Showing posts with label Energy incentives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy incentives. Show all posts

The United States Should Adopt a National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard


By Daniel J. Weiss, Kalen Pruss

Efficiency is frequently described as the “low-hanging fruit” for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing fossil fuel consumption. Energy efficiency improvements can meet a substantial portion of new U.S. energy demand and are relatively easy, cheap, and within the scope of current technology. A number of states have already adopted an “energy efficiency resource standard,” or EERS requiring utilities to reduce electricity demand, and these standards are already creating electricity savings. New legislation proposed in Congress by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) would build on these successes by enacting a federal EERS that would reduce national energy demand, save businesses and households money, and reduce global warming pollution.

For the rest of the article click here.

For my Facebook followers if the link does not work go to my blog:

www.zeroenergyconstruction.blogspot.com
Read more

Rooftop Rentals Soar With Generous Canadian Feed-In Tariff


Since September, when the Ontario Power Authority began its generous payment for rooftop solar power, Toronto's commercial roof acreage has become the site of a new renewable energy gold rush by solar developers now able to earn a steady income farming solar power to local utilities for 20 years.

Just as farmers in Texas or Iowa can now earn royalties from wind developers to allow them to place wind turbines on their farm, now commercial building owners in Toronto can earn income from their roofs.

Solar developers are willing to rent a part of a building that previously had no value, that is now prime solar real estate. How much is this new income for the building owner? It could be as much as $12,000 a year.

Ontario Power Authority will now pay between 53 cents and 71 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar electricity. The utility guarantees a speedy, expedited connection to the grid so solar developers can be assured of a quick start to their earnings. And they are not the only beneficiary. The building owner and the solar developer both stand to gain.

Under the arrangement the utility pays the Feed-in Tariff amount monthly for 20 years. Once built, the solar farms can be expected to generate a steady income for 20 years to the solar developer.

Once they sign the lease, the solar companies design, build, and perform the maintenance on the system at no cost to the building owner. Both the solar developer and the building owner can earn money on the deal. Either a percent of the monthly payments from the utility can go directly to the building owner, or the solar developer can simply pay rent, averaging about 30 cents per square foot.

For example, a 250-kilowatt system that would take up 40,000 square feet on the roof would mean the building owner would earn about $1,000 a month in rent. At the end of the 20 year contract with the utility, the solar developer transfers the system to the building owner who then can benefit from the electricity for what could potentially be at least another 20 years, at slightly less efficiency.

Alternatively, compensation might be a guarantee to supply solar-sourced electricity over two decades for less than what a building owner currently pays, as CarbonFree Technology of Toronto has done. Of course the building has to undergo inspection to ensure that it can take the weight of such large solar arrays, because it may not have been engineered to handle that kind of load. (at least to put onto buildings) solar arrays.

Since September 1st, when the offer was announced, business has taken off. GTE, Ozz Solar, Helios Energy, Rumble Energy and SunOne Energy Canada are among a growing list of solar rooftop space aggregators knocking on doors
Read more

Perfect Example of Long Term Thinking

The German solar thermal firms, Solar Millennium & MAN Ferrostaal have created Solar Trust of America with contracts to build 2 plants in California and 5 more plants in the US.

Once again we have succeeded in handing the lead in a new energy technology to foreign entrepreneurs with more foresight and long term horizons than we seem to be able to muster in the US. With the Solar One and Solar Two projects in the Mojave Desert, in the 1980's and 1990's, we were among the leaders in alternative, sustainable energy development. This technology was pioneering and forward thinking. It was sponsored by the DOE and could have been the basis for the US taking a leading role in the large scale global market of sustainable energy production. Instead of that what happened?

Well, it is the typical US story.

First - the DOE spent money and time to sponsor cutting edge energy technology. (This part of the story is still on going, as the DOE continues to sponsor such research.) The politicians had a photo op upon opening of these projects.

Then - in the US the political will to support such industry was not there. In the time of $1 gas and republican rule, any hint of sustainable energy support was withdrawn. But there was a group that had the political will and was interested in supporting this technology, this group was lead by Germany. Thanks to their parliamentary system of government, the German Green Party was able to gain the minimum vote percentage to become part of a ruling coalition and because of their determined advocacy of sustainability, the German Government adopted a forward looking approach to sustainable energy.

Now - fifteen years later, the technology that the US taxpayer supported through the DOE in the late 1970's and 1980's and the US political leadership promptly dropped (remember the solar system on the White House) is needed in the US and who is installing those systems? Many are being installed by European Companies that have had the governmental support through subsidy and regulation to get them over the "hump" and now they are poised to grap a large percentage of the global market. One German company is expected to own 20% of the US market!

What can we learn from this. We need to learn that long term thinking and political will to support it is what is needed in the US if we do not want to be left behind in the 21st century economy.
Read more

Denmark vs. Virginia

In 1973 there was surprise and revulsion in the western world as the Arab world, upset at the US resupply of Israel after the surprise of the Yom Kippur attack, retaliated with a knife in the soft belly of the western world and embargoed oil supplies. For those old enough to remember, it was as rude an awakening to our collective 28-year comfort enjoyed since our victory in 1945. The western world’s reaction to the events of 1973 – 1974, while rhetorically very similar, were in fact were quite different in terms of real world action.

Almost to a country, the western world decried the moves as unacceptable and almost to a country vowed to reduce their dependence on foreign energy supplies. It is here that the story becomes very interesting both for the student of history and as an insight into the probable near term consequences of actions we will take.

In examining the reaction of a western country let’s first look at Denmark. They made the decision to commit themselves to a future that was not dependant on foreign energy supplies. They made commitments not only on the oil side, but also on conservation, heat and electrical generation. In the 1980’s they also made the decision not to allow any nuclear power plants on their soil.

In examining the reaction of the US, and specifically Virginia, we made a lot of verbal noise about energy independence and freedom from foreign energy sources. We made some first steps in the years from 1974 – 1979, but with the election of Ronald Reagan and the return of cheap oil, all focus was diverted and the goals were forgotten.

Why did this happen and what were the results? Well, the American public has never had a taste for putting off gratification today for the betterment of tomorrow, and the Danes were focused on two generations down the line. An examination of the results thus far is very telling. Here is a brief comparison between Denmark and Virginia.

The GDP per capita for Denmark is $37,300.00
The GDP per capita for Virginia is $46,521.00
Per capita Virginia is 25% richer than Denmark.

The population of Denmark is approximately 5.5 million.
The population of Virginia is approximately 7.7 million.
Virginia has 40% more people than Denmark.

Denmark (proper) is approximately 17,000 sq miles
Virginia is approximately 43,000 sq miles
Virginia is 153% larger than Denmark

Total energy usage per capita in Demark is 46,722 kWH/year
Total energy usage per capita in Virginia is 99,442 kWH/year
The average Virginian uses 113% more total energy than the average Dane.

Electrical energy usage per capita in Denmark is 6,506 kWH/year
Electrical energy usage per capita in Virginia is 13,662 kWH/year
The average Virginian uses 110% more electrical energy than the average Dane.

Cost of electrical energy in Denmark is $0.322 / kWH
Cost of electrical energy in Virginia is $0.104 / k WH
The average Dane spends $2,094 on electricity annually and the average Virginian spends $1,420 on electricity annually.
The average Dane spends $674 (47%) more on electricity annually than the average Virginian.

Percent sustainable energy (including hydro) in Denmark is 17.0%
Percent sustainable energy (including hydro) in Virginia is 2.6%
Denmark produces 554% more sustainable energy than Virginia.

So what do all these numbers tell us. Before I answer that I would like to tell the reader why I chose Denmark. Denmark has the highest cost of energy of any country in the European Union. Denmark also is consistently listed as one of the freest markets in the European Union and also had the least dependency on foreign energy supplies. I wanted to compare Virginia to a real world success story.

So, back to the numbers.

First, we see that Virginia is richer (per capita GDP), larger (population) and has more natural resources (gross land area) than Demark.

Second, there is a simple truth which shines thorough the second set of figures. There is a correlation between energy cost and energy usage. In study after study it has been shown that the higher the energy cost, the lower the usage. We see this in the US in states like Vermont, which has some of the highest energy costs in the nation, but per capita has the lowest energy usage.

Third, we see that this energy independence is costing the average Dane $1.85 per day more than the average Virginian.

So for less than a Starbucks Coffee per day, we could conceivable create a sustainable and foreign intervention free energy supply. Wow, sounds like a deal to me!

So what is standing in our way Virginia? Oh, I can answer that, political will and vision. Here are three items that happened to me at the Conference on Virginia Energy Symposium (COVES) in Mid October 2009:

(excerpts from by blog)

There were 400 or so folk who showed up, most of the regular characters you find at such things: solar, wind and biomass folks, utility reps, college facility people, politicians or there reps, etc..

As I circulated among the seminars and talked to the people at the conference, I got a very clear understanding of how far we are from grasping the scope of the change that needs to be made. At this symposium, I found just what I expected, many of the people on the front lines of energy policy change and renewable generation had a clear understanding of just how much has to happen in a small amount of time.

Unfortunately, the political folks had an inkling of understanding but a lack of will and vision. I will site three examples and you judge for yourself:

At a symposium where an Assistant Secretary of DOE gave a presentation, he discussed the much needed work to be done on existing buildings in the area of energy retrofits. He described energy retrofit as “not low hanging fruit, but fruit rotting on the ground”. There is a huge potential for energy reduction that is easily achievable and compared to other energy reduction strategies, relatively inexpensive. After the presentation during the question and answer portion I asked if we could get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make it mandatory that any home purchased using their funds (which is the majority of all homes sold in the US) have an energy audit done. We could get folks used to having audits done and use this to quantify the homes energy footprint in an eye towards making energy upgrades mandatory with the sale of homes. This is a program that is not pie in the sky; rather it is currently being done in the UK. The answer was depressing a generic, "we are looking into many ways of encouraging energy audits". To me this was the failure to recognize two facts, first is that the US taxpayer now owns Fannie and Freddie (for all intents and purposes) and secondly it would take no political maneuvering, as Fannie and Freddie can impose that type of requirement at will.

The second was what happened at the final symposium, the summation of the conference. They had four speakers, one from biomass, solar and wind and one from the governor’s office. After the presentations during the questions and answer period I asked this question: I said that it seemed to me that all the presenters were ignoring the elephant in the room. Every alternative energy presenter lamented the fact that it is hard to compete with the cheap energy we have in Virginia, and that with little political and financial support from Richmond, the alternative energy community was facing a tough road. The elephant is Virginia's cheap energy. I asked the governors rep. this ~ since we all generally agree that we need sustainable, non-polluting sources of energy in Virginia and that we have cheap energy here in the olde dominion, why not use that as a positive and raise the cost of energy to create the revenue to pursue a faster switch to a sustainable future. The response was once again what I expected, the gov's rep started in saying that Virginia could not act "in a vacuum" and that making a change while the rest of the US and the world did not would hurt Virginia. I responded that we cannot abdicate our responsibility for energy independence and that is exactly what he was doing by making that argument. He said, "I did not say that" to which I said, "you most certainly did". With that the moderator took another question.

The third thing happened in a presentation by Dominion Power’s Vice President in charge of sustainable energy. She gave a presentation about the “smart meter” installations that Dominion was doing and bemoaned the fact that the customers did not seem interested in the monitoring abilities of the smart meter interface. She said that the customers were not monitoring their energy usage to lower their consumption. My hand shot up in an instant and I asked, why not have a usage carrot and stick. For example, if you use the base amount of energy you pay the base rate, but for every kWH you use over that amount the rate increases, and alternatively for every kWH you use under the base amount the rate decreases, I told her that I bet folks would pay attention to their usage then! She brushed my comment aside as unrealistic, but I muttered that I guess the meters aren’t as smart as they want to make out. I also asked her if we could institute a voluntary check box like the neighbors to neighbors fund to support customer generated energy (wind, solar, biomass). I let her know that right now North Carolina is doing this and it has almost tripled the amount of money going to the customer for electrical generation, without costing the utility a cent. Once again she said that she thought it would not work in Virginia.

So you see, this is the situation and the problem. Left in the hands of the politicians, who are guided by those with a lot of money and access and a vested interest in business as usual we are not going to see change.

So what I am asking is to think about the kind of Virginia you want for your grandchildren and act as if your actions today will have a direct effect on their lives, because they do.
Read more