Solar Power trade show goes international

I was lucky enough to get to the Solar Power conference in San Diego this year, and boy has the event grown. The preimenent solar energy event of the year is a co-production of SEPA and SEIA and was launched in 2004 as a combination trade show and policy forum to discuss all things solar.

As the interest in solar energy has grown in the US and abroad, so has this conference. About 20,000 people were in attendance. Manufacturers, installers, and suppliers of solar PV, thermal, and even wind were in abundance. I was floored by the size of the show - 400+ companies with amazingly elaborate displays were there. Germany had an entire section of the show floor, as did Taiwan. There were flat plate, thin film, evacuated tube, and good 'ol glass and copper thermal products as far as you could see.

It was great to see the exponential growth of this industry and I'll try to post some reflections on what this means for Florida and Miami in particular.

Solar Tax Breaks Survive

So the Senate (after what, nine tries?) finally passes the solar investment tax credit. Now it looks like solar energy companies may be the only bright spot in the stock market. See Reuters report: Solar stocks enjoy rally as US tax breaks renewed

So solar wins out for once, but it can't win without giving big wads of cash to good-ole' Big Oil. It looks like the leadership in the Congress is buckling under the pressure of an uninformed electorate that insists that punching holes in the American coastline for more global warming juice is going to give them a break on the price. It probably will - in a decade. By then gas will be $5 a gallon anyway.

So is this a win for Florida? I guess so, as long as we don't consider the detrimental effects of continued growth in the combustion of fossil fuels and that Florida is the State that will suffer the most from sea level rise. The Florida Congressional Delegation also secured the extension of the moratorium for Florida.

At least we can now get closer to serious about solar energy production in this country. Hopefully Florida will take advantage.

MIami Herald: PSC OK's deals on electricity fed back to grid

BY JOHN DORSCHNER

jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com

After months of discussion, the Public Service Commission on Thursday approved agreements from the state's five investor-owned power companies so that customers can receive credit for electricity that they feed back to the grid from solar panels and other forms of renewable energy on their property.

The concept, called net metering, is to promote the development of customer-owned renewable energy by minimalizing costs. Excess power that the customer generates and doesn't use will be allowed to go into the grid, and then the utility will give the homeowner a credit for that power.

''By making it more attractive for customers to use renewables, we are promoting fuel diversity and reliability and increasing development of renewable generation in Florida,'' said PSC Chairman Matthew M. Carter II in a prepared statement. ``Today's approval will encourage eligible customers to reduce the electricity purchased from their utility -- saving money for the customer and increasing grid capacity for the utility.''

The discussion about net metering has been taking place in PSC workshops and commission meetings for a year and a half.

The new measure applies to customers of Florida Power & Light, Progress Energy Florida, Gulf Power, Tampa Electric and Florida Public Utilities.

Under a previous rule, only renewable systems of 10 kilowatts or smaller were eligible. That has been expanded to two megawatts, meaning large businesses with solar panels occupying rooftops can now qualify for the program.

Also on Thursday, the PSC approved FPL's request to build another generator powered by natural gas in western Palm Beach County.

Some thoughts on drilling our way out of our fossil fuel dependency

For some reason, I never actually posted the following screed. Probably because it didn't deal directly with solar. It's a bit dated now that gas has come all the way down to $3.85 or so, but the nuts-and-bolts remain the same.

________________________

Since the amount of oil available throughout the world has increased over the last year, while demand has begun to decline (everywhere - not just in the US), the run-up in oil prices has been entirely driven by speculators doing classic pump-and-dump market manipulation. Thanks for this newest artificial crisis goes to the Repubs for deregulating the commodities market in 2005.

Even the frikin' Saudis say that there's no rational explanation for the price of oil - THEY think it's overpriced.

So drilling for a tiny quantity of oil off Florida's coast (most of what's out there is believed to be natural gas) gets us what?

If ANWR was opened up tomorrow, it would lower prices by a couple pennies in 10 years (straight from the Federal Energy Information Agency). For those who say that if we opened it when Cheney first sneered about conservation being a lifestyle choice not worthy of real Americans, we'd still be two years off from dropping gas prices from $4.12 all the way down to $4.10 a gallon. And that's assuming that "supply and demand" had ANYTHING to do with oil prices right now.

We consume 10-13 million barrels of oil a DAY in this country. Our domestic production peaked in 1974 for no other reason than we're running out of the easy to reach stuff. What remains is much harder to get out of the ground (ie way more expensive extraction and in much lighter volumes) and is often dirtier stuff requiring more processing (additional cost). In the not too distant future, domestic production will reach the point where it will take a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. And that first barrel will be better quality stuff.

People who say that we can drill our way to energy independence remind me of those RedBull contests with the home-made flying machines - "if only I flapped my arms harder I could fly."

Oil will remain an important commodity for a long time to come, but without significant investments in efficiency and alternative energy development this country's economy will be crushed on the shoals of the oil age.

Remember, "the Stone Age did not end for lack of stones." They found a better tool and moved on.

FPL has some 'splainin to do

The Florida Public Service Commission - not really known as the most rabid watchdog of the public trust - really clamped a fang into FPL over their shockingly inept management of their green energy program called Sunshine Energy.

The PSC took Florida's largest utility to task for squandering the majority of the $9.6 million raised through their volunteer subscribers on marketing the frigging program. Green Mountain, the contractor charged with running this program, blew 74% of the $8.6 million they received from FPL on marketing.

Read the synopsis on the Florida PSC website

The Sunshine Energy program was supposed to support the purchase of 1000 kWh of green energy for the customer's voluntary $9.95 contribution to FPL. On top of that, the Utility promised to install 150 kW of solar energy somewhere in Florida for every 10,000 members. They are over the 30,000 subscriber mark, so they should be well on their way to installing 450 kW of solar power in Florida - just through this program.

The PSC found that FPL fell way short. And I find that they're fudging the numbers even more than the PSC will admit. For example, here's the list of solar project that FPL can point to as examples of their good-faith effort:

• 8 kW of solar installed in cooperation with SunSmart Schools – 2 kW at 4 schools
• 2 kW of solar installed at the Miami Science Museum
• 54 kW of rooftop solar installed on homes at The Quarry residential subdivision in Naples, Florida
• 250 kW solar array at Rothenbach Park in Sarasota
• 75 kW Publix Supermarkets project – 50 kW complete, 25 kW in progress
• 124 kW of solar photovoltaic systems under the Sun Funds Program

Here's the catch - SunSmart schools was funded by taxpayers through a FDEP grant. The Sun Funds Program, according to the information provided by the PSC (I've never heard of it) is a minor incentive of $1.50 per installed watt for FPL customers on top of the $4 the State provides for solar PV installations. So FPL seems to be taking 100% credit for 15% of the contribution, or in the case of the SunSmart schools grants, 100% of the credit for no financial contribution to the projects at all.

As for the green tags, it looks like only 21% of the funds that went to Green Mountain actually went to buy Renewable Energy Credits.

What a shame.

Palm Beach Post: Bulk of FPL money for renewable energy goes to start-up costs

FPL green energy program under questioning by PSC, asks to be shielded from the public

There was a disturbing article about the PSC audit of the FPL Sunshine Energy Program published in the Miami Herald on June 6th: State audit of FPL 'green' program remains secret

The crux: FPL may not be all that forthright about how it's spending the funds that their customers are forking over to buy green tags and install new solar in Florida.

Word is that they're coming with a "revised" program to the PSC in the coming months. Possibly as early as July.

FPL is a private monopoly. The only way they exist is through the State legal framework giving them monopoly status. They shouldn't be able to shield audits of their activity from the public.

My concern is twofold - 1) they may be buying green tags worth significantly less than they charge for the "service" of buying them from green energy producers and/or 2) they've been gaming the system by including new solar projects that are actually funded through other sources like state grant programs and counting that toward their promised new solar project capacity.

Neither worry is founded in anything more than guesswork, but since they refuse to release the audit to the public, all we can do is speculate.

FPL making excuses instead of clean energy?

Re: “Solar Still a Tough Sell” by John Dorshner

See original story in the Miami Herald (if you must)

Solar is getting to be less of a “tough sell” by the day. FPL just recently announced that they were going to ask the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a 16% rate hike to offset the spike in fuel costs. Add to that, the Utility’s plan to charge ratepayers 6% now for a nuclear power plant only in the early planning stages and we have all the more reason to look to renewable energy options like solar.

Solar may be a “tough sell” for big energy companies because most solar energy technologies do not fit well within their standard model of large centralized power plants. FPL Energy, sister company to the utility, has managed to make large-scale solar work in the projects they own in the Southwest United States, but the utility’s plans for Florida were new – at least for our State where no concentrating solar power facilities exist.

Where solar energy does work well, and is making increasing economic as well as environmental sense, is on individual homes and businesses. Homeowners can now power a sizable portion of their home energy needs through on-site power, and through State mandated agreements, the local energy utility must provide connection to the power grid. Because of recent rules adopted by the PSC, all energy utilities must now compensate small “green energy” systems dollar for dollar for excess power supplied to the grid as well.

As for cost, the solar industry has received pocket change compared to oil and gas and nuclear power’s share of Federal Research and Development funds. Yet the industry has made amazing advancements with dramatic improvements in efficiency and functionality in recent years. By way of comparison, the two additional nuclear reactors proposed for Turkey point have been reported to cost $16 billion, assuming no unforeseen cost overruns. These proposed reactors are expected to produce 2200 megawatts of power. That’s a construction cost of more than $7 per watt. Solar for your home costs about $8 per watt to install and the State will reimburse you $4 of that.

Finally, the solar energy industry is one of the fastest growing energy sectors in the Country, with double digit growth in production and job creation. According to the US Department of Energy, the industry posted a 26% annual increase in jobs for 2006, and is expected to continue this rapid growth to feed the world-wide demand for solar energy products. International companies from Germany and China are now looking to establish manufacturing facilities in the US, bringing more clean energy jobs here. Florida should wholeheartedly embrace solar energy and become a world leader in the development and use of clean, sun power. It may not be a good fit for FPL, but it will work great for the rest of us.

Interesting Blog about local solar installation

I came across the blog of Ken Fields - a local inhabitant of Miami Beach and something of an entrepenerial spirit from what I can see.

He's undertaking the installation of a solar photovoltaic system on a flat-roof home using AGT FlexLight Solar Modules. These are solar laminate strips instead of the classic panel systems. The advantage that AGT has is that their product meets Miami-Dade product approval making permitting much simpler. The downside? You need more roof to produce adequate power.

Mr. Fields installation looks like its about 5 kW and is already generating power.

Way to go!

Check out his blog to see some of his experiences during the installation (and now operation) of one of the first solar electric systems in Miami Beach.

Congratulations! You're the proud owner of a $10,000 timeshare in a nuclear power plant!

The following post is a message from Dr. James Fenton, Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center. He makes a compelling argument about our State's twisted energy priorities. We're investing billions in nuclear power that is no sure bet and won't provide even one electron in new power for more than a decade. That same funding put into energy conservation would produce new energy now, save rate payers money AND create tens of thousands of local jobs all over the State. Making power available by reducing demand on existing capacity is the same as building new power plants. This doesn't make economic sense to the energy utilities who's profits are linked to power production, but other states have been able to decouple profits from energy production so that energy utilities become "energy services companies."


Enough of me blathering, here's Dr. Fenton's article:

Florida Should Invest in Energy-Efficient Homes, Not Nuclear Power Plants

Florida is planning to build more large-scale nuclear power plants to help reduce the state’s carbon footprint.

This means Florida will not be building any new coal power plants, which is good news. On the other hand, ten years will pass before these nuclear power plants even turn on, and we’ll be using more energy from natural gas plants in the meantime. While natural gas power plants leave a much smaller carbon footprint than coal power plants, the rising price of natural gas will cause our electricity costs to skyrocket. Today, we pay about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. How much will we be paying five years from now? Can we afford to wait ten years for a nuclear power plant to provide our electricity, even if it produces little to no carbon emissions?

We should focus on using less energy rather than trying to find alternative ways to produce energy. Since 51percent of Florida's electricity needs come from our homes, we should make our existing homes more energy-efficient rather than building more power plants.

You can increase your home’s energy efficiency without drastically changing your home or lifestyle, and the results are immediate. Simple changes, such as installing high-efficiency windows and air- conditioning units, upgrading home insulation systems, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, and installing solar hot water systems and Energy Star appliances, can make a huge difference in your home’s energy consumption. Plus, you don’t have to wait 10 years to start seeing the advantages of having an energy-efficient home. Once your home is made more energy-efficient, you’ll start seeing the savings right away.

FSEC was recently awarded the Energy Star® for Homes, Leadership in Housing Award for training the home energy raters who rated almost 1,400 energy-efficient homes in 2007. These 1,400 energy-efficient homes are equivalent to eliminating emissions from 972 vehicles, saving 533,376 pounds of coal, and planting 139 acres of trees, all with a savings of $620,883 on the homeowners’ annual energy bills.

FSEC was recently awarded the Energy Star® for Homes, Leadership in Housing Award for training the home energy raters who rated almost 1,400 energy-efficient homes in 2007. These 1,400 energy-efficient homes are equivalent to eliminating emissions from 972 vehicles, saving 533,376 pounds of coal, and planting 139 acres of trees, all with a savings of $620,883 on the homeowners’ annual energy bills.

This is a tremendous amount of savings for improvements to less than two percent of Florida’s existing homes. If all of Florida’s 8.5 million homeowners made a number of small energy-efficient improvements, at the end of a 10-year period, each home will save more than 70,000 kilowatt-hours, cutting back energy costs by $13-14 billion. Before any of the proposed nuclear plants start generating power, enough energy will be saved to eliminate the need for 10 nuclear power plants, totaling 10,000 megawatts.

A state full of energy-efficient homes would not only significantly reduce energy costs – which are expected to rise considerably – but it would help Florida’s economy. Money would be spent within the state on the installation of energy-efficient technologies instead of shipping money out of the state to purchase fossil fuels. Keeping money in Florida and using it to reconstruct our existing homes would stimulate the state’s ailing economy and cause employment rates to rise with the increase in demand for labor as more homes are made energy-efficient.

You’re probably thinking, “That’s all well and good, but where’s the money to do all this coming from?” Look at it this way:

Proposed nuclear power plants in Florida will take ten years to build and cost each consumer $10,000.

The estimated cost of two proposed nuclear plants in Florida, which would serve 1.7 million customers, is $17 billion. The utility company would charge customers “advance recovery costs” of about $9 per month during the next 10 years to pay for the capital carrying costs – almost 10 percent of total estimated costs – while the nuclear plants are under construction. Over the approximate 30-year lifetime of the nuclear power plants, the cost to the consumer is about $10,000 – paying $1,000 as a “construction loan” before the plant is built, and then $10,000 after it’s built, like a 30-year mortgage.

If we used that same method of financing, a 30-year loan to you, for $10,000 of cost-effective, energy-efficient modifications on your home, your monthly loan payment and new electric bill combined would be far less than your existing electric bill. Rather than owning a “timeshare” in a nuclear power plant, you’ll retain your wealth in your home, pay lower energy bills, contribute to Florida’s economy and create new jobs, and do your part to alleviate global warming.

So if the financing aspect of energy efficiency is the only thing holding you back, don’t let it! Think of where that money will go if we don’t make our homes energy efficient – straight toward a “timeshare” nobody will want. Will that large power plant arriving in ten years lower your monthly energy bill? Will it lead to energy independence? Will it save the planet?

More articles available from the "Energy Chronicle" newsletter from FSEC

Solar Power Conference & Expo opens registration for October event

Well, this post isn't South Florida centric, but important none-the-less.

The 2008 Solar Power Conference & Expo is now open for registrants. The conference, the uber-conference for solar proponents, will be in San Diego from October 13th through the 16th.

For more info, visit their official website at: solarpowerconference.com

The agenda is rather detailed well in advance of the event, with tracks finance, policy, marketing, and technology, plenary sessions and workshops.

From the Miami Herald Action Line (May 3, 2008) - Out $4500 on Solar Installation

Under Action Line "Spotlight" today, we had the following:

Q: In December, my wife and I signed a contract with Florida Solar to install a hot-water system for our house and a salt purification system for our pool. We put down a $4,500 deposit. Since then, no work has been done, and our calls and letters go unanswered. Can Action Line help?”

The answer from Action Line was “nope.” And “go file a complaint.” I looked, and there aren’t any filed with Florida DBPR yet.

What the Herald should have also said was what anyone should do before hiring a company to do expensive work on your home. 1) Get references 2) Get references 3) Get references. After that, it’s wise to look into the track record of the company to see how long they’ve been in business doing that TYPE OF WORK.

In the world of solar, it’s becoming the “wild west” again because there is a growing interest from the public with little knowledge of what they actually want, how it works, what permits are needed, you name it. Now realize that there is a very small contingent of experienced solar contractors, and couple that with the horde of pool service companies that think they can install solar panels. It’s a recipe for disaster.

I want to take a quick detour for a second to complain about another thing with this Herald story. $4500 is enough to pay for an expensive solar water heater - the whole thing, not a down payment. Now the story talks about a “salt purification system” too. I have no earthly idea what that is since I don’t own a pool, but I’m guessing it is an alternative to nasty ol’ chlorine. So why was the story about “solar installations” and not about a “pool filter?” Could it be that the word “solar” gets our attention?

Now that I’ve had my rant, here are a couple additional tips when hunting for a qualified solar contractor:

• Look for company professional affiliations. This company does not show up on the list of members for the industry trade group, the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association.

• Another good way to see if you’re hiring someone with knowledge and expertise is to ask if they are registered with the State of Florida (DBPR again) as a “Certified Solar Contractor.” Now you don’t have to be a “Certified Solar Contractor” to do installations in Florida, but it is certainly a plus. This info is also online through myfloridalicense.com. “Certified Solar Contractor” is a license type within the “Construction” category.

For the case of Florida Solar, based out of Sanford (about 40 minutes north of Orlando – thank you Google Earth), they were actually in the pool business as Olympian Pool Services according to the Florida Division of Corporations. As best I can tell from the info from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the company tapped into the solar business about four years ago.

Multiple searches on DBPR’s license info site revealed nothing. The only record I can find of the company seems to be on sunbiz.org, so probably wouldn’t have been my first choice to do this job. None of this isn't to say that there was some ill-will on the part of the business. I'm not sure what caused them to fold, but based on the info I could find (or really lack-of) it didn't seem like a safe bet.

PV Design & Installation Courses at MDC, May 9th & 10th

Miami-Dade College has been trying mightily to boost the number of qualified solar installers in South Florida. They offer regular courses through the Earth Ethics Institute for the Design and installation of solar photovoltaic systems.

The classes qualify for 7 continuing education credits for Architects and Engineers attending for the entire day-long course.

Seems like a pretty good deal for $150 for each class. North American Board of Certified Energy Providers Approved even.

Check it out at www.earthethicsinstitute.org

Governor's Climate Change Summit returns to Miami

Last year Governor Crist made national headlines by becoming the second Republican Governor (after California's Schwarzenegger) to admit that climate change was real, and that his State would lead if Washington DC would not.

That was big news then. The Governor backed that up with a call for a Renewable Portfolio Standard and signed off on some modest, but symbolically important executive orders.

The first conference headlined Schwarzenegger as well as his cousin Robert Kennedy Jr. and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Other notables included Sun Microsystems founder and now venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

Now Governor Crist just announced that the Summit would be returning to Miami on June 25-26.

Based on the tidbits of info on the website, there seems to be a focus on job growth and alternative energy:

"...in a discussion to explore opportunities for expanding Florida’s renewable and alternative energy marketplace.

Florida’s businesses continue to demonstrate that there is gold in green, and climate-friendly energy sources – like ethanol and solar energy – are bringing new prospects for our state. Stimulating investment in new technologies and building a strong alternative energy market in the Sunshine State will strengthen our state’s energy future and protect our natural environment for generations to come."

For more info, check out the official Climate Change Summit website.

Legislature finally provides some funds for solar rebate program

In this terrible budget year where Florida State legislators seem all too eager to kick little old ladies to the curb so they aren’t perceived as “raising taxes,” everyone in the solar business was biting their nails over the solar rebate.

After two successful years of the program wherein the State of Florida offered a $4 per watt cost-match for solar PV installations(up to $20,000 for residential systems), the Florida Legislature seemed prepared to knee-cap the fledgling PV installer industry, but alas, tucked somewhere in the morass of the four zillion page energy bill, the legislature has provided a lifeline of sorts for the solar rebate program.

It looks like next year the solar industry rebate fund will be replenished with $5 million. That’s certainly more than the $3.5 million allocated last year, and I guess I shouldn’t be so grumpy in such a lean budget year. But I’m going to be a grouch anyway because once you deduct the $3 million already owed as pending payments for installations already completed and qualifying for rebate, that leaves less money for 2008-2009 than when the program started in 2006. And it wasn’t exactly a national showcase for solar rebates.

Hell, the tiny city of San Francisco bonded $100 million for solar. The fourth largest State in the union (with a $60 billion budget) can only muster $5 million? So with the fate of the PV rebate (by far the largest chunk of the funding) at the mercy of a notoriously erratic Legislative funding process, the industry will likely retrench into what they know best – solar thermal pool heaters – and wait out this mess until somebody gets serious about providing incentives for solar electricity in the Sunshine State.