ezsolarhouse

Solar wars…

EZ Solar House — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:31:18 +0000

The looming trade war with China presents some very difficult issues to resolve. China does not have nearly the environmental or labor regulations that we do, but if demand is to continue to increase it’s hard to justify tariffs. This article, delves in to the issue with some detail.

Perhaps if we weren’t giving so much money to the oil industry, we would have more money for renewables?

Reprinted from TruthOut.

Subsidize This: US Eyes Tariffs on Chinese Solar Panels, But What Gets Protected?

Friday 17 February 2012

by: Gregg Levine, Capitoilette | News Analysis

While trade is often a bone of contention between the United States and China, this week’s visit by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping threw the spotlight on one subset of that battle that could have far-reaching effects well in excess of the raw dollar amounts at stake.

At issue is a complaint filed by a solar industry trade group, the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing, or CASM, asking that the US government impose tariffs on Chinese solar panels. CASM wants the duties for what it claims are unfair subsidies by China that make Chinese solar products substantially cheaper than those offered by many US competitors.

Language in President Obama’s State of the Union, along with comments made during Xi’s visit, would seem to indicate that the federal government is set to weigh in on the side of US solar energy companies in this brewing trade war, and so make a stand for domestic green energy manufacturing and good-paying American jobs.

It seems like a political slam-dunk. The president, after all, campaigned in 2008 on the promise of a growing alternative energy sector, and protecting jobs from being off-shored appears to be the perfect play at a time when unemployment is still unacceptably high. But the reality is, to put it in diplomatic speak, more nuanced.

First, that solar trade group, the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing, claims to represent seven solar manufacturers, but the only company publicly identified as a CASM member is SolarWorld. SolarWorld is actually not a US company, but a German one, though it does employ about 1,000 at its Hillsboro, Oregon factory.

And even that number is nuanced. SolarWorld is considered the largest producer of solar panels in the US, and so it is used as a sort of case study in this trade dispute. Several stories on the topic note that SolarWorld shuttered its Camarillo, California plant, and with it went 100 jobs. The implication is that Chinese pricing caused the California closure, but a quick step through the Google looking glass will reveal thatSolarWorld moved all its manufacturing to Oregon after that state offered it millions of dollars in tax breaks.

There is nothing inherently wrong with what Oregon did (unless you are one of the newly unemployed in California), but it should be part of the discussion. Not all jobs lost are part of the international trade war; in a low-growth economy, state governments are increasingly generous with the private sector as they try to secure precious jobs.

And not all “American” solar manufacturers actually do their manufacturing in America. SunPower, a San Jose-based solar company that has said it is “neutral” in this trade row, manufactures most of its solar panels in the Philippines.

Measuring the US solar sector by manufacturing alone is also a faulty yardstick. Amajority of domestic solar-sector jobs–52%–are actually in installation. . . and there’s the rub. . . well, a rub. . . potentially, a really big rub.

Oregon’s two Democratic Senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, are obviously quick to jump in on the side of a company that provides their state with 1,000 jobs (and solar manufacturing across all companies might provide Oregonians with something like twice that number). US Representatives, like Democrats Jackie Speier, Barbara Lee and Pete Stark, who have solar startups in their California districts, have also called for the federal government to investigate Chinese trade practices.

The Department of Commerce is scheduled to rule on CASM’s complaint by March 5, but if it takes what looks like the politically smoother path and sides with SolarWorld and their invisible friends, the next step would be for the US to impose tariffs on Chinese-made solar components, thus halting the rapid downward trend in prices for solar panels, and quite possibly driving prices up again here in the United States.

And that could actually spell big problems for America’s solar sector. Though it is hard to find an “expert” without some vested interest in some side of this dispute, there seems to be consensus that the recent substantial drops in the price of solar equipment have spurred a vast expansion in the numbers of homes, schools, businesses and government buildings that have installed solar cells to meet some or all of their electric power needs. Those installations, as noted above, mean jobs, and they also mean energy savings–both immediate and sustainable–for both individuals and municipalities. And while there are tax breaks for retrofitting buildings with solar panels, those breaks are mostly available for private buildings (not public schools and municipal buildings, where alternative energy could make a quick and substantial impact), and the savings do not make up for the price difference between Chinese- and American-manufactured products. The tax breaks are also scheduled to expire in 2016.

And there’s a multiplier effect that makes the basic savings seem small in comparison. Every home, hospital or school using solar power is that much demand that is not being placed on the conventional electrical grid. Depending on the region, that means less demand for coal-, gas, or nuclear-powered generation. And that means less demand for disappearing resources and less need to build costly, new power plants. It could also mean lower costs to society in the form of fewer pollution- and radiation-related health problems.

Then there is the obvious metric: Carbon-based power generation is guaranteed to grow more expensive as time marches on; the same has proven true for nuclear power. Solar prices are on a steady downward path, and solar power, if allowed to grow in market share, will continue to grow cheaper and more competitive.

And competition is what this is all supposed to be about, right? CASM has accused China of unfair trade practices that make it impossible for American manufacturers to compete. Proponents of 19th and 20th Century power-generating technologies love to remind advocates of alternative energy that fossil and fissile fuels are just “more competitive.” All things being equal. . . the market will decide. . . if there is a level playing field. . . or so the argument goes.

Fair enough, let’s look at that playing field.

Right now, without trying to estimate any possible solar tariffs, the alternative energy sector does get some help. According to a study from the Environmental Law Institute,renewables received $29 billion in federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008. Remove ethanol form that number, and you are down to $12.2 billion.

But during that same period, fossil fuel production received $72.5 billion in subsidies. That number excludes general energy sector subsidies–and it also excludes nuclear. The amount that nuclear receives is harder to calculate in the aggregate–loan guarantees are just guarantees until there is a default, and the Price-Anderson indemnity act has a value, but quantifiable payouts only come with disasters–but it is believed that for the second half of the 20th Century, nuclear consumed 10 percent of all US subsidies to the energy sector, something well in excess of $100 billion since the industry’s start.

But the numbers for fossil fuel and nuclear power are ridiculously low-ball. Not included there, what the federal government has to spend to clean up a polluted river or an oil spill in the gulf; nor does it include what the US has and will have to spend on behalf of the nuclear industry to transport and store its dangerous radioactive waste for as far forward as anyone can imagine.

Still, a “level playing field” sounds inherently fair, so why should domestic solar manufacturing have to suffer for the sins of legacy energy production?

Indeed. Wouldn’t it be amazingly convenient for gas producers or nuclear power concerns if the downward move in solar panel prices were arrested by a US tariff?

Instead, what if the federal government leveled that playing field by increasing its subsidies to domestic solar production?

Do more subsidies somehow sound too extravagant in these times of supposedly tight budgets? OK, then maybe the gas industry should be made to pick up the tab fortrucking in fresh water to communities that have had their natural water supplies poisoned by hydro-fracking. Maybe the oil industry would like to pay to register its offshore rigs in the United States when they are drilling in US waters. Or maybe the nuclear industry should be required to find their financing without federal loan guarantees.

That last point is of special interest here. Take, for example, the two Chinese companies said to be providing the most competition for US solar manufacturers. According to SolarWorld representatives, “Trina Solar received a $4.4 billion loan from the China Development Bank, and Jinko Solar got a $7.6 billion loan from the Bank of China.” As regular readers of this space probably recognize, both of those figures are eclipsed by the $8.3 billion loan guarantee given by the Obama administration to the Southern Company for two recently approved nuclear reactors in Georgia.

So, fair is fair, level that playing field, but level it all over. If the US wants to move to make its solar companies more competitive with Chinese manufacturers, then make other energy sectors have to compete on similar terms. Rather than protect entrenched, disappearing, dangerous and dirty sources with duties that will render the entire solar sector less competitive, grant solar and other promising renewable alternatives the same level of help the US has habitually handed to fossil and fissile fuels. Rather than constrain domestic job growth by making solar power more expensive, pave the way for more good jobs with greater subsidies for both solar manufacturers and consumers. Rather than blow current and future resources on fuels that will only grow more expensive, spend now to expand the contribution of energy that continues to improve its cost-to-kilowatt ratio. Rather than use taxpayer dollars to pay for more pollution, more global warming, more cleanups and more adverse health outcomes, invest in clean, green technologies that not only pay immediate dividends but also have the potential to place America at the forefront of the next economic revolution.

If the Commerce Department does move toward imposing tariffs on Chinese solar manufacturers, the Obama administration and others in the government–as well as parts of the solar industry here–will now doubt call it a move on behalf of American manufacturing and the American worker. But will it be a move on behalf of America? The government might very well need to get involved to further the growth of this renewable energy sector, but if they do, manufacturers, workers and consumers should all insist that the intervention is done in a way that is truly in the public interest.

Top Ten Countries With Solar (and no the US is not #1)

EZ Solar House — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:02:50 +0000

The global economic recession has not seemed to dampen the demand for solar energy especially in Europe. As of 2010, Germany was leading the way with over 17K megawatts of installed capacity and 43% of the global solar market. The US is a distant 5th with just over 2500 MW but we are ramping up.

All the dust-up over Solyndra will seem like small potatoes as we get closer to The Energy Precipice. Getting more solar installed should be our number one priority in the US because it is the most ubiquitous of the renewable energy resources and it’s also the most flexible in terms of the different types of applications.

So here’s to more people going solar in 2012 than ever before! Click on the image to see the full view.

Link to the original article can be found here.

Infographic: The Top Ten Countries for Solar Energy Now

by Shannon, posted on December 8th, 2011.

Sign upSign up for One Block Off the Grid (free) to see solar deals in your area.

Yes Virginia, Solar Does Work In Oregon

EZ Solar House — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:01:36 +0000

Oregon weather is a funny thing.

It has a little bit of everything from high desert to temperate rain forest. Here in the Portland area people often say we get 9 months of grey and 3 months of sun. I guess it’s all a matter of preference. I lived in the desert for five years, but couldn’t take the heat. Skepticism about the viability of solar energy in the Northwest is pretty common. The phrase ‘it can’t work in Oregon’ is often heard from people. The question is what do people mean by ‘work’.

Work is a relative term, in that solar can’t provide for all of our energy needs in the winter; at least not without a battery back up system. But it can still provide a significant amount of the demand in a typical household.

Our system just completed it’s second full month of operation and as you can see from the table below we produced well over 100 kwh. The figures are a continuation from last month which is why they don’t start from zero.

Our bill for last month was $80.66 for 707 kwh of electricity, compared to the same period last year our bill was $105.42 for 858 kwh. That’s a savings of $24.76 or almost 24% in the first month alone! According to the utility we used 5.2 fewer kwh/day over the same period last year. Obviously our system is already having a big impact on electrical demand.

Production figures for February are increasing slightly over January. We look forward to seeing what we can produce in the coming months.

Solar System Production – January 2011
Month	Starting Kwh	Ending Kwh	Daily total
January
1st	130	134	4
2nd	134	136	2
3rd	136	142	6
4th	142	146	4
5th	146	150	4
6th	150	151	1
7th	151	153	2
8th	153	157	4
9th	157	160	3
10th	160	166	6
11th	166	175	9
12th	175	184	9
13th	184	190	6
14th	190	194	4
15th	194	197	3
16th	197	198	1
17th	198	199	1
18th	199	200	1
19th	200	201	1
20th	201	202	1
21st	202	203	1
22nd	203	206	3
23rd	206	210	4
24th	210	211	1
25th	211	213	2
26th	213	222	9
27th	222	231	9
28th	231	231	0
29th	231	241	10
30th	241	250	9
31st	250	257	7
	Monthly total		127 kwh
	Avg kwh/day		4.10

What is Grid Parity?

EZ Solar House — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:46:52 +0000

Renewable energy has to compete with conventional energy resources on the uneven playing field we call residential retail electricity pricing. Many renewable energy detractors say that renewable energy is heavily subsidized without considering all the subsidies that have gone to fossil fuels. Grid parity is the Holy Grail for all renewable energy resources because it is the point where renewable energy is cost competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Photo courtesy of energyselfreliantstates.org

Residential retail electricity prices vary by location so parity will be different depending on location. This map indicates that midwestern states generally have the lowest rates while coastal states have the highest.

Of course we have to ignore the fact that the current cost structure for fossil fuels has completely externalized the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels. Under our current economic metrics an oil spill also increases our GDP, which is ironic considering the economic hardship they create, but that’s another post.

Even with an uneven playing field, solar is approaching grid parity with fossil fuels. Hawaii is the first state for solar to achieve grid parity without subsidies and California and New York should also reach parity within about 5 years. The point is that if grid parity is the only criteria we use for determining the viability of renewable energy resources it will be too late to do anything about climate change. We don’t have 5 years to avert runaway climate change, and we may not even have two years.

Most of Germany’s Renewable Energy Owned By People

EZ Solar House — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:57:03 +0000

According to a study of two German communities with separate wind power projects, the type of ownership of the project is critical towards gaining acceptance in the community. The chart below is a comparison of attitudes toward the different projects within the communities of Nossen and Zschadraß. One community has a absentee-owner while the other is locally owned.

Almost 75% of the respondents in Zschadraß have a neutral or favorable opinion of the wind power project in their community, largely because it’s locally owned, as reported in RenewableEnergyWorld.com. However, Nossen also has a much higher installed capacity.

It makes perfect sense because if the public will be required to subsidize development of alternative energy resources then it should reap the benefits of that development. We currently subsidize fossil fuels to a much greater extent than renewables but those resources are largely owned by multi-national corporations.

Matthew McDermott writes in Treehugger

“51% of all renewable energy in Germany is owned by individual citizens or farms, totaling $100 billion worth of private investment in clean energy.

Breaking that down into solar power and wind power, 50% of Germany’s solar PV is owned by individuals and farms, while 54% of its wind power is held by the same groups.

In total there’s roughly 17 GW of solar PV installed in Germany—versus roughly 3.6 GW in the US (based on SEIA’s figures for new installations though the third quarter of 2011 plus the 2.6 GW installed going into the year)”.

Germany also boasts that it now produces slightly over 20% of all its electricity from renewable sources.

The implications of local ownership of renewable energy resources are very significant, as I’ve written before. They represent a paradigm shift away from the historical trend of centralized control and influence. McDermott goes on to write decentralization is “…a democratic shift in control of resources and a break from the way electricity and energy has been produced over the past century”.

Decentralized power generation would enhance relocalization of economic activity, essentially reversing the trend of globalization to some extent. It would help local communities become more resilient and self-sufficient, create more job opportunities while protecting and even reversing environmental degradation from fossil fuel consumption. Ultimately it represents greater control of our energy destiny.

Save Now More Than Ever

EZ Solar House — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:38:32 +0000

A sluggish economy has many families and households looking extra hard for ways to save money. Prepaid everything is becoming a popular option for more people in recent times. Everything from cell phones to debit cards can now be purchased with prepaid cards. The advantage of prepaid is that the per unit cost of the item or service is supposed to be less than what you would normally pay on a monthly basis.

Now even electricity can be purchased in advance, or prepaid upfront. You may ask yourself why would anyone pay for their electricity in advance? It’s just electricity anyway, so who cares?

Well the advantage of prepaid electricity is that it dramatically reduces you cost per kwh, so you can literally save thousands of dollars over the life the lease.

Solar companies are now over prepaid leases as an option to save even more on your electric bill. Citizenre recently announced a 67% discount on the total lease payments for paying the lease in advance. A lease payment of $50 per month for 20 years would equal $12,000 in payments, but with the prepaid lease option the lease would be reduced to $3,960. That’s about $16.50 per month for a system that can typically provide as much as 50% or more of your electricity. Of course the rental rate will vary based on the size of the system.

$50 x 12 x 20 = $12,000 x 33% = $3,960 / 240 = $16.50

This PDF explains the offer in further detail and for those who can afford it, the prepaid option is the best of both worlds and you don’t have to worry about the hassle of making payments. It avoids the investment risk of purchasing the system but it also provides the lowest possible rate per kwh. And of course all the terms of the regular lease still apply to the prepaid lease. For more information please contact me or visit my website EZ Solar House.

German Solar Output Increases by 60% in 2011

EZ Solar House — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:48:42 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Just weeks after the solar industry installed the one millionth system in Germany, the country’s solar trade association announced that the technology accounted for three percent of total energy generation in 2011 — increasing 60 percent over 2010 to 18.6 terawatt-hours (18.6 billion kilowatt-hours).

Even with changes to the feed-in tariff that have reduced solar photovoltaic installations compared with previous boom years, the sector was still the fastest growing among all other renewable energy sectors in 2011, according to preliminary figures.

This follows data released last week showing that renewable energy accounted for 19.9 percent of electricity production in the country in 2011, growing 16.4 percent over 2010. Meanwhile, overall energy use in the country fell 4.8 percent due to warmer temperatures and increasing efficiency efforts, further boosting the value of solar generation.

This article was originally published on Climate Progress and was republished with permission.

Occupy Your Roof

EZ Solar House — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:43:51 +0000

Despite its title the purpose of this post is not to suggest that you should sit on your roof until we have an environmentally friendly and democratic national energy policy. No, the purpose of this post is to suggest we have alternatives to power companies that continue to pollute the environment. With a nod of support to the OWS (Occupy Wall St) movement, turning our government around (or perhaps starting over) will take a concerted effort on the part of the middle-class. Noted Geneticist David Suzuki once stated that ‘every building must become a power plant’, in order to become a more sustainable society. What he means is that our current method of generating electricity is highly destructive to the planet. Centralized power generation is very carbon intensive because the fuel must be transported to the place where it is burned, with the exception of hydro resources which are quasi-renewable.

Climate Graphs courtesy of Union of Concerned Scientists

Renewable energy is a decentralized energy resource that is site specific and diffuse, because it is not as concentrated as oil, coal or uranium. It requires new forms of technology to generate electricity that will require investment, but as previously stated in an earlier post, we heavily subsidize fossil fuels. Decentralized power generation is more democratic because it gives the consumer greater control over how their energy is produced and consumed. This is why power companies have been reluctant to invest in renewable energy because it is much more difficult to control a decentralized resource than one that is highly centralized.

The significance of all this is that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing for several decades, as indicated by the following graphs. If it were several hundred thousand years ago or more, it would be easy to attribute the increasing level of CO2 to natural phenomena, but we’re living in the present, and current CO2 levels cannot be so easily written off as natural phenomena and are more easily correlated to the beginning of the industrial age. In the past 800,000 years CO2 levels have never been over 310 PPM, but now they are currently about 390 PPM.

Is it really prudent to wait until runaway climate change has totally disrupted our environment, hoping that it isn’t true or the result of human activity? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to try to avert catastrophic climate change by creating green jobs and a stable climate? If those are the only downsides to confronting the issue of climate change, and that is what’s troubling conservatives shouldn’t we question their motivations?

According to the Energy Information Administration approximately 8% of our electricity was generated from renewables in 2009, and only 1% of that was from solar. Assuming there are approximately 200 million homes in the US, if only 10% of those had solar installed at an average of 5 kw of capacity per home we would have an additional 100,000,000 kw of installed solar capacity.

Solar is the fastest and most economical way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. In my opinion, people with a suitable home and the financial ability have a moral obligation to go solar. For those of more limited means there is also the leasing option. More communities are starting to form community solar projects to reduce the cost of installing solar. The point is that there are several different options to suit ones preference for going solar. Regardless of your preference the time is now to investigate the different options for going solar. The planet, not to mention future generations, will thank you.

Extend the 1603 Treasury Program

EZ Solar House — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:27:53 +0000

The 1603 Treasury Program is a financial incentive for renewable energy developers that allows them to receive a federal grant in lieu of a tax credit they would normally receive in return for developing a renewable energy project. It allows developers to bring more projects online by facilitating the financing portion of the development. It was created in 2008 after the economic crisis to deal with a lack of tax equity in the market. The program is scheduled to terminate on December 31st barring an extension from Congress.

Timing is critical from a finance perspective in the development of any project and no less so with renewable energy. If renewable energy development is to continue unabated, it’s imperative that Congress extends this program. Geothermal is already near grid parity with coal and solar is rapidly approaching grid parity. Terminating the 1603 program would stifle development of renewables at a critical time, given our dependence on fossil fuels.

The program has many benefits including enhanced job growth in the renewable sector, it’s technology neutral so there are many different renewable energy resources that can take advantage of it, and it’s an efficient means of spurring renewable energy development.

The fossil fuels industry is heavily entrenched in Washington so as taxpayers, we spend substantially more on fossil fuel subsidies than we do on renewables. We have to start looking at fossil fuels from a totally different perspective. The dust storm that was kicked up over the recent Solyndra bankruptcy pales in comparison to the money we’re spending to kill not only the planet but ourselves as well with fossil fuels. Arguably, nobody wants to see taxpayer money wasted, but maybe it’s time to start doing a full cost-benefit analysis on fossil fuels. If all the health and environmental costs associated fossil fuels were included in the price we would be paying a lot more for our electricity and our fuel.

All this is occurring against the backdrop of one of the most substantial increases of solar capacity installation ever. It would be a tragedy of epic proportions if renewable energy development would be shut down at this critical juncture. Are we going to continue down a path of fossil fuel dependence or will we start ramping up our renewable resource development, and start to clean up our environment?

The 1603 program creates jobs an enhances our national and economic security by facilitating development of renewable resources and should be extended. Solar Energy Industry Association president Rhone Resch, discusses the potential impact of discontinuing the tax credit in this video.

Tombstone the Keystone

EZ Solar House — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:14:32 +0000

Image provided courtesy of Oil Change International - priceofoil.org

Congress is up to their back-room double-dealing ways again. This time they’re trying to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline over the objections of the people, as well as the expert opinions of scientists who say it would be an ecological disaster of epic proportions. The GOP (Gas & Oil Party) seems determined to ram this down our collective throats at all costs.

How dare Congress hold the country hostage for the benefit of their greedy oil cronies. They’re tying the Social Security Payroll tax cut to the Keystone project, so Obama will have to approve both to get the tax cut. Obama has 60 days to decide on whether or not to approve Keystone. The oil industry already gets more subsidies than it should. Isn’t it about time we got off the dirty and polluting fossil fuel train to nowhere?

It’s time to put this thing to bed once and for all. I encourage everyone to contact their Senators tell them to ‘put a tombstone on the Keystone’.

Click this link and enter your zip code to contact your Senators. This pollution project is scheduled to fast tracked, so please contact them today as time is of the essence.

Tar sands are the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive energy resource available on the planet. It requires vast amounts of natural gas and water to produce and burning them increases our CO2 emissions. It has the largest carbon footprint, and ecological footprint of any energy resource and it needs to be stopped.

There’s no guarantee that any oil imported through the pipeline will actually be used in the US. Oil companies do not recognize national borders and they have no sense of patriotism. It’s all about the bottom line.

Please contact your Senators today.

Kudos to President Obama for standing up to the oil industry. It will be interesting to see what he does if he’s re-elected.