solar and opposition to anti-solar monopoly utilities."

In the past year, utilities have failed at several attempts to stop rooftop solar growth by undermining net metering, which is a policy on the books in 43 states. These utilities are following the anti-rooftop solar playbook put forth by their trade association, Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Many utilities across the country adhere to this playbook, and they have even resorted to dirty tactics to preserve their antiquated monopolies. As demonstrated by the broad support of this recent poll, is unlikely that this playbook would succeed in the Sunshine State.

SOURCE The Alliance for Solar Choice. Copyright 2014 PR Newswire.

U.S. Solar Industry Has Record-Shattering Year in 2013

What would Alexandre Edmond Becquerel be thinking now?

In 1839, at the age of just 19, Becquerel built the world’s first photovoltaic panel, later inspiring the imaginations of millions of people worldwide, including legendary scientist Albert Einstein.  Still, it took another 115 years before Bell Labs invented the first modern silicon solar cell. 

By comparison, it’s no stretch to say that the solar timeline has rocketed forward at warp speed in recent years.

Continuing its explosive growth, the U.S. solar industry had another record-shattering year in 2013.  According to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) Solar Market Insight Year in Review 2013, photovoltaic (PV) installations expanded rapidly last year, increasing 41 percent over 2012 to reach 4,751 megawatts (MW) of new capacity.  In addition, 410 MW of concentrating solar power (CSP) came online in 2013.  Consumers nationwide benefited from this growth as the cost to install solar fell throughout the year, ending 15 percent below the record low set at the end of 2012.

When the final 2013 numbers were added up, there were 440,000 operating solar electric systems across the United States, totaling more than 12,000 MW of PV and 918 MW of CSP.

What does this mean to you?  Well today, solar is the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in America, generating enough clean, reliable and affordable electricity to power more than 2.2 million homes – and we’re just beginning to scratch the surface of our industry’s enormous potential.  Last year alone,solar created tens of thousands of new American jobs and pumped tens of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy.  In fact, more solar has been installed in the U.S. in the last 18 months than in the 30 previous years combined. That’s a remarkable record of achievement.

California continues to lead the U.S. market and installed more than half of all new U.S. solar in 2013.  In fact, the Golden State installed more solar last year than the entire United States did in 2011.  North Carolina, Massachusetts and Georgia also had major growth years in 2013, installing 663 megawatts – more than doubling their combined total from the year before. On the whole, the top five states (California, Arizona, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) accounted for 81 percent of all U.S. PV installations in 2013.

Here are some of the other highlights of the report:

• The amount of PV installed last year in the U.S. was nearly 15 times greater than the amount installed in 2008.
• Q4 2013 was by far the largest quarter ever for PV installations in the U.S. with 2,106 MW energized, up 60 percent over the next largest quarter (Q4 2012).
• The market value of all PV installations completed in 2013 was $13.7 billion.
• Solar accounted for 29 percent of all new electricity generation capacity in 2013, up from 10 percent in 2012.  This made solar the second-largest source of new generating capacity behind natural gas.
• Weighted average PV system prices fell 15 percent in 2013, reaching a new low of $2.59/W in the fourth quarter.
• The new report forecasts 26 percent PV installation growth in 2014, with installations reaching nearly 6 GW.  Growth will occur in all segments but will be most rapid in the residential market.
• The U.S. installed 410 MW of concentrating solar (CSP) in 2013, increasing total CSP capacity in the U.S. more than 80 percent.
• And finally, Brightsource’s massive Ivanpah project also began operating this year and SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes project began commissioning.

So while 2013 was a record-breaking year for the U.S. solar industry, 2014 promises to be even better with 30 percent growth being forecast.  Part of this unprecedented expansion is due to the fact that the average price of a solar system has dropped by more than 50 percent since 2010, benefiting consumers, businesses, schools and government entities.

Today, 40 years after SEIA was first formed, there are nearly 143,000 Americans employed by the U.S. solar industry at more than 6,100 American companies – with SEIA leading the fight to expand markets, remove market barriers, strengthen the industry and educate Americans about the benefits of solar energy.  These efforts have led to the adoption of a wide range of smart public policies, including the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) in Congress and Net Energy Metering (NEM) at the state level.

And to think it all started when a 19-year-old in the 19th century came up with the idea of turning sunlight into electrical energy.

Source: Writer- Rhone Resch. The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

Stimulus Dollars Advance Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy In America's Cities

The nation's mayors this week released the results of a new survey pointing to city successes in using Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 

Participating Washington state cities included Everett, Redmond, Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver.

Gresham (OR) Mayor Shane Bemis, Bridgeport (CT) Mayor Bill Finch and Carmel (IN) Mayor Jim Brainard presented the survey findings on a national press conference call to highlight local energy innovations championed by mayors in every part of the country. The results document the responses of 204 mayors – representing cities of all population sizes and from all regions – to a series of questions from the Mayors' Climate Protection Center designed to show generally how cities invested their EECBG program funds to help further local initiatives to reduce energy use, deploy new energy technologies and curb harmful energy emissions, among other local outcomes. 

"These findings underscore that mayors have been leading by example on energy efficiency and conservation for years," said Gresham Mayor Shane Bemis, Chair of the Conference's Energy Committee.  "Mayors all across the country have been actively working to advance energy-saving measures in communities large and small, and what we see in this report translates into real budgetary savings, local job creation and small business growth."

While the full report can be found at www.usmayors.org, some of its key findings are below:

• The three top uses of EECBG dollars by cities were energy retrofits of government buildings (83%of cities), LED/other energy-efficient street lighting (42%), and solar energy systems on public buildings and facilities (31%).
• Most mayors directed a majority of their EECBG funds to investments in municipal projects and operations.  Nearly seven in eight mayors (87%) expended a majority of their EECBG grant dollars on municipal projects and operations.
• LED/other energy-efficient lighting ranked first among energy technologies that have already been deployed by cities, with local and federal resources, most notably EECBG grants, providing the primary sources of funding for these deployments. 
• The availability of EECBG funds to cities has influenced city budgetary priorities, and also prompted new partnerships with a range of private sector and governmental entities.
• A majority of mayors cited energy service contracting as the innovative energy financing strategy that EECBG funds helped most often.

Of the report's findings, Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, who Co-Chairs the Conference's Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force said, "Even as mayors were confronting budget constraints due to the recession and federal spending cuts, this report shows that cities leveraged EECBG dollars by making investments that are still paying dividends today.  In my city, we are reducing electricity usage and making solid waste and sewage sludge operations more efficient.   So, clearly, this modest federal commitment has bolstered mayors' efforts to advance energy efficiency, conservation and technology deployment initiatives in their cities." 

Five years ago, as part of ARRA, EECBG formula grants were distributed directly to cities by the U.S. Department of Energy. Of the $2.7 billion provided to the program in formula funding, about half of these dollars ($1.3 billion) were distributed directly to cities to support their energy and climate efforts, a commitment that ranked among the largest provided to local governments in the ARRA legislation.

The Conference of Mayors conceived the EECBG Program to engage the federal government in supporting the nation's mayors in accelerating local energy and climate initiatives, especially the more than 1000 mayors who have joined as signatories to the Conference's Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which was a landmark pledge for mayors all across the country to take bold action to significantly reduce carbon emissions in cities in alignment with Kyoto Protocol standards.

"The mayors who signed the USCM Climate Protection Agreement represent more than 86 million people in the U.S. who are learning how important it is to work locally to curb harmful greenhouse emissions and adapt to climate change," said Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard, Co-Chair of the Conference's Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force.  "The success mayors are having in deploying these resources makes the case for a stronger local-federal partnership on our nation's energy and climate challenges, including continued EECBG funding to support cities and local areas as they develop new energy solutions." 

Last month, the Conference released a related report, Energy Efficiency and Technologies in America's Cities, which was unveiled during the USCM 82^nd Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. at a session with mayors and U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz at the Capital Hilton.  That survey can be found at usmayors.org/2014energysurvey.

About the United States Conference of Mayors:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are nearly 1,400 such cities in the country today, and each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. 

SOURCE: The U.S. Conference of Mayors. WASHINGTON, March 1, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire.

Solar Power Succeeds in Whatcom County

When Dana Brandt started installing solar panels on homes in Bellingham nine years ago, people wondered what was next - screen doors for submarines?

"You can imagine what people say," says Brandt, sitting in the conference room at his company, Ecotech, on a cloudy December day.

The northwest corner of the Pacific Northwest is famous for its winter gloom, and there's not much energy to be had from the sun that time of year. But as it turned out, Brandt was on to something. Whatcom County is a good place to go solar.

What winter lacks in sunlight is made up for in the summer, when clouds are usually scarce and the sun can shine 16 hours a day. What Washington needed to launch its solar industry was a way to squirrel away that summer bounty for the dark winter.

Enter "net metering." A state law passed in 1998 requires utilities to credit homeowners with solar (or other alternative energy) systems for any power they generate beyond what they use and that flows onto the grid. The excess power produced in the sunny summer comes back to the homeowner as a credit on their electric bill during the gray winter.

"It's really why solar works here," Brandt says. "There's no battery that can do that."

Josh Miller, general manager of solar operations at Western Solar in Bellingham, says his goal is for his clients to produce as much electricity in a year as they use. That wipes out the customer's electric bill - all but a base $7.49 monthly charge, according to Puget Sound Energy.

On top of that, owners of solar-powered homes typically get $1,000 cash from the state just for producing solar energy. The payback, from what PSE calls the Renewable Energy Advantage Program, can be as much as $5,000 a year.

A 20-panel solar system with equipment made in the state can be installed for about $22,000, Miller says. Combining net metering, REAP and certain tax breaks, such a system can pay for itself in five years.

Solar energy has grown at a rapid clip in the state - about 50 percent a year since 2008. Brandt says it should continue to grow over the next decade or so.

A big reason the future looks so bright for solar power here is the 270 solar arrays that already have appeared on Bellingham roofs, according to PSE's count.

"Every week more people learn solar works here because their friends and neighbors did it," Brandt says.

INCENTIVES

Net metering: Under a state law, utility customers receive a credit on their bills for the full retail cost of extra energy produced and delivered to the grid.

Federal income tax credit: Covers 30 percent of the total cost of the system, including installation (expires 2016).

No state sales tax: The tax exemption for solar equipment or installation expires 2018.

Renewable energy system cost recovery law: What Puget Sound Energy calls the Renewable Energy Advantage Program pays solar users 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, which increases to as much as 54 cents per kWh for solar panels and inverters made in Washington. (itek Energy of Bellingham makes both.) On average, the incentive is $1,000 a year. The maximum payment is $5,000 (expires 2020).

OTHER ENERGY-SAVING TIPS

Besides solar, there are a number of ways to reduce home energy costs, says the Community Energy Challenge, based in Bellingham:

-- Use energy-efficient light bulbs. CFLs are used as are LEDs, which are becoming popular because of their color quality and dimmability.

-- Seal heating ducts. That way, the ducts won't leak into unheated spaces in your home. "That's about the biggest bang for your buck," says Alex Ramel of Community Energy Challenge.

-- Air-seal or weatherize your home. That requires a trained professional, because improperly sealed homes can lead to unsafe levels of carbon monoxide or mold.

-- Insulate your home. People should start with the attic, because hot air rises. "If you only have $1,000 to spend, spend it on insulation in the attic," Ramel says.

-- Replace furnaces or water heaters. That's recommended if the original system is older and less efficient.

SOLAR FAQ

How do I get started?

To find a reputable solar contractor, call an energy advisor at Puget Sound Energy, 800-562-1482. Two established companies are based in Bellingham: Ecotech, 360-318-7646; and Western Solar, 360-746-0859.

For a broader assessment of how to reduce energy costs in your home (see "Energy-Saving Tips"), contact the Community Energy Challenge at 360-676-6099.

Is my home right for solar?

The ideal spot for solar panels is a south-facing roof. Panels can also be installed along a deck or free-standing in the yard, as long as the area gets no shade from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Panels can be mounted on east- or west-facing roofs, but the energy production drops 12 to 15 percent.

How many panels should I get?

The median size of an array attached to PSE's grid is 19 panels. Josh Miller of Western Solar says at least 10 panels give a significant return on investment. Beyond 38, the customer doesn't get the full state cash incentive for the energy produced, because the incentive is capped at $5,000.

How quickly does a solar system pay for itself?

For the typical system, five to seven years. Larger systems that produce more energy can see a full return on investment sooner.

Given that a solar system is expected to last much longer, homeowners come out ahead. For a proposed $31,000 system, Dana Brandt of Ecotech estimated the client would net $24,000 in 30 years.

Are solar grids hard to maintain?

Solar panels are virtually maintenance free, Miller says. They are generally more durable than the homes themselves, and can withstand winds up to 120 mph. Installers recommend hosing off the panels once or twice a year to remove debris. Panels come with a 25-year warranty, which includes a guarantee that the efficiency of the panel will be no worse than 80 percent after 25 years.

Source: By Ralph Schwartz, The Bellingham Herald, 2/17/14

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/02/17/3403276/remodeling-solar-power-succeeds.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/02/17/3403276/remodeling-solar-power-succeeds.html#storylink=cpySource