New York Times
In Print: Sunday, August 30, 2009
When Greg Hare looked into putting solar panels on his ranch-style home in Magnolia, Texas, last year, he decided he could not afford it. "I had no idea solar was so expensive," he recalled.
But the cost of solar panels has plunged, changing the economics for many homeowners. Hare ended up paying $77,000 for a large solar setup that he figures might have cost him $100,000 a year ago.
"I just thought, 'Wow, this is an opportunity to do the most for the least,' " Hare said.
For solar shoppers these days, the price is right. Panel prices have fallen about 40 percent since mid 2008, driven down partly by an increase in the supply of a crucial ingredient for panels, according to analysts at the investment bank Piper Jaffray.
The price drops — coupled with recently expanded federal incentives — could shrink the time it takes solar panels to pay for themselves to 16 years, from 22 years, in places with high electricity costs, according to Glenn Harris, chief executive of SunCentric, a solar consulting group. That calculation does not include state rebates, which can sometimes improve the economics considerably.
Florida, for instance, started offering a rebate of $4 a watt for solar panels in 2006. The rebate cut the cost of installation by half or more, paying homeowners $20,000 for a 5-kilowatt system. Since then, the amount of solar on the state's electric grid grew to more than 3 megawatts, and there are thousands of backlogged applications for rebates.
This year, America's consumers have the rest of the world to thank for the big solar price break.
Until recently, panel makers had been constrained by limited production of polysilicon, which goes into most types of panels. But more factories making the material have opened, as have more plants churning out the panels — especially in China.
"A ton of production, mostly Chinese, has come online," said Chris Whitman, the president of U.S. Solar Finance, which helps arrange bank financing for solar projects.
At the same time, once-roaring global demand for solar panels has slowed, particularly in Europe, the largest solar market, where photovoltaic installations are forecast to fall by 26 percent this year compared with 2008, according to Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm. Much of that drop can be attributed to a sharp slowdown in Spain. Faced with high unemployment and an economic crisis, Spain slashed its generous subsidy for the panels last year because it was costing too much.
Many experts expect panel prices to fall further, though not by another 40 percent.
Manufacturers are already reeling from the price slump. For example, Evergreen Solar, which is based in Massachusetts, recently reported a second-quarter loss that was more than double its loss from a year earlier.
But some manufacturers say that cheaper panels could be a good thing in the long term, spurring enthusiasm among customers and expanding the market.
"It's important that these costs and prices do come down," said Mike Ahearn, the chief executive of First Solar, a panel maker based in Tempe, Ariz.
First Solar recently announced a deal to build two large solar arrays in Southern California to supply that region's dominant utility. But across the United States, the installation of large solar systems — the type found on commercial or government buildings — has been hurt by financing problems, and is on track to be about the same this year as in 2008, according to Emerging Energy Research.
The smaller residential sector continues to grow: In California, by far the largest market in the country, residential installations in July were up by more than 50 percent compared with a year earlier. With prices dropping, that momentum looks poised to continue.
John Berger, chief executive of Standard Renewable Energy, the company in Houston that put panels on Hare's home, said his second-quarter sales rose by more than 225 percent from the first quarter.
"Was that as a product of declining panel prices? Almost certainly yes," Berger said.
Expanded federal incentives have also helped spur the market. Until this year, homeowners could get a 30 percent tax credit for solar electric installations, but it was capped at $2,000. That cap was lifted Jan. 1.
Hare in Texas cited the larger tax credit, which sliced about $23,000 from his $77,000 bill, as a major factor in his decision to go solar, in addition to the falling panel prices. The electric bill on his 7,000-square-foot house and garage has typically run $600 to $700 a month, but he expects a reduction of 40 to 80 percent.
Berger predicts that with panel prices falling and the generous federal credit in place, utilities will start lowering rebates they offer to homeowners who put panels on their roofs.
Even if falling rebates cancel out some of the price slump, more innovative financing strategies are also helping to make solar affordable for homeowners.
A policy known as feed-in tariffs is gaining traction, pushed by a renewable energy lobby that includes solar installers and manufacturers. The tariffs force utilities to pay more for electricity that customers generated from solar panels than those customers pay for electricity generated by the utility's power plants. Gainesville recently adopted the tariffs.
Some communities are also enacting laws to enable solar panels to be paid off gradually, through increased property taxes, after a municipality first shoulders the upfront costs.
Some installers have adopted similar approaches. Danita Hardy, a homeowner in Phoenix, had been put off by the prospect of spending $20,000 for solar panels — until she saw a news item about a company called SunRun that takes on the upfront expense and recovers its costs gradually, in a lease deal, essentially through the savings in a homeowner's electric bill.
"I thought well, heck, this might be doable," said Hardy, who wound up having to lay out only $800 to get 15 solar panels for her home.
New York Times
WUXI, China — President Barack Obama wants to make the United States "the world's leading exporter of renewable energy," but in his seven months in office, it is China that has stepped on the gas in an effort to become the dominant player in green energy — especially in solar power, and even in the United States.
Chinese companies have already played a leading role in pushing down the price of solar panels by almost half over the last year.
Backed by lavish government support, the Chinese are preparing to construct plants to assemble their products in the United States to bypass protectionist legislation. As Japanese automakers did decades ago, Chinese solar companies are encouraging their U.S. executives to join industry trade groups to tamp down anti-Chinese sentiment before it takes root.
Since March Chinese governments at the national, provincial, and even local level, have been competing with one another to offer solar companies ever more generous subsidies, including free land, and cash for research and development. State-owned banks are flooding the industry with loans at considerably lower interest rates than available in Europe or the United States.
Suntech Power Holdings, based in Wuxi, China, is on track this year to pass Q-Cells of Germany, to become the world's second-largest supplier of photovoltaic cells, which would put it behind only First Solar in Tempe, Ariz.
Hot on Suntech's heels is a growing list of Chinese corporations backed by entrepreneurs, local governments and even the Chinese military, all seeking to capitalize on an industry deemed crucial by China's top leadership.
"I don't see Europe or the United States becoming major producers of solar products — they'll be consumers," said Thomas M. Zarrella, the chief executive of GT Solar International, a company in Merrimack, N.H., that sells specialized factory equipment to solar panel makers around the world.
WUXI, China — President Barack Obama wants to make the United States "the world's leading exporter of renewable energy," but in his seven months in office, it is China that has stepped on the gas in an effort to become the dominant player in green energy — especially in solar power, and even in the United States.
Chinese companies have already played a leading role in pushing down the price of solar panels by almost half over the last year.
Backed by lavish government support, the Chinese are preparing to construct plants to assemble their products in the United States to bypass protectionist legislation. As Japanese automakers did decades ago, Chinese solar companies are encouraging their U.S. executives to join industry trade groups to tamp down anti-Chinese sentiment before it takes root.
Since March Chinese governments at the national, provincial, and even local level, have been competing with one another to offer solar companies ever more generous subsidies, including free land, and cash for research and development. State-owned banks are flooding the industry with loans at considerably lower interest rates than available in Europe or the United States.
Suntech Power Holdings, based in Wuxi, China, is on track this year to pass Q-Cells of Germany, to become the world's second-largest supplier of photovoltaic cells, which would put it behind only First Solar in Tempe, Ariz.
Hot on Suntech's heels is a growing list of Chinese corporations backed by entrepreneurs, local governments and even the Chinese military, all seeking to capitalize on an industry deemed crucial by China's top leadership.
"I don't see Europe or the United States becoming major producers of solar products — they'll be consumers," said Thomas M. Zarrella, the chief executive of GT Solar International, a company in Merrimack, N.H., that sells specialized factory equipment to solar panel makers around the world.
[Last modified: Aug 29, 2009 04:31 AM]
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/big-drop-in-cost-of-solar-panels-plus-incentives-spur-deals/1031921
Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Lower-cost solar cells to be printed like newspaper, painted on rooftops
Researchers apply the nanoparticle “inks” as a spray on the solar cells.
Comment: We all need to prepare to go off grid because the Federal Government plans to build a bunch of new nuke plants and there is only 7-15 years left of uranium! So prepare your solar panels and wind mills for your homes! Nuke plants will shut down within 20-25 years because of uranium shortage!
By Daniel J. Vargas
August 10, 2009
Solar cells could soon be produced more cheaply using nanoparticle “inks” that allow them to be printed like newspaper or painted onto the sides of buildings or rooftops to absorb electricity-producing sunlight.
Brian Korgel, a University of Texas at Austin chemical engineer, is hoping to cut costs to one-tenth of their current price by replacing the standard manufacturing process for solar cells – gas-phase deposition in a vacuum chamber, which requires high temperatures and is relatively expensive.
“That’s essentially what’s needed to make solar-cell technology and photovoltaics widely adopted,” Korgel said. “The sun provides a nearly unlimited energy resource, but existing solar energy harvesting technologies are prohibitively expensive and cannot compete with fossil fuels.”
For the past two years, Korgel and his team have been working on this low-cost, nanomaterials solution to photovoltaics – or solar cell – manufacturing. Korgel is collaborating with professors Al Bard and Paul Barbara, both of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and Professor Ananth Dodabalapur of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. They recently showed proof-of-concept in a recent issue of Journal of the American Chemical Society.
The inks could be printed on a roll-to-roll printing process on a plastic substrate or stainless steel. And the prospect of being able to paint the “inks” onto a rooftop or building is not far-fetched.
“You’d have to paint the light-absorbing material and a few other layers as well,” Korgel said. “This is one step in the direction towards paintable solar cells.”
Korgel uses the light-absorbing nanomaterials, which are 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair, because their microscopic size allows for new physical properties that can help enable higher-efficiency devices.
In 2002, he co-founded a company called Innovalight, based in California, which is producing inks using silicon as the basis. This time, Korgel and his team are using copper indium gallium selenide or CIGS, which is both cheaper and benign in terms of environmental impact.
“CIGS has some potential advantages over silicon,” Korgel said. “It’s a direct band gap semiconductor, which means that you need much less material to make a solar cell, and that’s one of the biggest potential advantages.”
His team has developed solar-cell prototypes with efficiencies at one percent; however, they need to be about 10 percent.
“If we get to 10 percent, then there’s real potential for commercialization,” Korgel said. “If it works, I think you could see it being used in three to five years.”
He also said that the inks, which are semi-transparent, could help realize the prospect of having windows that double as solar cells. Korgel said his work has attracted the interest of industrial partners.
Funding for the research comes from the National Science Foundation, the Welch Foundation and the Air Force Research Laboratory.
For more information on Korgel’s work, go to: www.che.utexas.edu/korgel-group/
For more information, contact: Daniel J. Vargas, Cockrell School of Engineering, 512-471-7541, Daniel.vargas2@engr.utexas.edu; Brian Korgel, Cockrell School of Engineering, 512-471-5633, Korgel@mail.che.utexas.edu
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200908101750/index.cfm
By Daniel J. Vargas
August 10, 2009
Solar cells could soon be produced more cheaply using nanoparticle “inks” that allow them to be printed like newspaper or painted onto the sides of buildings or rooftops to absorb electricity-producing sunlight.
Brian Korgel, a University of Texas at Austin chemical engineer, is hoping to cut costs to one-tenth of their current price by replacing the standard manufacturing process for solar cells – gas-phase deposition in a vacuum chamber, which requires high temperatures and is relatively expensive.
“That’s essentially what’s needed to make solar-cell technology and photovoltaics widely adopted,” Korgel said. “The sun provides a nearly unlimited energy resource, but existing solar energy harvesting technologies are prohibitively expensive and cannot compete with fossil fuels.”
For the past two years, Korgel and his team have been working on this low-cost, nanomaterials solution to photovoltaics – or solar cell – manufacturing. Korgel is collaborating with professors Al Bard and Paul Barbara, both of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and Professor Ananth Dodabalapur of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. They recently showed proof-of-concept in a recent issue of Journal of the American Chemical Society.
The inks could be printed on a roll-to-roll printing process on a plastic substrate or stainless steel. And the prospect of being able to paint the “inks” onto a rooftop or building is not far-fetched.
“You’d have to paint the light-absorbing material and a few other layers as well,” Korgel said. “This is one step in the direction towards paintable solar cells.”
Korgel uses the light-absorbing nanomaterials, which are 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair, because their microscopic size allows for new physical properties that can help enable higher-efficiency devices.
In 2002, he co-founded a company called Innovalight, based in California, which is producing inks using silicon as the basis. This time, Korgel and his team are using copper indium gallium selenide or CIGS, which is both cheaper and benign in terms of environmental impact.
“CIGS has some potential advantages over silicon,” Korgel said. “It’s a direct band gap semiconductor, which means that you need much less material to make a solar cell, and that’s one of the biggest potential advantages.”
His team has developed solar-cell prototypes with efficiencies at one percent; however, they need to be about 10 percent.
“If we get to 10 percent, then there’s real potential for commercialization,” Korgel said. “If it works, I think you could see it being used in three to five years.”
He also said that the inks, which are semi-transparent, could help realize the prospect of having windows that double as solar cells. Korgel said his work has attracted the interest of industrial partners.
Funding for the research comes from the National Science Foundation, the Welch Foundation and the Air Force Research Laboratory.
For more information on Korgel’s work, go to: www.che.utexas.edu/korgel-group/
For more information, contact: Daniel J. Vargas, Cockrell School of Engineering, 512-471-7541, Daniel.vargas2@engr.utexas.edu; Brian Korgel, Cockrell School of Engineering, 512-471-5633, Korgel@mail.che.utexas.edu
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200908101750/index.cfm
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Nuclear power goes solar
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Austria — Last night Greenpeace was invited by the Austrian authorities to hang a banner from a nuclear power station, unlikely but true.
The Zwentendorf nuclear plant was never operated and has been mothballed since the 70s. Today it is to open as a solar power station: our banner simply stated: “Energy Revolution – Climate Solution.”
The plants operation was fiercely contested and in 1978 a national referendum sealed its fate.
Nuclear fuel rods were never inserted into the reactor and the concrete plant on the edge of the Danube River in western Austria never produced electricity.
It has stood dormant as a testament to Austrian concerns over nuclear energy.
Now, a 1.2 million Euro project has turned the nuclear power plant into the largest solar power station in Austria.
A testament to the fact that the only safe nuclear power comes from the sun.
http://bring-the-change.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-power-goes-solar.html
Austria — Last night Greenpeace was invited by the Austrian authorities to hang a banner from a nuclear power station, unlikely but true.
The Zwentendorf nuclear plant was never operated and has been mothballed since the 70s. Today it is to open as a solar power station: our banner simply stated: “Energy Revolution – Climate Solution.”
The plants operation was fiercely contested and in 1978 a national referendum sealed its fate.
Nuclear fuel rods were never inserted into the reactor and the concrete plant on the edge of the Danube River in western Austria never produced electricity.
It has stood dormant as a testament to Austrian concerns over nuclear energy.
Now, a 1.2 million Euro project has turned the nuclear power plant into the largest solar power station in Austria.
A testament to the fact that the only safe nuclear power comes from the sun.
http://bring-the-change.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-power-goes-solar.html
Friday, July 3, 2009
Op-ed Series - Scott Sklar: What is all this "Green" stuff, and does it matter to me?
Comment: Everyone should reduce the amount of electricity we use every day, therefore, we will not have to hear the Power Companies crying for new Coal and Nuclear Plants! If you want, a big house and you can afford the McMansion put in solar and wind power! We all need to go off the grind! If we all go off the grind, No more Blowing up Mountains and open pit uranium mining or we will know the real facts about our government, they are just ruining our world for greed! Oh, by the way, Hang out the clothes and save a lot energy!July 2, 12:02 PM · Matt Roberts - DC Green Business Examiner
Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd.This article is next in the continuing summer op-ed series which asks leaders in the renewable energy and sustainability industries to speak about where we are today, and where we will be going tomorrow.
By: Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd.
In August of 1993, without anyone’s knowledge, a tree limb fell in Ohio which knocked out the electric power in 12 States and parts of Canada. Electricity outages ranged from days to weeks for millions of people. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the southeast and knocked the electric grid and natural gas pipelines down in six states from Florida to Texas. Intense weather patterns tied to an aging electric and natural gas utility network and the result is outages, higher costs, and loss of reliability.
While American’s fixate on the upward and downward trends of gasoline, the same is true for natural gas. Uranium and coal costs have also increased significantly, and State electricity regulators have been slowly allowing electricity rates to reflect the ‘real’ price of fuels. Maryland and Virginia have seen electricity prices spiral upward and no one thinks it will abate. In fact, if the region’s electrical utilities have their way – upgrading transmission and distribution lines along with substations – and then adding new electric generation plants – whose billions of dollars of new costs will have to be embedded in the electric rates by all customers for decades to come.
Not only do we face increasing power costs for our homes and businesses but we must pay for the lack of reliability and electric power quality ourselves. According to an Environmental Defense Fund report, stationary diesel engines are used in many applications including: compressors, back-up electricity generators, and to power pumps. There are more than 900,000 of these engines in-use nationwide and at the same time, the exhaust they emit is among the most dangerous and pervasive sources of air pollution. The US market for UPS and other backup power systems has grown over seven percent annually through 2005 with a $6.5 billion US uninterruptible power supply industry in 2007 in the US alone.
I am here to tell you what you know already, and I will be willing to proclaim it on a stack of bibles – “electricity and natural gas costs will go up, not down, in your lifetime”.
Energy efficiency is the fastest, most cost-effective and quickest payback set of applications, you as a business owner or homeowner or renter, can do. For quality lighting, aside from compact flourescents, lighting timers, you can also move to LED lighting and solar light tubes and daylighting. Nearly a third of your energy is for lighting and it is the easiest to address. Make a visit to area specialty stores AmicusGreen in Kensington or EcoBeco in Silver Spring, or jump on the web to area vendors www.betterbulb.com or www.huvco.com or www.newtech.com.
Maybe you don’t know what to do, call in an energy audit for a low cost review. You can reach them at the stores above or contact TerraLogos in Maryland. They’ll also recommend water saving shower heads, programmable thermostats, and caulking.
Cut your energy loads and vampire losses – insulate your walls. your water heater tank and your attic. Replacement windows should be triple pane with lowE coatings and thermal barrier paints should be added in unimproved attics. Photovoltaic attic vent fans should be used in summer and ceiling fans in both summer and winter to improve comfort but seriously lower heating and cooling bills. Did you ever ponder that we heat the top third of the rooms in buildings while we spend most of our time in the bottom third? Ceiling fans at slow speeds drive the warmth downward in winter and at higher speeds move and cool the air in summer. Put chargers for power tools, cell phones, PDAs, toys, and appliances with remotes on power strips with switches. Vampire losses use ten percent of our nation’s electricity while drawing electric power for NO reason. So turn them off when you don’t need them – from the TV in your guest room to the chargers for your cell phone in the kitchen – they draw power when not in use.
And finally, reacquaint yourself with EnergyStar appliances – washers and dryers, refrigerators, and air-conditioners use mucho power. My new high efficiency washing machine not only uses 67% less electricity than a standard washer, but 40 percent of the water of a regular washer at its lowest setting. I save electricity and water – and here in Arlington County, that’s big money.
Once you’ve shrunk your energy appetite – you can think energy production. The easiest is solar water heating when your existing water heater dies. My solar water heater added $8 per month to my second mortgage and saved me $25 per month in energy costs, Now it’s paid for and I have a 15 year old daughter, so my savings have doubled !!! Contact the local Solar Energy Industries Association for referrals www.mdv-seia.org. Make sure you buy an SRCC-certified solar system. By the way, solar for pool heating is also cost-effective with an 18-month payback whether you use electricity, propane or natural gas for extending your swimming season.
For space heating and cooling I am a big fan of ductless heat pumps which not only use less energy to heat or cool, but being ductless lowers respitory diseases. I have the Sanyo system in my VA office building for the last 10 years. The most efficient way to heat and cool a building is ground-coupled heat pumps, also known as geoexchange or geothermal heat pumps. For new construction, a loop of water tubing circles the building or yard 10-feet underground. For existing buildings, small bore holes are drilled slanting down from 100 – 400 feet underground. The static underground temperature of 55 degrees requires so much less energy to heat or cool, you wonder why the US only has it in 900,000 buildings. Note the water never the leaves the tube and can be integrated into radiant floor systems or radiators. And the newer direct-exchange heat pumps use greenhouse gas friendly refrigerant in special air handlers on the walls, which is what I use in my home. There are three great GCHP companies that I have met in the Washington, DC region: SKS of Bethesda, Geothermal Options of Fairfax, and Harvey Hottel in Washington, DC., among others. Geothermal is cost effective, but be very selective of your drilling or ditching companies, which can the biggest cost of any geoexchange system. Get multiple bids from drillers and contractors and references – and call the references and possibly meet them in person.
Now for renewable energy electric systems, I wish to point out that I have photovoltaics on my DC and VA office buildings and also on my home. I have a small wind turbine on my VA office building with a smart, web-enabled batttery bank by GridPoint. My home photovoltaics (solar electric) system also has a larger battery bank and is web-enabled by Locus Energy. If you have a building off-the-grid, photovoltaics or small wind make sense. If you live in the Caribbean or have high electric rates for your business (expressed as demand charges, peak or seasonal charges, or ratchet rates), an appropriately-sized photovoltaics system can surely be cost-effective -- especially if you you do not need surge protection (for power sags, surges and transients) for digital equipment such as computers or back-up power UPS or generator systems. In fact, a small-wind or photovoltaics/battery system could be the most reliable, least expensive option for you now.
For most of us homeowners though, PV will cost more than standardized electricity from the electric grid. Now my $15,000 PV/battery home system (installed in 1985) now would be eligible for a 30% tax credit ($4,500) and the remainder on a 15 year second mortgage at 8.5% interest would cost my $98.47 per month, which due to the energy efficiency measures I described above, meets most of my electrical needs. So while a solar PV system is capital intensive, it does not have to be seen as a giant black hole. The electricity price does not increase, maintenance is minimal (especially if you web-enable), and of course you add no pollution or greenhouse gases to the planet.. If you are able to zone for small wind, wind energy is half the cost (if you have wind). My wind turbine spins reliably at night. Could it be the hot air generated on Capitol Hill? (there seems to be some disagreement by some of the experts on this issue). I have used almost every model by SW Windpower which has over 100,000 turbines worldwide including one at the base of the US Capitol at the US Botanic Gardens (www.wind-energy.com).
But the question I posited at the beginning is “Why does it matter?”
The extraction, conversion and use of energy is the single largest contributor to emissions causing changes in our global climate. And Boone Pikens is right, that importing energy (petroleum, natural gas and uranium) is causing the single largest transfer of wealth in history (and in many cases, from those who wish to harm us). Energy costs will rise, and energy efficiency and renewables are stable, reliable, long term investments. Emissions from energy not only emit greenhouse gases and level mountain tops and ruin streams and farmland, but emit regulated emissions (sulfur oxide, NOx and particulates) but also mercury and carcinogens.
Whether your concerns are national security, economic stability, environmental survivability or just good ole common sense – it’s time to put your money not only into being green, but in being smart.
While American’s fixate on the upward and downward trends of gasoline, the same is true for natural gas. Uranium and coal costs have also increased significantly, and State electricity regulators have been slowly allowing electricity rates to reflect the ‘real’ price of fuels. Maryland and Virginia have seen electricity prices spiral upward and no one thinks it will abate. In fact, if the region’s electrical utilities have their way – upgrading transmission and distribution lines along with substations – and then adding new electric generation plants – whose billions of dollars of new costs will have to be embedded in the electric rates by all customers for decades to come.
Not only do we face increasing power costs for our homes and businesses but we must pay for the lack of reliability and electric power quality ourselves. According to an Environmental Defense Fund report, stationary diesel engines are used in many applications including: compressors, back-up electricity generators, and to power pumps. There are more than 900,000 of these engines in-use nationwide and at the same time, the exhaust they emit is among the most dangerous and pervasive sources of air pollution. The US market for UPS and other backup power systems has grown over seven percent annually through 2005 with a $6.5 billion US uninterruptible power supply industry in 2007 in the US alone.
I am here to tell you what you know already, and I will be willing to proclaim it on a stack of bibles – “electricity and natural gas costs will go up, not down, in your lifetime”.
Energy efficiency is the fastest, most cost-effective and quickest payback set of applications, you as a business owner or homeowner or renter, can do. For quality lighting, aside from compact flourescents, lighting timers, you can also move to LED lighting and solar light tubes and daylighting. Nearly a third of your energy is for lighting and it is the easiest to address. Make a visit to area specialty stores AmicusGreen in Kensington or EcoBeco in Silver Spring, or jump on the web to area vendors www.betterbulb.com or www.huvco.com or www.newtech.com.
Maybe you don’t know what to do, call in an energy audit for a low cost review. You can reach them at the stores above or contact TerraLogos in Maryland. They’ll also recommend water saving shower heads, programmable thermostats, and caulking.
Cut your energy loads and vampire losses – insulate your walls. your water heater tank and your attic. Replacement windows should be triple pane with lowE coatings and thermal barrier paints should be added in unimproved attics. Photovoltaic attic vent fans should be used in summer and ceiling fans in both summer and winter to improve comfort but seriously lower heating and cooling bills. Did you ever ponder that we heat the top third of the rooms in buildings while we spend most of our time in the bottom third? Ceiling fans at slow speeds drive the warmth downward in winter and at higher speeds move and cool the air in summer. Put chargers for power tools, cell phones, PDAs, toys, and appliances with remotes on power strips with switches. Vampire losses use ten percent of our nation’s electricity while drawing electric power for NO reason. So turn them off when you don’t need them – from the TV in your guest room to the chargers for your cell phone in the kitchen – they draw power when not in use.
And finally, reacquaint yourself with EnergyStar appliances – washers and dryers, refrigerators, and air-conditioners use mucho power. My new high efficiency washing machine not only uses 67% less electricity than a standard washer, but 40 percent of the water of a regular washer at its lowest setting. I save electricity and water – and here in Arlington County, that’s big money.
Once you’ve shrunk your energy appetite – you can think energy production. The easiest is solar water heating when your existing water heater dies. My solar water heater added $8 per month to my second mortgage and saved me $25 per month in energy costs, Now it’s paid for and I have a 15 year old daughter, so my savings have doubled !!! Contact the local Solar Energy Industries Association for referrals www.mdv-seia.org. Make sure you buy an SRCC-certified solar system. By the way, solar for pool heating is also cost-effective with an 18-month payback whether you use electricity, propane or natural gas for extending your swimming season.
For space heating and cooling I am a big fan of ductless heat pumps which not only use less energy to heat or cool, but being ductless lowers respitory diseases. I have the Sanyo system in my VA office building for the last 10 years. The most efficient way to heat and cool a building is ground-coupled heat pumps, also known as geoexchange or geothermal heat pumps. For new construction, a loop of water tubing circles the building or yard 10-feet underground. For existing buildings, small bore holes are drilled slanting down from 100 – 400 feet underground. The static underground temperature of 55 degrees requires so much less energy to heat or cool, you wonder why the US only has it in 900,000 buildings. Note the water never the leaves the tube and can be integrated into radiant floor systems or radiators. And the newer direct-exchange heat pumps use greenhouse gas friendly refrigerant in special air handlers on the walls, which is what I use in my home. There are three great GCHP companies that I have met in the Washington, DC region: SKS of Bethesda, Geothermal Options of Fairfax, and Harvey Hottel in Washington, DC., among others. Geothermal is cost effective, but be very selective of your drilling or ditching companies, which can the biggest cost of any geoexchange system. Get multiple bids from drillers and contractors and references – and call the references and possibly meet them in person.
Now for renewable energy electric systems, I wish to point out that I have photovoltaics on my DC and VA office buildings and also on my home. I have a small wind turbine on my VA office building with a smart, web-enabled batttery bank by GridPoint. My home photovoltaics (solar electric) system also has a larger battery bank and is web-enabled by Locus Energy. If you have a building off-the-grid, photovoltaics or small wind make sense. If you live in the Caribbean or have high electric rates for your business (expressed as demand charges, peak or seasonal charges, or ratchet rates), an appropriately-sized photovoltaics system can surely be cost-effective -- especially if you you do not need surge protection (for power sags, surges and transients) for digital equipment such as computers or back-up power UPS or generator systems. In fact, a small-wind or photovoltaics/battery system could be the most reliable, least expensive option for you now.
For most of us homeowners though, PV will cost more than standardized electricity from the electric grid. Now my $15,000 PV/battery home system (installed in 1985) now would be eligible for a 30% tax credit ($4,500) and the remainder on a 15 year second mortgage at 8.5% interest would cost my $98.47 per month, which due to the energy efficiency measures I described above, meets most of my electrical needs. So while a solar PV system is capital intensive, it does not have to be seen as a giant black hole. The electricity price does not increase, maintenance is minimal (especially if you web-enable), and of course you add no pollution or greenhouse gases to the planet.. If you are able to zone for small wind, wind energy is half the cost (if you have wind). My wind turbine spins reliably at night. Could it be the hot air generated on Capitol Hill? (there seems to be some disagreement by some of the experts on this issue). I have used almost every model by SW Windpower which has over 100,000 turbines worldwide including one at the base of the US Capitol at the US Botanic Gardens (www.wind-energy.com).
But the question I posited at the beginning is “Why does it matter?”
The extraction, conversion and use of energy is the single largest contributor to emissions causing changes in our global climate. And Boone Pikens is right, that importing energy (petroleum, natural gas and uranium) is causing the single largest transfer of wealth in history (and in many cases, from those who wish to harm us). Energy costs will rise, and energy efficiency and renewables are stable, reliable, long term investments. Emissions from energy not only emit greenhouse gases and level mountain tops and ruin streams and farmland, but emit regulated emissions (sulfur oxide, NOx and particulates) but also mercury and carcinogens.
Whether your concerns are national security, economic stability, environmental survivability or just good ole common sense – it’s time to put your money not only into being green, but in being smart.
For more info: You can leave your questions in the comment section, or forward them to me at DCGreenExaminer@gmail.com.
About the Author:
Scott Sklar is President for the last 10 years of The Stella Group, Ltd..a strategic marketing and policy firm for clean distributed energy users and companies, and Scott Sklar, the Group's founder and president, lives in a solar home in Arlington, Virginia and his coauthored book, A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy, was re-released for its third printing. Scott Sklar is Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the Boards of Directors of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, and the Renewable Energy Policy Project, and CoChairs the Policy Committee of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, Sklar was also appointed in April 2007 onto National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT) of USEPA.
For 15 years he was simultaneously the Executive Director of the Solar Energy Industries Association and the National BioEnergy Industries Association. For two years prior, he was Political Director of the Solar Lobby formed by the national environmental groups, after 3 years at the National Center for Appropriate Technology as alternatively RD&D and Washington Directors. Scott served for nine years as an energy and military aide to Senator Jacob K Javits (NY) and was cofounder of the Congressional Solar Coalition - the group that drove the early 1970's legislation for renewables.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4230-DC-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Oped-Series--Scott-Sklar-What-is-all-this-Green-stuff-and-does-it-matter-to-me
About the Author:
Scott Sklar is President for the last 10 years of The Stella Group, Ltd..a strategic marketing and policy firm for clean distributed energy users and companies, and Scott Sklar, the Group's founder and president, lives in a solar home in Arlington, Virginia and his coauthored book, A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy, was re-released for its third printing. Scott Sklar is Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the Boards of Directors of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, and the Renewable Energy Policy Project, and CoChairs the Policy Committee of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, Sklar was also appointed in April 2007 onto National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy & Technology (NACEPT) of USEPA.
For 15 years he was simultaneously the Executive Director of the Solar Energy Industries Association and the National BioEnergy Industries Association. For two years prior, he was Political Director of the Solar Lobby formed by the national environmental groups, after 3 years at the National Center for Appropriate Technology as alternatively RD&D and Washington Directors. Scott served for nine years as an energy and military aide to Senator Jacob K Javits (NY) and was cofounder of the Congressional Solar Coalition - the group that drove the early 1970's legislation for renewables.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4230-DC-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Oped-Series--Scott-Sklar-What-is-all-this-Green-stuff-and-does-it-matter-to-me
Friday, May 29, 2009
German City Emerges as a World Class Energy-Saver
Comment: State of Virginia, we need to go the true Green Way for energy, not the dirty coal, Nuke way, the old fashion ideas, get with the program!! No to Nuke Plants and uranium mining & milling!!
For Release Sunday, May 31, 2009
FREIBURG — Tucked into a sunny corner of southwestern Germany, this old university town was best known until the 1970s for its massive cathedral dome, its tie to the Black Forest, and its craft of intricately carved cuckoo clocks.
Who would have thought then that early 21st century Freiburg could claim to be a world-class eco-city, leading in solar and wind power, energy-conserving home construction, rain-water management, public transit and carless neighborhood development?
Blame, if you will, authorities of the regional (state) government of Baden-Wuerttenberg. In 1975 they announced they’d build a nuclear power plant near Freiburg. No choice, they decreed, the power was needed for growth, and nuclear power was the smart modern choice.
The government had failed to reckon with local opposition — not just university faculty and students, but denizens of all ages, as well as local farmers, residents of nearby small towns. They mobilized around the construction site, tore down perimeter fences, used church bells to warn when the police were coming.
Even after the plant was cancelled, they stuck together, agreeing it wasn’t enough to say what they opposed — they had to explore where they would get their future electricity, power, heat. Would it be solar, or wind, or geothermal? Could it happen with no nuclear power, with radically less oil and coal?
It was an open debate. Professors came to the town plaza to discuss arrays of energy strategies. Special research institutes were founded — among them an EcoInstitute to look into such issues as reduced household consumption through energy-efficient construction and appliances. Also founded in Freiburg: the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, now Europe’s largest solar research energy body with a 500-person staff.
A visitor is exposed to exciting solar razzle-dazzle in Freiburg today — some 1,000 solar panels on building rooftops and facades, 2,400 square meters of solar cells atop a city stadium, and a solar tower at the railway station, its mixture of glass and 240 embedded solar panels glistening in the sun.
It’s taking time for solar to satisfy more than a fraction of Freiburg’s city energy demands. But it keeps growing because of a crucial incentive — the legal right of homeowners and businesses to feed excess power back into the local power grid, at an attractive rate of return, on a multi-year basis.
Germany as a whole is following the Freiburg lead, investing billions in photovoltaic research to become one of the world leaders in solar panel production and installation.
“We do trips into the future,” says Juergen Hartwig, a founding partner of “Freiburg Futour” which explain’s Freiburg’s breakthroughs to visitors. Environmentalists like himself, he notes, are no longer scoffed at as impractical idealists who wear two sweaters in winter; today not only Germany’s “Greens” but the main political parties have come around to support solar and other energy alternatives, because they’re profitable, and because they provide the county with some 250,000 jobs.
Freiburg keeps expanding its energy saving alternatives. Town center is an expansive vehicle-free pedestrian zone, one of Germany’s first, with refreshing foot-wide fresh water canals running along the streets to provide natural cooling and add ambiance. There’s a robust, growing public transit system of electric trams and buses. The city’s advanced water systems include grassy swales to percolate rain water into the aquifer while sewage waste is collected in a biogas plant together with organic household waste for electric power generation.
But perhaps the biggest wonder is Freiburg’s Vauban district — site of post-World War II French military barracks that’s been transformed into the world’s model for a zero-street parking, totally eco-friendly neighborhood or suburb.
Solar power, streets downsized to accommodate people instead of cars, cycling paths, rain water management — Vauban has them all. Seventy percent of Vauban’s 5,000 residents don’t own an automobile at all; many sold a car to move into the neighborhood and now rely on a car-sharing scheme (like ZipCar in the United States) for excursions.
Vauban’s theme is walkability — not just auto-free walkways but a variety of stores a stroll from home. There’s a tram direct into the center of Freiburg. Residences consist of a series of handsome four-story buildings, attractively detailed with balconies — all designed to maximize energy efficiency. Free-standing homes, our American model of the four-walled house with yard around, simply aren’t permitted.
Could this be the model of future development in the United States and elsewhere? The break from our generally broad streets and minimum parking requirements is dramatic. Few American zoning laws would tolerate such a development. But the convenience, the freedom for children to wander about, the informal and livable atmosphere, provide high quality of life.
Combine that with world-standard energy efficiency — standards that may become mandatory in a post-oil, carbon-strained world — and the Vauban art of development may spread a lot more rapidly than anyone would now predict.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
http://citiwire.net/post/973/
For Release Sunday, May 31, 2009
FREIBURG — Tucked into a sunny corner of southwestern Germany, this old university town was best known until the 1970s for its massive cathedral dome, its tie to the Black Forest, and its craft of intricately carved cuckoo clocks.
Who would have thought then that early 21st century Freiburg could claim to be a world-class eco-city, leading in solar and wind power, energy-conserving home construction, rain-water management, public transit and carless neighborhood development?
Blame, if you will, authorities of the regional (state) government of Baden-Wuerttenberg. In 1975 they announced they’d build a nuclear power plant near Freiburg. No choice, they decreed, the power was needed for growth, and nuclear power was the smart modern choice.
The government had failed to reckon with local opposition — not just university faculty and students, but denizens of all ages, as well as local farmers, residents of nearby small towns. They mobilized around the construction site, tore down perimeter fences, used church bells to warn when the police were coming.
Even after the plant was cancelled, they stuck together, agreeing it wasn’t enough to say what they opposed — they had to explore where they would get their future electricity, power, heat. Would it be solar, or wind, or geothermal? Could it happen with no nuclear power, with radically less oil and coal?
It was an open debate. Professors came to the town plaza to discuss arrays of energy strategies. Special research institutes were founded — among them an EcoInstitute to look into such issues as reduced household consumption through energy-efficient construction and appliances. Also founded in Freiburg: the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, now Europe’s largest solar research energy body with a 500-person staff.
A visitor is exposed to exciting solar razzle-dazzle in Freiburg today — some 1,000 solar panels on building rooftops and facades, 2,400 square meters of solar cells atop a city stadium, and a solar tower at the railway station, its mixture of glass and 240 embedded solar panels glistening in the sun.
It’s taking time for solar to satisfy more than a fraction of Freiburg’s city energy demands. But it keeps growing because of a crucial incentive — the legal right of homeowners and businesses to feed excess power back into the local power grid, at an attractive rate of return, on a multi-year basis.
Germany as a whole is following the Freiburg lead, investing billions in photovoltaic research to become one of the world leaders in solar panel production and installation.
“We do trips into the future,” says Juergen Hartwig, a founding partner of “Freiburg Futour” which explain’s Freiburg’s breakthroughs to visitors. Environmentalists like himself, he notes, are no longer scoffed at as impractical idealists who wear two sweaters in winter; today not only Germany’s “Greens” but the main political parties have come around to support solar and other energy alternatives, because they’re profitable, and because they provide the county with some 250,000 jobs.
Freiburg keeps expanding its energy saving alternatives. Town center is an expansive vehicle-free pedestrian zone, one of Germany’s first, with refreshing foot-wide fresh water canals running along the streets to provide natural cooling and add ambiance. There’s a robust, growing public transit system of electric trams and buses. The city’s advanced water systems include grassy swales to percolate rain water into the aquifer while sewage waste is collected in a biogas plant together with organic household waste for electric power generation.
But perhaps the biggest wonder is Freiburg’s Vauban district — site of post-World War II French military barracks that’s been transformed into the world’s model for a zero-street parking, totally eco-friendly neighborhood or suburb.
Solar power, streets downsized to accommodate people instead of cars, cycling paths, rain water management — Vauban has them all. Seventy percent of Vauban’s 5,000 residents don’t own an automobile at all; many sold a car to move into the neighborhood and now rely on a car-sharing scheme (like ZipCar in the United States) for excursions.
Vauban’s theme is walkability — not just auto-free walkways but a variety of stores a stroll from home. There’s a tram direct into the center of Freiburg. Residences consist of a series of handsome four-story buildings, attractively detailed with balconies — all designed to maximize energy efficiency. Free-standing homes, our American model of the four-walled house with yard around, simply aren’t permitted.
Could this be the model of future development in the United States and elsewhere? The break from our generally broad streets and minimum parking requirements is dramatic. Few American zoning laws would tolerate such a development. But the convenience, the freedom for children to wander about, the informal and livable atmosphere, provide high quality of life.
Combine that with world-standard energy efficiency — standards that may become mandatory in a post-oil, carbon-strained world — and the Vauban art of development may spread a lot more rapidly than anyone would now predict.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
http://citiwire.net/post/973/
Sunday, May 17, 2009
CHAT WITH A FIRE TOWER
Comment: thought was a interesting article and here we 30 something years later still not changing energy needs, oil, nuke plants still leading the way with their greed, come on America, we need True Green Energy, Wind, Solar, Tide, Thermal - NO NUKE POWERS, NO URANIUM MINING!!!Published on May 17, 2009 in environmental technologies.
The article below appeared in a 1973 issue of “Forest notes,” as well as the Waterville Valley “Wig Wag.” While a quarter century has passed, Hans’ story is as relevant ever. Why didn’t we listen then?…
Some people are given to day-dreaming. I am one of them. My latest daydream had to do with the fire tower on top of Mt. Osceola and a chat I had with that old lady (like ships and railroad engines, a fire tower is a “she”).
You look unhappy, I said to her.
I am, said she. People think I am useless. They don’t need me anymore. And yet I could be useful. Not by watching out for forest fires — airplanes do a better job of that nowadays. They have wings. Now, if I had wings…
Good heavens, I said, you don’t want wings to fly away with?
O no! not that kind of wings, but wings such as windmills have. I could be a WINDMILL.
A windmill? What for? Windmills went out of fashion fifty years ago.
Some fashions have a come-back, she said. 1 could be a modern windmill with big aerodynamic wings. I would drive a generator and produce hundreds of kilowatts of electricity. Clean, too: no fuel to foul up the air. And FREE, almost. No costs except for construction, amortization, and maintenance.
You talk like an engineer, or an economist, or both, I said.
Well, I have lots of time, so I keep busy solving problems: science, technology, ecology, and so on. Take ENERGY, for instance. What you people mainly use for energy is FOSSIL FUEL: oil, coal, natural gas. It’s all getting terribly expensive. Worse: there will be less and less of it as you need more and more, for more and more people. No end in sight.
And the POLLUTION! Strip-mining … oil spills … it’s a nightmare! You can’t keep this small planet of yours livable that way. Besides, fossil fuel is a “nonrenewable resource.” Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. Using up fossiI fuel means living off your CAPITAL. Very bad practice, my dear. What has become of the famous Yankee thrift?
I know it’s a problem, I said, but do you have a solution?
I do indeed, It’s the WIND.
I know it’s a problem, I said, but do you have a solution?
I do indeed, It’s the WIND.
People consider wind outmoded as an energy source — it’s just good enough for recreation, for small sailing boats. That’s a mistake. Wind is the greatest natural energy source on earth, ready for use, if you will only put your minds to it. It’s INEXHAUSTIBLE, and it doesn’t pollute.
Remember: WIND drove your New England Clipper Ships across the oceans. They could make 18 knots — not bad even compared with modern oil-driven freighters. About the same time — around 1850 — there were thousands of windmills in the U. S., producing almost a billion and a half horsepowers a year. As recently as fifty years ago the windmills on your farms were still pumping water and driving electric generators, untill the· Rural Electrification Program (based mainly on fossil fuel) made them expendable.
Of course you’ll say: wind is unreliable it isn’t always blowing. What then?
Well, the answer is you STORE ENERGY. You store it while the wind blows, so you have it when it doesn’t. So far there have been mainly two ways to store energy: storage batteries like the ones in your car; or storage reservoirs: you pump water into a reservoir while the wind blows, and release the water to drive turbine generators when it stops. Both ways have drawbacks: batteries are not too efficient, water may be scarce, and reservoirs are expensive to build. But there is now another way: modern FLYWHEELS.
Read about Flywheels in the December, 1973, issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It’s fabulous what ultra-modern flywheels can do. Traditional flywheels are clumsy and heavy. The modern ones are light they substitute whirling speed for weight. They can store energy several times as economically as batteries, and they can be made to run for weeks, even months, once they have been set whirling by wind of any other power. Unlike water reservoirs you can put them up anywhere, and they don’t take much space. One can make them so small and light one can install them in a compact electric automobile and make it run 200 miles at 60 m.p.h. on ONE charge.
Sounds incredible, doesn’t it?
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a trustworthy publication, and so is SMITHSONIAN magazine which carries a fascinating article on WIND POWER, in its
November, 1973, issue: a committee of experts from N. S. F. (National Science Foundation), and from N. A. S. A. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have figured out that with a major WIND POWER PROGRAM the U. S. could produce, within 25 years or so, the installations to generate 1.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year equal to the total consumed in the whole country in 1970. The people from N. S. F. and N. A. S. A. should know what they are talking about. After all, they are the ones that sent men to the moon.
They suggest huge wind-driven generators, arranged in widely extended GRIDS, so when some of those “super windmills” are becalmed, the others take up the slack. Such arrangement would take care of most of your nation’s energy needs, stretch your dwindling fossil fuel supplies many times over, protect you against blackmail from oil suppliers abroad, and help preserve your environment. Some of those grids could be built on platforms in the ocean, off the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with double advantage: sea winds blow strong most of the time, and you could use some of the energy to produce HYDROGEN from sea-water, by electrolsis. That would mean one more way to store energy: hydrogen can drive combustion engines such as automobile motors, and it is a clean fuel; when you burn it the result is WATER.
And one more word about that storage problem: you can avoid it altogether, in many cases, by feeding the electricity produced by windmills into an existing
power system. Remember the giant windmill on “Grandpa’s Knob,” near Rutland, Vermont, more than thirty years ago? It was the largest windmill ever built, 175 feet across. It could, and did, generate 1250 kilowatt of electric energy (enough to light a town) which was fed into the network of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation: no storage problem, you see! It was an experimental machine which was dismantled after one blade broke off in March, 1945, and war-time shortages made replacement impossible, but it showed how one could use wind energy on a large scale.
To sum it up: what you need is a CRASH PROGRAM TO HARNESS WIND POWER. I’d be glad to help if I can.
It sounds convincing, I said, but I have three questions: 1) how about ATOMIC ENERGY; 2) in the daily papers one hardly ever reads about WIND as energy source: Why? 3) if wind power is all that promising, why doesn’t our government take the lead and start a CRASH PROGRAM?
The answers aren’t easy, she said, but I’ll try.
Remember: WIND drove your New England Clipper Ships across the oceans. They could make 18 knots — not bad even compared with modern oil-driven freighters. About the same time — around 1850 — there were thousands of windmills in the U. S., producing almost a billion and a half horsepowers a year. As recently as fifty years ago the windmills on your farms were still pumping water and driving electric generators, untill the· Rural Electrification Program (based mainly on fossil fuel) made them expendable.
Of course you’ll say: wind is unreliable it isn’t always blowing. What then?
Well, the answer is you STORE ENERGY. You store it while the wind blows, so you have it when it doesn’t. So far there have been mainly two ways to store energy: storage batteries like the ones in your car; or storage reservoirs: you pump water into a reservoir while the wind blows, and release the water to drive turbine generators when it stops. Both ways have drawbacks: batteries are not too efficient, water may be scarce, and reservoirs are expensive to build. But there is now another way: modern FLYWHEELS.
Read about Flywheels in the December, 1973, issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It’s fabulous what ultra-modern flywheels can do. Traditional flywheels are clumsy and heavy. The modern ones are light they substitute whirling speed for weight. They can store energy several times as economically as batteries, and they can be made to run for weeks, even months, once they have been set whirling by wind of any other power. Unlike water reservoirs you can put them up anywhere, and they don’t take much space. One can make them so small and light one can install them in a compact electric automobile and make it run 200 miles at 60 m.p.h. on ONE charge.
Sounds incredible, doesn’t it?
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a trustworthy publication, and so is SMITHSONIAN magazine which carries a fascinating article on WIND POWER, in its
November, 1973, issue: a committee of experts from N. S. F. (National Science Foundation), and from N. A. S. A. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have figured out that with a major WIND POWER PROGRAM the U. S. could produce, within 25 years or so, the installations to generate 1.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year equal to the total consumed in the whole country in 1970. The people from N. S. F. and N. A. S. A. should know what they are talking about. After all, they are the ones that sent men to the moon.
They suggest huge wind-driven generators, arranged in widely extended GRIDS, so when some of those “super windmills” are becalmed, the others take up the slack. Such arrangement would take care of most of your nation’s energy needs, stretch your dwindling fossil fuel supplies many times over, protect you against blackmail from oil suppliers abroad, and help preserve your environment. Some of those grids could be built on platforms in the ocean, off the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with double advantage: sea winds blow strong most of the time, and you could use some of the energy to produce HYDROGEN from sea-water, by electrolsis. That would mean one more way to store energy: hydrogen can drive combustion engines such as automobile motors, and it is a clean fuel; when you burn it the result is WATER.
And one more word about that storage problem: you can avoid it altogether, in many cases, by feeding the electricity produced by windmills into an existing
power system. Remember the giant windmill on “Grandpa’s Knob,” near Rutland, Vermont, more than thirty years ago? It was the largest windmill ever built, 175 feet across. It could, and did, generate 1250 kilowatt of electric energy (enough to light a town) which was fed into the network of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation: no storage problem, you see! It was an experimental machine which was dismantled after one blade broke off in March, 1945, and war-time shortages made replacement impossible, but it showed how one could use wind energy on a large scale.
To sum it up: what you need is a CRASH PROGRAM TO HARNESS WIND POWER. I’d be glad to help if I can.
It sounds convincing, I said, but I have three questions: 1) how about ATOMIC ENERGY; 2) in the daily papers one hardly ever reads about WIND as energy source: Why? 3) if wind power is all that promising, why doesn’t our government take the lead and start a CRASH PROGRAM?
The answers aren’t easy, she said, but I’ll try.
1) You already have quite a few nuclear power plants, and many more under construction, but there are serious problems: HEAT POLLUTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; URANIUM getting scarce; danger of sabotage. If a fanatic should succeed in blowing up an atomic plant, you’d have a home-made Hiroshima right in the U.S.
2) The silence about WIND POWER puzzles me too I can’t answer that. Perhaps YOU can do something about it: write a letter to your hometown newspaper, talk about it with your friends.
3) Here things get complicated. You have, as Mark Twain put it, “the best government money can buy,” but that isn’t good enough.
You see, there are billions and billions invested in the Oil, Coal, Gas and Atomic business.
You see, there are billions and billions invested in the Oil, Coal, Gas and Atomic business.
It’s extremely profitable, and many corporations in this field are international. That’s important. In business profits come first. The nation’s interest is a poor second, especially with an international outfit.
You may not like this set-up but there it is. And it’s only human that those who reap enormous profit from this set-up will hold on to it with all their might, which is plenty. When they speak, the government listens.
But nobody owns the wind. There’s no money invested in it, so there is no “wind lobby,” and nobody speaks to the government for the wind. Nobody, that is, except scientists, and to them the government hardly listens. Yet the best of your scientists have people’s interest in mind rather than the profits of giant corporations. In· the present crisis you need scientific advice more than ever, but President Nixon has unfortunately abolished the “White House Office of Scientific Advisors.”
And note this: your government’s budget for 1974 foresees $618 mill ion for atomic research: 170 million for research in fossil fuel - mainly coal; 24 million for research in geothermal and solar energy; and aII of 1.25 million for WIND RESEARCH. To put man on the moon cost 25 billion ~ that’s two thousand times as much as the government plans to spend on wind research …
Speaking of MONEY, the oil-producing countries are wading in cash already. Within a few years they’ll have hundreds of billions of dollars to dispose of — more than they can ever use at home. So what will they do with those billions? You yourself showed them: invest in real estate and industry, not in their own countries but abroad. Right here in the United States, for instance. If you don’t watch out they could, before long, turn your proud independent country into one gigantic “Banana Republic.” How would you like that? How can you avoid it? Not by draining your own fossil fuel (and in the process destroying your environment)nor by building hundreds of nuclear reactors, accumulating unmanageable masses of deadly poisonous radio-active wastes - but by turning back to that old, tested, clean standby: the WIND.
I could go on and one, she said, but let me mention just one more point: not all nations ignore the “wind challenge.” The Germans, for instance, are constructing DYNA-SHIPS, as they call them. Big wind-driven freighters of 17,000 tons, with computer-controlled sails, designed to make 20 knots. They’ll have auxiliary motors, of course, but even so, they’ll use only 5% as much fuel as oil-driven freighters of that size. And now I’ll shut up.
She was as good as her word. Maybe she was a bit single-minded — wind is one way, but not the only one, to replace fossil fuels. Nevertheless, her facts and figures were true, and they set me thinking.
There was a fellow once, so they say, who fought against windmills, on horseback, with his lance. We still call a senseless undertaking “a fight against windmills.” It seems to me we’ll have to do the opposite: we’ll have to fight FOR WINDMILLS!
Sidebar notes from the original article:
H. A. Rey, who wrote this “Chat With A Fire Tower,” is an old·timer. Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1898 and a veteran World War I, he lived for twelve years in Brazil and four years in France before coming to the U. S. in 1940. He is known to millions, here and abroad, as the author-illustrator of the books about a mischievous monkey named CURIOUS GEORGE and of two very popular books on astronomy.
Mr. Rey and his wife Margaret (an author in her own right) live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the winter and spend their summers in Waterville Valley. From their front yard they can see an abandoned Fire Tower on the top of Mt. Osceola. In days gone by, before airplanes took over, a guard in the tower used to watch out for forest fires, during dry spells.
The Reys are life members of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
http://reycenter.org/?p=4126
But nobody owns the wind. There’s no money invested in it, so there is no “wind lobby,” and nobody speaks to the government for the wind. Nobody, that is, except scientists, and to them the government hardly listens. Yet the best of your scientists have people’s interest in mind rather than the profits of giant corporations. In· the present crisis you need scientific advice more than ever, but President Nixon has unfortunately abolished the “White House Office of Scientific Advisors.”
And note this: your government’s budget for 1974 foresees $618 mill ion for atomic research: 170 million for research in fossil fuel - mainly coal; 24 million for research in geothermal and solar energy; and aII of 1.25 million for WIND RESEARCH. To put man on the moon cost 25 billion ~ that’s two thousand times as much as the government plans to spend on wind research …
Speaking of MONEY, the oil-producing countries are wading in cash already. Within a few years they’ll have hundreds of billions of dollars to dispose of — more than they can ever use at home. So what will they do with those billions? You yourself showed them: invest in real estate and industry, not in their own countries but abroad. Right here in the United States, for instance. If you don’t watch out they could, before long, turn your proud independent country into one gigantic “Banana Republic.” How would you like that? How can you avoid it? Not by draining your own fossil fuel (and in the process destroying your environment)nor by building hundreds of nuclear reactors, accumulating unmanageable masses of deadly poisonous radio-active wastes - but by turning back to that old, tested, clean standby: the WIND.
I could go on and one, she said, but let me mention just one more point: not all nations ignore the “wind challenge.” The Germans, for instance, are constructing DYNA-SHIPS, as they call them. Big wind-driven freighters of 17,000 tons, with computer-controlled sails, designed to make 20 knots. They’ll have auxiliary motors, of course, but even so, they’ll use only 5% as much fuel as oil-driven freighters of that size. And now I’ll shut up.
She was as good as her word. Maybe she was a bit single-minded — wind is one way, but not the only one, to replace fossil fuels. Nevertheless, her facts and figures were true, and they set me thinking.
There was a fellow once, so they say, who fought against windmills, on horseback, with his lance. We still call a senseless undertaking “a fight against windmills.” It seems to me we’ll have to do the opposite: we’ll have to fight FOR WINDMILLS!
Sidebar notes from the original article:
H. A. Rey, who wrote this “Chat With A Fire Tower,” is an old·timer. Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1898 and a veteran World War I, he lived for twelve years in Brazil and four years in France before coming to the U. S. in 1940. He is known to millions, here and abroad, as the author-illustrator of the books about a mischievous monkey named CURIOUS GEORGE and of two very popular books on astronomy.
Mr. Rey and his wife Margaret (an author in her own right) live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the winter and spend their summers in Waterville Valley. From their front yard they can see an abandoned Fire Tower on the top of Mt. Osceola. In days gone by, before airplanes took over, a guard in the tower used to watch out for forest fires, during dry spells.
The Reys are life members of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
http://reycenter.org/?p=4126
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Our Current Sources of Energy and Why We Need Alternatives
Comment: save energy, turn off your lights, hang your clothes in the wind, turn down hot water tank, simple, will save on your electric bill!
By Joshua Vadney
Do you realize that one of the most common contributors to how much carbon dioxide in our air is the production of the energy we use every day? Everyone uses electricity every day and in fact we take it for granted, just flicking a switch or pushing a button to turn on the lights, watch television, or turn on our computer but have you ever considered where that electricity in your home is coming from? You might not be aware that almost all of our energy needs are provided by fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These energy sources are the blame for most of the toxic carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and scientists are growing increasingly alarmed with the impact these emissions are having on the environment.
Most people don’t realize is how using their normal appliances in their home or at work can affect our climate so strongly so they aren’t worried about finding alternative fuel sources. But the importance of finding renewable clean energy sources has never been so important as it is right now. Besides the fact that our current energy sources are harming our atmosphere, it is a fact that they will eventually run out since they aren’t renewable. This is one of the most important reasons, aside from keeping our environment clean, we need to find alternative sources for our energy needs.
Many energy companies have been exploring the possibilities of using solar panels and windmills (solar and wind energy) on a widespread basis, bringing production costs down and making them more efficient so they can be readily available. Hydro power, using dams to harness the energy from moving water with turbines, is also a good alternative source but it can only be used in area with rivers and large bodies of water. The downside of wind energy is that it can only be used in areas that have consistent wind so it can’t be used in a lot of areas as a stand alone sole energy source.
Researchers all around the world are currently trying to discover sources of alternative energy right now. One of the most common energy sources that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide is nuclear power but it is also one of the most controversial as well. Concerns about the dangers of a meltdown and contamination of the environment have kept nuclear power from being developed large scale in the United States but other countries are using nuclear power to their benefit. It is one of the most widespread uses of clean energy but the biggest downfall of using nuclear energy is the nuclear waste it produces, which can take millions of years to become inert and has to be stored. The main problem with this is that we only have so much space for storage and eventually it could leak into the environment, causing more environmental concerns.
Until we discover a clean source of energy that is more commercially available and solves our current issues with our current power power sources, the best thing we can all do to help is try to limit our our energy usage daily by being consistent. Researchers have shown that if everyone always turned off the lights when not in use in their homes and offices that it would reduce our energy usage by up to twenty percent.
Seems simple, doesn’t it?
Click Here to discover more ways you can help the environment and save money.
Have you ever considered building your own solar panels or a windmill to slash your electric bill in half or even eliminate it altogether? You don’t have to be a construction worker to make your own power! I reviewed the top three do it yourself solar panel/windmill guides on the internet today and you can find out more by going to http://www.diysolarwind.org
http://www.ebioant.com/archives/7421
By Joshua Vadney
Do you realize that one of the most common contributors to how much carbon dioxide in our air is the production of the energy we use every day? Everyone uses electricity every day and in fact we take it for granted, just flicking a switch or pushing a button to turn on the lights, watch television, or turn on our computer but have you ever considered where that electricity in your home is coming from? You might not be aware that almost all of our energy needs are provided by fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These energy sources are the blame for most of the toxic carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and scientists are growing increasingly alarmed with the impact these emissions are having on the environment.
Most people don’t realize is how using their normal appliances in their home or at work can affect our climate so strongly so they aren’t worried about finding alternative fuel sources. But the importance of finding renewable clean energy sources has never been so important as it is right now. Besides the fact that our current energy sources are harming our atmosphere, it is a fact that they will eventually run out since they aren’t renewable. This is one of the most important reasons, aside from keeping our environment clean, we need to find alternative sources for our energy needs.
Many energy companies have been exploring the possibilities of using solar panels and windmills (solar and wind energy) on a widespread basis, bringing production costs down and making them more efficient so they can be readily available. Hydro power, using dams to harness the energy from moving water with turbines, is also a good alternative source but it can only be used in area with rivers and large bodies of water. The downside of wind energy is that it can only be used in areas that have consistent wind so it can’t be used in a lot of areas as a stand alone sole energy source.
Researchers all around the world are currently trying to discover sources of alternative energy right now. One of the most common energy sources that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide is nuclear power but it is also one of the most controversial as well. Concerns about the dangers of a meltdown and contamination of the environment have kept nuclear power from being developed large scale in the United States but other countries are using nuclear power to their benefit. It is one of the most widespread uses of clean energy but the biggest downfall of using nuclear energy is the nuclear waste it produces, which can take millions of years to become inert and has to be stored. The main problem with this is that we only have so much space for storage and eventually it could leak into the environment, causing more environmental concerns.
Until we discover a clean source of energy that is more commercially available and solves our current issues with our current power power sources, the best thing we can all do to help is try to limit our our energy usage daily by being consistent. Researchers have shown that if everyone always turned off the lights when not in use in their homes and offices that it would reduce our energy usage by up to twenty percent.
Seems simple, doesn’t it?
Click Here to discover more ways you can help the environment and save money.
Have you ever considered building your own solar panels or a windmill to slash your electric bill in half or even eliminate it altogether? You don’t have to be a construction worker to make your own power! I reviewed the top three do it yourself solar panel/windmill guides on the internet today and you can find out more by going to http://www.diysolarwind.org
http://www.ebioant.com/archives/7421
Friday, April 17, 2009
Power Cars With Sun, Not Nukes
YOUR LETTERS
April 17, 2009
The editorial "A Full Tank Of Electricity" [Our View, April 12] did not deal with the subject of nuclear power.
I remain deeply concerned the advent of an electric car economy may mean that more nuclear plants will be built and dangerous plants will continue to operate.
Thus, we would be trading one source of pollution for another.
Traditional fossil fuels would give way to increased radiation emissions and leaks, toxic discharges, and carbon dioxide emitted from the mining, milling, processing and transporting of uranium.
Surely this is not the scenario that is in the best interest of public health.
Electric cars must be powered by renewable sources of energy, and photovoltaic panels should be made available to every consumer who purchases an electric vehicle.
If every parking area and charging station were covered by a roof of solar electric panels, we would have cooler cars and a healthier population.
Judi Friedman, Canton
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digbrflets0417.art4apr17,0,7884167.story
April 17, 2009
The editorial "A Full Tank Of Electricity" [Our View, April 12] did not deal with the subject of nuclear power.
I remain deeply concerned the advent of an electric car economy may mean that more nuclear plants will be built and dangerous plants will continue to operate.
Thus, we would be trading one source of pollution for another.
Traditional fossil fuels would give way to increased radiation emissions and leaks, toxic discharges, and carbon dioxide emitted from the mining, milling, processing and transporting of uranium.
Surely this is not the scenario that is in the best interest of public health.
Electric cars must be powered by renewable sources of energy, and photovoltaic panels should be made available to every consumer who purchases an electric vehicle.
If every parking area and charging station were covered by a roof of solar electric panels, we would have cooler cars and a healthier population.
Judi Friedman, Canton
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digbrflets0417.art4apr17,0,7884167.story
Friday, April 10, 2009
Salazar: Wind Power Can Replace 3, 000 Coal Plants
Comment: Throw some Solar Panels in there, get rid of Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining!
April 6,
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) -- Windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday.
The secretary spoke at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how the nation's offshore areas can be tapped to meet America's energy needs.
'The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility,' he said. 'It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.'
Offshore energy production, however, might not be limited to wind power, Salazar said. A moratorium on offshore oil drilling has expired, and President Barack Obama and Congress must decide whether to allow drilling off the East Coast.
'We know there are some people who want us to close the door on that,' he said. 'We need to look at all forms of energy as we move forward into a new energy frontier.'
Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States, according to the Energy Department.
Salazar could not estimate how many windmills might be needed to generate 1 million megawatts of power, saying it would depend on their size, and how near or far from the coast they were located.
Monday's hearing was hosted by Salazar and is the first of four to be held around the country to discuss how energy resources including oil, gas, wind and waves should be utilized as the new administration formulates its energy policy.
It was held at the Atlantic City Convention Center, whose roof-mounted solar energy panels are the largest in the nation.
In 2007, the Outer Continental Shelf, a zone extending roughly three to 200 miles from shore, accounted for 14 percent of the nation'snatural gas production, and 27 percent of its oil production.
Salazar said it is essential that the nation fully exploit renewable energy resources to reduce its reliance on imported oil.
By buying oil from countries hostile to the United States, 'we have, in my opinion, been funding both sides in the war on terrorism,' he said.
Environmentalists are urging the Obama administration to bar oil and gas drilling off the East Coast, and invest heavily in wind, solar and other energy technology.
'This is a defining moment, whether we're going to have a clean energy future or continue to rely on oil drilling,' said Jeff Tittel, New Jersey director of the Sierra Club. 'Right now the government is fossil-foolish, and we need to change that.'
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said offshore drilling should not be allowed, citing the economic cost of a spill.
'The risks are great, the rewards are less,' he said. 'It perpetuates our reliance on oil. Frankly, we simply just don't want it.'
But Skip Hobbs, a petroleum geologist from New Canaan, Conn., said oil and gas drilling has been shown to be safe.
'We should recognize that as a practical matter, fossil fuel will rule for another generation,' he said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the nation needs to drill more, saying 'it can be done intelligently.'
'We need to start looking at the self-inflicted energy dependence we have because we refuse to develop our domestic energy industry,' he said.
New Jersey is tripling the amount of wind power it plans to use by 2020 to 3,000 megawatts. That would be 13 percent of New Jersey's total energy, enough to power between 800,000 to just under 1 million homes.
In October, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture of PSE&G Renewable Generation and Deepwater Wind, was chosen to build a $1 billion, 345 megawatt wind farm in the ocean about 16 miles southeast of Atlantic City. That plant would be able to power about 125,000 homes.
In Atlantic City, the local utilities authority has a wind farm consisting of five windmills that generate 7.5 megawatts, enough energy to power approximately 2,500 homes.
Rhode Island Gov. Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, said renewable energy's appeal crosses partisan lines.
'There is a sense of urgency that we get this moving and get it right,' he said. 'There is a national emergency right now; the dependence on oil and natural gas has gone on for too long.'
April 6,
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) -- Windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday.
The secretary spoke at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how the nation's offshore areas can be tapped to meet America's energy needs.
'The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility,' he said. 'It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.'
Offshore energy production, however, might not be limited to wind power, Salazar said. A moratorium on offshore oil drilling has expired, and President Barack Obama and Congress must decide whether to allow drilling off the East Coast.
'We know there are some people who want us to close the door on that,' he said. 'We need to look at all forms of energy as we move forward into a new energy frontier.'
Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States, according to the Energy Department.
Salazar could not estimate how many windmills might be needed to generate 1 million megawatts of power, saying it would depend on their size, and how near or far from the coast they were located.
Monday's hearing was hosted by Salazar and is the first of four to be held around the country to discuss how energy resources including oil, gas, wind and waves should be utilized as the new administration formulates its energy policy.
It was held at the Atlantic City Convention Center, whose roof-mounted solar energy panels are the largest in the nation.
In 2007, the Outer Continental Shelf, a zone extending roughly three to 200 miles from shore, accounted for 14 percent of the nation'snatural gas production, and 27 percent of its oil production.
Salazar said it is essential that the nation fully exploit renewable energy resources to reduce its reliance on imported oil.
By buying oil from countries hostile to the United States, 'we have, in my opinion, been funding both sides in the war on terrorism,' he said.
Environmentalists are urging the Obama administration to bar oil and gas drilling off the East Coast, and invest heavily in wind, solar and other energy technology.
'This is a defining moment, whether we're going to have a clean energy future or continue to rely on oil drilling,' said Jeff Tittel, New Jersey director of the Sierra Club. 'Right now the government is fossil-foolish, and we need to change that.'
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said offshore drilling should not be allowed, citing the economic cost of a spill.
'The risks are great, the rewards are less,' he said. 'It perpetuates our reliance on oil. Frankly, we simply just don't want it.'
But Skip Hobbs, a petroleum geologist from New Canaan, Conn., said oil and gas drilling has been shown to be safe.
'We should recognize that as a practical matter, fossil fuel will rule for another generation,' he said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the nation needs to drill more, saying 'it can be done intelligently.'
'We need to start looking at the self-inflicted energy dependence we have because we refuse to develop our domestic energy industry,' he said.
New Jersey is tripling the amount of wind power it plans to use by 2020 to 3,000 megawatts. That would be 13 percent of New Jersey's total energy, enough to power between 800,000 to just under 1 million homes.
In October, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture of PSE&G Renewable Generation and Deepwater Wind, was chosen to build a $1 billion, 345 megawatt wind farm in the ocean about 16 miles southeast of Atlantic City. That plant would be able to power about 125,000 homes.
In Atlantic City, the local utilities authority has a wind farm consisting of five windmills that generate 7.5 megawatts, enough energy to power approximately 2,500 homes.
Rhode Island Gov. Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, said renewable energy's appeal crosses partisan lines.
'There is a sense of urgency that we get this moving and get it right,' he said. 'There is a national emergency right now; the dependence on oil and natural gas has gone on for too long.'
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Numeric Power to enter solar panel assembling biz
The company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them
The company is planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where it has a 1.5-MW windmill farm
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, Numeric Power Systems
R. Ravikumar
Chennai, March 27 Chennai-based Numeric Power Systems Ltd, a major player in
uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, is planning to enter solar panel assembling business.
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, said the company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them.
“We are also toying with the idea of foraying into the precision air-conditioning space with a strategic partner,” he said.
The company offers total solar power solutions and LED lighting solutions, besides offering products including solar PV panels (currently imported as panels), under amorphous and crystalline cell-based technologies, solar charge controllers and grid-tied inverters.
It has executed three solar power projects with total generation capacity of 200 kKWp for captive consumption at its facilities in Chennai, Puducherry and Salem, besides over 100 installations for many banks and other clients.
“We are now planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where we have a 1.5-MW windmill farm,” he said. The company has chalked an investment budget of Rs 25 crore for the purpose. “We may require another Rs 5 crore to set up a panel assembling facility there.”Market share
The Rs 430-crore Numeric Power has 20 per cent share of the market in UPS systems. Of this, Mr Chellappan said, 20 per cent comes from the small office, home office and SME segments; 30 per cent from the banking, financial services and insurance sector; 30 per cent from corporate clients, while the high-capacity segment such as healthcare, IT and telecom sectors fetch 20 per cent.
Last year, Numeric grew over 40 per cent. However it may not grow more than 10 per cent this year “due to slowdown”.
The company is a major player in powering ATMs. “In India, close to 80 per cent of the total 32,000 ATMs installed is powered by us,” he said.
On the LED lighting systems front, Numeric offers products for indoor and outdoor applications, including solar street lighting systems and decorative lighting systems.
HCL tie-up
Besides, Numeric has teamed up with HCL to power Pan-African e-networking project for linking hospitals and educational institutions in the continent with their counterparts in India for telemedicine and distance education, in addition to various other e-connectivity projects there.
The company is planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where it has a 1.5-MW windmill farm
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, Numeric Power Systems
R. Ravikumar
Chennai, March 27 Chennai-based Numeric Power Systems Ltd, a major player in
uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, is planning to enter solar panel assembling business.
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, said the company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them.
“We are also toying with the idea of foraying into the precision air-conditioning space with a strategic partner,” he said.
The company offers total solar power solutions and LED lighting solutions, besides offering products including solar PV panels (currently imported as panels), under amorphous and crystalline cell-based technologies, solar charge controllers and grid-tied inverters.
It has executed three solar power projects with total generation capacity of 200 kKWp for captive consumption at its facilities in Chennai, Puducherry and Salem, besides over 100 installations for many banks and other clients.
“We are now planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where we have a 1.5-MW windmill farm,” he said. The company has chalked an investment budget of Rs 25 crore for the purpose. “We may require another Rs 5 crore to set up a panel assembling facility there.”Market share
The Rs 430-crore Numeric Power has 20 per cent share of the market in UPS systems. Of this, Mr Chellappan said, 20 per cent comes from the small office, home office and SME segments; 30 per cent from the banking, financial services and insurance sector; 30 per cent from corporate clients, while the high-capacity segment such as healthcare, IT and telecom sectors fetch 20 per cent.
Last year, Numeric grew over 40 per cent. However it may not grow more than 10 per cent this year “due to slowdown”.
The company is a major player in powering ATMs. “In India, close to 80 per cent of the total 32,000 ATMs installed is powered by us,” he said.
On the LED lighting systems front, Numeric offers products for indoor and outdoor applications, including solar street lighting systems and decorative lighting systems.
HCL tie-up
Besides, Numeric has teamed up with HCL to power Pan-African e-networking project for linking hospitals and educational institutions in the continent with their counterparts in India for telemedicine and distance education, in addition to various other e-connectivity projects there.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Environmental Benefits of Using Solar Panels As An Energy Source
By SolarByTheWatt.com on March 26, 2009
You probably know the sun generates more than 10,000 times the amount of energy the entire world consumes annually. Yet, this “free” energy has remained greatly untapped. Conversely, the environment is being degraded by our current energy choices. The positives for using solar panels are obvious, but what few know is how it also helps our environment.
First lets look at what we are using currently to meet our energy needs, coal and nuclear energy, and how ecologically damaging they are.
To start, most existing coal plants release many different toxins directly into the air we breathe, from sulfur to lead and mercury. Even the newer plants coming on line, which reduce toxins dramatically, still produce massive quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas and a direct cause of global warming. Natural gas is far more benign but still produces large quantities of CO2 when used to produce electricity. How much CO2 is released - a 5-kilowatt solar system will prevent the release of nearly 10,400 pounds of CO2 every year for the life of the system. The average home uses 8,000-kilowatt hours per year. A coal power plant producing that much electricity emits about 18,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released. Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.
Secondly, large quantities of water are needed to remove impurities from coal at the mine. These large quantities of water are used for producing steam and for cooling systems. When coal-fired power plants remove water from a lake or river, the fish and other aquatic life can be affected, as well as animals and people who depend on these aquatic resources. At the same time, pollutants build up in the water used by the power plant boiler and cooling system. If the water used in the power plant is discharged to a lake or river, the pollutants in the water can harm fish and plants.
Last, the burning of coal creates solid waste, called ash, which is composed primarily of metal oxides and alkali. On average, the ash content of coal is 10 percent. Solid waste is also created at coal mines when coal is cleaned and at power plants when air pollutants are removed from the stack gas. Much of this waste is deposited in landfills and abandoned mines, although some amounts are now being recycled into useful products, such as cement and building materials.
So, you may say, what about nuclear power? While nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides - fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant.
Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling.
When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river, fish and other aquatic life can be affected.
Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems.
These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.(I have seen fish kills in a certain state's Beaches)
Waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove and replace the “spent” uranium fuel.
This spent fuel has released most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become radioactive waste.
All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste. Currently, the radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
This waste will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
As you can see, the more solar power is used, the more it helps our environment.
By investing in solar today you are investing in your future and your children’s future and you do this by combating global warming and reduce our nation’s dependence of foreign energy sources.
And, you are helping in the reduction of CO2 emissions and protecting clean water sources.
It’s amazing how such a small change in one’s life can do so much.
ARI Green Energy is a manufacturer of wind generator technologies. Visit them today for a full line of wind turbines and solar technology solutions. Think green.
Article Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_830778_45.html
About the Author: Author: Robert Bell
You probably know the sun generates more than 10,000 times the amount of energy the entire world consumes annually. Yet, this “free” energy has remained greatly untapped. Conversely, the environment is being degraded by our current energy choices. The positives for using solar panels are obvious, but what few know is how it also helps our environment.
First lets look at what we are using currently to meet our energy needs, coal and nuclear energy, and how ecologically damaging they are.
To start, most existing coal plants release many different toxins directly into the air we breathe, from sulfur to lead and mercury. Even the newer plants coming on line, which reduce toxins dramatically, still produce massive quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas and a direct cause of global warming. Natural gas is far more benign but still produces large quantities of CO2 when used to produce electricity. How much CO2 is released - a 5-kilowatt solar system will prevent the release of nearly 10,400 pounds of CO2 every year for the life of the system. The average home uses 8,000-kilowatt hours per year. A coal power plant producing that much electricity emits about 18,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released. Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.
Secondly, large quantities of water are needed to remove impurities from coal at the mine. These large quantities of water are used for producing steam and for cooling systems. When coal-fired power plants remove water from a lake or river, the fish and other aquatic life can be affected, as well as animals and people who depend on these aquatic resources. At the same time, pollutants build up in the water used by the power plant boiler and cooling system. If the water used in the power plant is discharged to a lake or river, the pollutants in the water can harm fish and plants.
Last, the burning of coal creates solid waste, called ash, which is composed primarily of metal oxides and alkali. On average, the ash content of coal is 10 percent. Solid waste is also created at coal mines when coal is cleaned and at power plants when air pollutants are removed from the stack gas. Much of this waste is deposited in landfills and abandoned mines, although some amounts are now being recycled into useful products, such as cement and building materials.
So, you may say, what about nuclear power? While nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides - fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant.
Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling.
When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river, fish and other aquatic life can be affected.
Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems.
These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.(I have seen fish kills in a certain state's Beaches)
Waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove and replace the “spent” uranium fuel.
This spent fuel has released most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become radioactive waste.
All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste. Currently, the radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
This waste will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
As you can see, the more solar power is used, the more it helps our environment.
By investing in solar today you are investing in your future and your children’s future and you do this by combating global warming and reduce our nation’s dependence of foreign energy sources.
And, you are helping in the reduction of CO2 emissions and protecting clean water sources.
It’s amazing how such a small change in one’s life can do so much.
ARI Green Energy is a manufacturer of wind generator technologies. Visit them today for a full line of wind turbines and solar technology solutions. Think green.
Article Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_830778_45.html
About the Author: Author: Robert Bell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
