Despite Multiple Tax Incentives, Few Go Solar In New York City

For all the efforts by municipalities and politicians around the country to push alternative energy and solar and wind power incentives to reduce the need for conventionally generated electricity, only a handful have actually made the switch. The numbers, while increasing since fiscal year 2009, aren't exactly encouraging:

In the 2011 fiscal year, which ended in June, just 75 residential property owners received city approval to install solar-panel systems. That number was up sharply from 2009, just after the creation of a property tax abatement to encourage the use of solar power. That year, there were just five approvals, for both commercial and industrial projects; in 2010, the number of residential approvals jumped to 13.

“We’ve seen a tremendous amount of growth even though the numbers are small,” said Robert D. LiMandri, the commissioner of the Buildings Department. And he is bullish, he said, that the growth will continue. “At the end of the day, to me, this is just another permit,” he said, “and if enough people do it on the block or in the neighborhood, it really will change the way New York City lives.”

To that end, the department is about to roll out new educational materials to help the licensed architects and engineers who are required to file for permits. In addition, there is a new interactive map, developed by the City University of New York with the city and the federal Energy Department, that shows the estimated solar potential of each of the nearly one million buildings in the five boroughs.

But there are still challenges to creating your own sun-driven power generator, installers say. Not every building is suitable; the panels should be placed at a 30- to 40-degree angle facing south to maximize their power, said Mark Chandarpal of Go Solar Green NY in Hollis, Queens, who put in the Antonios’ panels. That is easier on a sloped roof like the Antonios’, but a flat roof would require a support structure, he said.

Some roofs are simply too small or shady to pay off. For example, a neighbor of the Antonios’ son wanted to install a system on his house in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, but could not because the city would not let him prune the tall trees shading his roof.

5, 13, 79. That's in a city with 8 million people, and hundreds of thousands of properties. Not all properties are amenable to solar power projects, and many of those owners aren't willing to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars for the possibility of recouping that investment over 20 years or more (though if electricity prices skyrocket, the return on investment could be cut).

I would contemplate solar power on my own home, but shade trees would block much of the sun, and I already derive a benefit from those trees in the form of lower power needs during the summer. Cutting them down to be able to generate more power isn't a winning argument.

I haven't seen Consolidated Edison push a solar power initiative along the lines of PSE&G's dispersed solar power generating plan, where solar panels were installed on tens of thousands of light poles and transmission poles throughout New Jersey to generate 40 up to megawatts of power. Con Ed is in a better position to do the kind of solar power installations than individuals or businesses, but there is a place for individual and business solar or wind power generation installations. Even state and local authorities like the MTA should be contemplating installations along their rights-of-way or structures to capture power that otherwise would go to waste. Co-locating power along those rights of way would improve reliability of power to mass transit that is a heavy user of electricity, reduce costs to the transit authorities, and provides locations that are often free of obstructions that would make power generation difficult.

Take a parking garage for example. Hackensack, New Jersey recently installed a major solar power array on the roof of one of its parking garages at the courthouse. The installation, done by Pfister of Paterson, will provide 10-15% of the Bergen county administrative building's power demands, and will hopefully save anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million over 15 years as comparing the PSE&G power rate to the reduced rate charged by Pfister. The County didn't have to pay for the project, which means that Pfister was able to acquire the space to build the solar array for no cost in return for the reduced costs to the county.

That's space that would have gone to waste but is a good site for solar power. The MTA has plenty of similar structures, including any number of bus and subway depots.

NY Times Jumps On Solar Panel Eyesore Bandwagon

New Jersey papers like the Record and Star Ledger have been full of complaints about PSE&G's nearly $1 billion project to put solar panels on its power transmission poles in the largest distributed power generation project in the US. Each of the panels would generate 200 watts of power, and together the 200,000 panels would generate 40 megawatts of power. Now, the New York Times weighs in with its own piece about the project.

That's power that doesn't have to come from coal fired or gas burning power plants. It means that on high usage days, those coal and gas plants don't have to kick in to provide peak power. Instead, these panels are providing a steady stream of power into the grid on the days when power is most in demand.

Yet, all too many people are latching on to the fact that the panels are somehow ugly.

Sorry, but they are no more ugly than the transmission poles that deliver the power, and are far less ugly than the endless stream of particulates and emissions from power plants, or the unending stream of coal shipments by rail or barge to power plants.

It may be a harsh realization that these are new panels and installations, but they are going to settle into the background. In reality, this is little more than a rehash of longstanding NIMBY arguments that prevent an honest assessment of power generation and distribution in the US. In other words, these same people claim that they're all for solar power, except when it's in their own backyard so that it would be better if it was located somewhere else.

As for claims that they will somehow unduly influence real estate values, at a time when prices are steady or dropping (as in Fair Lawn where I live - and Bergen County generally), the installation of solar power isn't the driving factor but some homeowners may latch on to the belief that the solar power cells are driving prices down because they can't accept that the real estate market is soft.

NIMBY Behind Local Opposition To PSE&G Solar Power Installations

I've previously reported that PSE&G is embarking on the nation's largest distributed solar power installation. They were in the process of installing 200,000 solar power arrays on light and power poles throughout the state that would be the equivalent to 40 megawatts of power.

These installations - each unit produces a peak of 200 watts - were recently installed in Radburn and they're popping up throughout Northern New Jersey.

You would think that solar power arrays wouldn't find opposition, but you'd be wrong.

Towns and some residents are finding reasons to complain because they think they're ugly or that they may somehow reduce property values.

I think it's nothing more than NIMBY that is driving the opposition. Indeed, some residents think that the solar power units should be installed solely in business areas, rather than residential parts of towns. Never mind that these residents benefit from the power and get to breath cleaner air since it reduces the need for coal powered generators to kick in. They don't want the solar arrays on their block.

The units aren't any more of an eyesore than the light and power poles and lines that string across the towns and communities throughout the state, and in this instance, they're providing a tangible benefit to the state in reduced reliance on coal power.

That isn't to say that PSE&G couldn't have done a better job of notifying residents of impending installations. They should be even more proactive in dealing with communities and education on how and where the first wave of solar power units are being installed (because I expect that with the success of the first wave of solar power units, additional installations will come in future years) and they should provide access on their website to the public to show just how much energy is being generated by the solar installations - so people can see just how much power that this project is generating.

PSE&G Moving Ahead With Pole-Mounted Solar Panel Systems In Northern NJ

PSE&G had previously announced its intention to install thousands of small solar panel arrays on its transmission poles throughout the state. They've begun installing the panels in Northern New Jersey, including in the Radburn area.

When completed, the installation of 200,000 solar arrays would be the nation's largest distributed solar power generating system and would generate 40 mW of power.

This is a great utilization of existing infrastructure and facilities to generate distributed power, and begins a process of weaning New Jersey from its reliance on fossil fuels for generating power sufficient to power the state.

Individual units will generate 200 watts of power during optimal weather conditions (summer).

Neighboring Ridgewood apparently has some concerns over the installations on transmission poles that it owns in conjunction with PSE&G, but I think that may be yet another case of NIMBY when the costs are being borne by PSE&G and ratepayers will see a long term benefit - to say nothing of eventually breathing cleaner air as fossil fuel plants are replaced by cleaner alternatives.

There is a legitimate concern though about whether the structures can handle snow loads such as we've seen this past winter and who would be liable in case snow/ice falls from those solar arrays onto pedestrians or vehicles causing injury/damage.

Wind and Solar Power Projects Thwarted By Red Tape; NIMBY Preventing Transmission Line Projects

Accelerating the construction of wind power and/or solar power projects around the country requires having not only the proper sites to take advantage of the wind or sun, but access to transmission lines to deliver the power to where it is needed.

Texas is a huge market for wind power, but much of that capacity is untapped because of opposition to building new transmission lines.

The lack of transmission lines — and the relatively low price of natural gas — has thwarted the ambitions of wind-power advocates to expand the use of this alternative energy source in Texas. The oilman T. Boone Pickens, for example, bet heavily on wind a couple of years ago, ordering hundreds of turbines and announcing plans to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Panhandle at a cost of up to $12 billion. He later scaled back, canceling some of the turbine orders, giving up his land lease and saying he was looking elsewhere to build.

To encourage others, the state is moving forward on a contentious project to erect $5 billion worth of transmission wires to connect the turbines to the cities that need power. On Thursday, state regulators met in Austin and approved the route of a controversial line that will run about 140 miles through the Hill Country, one of the state’s most scenic regions.

Construction of the line — a project of the Lower Colorado River Authority that will run from Schleicher County to a substation near Comfort — should start next year. Last year, vigorous opposition, by landowners, wealthy newcomers and old-time families, succeeded in derailing plans for another line that the state had wanted to build through the area. Instead, the existing electric infrastructure will be upgraded to carry a greater load. The Public Utility Commission, which is overseeing the process, has also canceled plans for an additional segment of the Hill Country line discussed at the meeting Thursday.

“All Texans love their land,” Barry T. Smitherman, the commission chairman, said in an interview a few days ago. During the process of planning the routes for transmission lines, Mr. Smitherman said, “we didn’t please everyone, but I think with each of these we really tried to work hard to make it as acceptable as possible for the landowners.”

Texas embarked on the transmission line project, known as Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, several years ago. The need was clear: in West Texas, home to the vast majority of the state’s wind farms, so many turbines have been built over the past decade that some must be shut down during windy periods because there are not enough wires to transport the power. Texas is the leading wind-power state by far, with nearly three times as much capacity as the next-closest state, Iowa. Once built, the new lines are expected to span more than 2,300 miles.

The Hill Country is not the only part of Texas where resistance to new power lines has been fierce. Landowners near Palo Duro Canyon State Park in the Panhandle also put up vigorous opposition. Their arguments against one of the proposed lines prevailed, so it will be built elsewhere and not cross the dramatic canyon landscape. Nonetheless, another line could still go across the canyon. Residents of Denton County, north of Fort Worth, worry that a proposed line could cross landmarks like a park area called the Greenbelt or a Girl Scout camp.

The arguments against the transmission lines mirror those of the wind turbines or solar collectors - that their presence mars the landscape.

Then, there's the issue of red tape in getting permits and approvals to build solar power projects. The amount of bureaucracy and red tape to build solar power projects - including retrofits on existing buildings, is curbing wider acceptance and implementation because of the added costs.

"Environmentalists" Opposing Renewable Energy Projects

If you want yet another example of why the United States lacks a coherent energy policy, all you have to do is go out West to see how people who claim to be environmentalists sue to block building solar power projects near them.

They like the projects on paper, but once it has the potential of going into their own backyard, NIMBY rears its ugly head and the lawsuits commence. Those lawsuits are time consuming and add significant costs to all energy projects, no matter how environmentally sensitive or green they are touted to be.

The push to create an alternative to carbon-based fuel has hit an unlikely snag: environmentalists.

The split between Peterson and Williams illustrates this awkward state of affairs. To a growing number of environmental advocates, the dozens of large solar plants that are springing up in vast areas of the western wilderness are more scourge than savior.

The upshot is that those who on paper seem to be perfect allies for solar are turning into its biggest enemies.

That includes the Sierra Club, which last week filed what senior attorney Gloria Smith says is its first suit against a solar plant, a giant 664-megawatt project called Calico that is slated to go up in the desert near Barstow, California. It would lie smack in the middle of habitat for rare plants and animals, in an area Smith calls "a very unfortunate site."

The legal brawl comes as the U.S. is racing to adopt renewables. In the United States, renewable energy, including solar, makes up just 8 percent or so of electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That figure was expected to jump to 13 percent by 2035 -- but that was before the Green vs. Green feud.

Even though Williams and her cohorts support the broad goal of reducing dependence on fossil fuels, they say it comes at too high a cost if it means building on undeveloped land. Helping their case: the proposed plants are often slated for areas with threatened or endangered animals, including kit foxes, kangaroo rats, rare lizards and others.

Now, the groups have gone from complaining to litigating. That means solar companies must take funds and management time that would have been spent on developing their plants and spend them instead on fighting lawsuits. For some companies, the likely result is that plants won't be built.

For the solar industry overall, the situation marks a fundamental shift in attitude. Where previously almost any bare patch of desert seemed like a prospective solar plant, now the reality is that much of the nation's most fertile ground for alternative power and energy independence may well remain undeveloped.

Undeveloped and cheap land near existing transmission lines are ideal for solar power development and yet these groups are suing because they claim that the projects will have a negative ecological impact.

Any construction will have an impact - the idea is how to minimize the effects while providing a cost-efficient and sustainable energy source. By suing, Sierra Club and other environmental groups are showing that they are against energy development of any sort - no matter how green they claim to be. California has a legal requirement to get 33% of its energy needs from renewable sources, which means that the state's ability to reach its goal is threatened as environmentalists fight to stop solar projects around the state.

It also means that solar power companies are not going to get involved in US projects because it isn't cost effective and are looking elsewhere - China for one, where the benefits of solar far outweigh the alternatives of more coal powered plants that emit noxious chemicals.

Yet, it should be pointed out that the footprint of a solar powered project is several times greater than a nuclear power plant of the same energy output.

NIMBYism is killing technological development and a shift from existing energy sources to cleaner, renewable sources. This will have dire consequences in coming years no matter how much money in incentives are thrown at the industry because the underlying fundamentals have not changed. Fix the issues arising from NIMBY types who thwart all manner of necessary and critical projects and it will reduce costs for a wide range of infrastructure projects that will help catapult US infrastructure into the 21st century.

Another issue is that China isn't exactly an environmentally constrained culture as factories continue to belch noxious chemicals and heavy metals into the air injuring those around those factories. Hundreds of children were poisoned by lead from factories making batteries in just the latest of such incidents. China is ramping up production of a wide range of green products, including batteries, wind turbines, and solar power systems, but few are looking at the consequences of China looking the other way as these very factories pollute their localities with all manner of toxic chemicals befouling waterways, the air, and people living downwind.

US Should Adopt "Feed-In Tariff" To Expand Solar Power Installations

Germany has used feed-in tariffs to great success in order to expand solar power installations. Utilities in the US are balking at similar proposals, claiming it would result in higher costs to rate-payers.

I think that the utilities don't want to lose out on the income that could be generated from major wind and solar powered installations since the feed-in tariffs would enable businesses and individuals to receive due compensation from installing their own micro solar power arrays on their own properties.

Under a feed-in tariff program, renewable power installations, including those on residential and business rooftops, are connected to the electricity grid. This allows the owners to sell energy to utilities at long-term, fixed rates.

If such a program is adopted, proponents say, the benefits could be enormous for California as well as for individual producers, who could profit from the sale of the energy and pay off the cost of the installations sooner.

The state could benefit from having smaller, more flexible alternative energy sources than the massive, expensive installations waiting to be built in remote deserts and mountains, green-tech analysts said.

At the same time, such requirements could boost demand for solar panels and small wind-turbine projects, leading to a surge in new clean-tech companies. A July study by UC Berkeley researchers estimated that a feed-in tariff program could create 28,000 clean-tech jobs each year for a decade, as well as generate more than $2 billion in tax revenue and pump more than $50 billion in new private investment to the state.

But critics say although the program is compelling on the surface, the devil is in the details. In addition to coming up with a fair rate structure and determining who would regulate the program, utilities must figure out ways to easily connect the individual producers to the electricity grid, which is sprawling and disjointed.

"It's a bit like talking about the color of the second-floor bedroom before we build the foundation of the house," said Austin Beutner, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who recently met with experts from Germany. "The direction is a good one, but we have to go about it in a sober and measured fashion. It's a lot more complicated than anybody wants to acknowledge."
Advertisement

Even the name — inherited from Europe — has been confusing.

"When people hear the word 'tariff' they think 'tax,' " said Mary Leslie, president of the Los Angeles Business Council, which is backing a local proposal that the DWP would administer. "It should be 'reward' or 'rebate' or something. The term is undermining the benefits of the program."

The name of the proposal does need work, but the fact is that such a system would enable homeowners to benefit far more from solar power installations and utilities would have access to a wider range of alternative energy facilities, driving down their energy acquisition costs for distribution. To date, that has been one of the drawbacks on alternative energy projects - the cost for alternative energy like wind and solar has been higher than coal or gas. This proposal would help balance the field, and would bring more power sources on line.

It would spur more homeowners and businesses to consider installing solar power systems of their own.

As to the utilities' concerns over figuring out rates for these new providers, a tiered rate system could be imposed based on rated energy output per installation. Someone with a 50-100kw installation would get X, a 101-200kw installation would get Y, etc. The rates would be tiered in such a way that it would encourage larger solar installations - higher rates for progressively larger installations.

This proposal shouldn't just be confined to California, where the idea is under consideration, but should be made a national policy so as to spur production and technological innovation around the entire country. This is an opportunity for utilities to upgrade their infrastructure and build additional redundancy and robustness into their power systems.

Power Generations Runs Into Transmission Troubles

It is a difficult enough task to site new power generating facilities, even wind and solar powered facilities. But that isn't even half the task.

There's the problem of transmitting that power to where it is needed.

Wind and solar powered facilities are often quite far from where the power is consumed, and that requires high power transmission lines. Opposition to siting those power lines means that there are days when you can have power to transmit but can't because of insufficient capacity in the network.

It's a situation that must change, and soon.

President Barack Obama has made the promotion of renewables central to his administration. A 2008 Department of Energy study found that the United States could, in theory, get 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030. Right now, however, that figure is less than 2 percent nationally. In Denmark, by contrast, about 20 percent of the electricity supply comes from wind.

In Texas, wind accounts for 6 percent of the electricity on the grid. But after a decade of rampant growth, wind is running into a significant constraint: There are too few transmission lines to carry the power. The wind turbines have mostly gone up in the western part of the state — hundreds of miles from the big cities in central and eastern Texas that need the power. The result is that on windy days, some turbines must shut down because there are not enough wires to transport the electricity they produce.

Lack of transmission is a national problem, especially for wind, which is often generated far from population centers. “The ability to site and build transmission is emerging as one of the highest risks facing the electric industry over the next 10 years,” according to a report last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., an industry group that sets operating standards for the grid.

Europe, similarly concerned, is hoping to build transmission lines under the North Sea, which would provide new ways to move electricity generated by offshore wind turbines and other renewable energy sources.

In Texas, state officials have moved aggressively to remedy the transmission deficiency. In 2008 regulators approved a $5 billion network of wires, which ultimately will stretch more than 2,300 miles, or 3,700 kilometers, around the state. The regulators are determining, one by one, exactly where each line will go. Construction on the first of the lines should start this autumn.

Unlike other states, Texas has a stand-alone power grid, making it easier to plan and site transmission lines. That effort has brought praise from renewable-energy advocates around the United States. The Texas process helped inspire a similar initiative in California, said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, which is based in California. Mr. White said efforts there focused on supporting solar and geothermal power, as well as wind, and included more input from environmentalists.

But even in Texas — a state long accustomed to oil pipelines and other energy infrastructure — opposition to the transmission lines is mounting. Many landowners do not want to surrender their land to high-voltage power lines, even though they would be paid to do so. “The meters on the attorneys are running,” said Robert Weatherford, the president of Save Our Scenic Hill Country Environment, one of several groups fighting to keep two proposed power lines out of a scenic patch of central Texas, with partial success so far.

Besides transmission, Texas is grappling with other wind-related issues. One is cost. Long-term wholesale contracts for Texas wind power remain about twice as costly as generation from coal and nuclear plants, according to Michael E. Webber, the associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas in Austin.

Texas is in a better position than most states because the state's transmission network is stand-alone, and even here the situation is extremely tough. The problems are magnified in places like the New York metro area because of population density, energy demands, and a lack of power generating capacity within the region.

NIMBY is preventing the construction of power lines, and some groups contend that the power lines would simply allow cheaper coal and oil plants to power needs locally rather than enable the alternative energy projects proposed within New Jersey. That argument falls flat when one views the opposition to siting any new power generating facilities - even offshore wind power projects if they're too close to shore (and therefore increase the costs for those projects even more).

New Jersey is also considering using brownfields as solar power generating facilities. That's an idea that makes tremendous sense, especially for landfills that have limited alternative uses. The problem for those facilities is hooking them up to an overburdened grid to ensure that the power flows to where it is needed.

Spain's Solar Power Gold Rush Turns To Bust

Jobs never came. The Spanish government now expects that it has to subsidize solar power plants indefinitely.

This isn't the panacea that many environmentalists were claiming. It's turning out to be a horror show of its own in waste, mismanagement, and failed expectations.

Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.

Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.

But as low-quality, poorly designed solar plants sprang up on Spain’s plateaus, Spanish officials came to realize that they would have to subsidize many of them indefinitely, and that the industry they had created might never produce efficient green energy on its own.

In September the government abruptly changed course, cutting payments and capping solar construction. Puertollano’s brief boom turned bust. Factories and stores shut, thousands of workers lost jobs, foreign companies and banks abandoned contracts that had already been negotiated.

“We lost the opportunity to be at the vanguard of renewables — we were not only generating electricity, but also a strong economy,” said Joaquín Carlos Hermoso Murillo, Puertollano’s mayor since 2004. “Why are they limiting solar power, when the sun is unlimited?”

Puertollano’s wrenching fall points to the delicate policy calculations needed to stimulate nascent solar industries and create green jobs, and might serve as a cautionary tale for the United States, where a similar exercise is now under way.

For now, electricity generation from the sun’s rays needs to be subsidized because it requires the purchase of new equipment and investment in evolving technologies. But costs are rapidly dropping. And regulators are still learning how to structure stimulus payments so that they yield a stable green industry that supports itself, rather than just costly energy and an economic flash in the pan like Spain’s.

“The industry as a whole learned a lot from what happened in Spain,” said Cassidy DeLine, who analyzes the European solar market for Emerging Energy Research, a firm based in Cambridge, Mass. She noted that other countries had since set subsidies lower and issued stricter standards for solar plants.

Yet, despite the pain that Spain’s incentives ended up causing, in many ways they fulfilled their promise, Ms. DeLine said.

“Even though incentives can create bubbles and bursts, without them this industry won’t take off,” she said. “The U.S. is really behind Europe on this, and if we wait until solar is cost-competitive on its own, we may miss the boat and an opportunity to shape the market.”

Is the US really behind the Europeans on this? I'm not so sure, given that the companies that are pushing solar power in the US have to tackle the cost issue head on, without the kinds of price supports and subsidies that helped create the boom and bust cycles in Spain.

It's wishful thinking to say that the Spanish experience with incentives was successful. The industry wouldn't take off because it isn't capable of making power in a cost-effective manner. Subsidies doesn't change that calculus and doesn't get the power-cost ratio down to a point where it is cost-effective. It rewards businesses that have inefficient technologies and reduces investment in areas that can lead to more efficient systems. Once again, it's the government picking and choosing winners and losers among technologies, rather than funding the research that goes into these technologies.

Brookhaven Solar Power Project Opposed By Environmental Groups

Which is it? Do you want clean renewable energy or do you want to save the trees? That's the issue facing folks on Long Island where Brookhaven National Lab is pondering the construction of a 32mw solar power system, which would require cutting down 150 acres of trees.

Those trees are part of the Long Island pine barrens, and existing environmental and zoning rules protect Long Island pine barrens. The lab is not bound by those rules but generally complies with them.

The energy company BP Solar wants to build the equivalent of a 32-megawatt generator, enough to power 4,500 homes.

The U.S. Department of Energy, which operates the lab, will host the clean-energy project in exchange for research opportunities.

Richard Amper of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society says clearing about 150 acres of trees would undercut the project's environmental goals.

This is a project that was proposed by Gov. Paterson last year. In fact, he was proposing a slightly larger project sufficient to power 6,500 homes and not the 4,500 homes in today's news report. Other reports actually have the footprint for the solar collectors at 200 acres, but I think the discrepancies may be because there are several providers involved, not just BP Solar.

Yet, the project is seeing environmentalists opposed to clean/renewable energy sources because of their environmental impacts, and they're using all measures at their disposal to prevent and/or limit construction of such projects.

This once again highlights the amount of land necessary to build solar and wind power projects of any substantial size. It would take 150 acres to build a 32mw project, while down the road, the Shoreham nuclear power plant never got commissioned despite $6 billion spent on the project would have provided 820mw on 450 acres (comparison to show the amount of land needed for wind power versus that needed for nuclear power). To build a wind or solar power facility comparable to what would have been produced at Shoreham, it would take 3843.75 acres. The footprint necessary for wind or solar power is vastly larger than necessary for nuclear (or coal or oil or natural gas). Nuclear power is capable of providing much greater energy per acre needed for the facility than wind or solar; a figure that must be included when contemplating siting needs and whether a given project is actually beneficial to the environment.

Sen. Feinstein Chooses Vistas Over Renewable Resources

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) seems to have made her choice. She'd rather prevent the construction of 13 wind or solar powered facilities on 1 million acres in the Mojave Desert than reduce the American reliance on coal, oil, and natural gas. She's hoping to turn wide swaths of the desert into National Monuments, and even if the legislation doesn't come to pass, she's now on the record on opposing the wind and solar power that can help reduce emissions that President Obama promised at Copenhagen.

But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants will likely be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy.

Developers of the projects have already postponed several proposals or abandoned them entirely. The California agency charged with planning a renewable energy transmission grid has rerouted proposed power lines to avoid the monument.

“The very existence of the monument proposal has certainly chilled development within its boundaries,” said Karen Douglas, chairwoman of the California Energy Commission.

For Mrs. Feinstein, creation of the Mojave national monuments would make good on a promise by the government a decade ago to protect desert land donated by an environmental group that had acquired the property from the Catellus Development Corporation.

“The Catellus lands were purchased with nearly $45 million in private funds and $18 million in federal funds and donated to the federal government for the purpose of conservation, and that commitment must be upheld. Period,” Mrs. Feinstein said in a statement.

California also promised to reduce emissions. How exactly can California or the US meet its goals if politicians like Feinstein can step in the way and thwart prime locations for alternative energy siting.

This is yet another sign that Democrats like Feinstein aren't serious about reducing emissions or about reducing the reliance on oil.

Solar Thermal Power Getting Ready For Prime Time With Caveats

Solar thermal power systems appear to be ready for prime time. That's the claim of a company preparing to build a multiple array solar thermal power system in California's Mojave desert. It involves using a matrix of 82 mirrors focusing light on a single point to heat up hydrogen gas to 1,450F, which would in turn power a Stirling engine to generate electricity. Each of these free-standing arrays would produce 25kw of power. Linking 40 of these units together would send power to the grid and produce 1mw of power.

This design is far more efficient than the parabolic collectors now in use in California and Arizona. It also means that power generators can work on individual units without shutting down power production for the entire facility as must be done with the parabolic collectors.

All that sounds great, until you hear the caveats.

The enormous scale of the Abengoa and Stirling Energy plants provides an answer to skeptics who doubt whether a few rooftop panels here and there can ever play a meaningful role in the world’s energy portfolio. But size also creates its own set of problems. For one thing, the power has to be transmitted to where it’s needed, and the empty deserts best suited for sprawling CST plants tend to be in the middle of nowhere. The site of Stirling Energy’s future plant for the San Diego market currently has enough transmission capacity for 300 Mw, or 12,000 dishes. The remaining 24,000 dishes will be built only if San Diego Gas & Electric is able to complete a proposed 150-mile transmission line between the plant and the city.

Water use is another issue. CST plants with steam turbines can require hundreds of millions of gallons of water to cool their con­densers—a challenge in regions where water is already at a premium. In this respect, Stirling Energy’s hydrogen­-based system has a significant advantage, since it only uses water to rinse the mirrors every few weeks. Osborn estimates that the San Diego plant, when producing power for 500,000 households, would use the same amount of water as 33 average homes.

Utility-scale solar power also requires enormous capital, which keeps it out of reach of people in the developing world, where such solutions are desperately needed. That’s a challenge RawSolar, an MIT spinoff, is trying to meet with a dish that is just 12 ft. wide, and simple and cheap enough to make for stand-alone operation. The nonprofit Solar Turbine Group, another MIT spinoff, built an even more bare-bones mini-CST system in Lesotho last summer, using spare car parts for the heat engine.

In other words, until the transmission lines are built from these remote locations, the full application of solar thermal power will not be achieved. That's the same problem that killed a Pickens' wind power project in Texas, and opposition to transmission line siting rules promulgated by the federal government is fairly widespread, including here in New Jersey where Governor Corzine announced his opposition to the rule claiming it would allow cheaper non-renewable or non-green power sources to provide power decimating New Jersey's green power initiatives.

Yet, it is the lack of those transmission lines that are going to keep large scale alternative energy facilities from being built in the first place.

At the same time, water usage is a major concern at power plants because of the scarcity of water in the desert Southwest and competing needs for water are only expected to grow as the population increases there.

Meanwhile, photovoltaics are showing signs of improvement and may end up being a small scale power producer at the local level. Instead of utilities building photovoltaic facilities, individual homeowners or businesses may install arrays and reduce the need for power from the grid, reducing the load on utility infrastructure.

It would also mean that President Obama's energy infrastructure program is needed more than ever since a smart grid would be needed to handle the diverse input of energy from multiple and variable sources to maintain reliability.

Dow To Begin Promoting Thin Film Solar Shingles

Solar power is one of the ways that the nation can reduce its dependence on petroleum products, but a problem has always been cost and the ability to retrofit structures to accept the solar systems.

Dow appears to have figured out how to make thin film solar shingles that could be installed by a roofer just as they would asphalt shingles. An electrician would be required to hook up the array to an inverter and the household power, but that's a significantly lower cost than having to bring in a specialized company to install a solar system.

The solar shingles will begin test marketing in 2010.

Dow plans to begin test-marketing the solar shingle in mid-2010, initially targeting new-home construction. Ms. Palmieri said the market could be worth $5 billion by 2015 and noted that 90 percent of homes in the United States use asphalt shingles.

Dow designed the shingles, which will initially be manufactured at the company’s Midland, Mich., facility. Global Solar of Tucson, Ariz., is supplying the thin-film solar cells.

Thin-film has generally not been used for residential systems because of its relatively low efficiency – Global Solar’s cells are 10 percent efficient. That means a larger array is required generate the same of amount of electricity as conventional solar panels.

But Dave Parrillo, the senior research and development director for Dow Solar Solutions, said the solar shingles can offset between 40 percent and 80 percent of a home’s electricity consumption.

I think this has serious potential, although I wonder how it would hold up to repeated impacts caused by falling branches and other tree debris. Another potential issue would be weight, particularly on older homes; if the weight is comparable, then solar could gain wider adoption.

In parts of the country where there is ample sun, this could be a significant source of alternative energy and reduce energy consumption from utility companies. At the same time, as more people convert to such systems, tax revenues from utility taxes and fees will decline, meaning that states will find themselves in a bind to come up with new revenue sources.

Where's the Power Coming From?

Let's posit that electric cars like the Chevy Volt are tremendously successful and are bought up in droves. How and where exactly is the energy that these electric cars rely upon produced? The power isn't coming out of thin air. It has to be generated somewhere, and there are costs associated with the production and transmission to the end user.

Much of the country relies on coal for power. Nuclear power produces a fraction, and wind and solar produce a fraction of the power necessary to wean the nation off its dependency on oil. This chart shows where our energy comes from, and what it's used for.

Petroleum, natural gas, and coal account for more than 80% of the energy used by the nation. Petroleum is the primary energy source for transportation (95%), and this is the energy source that electric vehicles are supposed to displace.

There haven't been any new nuclear power licenses issued since 1996 according to the Energy Information Administration. Don't expect any new nuclear power plants to come online anytime soon, even though a nuclear power plant would produce more power than several coal powered plants combined, and on a smaller footprint.

That means that other energy sources have to be considered. Natural gas and coal are the backbone of electric energy production, but they too produce greenhouse gases, which leaves hydropower and other alternative energy sources, including solar.

There are several methods for collecting solar power, including using solar cells and Parabolic trough technology. A Spanish company is currently attempting to build the world's largest solar collector energy facility in the world in Arizona. The 280mw system would sit on 1,900 acres but the system would be able to produce power even after the sun goes down because it would store energy in the form of molten salt, which would release energy for several hours after dark.

However, compared to the limited size of a nuclear power footprint, the smallest of which could fit into a small building and yet power 20,000 homes, and you can expect to see opposition to such plans because of how it would alter the local environment - whether the views or the local ecosystem. We see similar opposition to wind power on similar grounds - they take up tremendous expanses of land and create visual pollution, and could negatively affect local ecosystems, including migratory wildlife.

Yet, despite Arizona sitting in the middle of the nation's sun belt, where conditions are ripe for solar power development, it would appear that politics is thwarting further development.

Arizona officials are complaining that the federal government short-changed their sunny state when it designated “solar energy study zones” to accelerate development of solar power plants in Western states.

In July, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management identified 16,492 acres in Arizona suitable for the solar study zones — compared to 351,049 acres in California, 149,375 acres in Nevada and 120,584 acres in New Mexico.

“We have concerns regarding the process used to select solar zones in Arizona, and the resulting paucity of Arizona land identified for study,” wrote Kristin K. Mayes, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission, the state’s utility regulator, in an Aug. 3 letter to the federal task force managing the solar energy study zones.

The science is taking a back seat to the technological advancements and energy development of alternative energy, despite claims that the current Administration would change things. The more things have changed, the more they're the same.

That brings us to a major drawback on solar power - it simply isn't feasible for most of the world because it doesn't receive sufficient amounts of sun, whether because it is too far from the equator or is in part of the world that sees too few sunny days. Solar can be only a partial solution, which relies on other power sources that are based on more stable energy sources.

New Jersey Set To Approve Solar Power Projects

New Jersey regulators are apparently set to approve solar power projects proposed by utilities in New Jersey. This includes PSE&G's proposal to put solar arrays on nearly 200,000 utility poles around the state, which would be the largest of its kind in the nation.

The PSE&G portion is a $264 million investment where the utility will contract with solar developers to design, manufacture and procure solar devices for nearly 200,000 utility poles and street lights in neighborhoods throughout PSE&G’s service territory.

Curiously, the other three components in the PSE&G proposal were not included in the news report.

What Green Do You See?

Teaneck, New Jersey is the latest Northern New Jersey community looking to install solar power systems to offset energy costs.

But do they actually save money? I think that's debatable. Here's the Record's rundown:

BY THE NUMBERS

Teaneck will install solar panels atop the community center and Fire Station 3 this fall. Here are the financial basics:

$615,000: Project cost

$204,944: State grant money available

$160,700: Federal stimulus money available

$9,200: Annual energy cost savings

$30,000: Annual revenue from selling solar energy certificates to public utilities

Teaneck will be getting $365,644 of the costs picked up by taxpayers at both the state and federal level in the form of grant money and stimulus money. The cost to Teaneck itself is $249,365. Teaneck hopes to save $9,200 each year and make $30,000 in selling solar certificates.

Is it worth it? Under these terms, Teaneck's spending roughly $250,000 to save $39,200 a year. It would take just about six years to make back their investment, but that obscures the fact that the real cost to taxpayers is $615,000, not $250,000. It would take nearly 15.5 years to make back the cost of the solar installation based on the actual cost - not the cost after figuring all the state aid and federal funds.

That's still better than some of the other costs relating to solar power installations seen around the nation. On the whole, this is a better use of funds for solar power as the breakeven point is much sooner than some programs, which may never break even because the number of years taken to break even would come long after the useful life of the solar power installations has ended.

Still, this is a best case scenario, and it is possible that Teaneck might not realize the cost savings anticipated.

Cost Savings or Boondoggle?

Morristown, New Jersey is installing a significant solar power array at its sewage treatment facility to power the facility and to reduce costs. At least that's how they're selling it to the public. The reality isn't quite as sunny.

The project cost $4.6 million, and state taxpayers kicked in a $1.5 million incentive, bringing the cost down to $3.1 million (the story notes the cost was reduced to $3.2 million).

Rows of solar panels lined what had been unused space next to several buildings at the facility. More panels also soon will be put on the roofs of four buildings, with a total of at least 640,000 kilowatt hours of power to be produced annually by the solar farm, officials said.

That should provide at least 40 percent or more of the energy needed to run the sewer operation, saving the town a minimum of $90,000 to $130,000 a year, according to town engineer Jeffrey Hartke.

Total cost of the project is $4.6 million, but the town has received a $1.5 million New Jersey Clean Energy Program rebate, bringing its cost down to $3.2 million, said Cresitello. In addition, he said other improvements are being done at the sewer plant to make it more energy and cost-efficient.

The solar project, said Cresitello, was the idea of town sewer superintendent John Dean and the plant's supervising laboratory technician, Manu Patel.

So, is this a cost effective project? It certainly would fit the whole notion of green energy and reducing carbon footprint by using alternative energy sources instead of standard power generating facilities.

The problem is that the costs and the savings don't justify the project.

Assuming that the project cost $3.2 million (as per the article) and assuming an even greater cost savings of $150,000 per year, it would take more than 20 years to recoup the initial investment. The problem is that it actually would take longer than that to break even once you realize the true cost to taxpayers was $4.6 million and it would take 30 years if the cost savings from the solar power was $150,000 per year.

If the power generated falls short of the high end, it would take far longer than that - decades longer if they reach only $90,000 per year. It would take 51 years if the savings totaled $90,000 a year, and that doesn't begin to cover carrying costs and lost opportunity costs resulting from using money on other projects. These systems generally have a lifespan of 20-30 years, which means that this project makes little sense.

So, why is this seen as a good way to spend money? It might make people feel good, but it isn't good for the wallet, at least in this application and in this instance. New Jersey isn't the optimum location for power generation, and the costs for the solar systems still haven't come down to where they need to be to really generate the cost savings people are looking for.

PSE&G Launches Solar Power Campaign

It will require requesting and receiving authorization from New Jersey to add surcharges to bills, but PSE&G is moving forward with a plan to install solar power collectors on its utility poles and other properties around the state.

The proposal, filed today with the Board of Public Utilities, calls for the installation of solar panels on 200,000 utility poles – the largest such project in the nation – as well as on schools, municipal buildings, low-income housing and brownfield sites.

The panels would produce electricity that would be fed into the utility’s power grid.

The proposal calls for a five-year rollout, Ralph LaRossa, PSE&G’s president and chief operating officer, said by phone.

Customers would pay only a small part of the cost — an average of 10 cents a month during the first year. That will increase to 35 cents a month by the fifth year, but will drop after that, the company said.

The company would recoup most of its costs through a combination of sources, including the sale of energy, adjustments from the regional power grid, a federal investment tax credit and the sale of energy credits, LaRossa said.

So, the average customer would see their annual bill rise between $1.20 and $4.20 by the fifth year to install the solar power arrays around the state.

The plan breaks down as follows: Neighborhood Solar (40 megawatts) - $264 million investment; Local Government Solar (43 megawatts) - $273 million investment; Centralized Solar (35 megawatts) – $221 million investment; and HMFA/Affordable Housing Solar (2 megawatts) - $15 million investment.

When fully implemented, the arrays would produce 120mw of power, or 1% of the state's peak needs. It would also satisfy only 7% of the state's renewable energy requirements by 2020.

I'd say it's a good start, but it also highlights that the private sector is moving forward on alternative energy even without government interference or supposed stimulus from the government. Now imagine if $13.2 billion could put arrays on utility polls around the entire nation, adding 2,000mw to the grid (based on the neighborhood solar portion of the PSE&G allotments, multiplied out by 50 states).

That's far more concrete than any of the plans put forth by Congress, and PSE&G did so without a stimulus check.

Still, this is a stopgap because the only way to truly wean the nation off petroleum based fuels is to go nuclear, and the state and federal government continues to stand in the way of development in that area.

Winter Puts Crimp In Green Energy Sources

It seems that going green doesn't exactly work out as planned during the winter. Wind, solar, and even tidal power sources don't work as well in the cold as they do the rest of the year. Snow thwarts solar power collection, unless you are out clearing off solar collectors regularly. Ice and wind can damage solar collectors and wind turbines and ice can prevent tidal systems from operating at peak capacity.

It gets worse. Biodiesel doesn't work in the cold, and if the percentage of biodiesel is high enough, it will congeal into a frozen mess that will bring an engine to a standstill.

But have no fear - if global warming is as bad as the New York Times thinks it will get (or at least their reporter thinks), the seasons will disappear:

So in regions where homeowners have long rolled their eyes at shoveling driveways, add another cold-weather chore: cleaning off the solar panels. “At least I can get to them with a long pole and a squeegee,” said Alan Stankevitz, a homeowner in southeast Minnesota.

As concern has grown about global warming, many utilities and homeowners have been trying to shrink their emissions of carbon dioxide — their carbon footprints — by installing solar panels, wind turbines and even generators powered by tides or rivers. But for the moment, at least, the planet is still cold enough to deal nasty winter blows to some of this green machinery.

In January 2007, a bus stalled in the middle of the night on Interstate 70 in the Colorado mountains. The culprit was a 20 percent biodiesel blend that congealed in the freezing weather, according to John Jones, the transit director for the bus line, Summit Stage. (Biodiesel is a diesel substitute, typically made from vegetable oil, that is used to displace some fossil fuels.)

The passengers got out of that situation intact, but Summit Stage, which serves ski resorts, now avoids biodiesel from November to March, and uses only a 5 percent blend in the summertime, when it can still get cold in the mountains. “We can’t have people sitting on buses freezing to death while we get out there trying to get them restarted,” Mr. Jones said.

Wind turbines may send chunks of ice hurling into nearby structures and fields, though designers say that doesn't happen because the systems shut off if they become unbalanced.

The thing of it is that the planet will be plenty cold to hamper green machinery for years to come. It just depends on where you are (and that still will include most of the US for the foreseeable future). For all the talk about climate change, temperatures are where they were 10 years ago.

If carbon emissions were truly the culprit, you would expect that the increase of carbon emissions would result in a constant uptick in temperatures, but it's overwhelming hubris to think that man can overcome global and solar events with puny carbon emissions. Indeed, studies of solar output suggest that we're heading for a cooling period, not a warming period.

Still, even if global warming isn't going to happen, choosing renewable energy sources makes sense and is a better alternative than trying to obtain petroleum based products from unstable parts of the world. It's also why hydro and nuclear should be pursued; they are more reliable than the "green" options over the long term. After all, clearing the air of particulates and other emissions does make sense as people can breath easier and are less likely to succumb to respiratory distress and diseases like asthma, but the obscene interest in taxing the heck out of carbon emissions makes no sense especially since carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of human respiration.

Besides, water vapor is a much more efficient and prevalent greenhouse gas - the problem for the econuts is that they haven't quite figured out a way to demonize it just yet. But, as the climate doesn't exactly cooperate with the so-called models and warming doesn't exactly go as planned, you'll see the same folks pushing global warming saying that everything is the result of global warming, including cooling and cold weather. It's already happening as climate change has come to replace global warming as the term of art.

It's also a term of deception.

Pickens' Plan -- Reduce Foreign Dependance On Oil by 38%

Use the right energy for the right use. That concept lies at the core of a U.S. domestic energy plan unveiled Tuesday by legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens.

The United States uses close to $700 billion in foreign energy supplies, primarily oil, Pickens pointed out on CNBC's "Squawk Box." It will be impossible for one energy source to totally replace that supply, he noted.

But developing wind and solar power could lower the use of natural gas in some instances, he said. The some of that natural gas could be redirected to uses normally reserved for oil, like transportation. That, in turn, could lead to a 38 percent reduction in the use of foreign energy supplies, he concluded. (See Pickens explain the details of his plan in the video).

"That's a pretty good start," he said, adding that it would take about five years to "pretty far down the path" and 10 years to totally accomplish.

And that reduction would be accomplished with energy that doesn't run out, he pointed out.

It's not like finding an oil field," Pickens said. "You find an oil field, and it's not long before it starts to decline, and then deplete. Then, the oil field's gone. The wind doesn't stop."

The layout of the United States lends itself to wind and solar development, he said. The central corridor is ripe for wind development, provided the U.S. government makes corridors available to transmit power out. And the southwest is ideal for solar development, he added.

Pickens, who will long be remembered for his $1 million challenge to anyone who could disprove the swift boat veterans claims against John Kerry, wants to see America move away from its 14 million barrel a day import habit, which he claims costs America $700 Billion a year. His plan is to move America towards renewable resources, wind and solar. Such sustainable energy sources would reduce America's reliance on foreign oil, as well as reduce the world price of oil, by reducing demand.

And Pickens makes no bones about letting us know that this is good for his economy as well. He is investing in the largest domestic wind farm in the United States, with the goal of bringing that energy from the Midwest to Texas. He plans on making money for himself, with the added benefit of helping the United States. The problems, as Pickens sees it, is that wind and solar energy need to get from where they are generated, to where they are needed. He sees the solution in government investment of transmission lines.

Pickens is right. America is giving away $700 Billion to nations that literally have us over the barrel. That's $700 Billion that could, and should, be invested in the United States. And projects are under way that will help reduce America's reliance on foreign oil. Solel, an Israeli company, is investing in a solar project in the Mojave Desert, that will supply 1,388 gigawatts of energy annually at a price competitive with plants powered by fossil fuels for California homes (can you say no more rolling blackouts?) Winergy, is creating a wind farm off of Orient Point, New York. The Plum Island Project will be located 2 miles off shore and will consist of three 3.6MW turbines. Larger projects are being studied. Winergy is also considering projects in Asbury Park, NJ, Davis Bank (Mass.), Five Fathom Bank (2 sites – NJ), Great Egg (NJ), Gull Bank (Maryland), Indian River (Delaware), Isle of Wight (Maryland), Nantucket (3 sites). As I pointed out back in May in the comments to one of Lawhawk's posts, with "the fact that one of NJ's nuclear power plants, Oyster Creek, is either swiftly approaching its expected life span or has already surpassed it, is facing an uphill battle for relicensing (http://www.app.com/assets/swf/B318999210.SWF), NJ needs alternative fuel sources now!"

Moreover, these renewable resources will drastically reduce the United States carbon footprint, will reduce greenhouse gasses and emissions, and will help reverse the effects of global warming.

Additionally, with China and India expanding their need for fossil fuels, the world supply will decline (whether by depletion of the resource or by artificially created scarcity by OPEC.) There is no need to let this happen, when Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and California have vast deserts that can supply cheap renewable solar power, and wind farms can be created off shore and in the Midwest. Why do we need to rely on coal and oil burning plants for electricity?

Lastly, why are we not using natural gas to power our cars? Natural gas produces almost zero emissions and is in abundant supply in the United States. Also, at $12 - $13 per btu, are much cheaper than oil ($140 per barrel). Plus, natural gas is a higher burning fuel than oil, thus increasing engine output of cars. That is why buses use it. It also has the added benefit of not having to go to a gas station to refuel your car. You can refuel your car from your home -- the same way you tap your gas line for your BBQ or clothes dryer, you can refuel your car.

UPDATE (lawhawk):