Part one in a series on do-it-yourself-solar by solar energy expert Kriss Bergethon –

For homeowners around the world, the idea of reducing their power bills and helping the planet is pretty enticing.  The problem now as it always has been is money.  Solar can be expensive, and even with government rebates the cost can scare some people away.  If you are a do-it-yourselfer you've probably wondered if you can tackle a solar project.   Let's walk through a typical design and installation process and see if its right for you and your home.

Location selection basics
Well you're probably smart enough to figure out that you'll need A) a sunny region and B) a sunny place to install the system.  The more sun you get, the quicker your systems will pay for itself, its that simple.  There are some nice tools to determine where exactly you should put the system.  The solar pathfinder is one of easiest and most affordable ways to find the best location for panels.  This ingenious device works by showing you a reflection of the sky and the sun's path for all four seasons in your area.  Using this you can see exactly what will shade your panels throughout the course of the year.

You also want solar panels installed fairly close to your home and power meter.  Since photovoltaic power is DC, the wire that carries it grows larger and more expensive the further away it is from the inverter, meter, and power center of the house.  You'll want a place close to the house but out of way of children and their errant soccer balls.  Also if you are planning on installing the system on your roof, its worth it to do a roof inspection.  No sense in installing a system if it will have to be removed in a couple years to replace the shingles.

Determining angle and azimuth
Generally speaking the closer you can get your panels to facing due south (or 180 degrees azimuth) the better.  If you live in an urban area and are not sure which way south is exactly, use Google Maps to look up your address and click on the satellite image.  You might be surprised to see that roof you thought was south facing is actually southeast facing!

The angle from horizontal is very important too.  The angle should be equal to your latitude since this will mean the panels will be perpendicular to the sun for greatest amount of time.  If you're not sure what latitude you're at, check out this latitude map of the US.   So if you live in Portland, with a latitude of approximately 45 degrees, your panels should be set at an angle of 45 degrees from horizontal.  IF your roof angle is within 10 degrees of you latitude you can mount the panels easily, if not you may have to consider a rack system that will tilt the panels.

Space considerations
The rule of 1/10 is easy to remember for solar power.  You'll need 1/10 of a square foot for every watt you install.  So if you want to install 2,000 watts, you will need about 200 square feet of space for panels, racking, wiring, and a little space to work around them.  This will vary slightly by the type of installation and panels you get but this will serve as a guide for the time being.  You'll also need about a 4'x4' area near the meter for the inverter, breakers, and power components.  Keep in mind also that your power company may want to install a new meter or even an additional meter for the system.

Contacting the utility and building department
Its always a good idea to talk to your power company about installing a system.  You will probably need an interconnection agreement, an inspection, and a rate schedule if you are planning to sell back power.  They'll also want some information about the panels and inverter you are installing.  Also, ask about additional rebates and an up to date cost per kilowatt-hour that you are paying.

You should also place a call to the local building department and ask about permits.  This may seem like a pain, but really it protects you from hassles in the end.  Eventually they'll probably find out about your systems anyway and you may have to pay a fine for not getting a permit.  The vast majority of inspectors will allow you to install a system on your own home, they may just require you to have a master electrician sign off on the installation.

Estimate your production
You'll want to decide just what the system is going to produce over the course of a year.  The National Renewable Energy Lab has a cool tool that will allow you to do this.  With the information you've determined in the steps above, click on this solar map.  Then find your area, and double click on it.  You should see a data window open up with a link at the bottom that says "Send to PV Watts".  Click on that link, then enter the information we determined in the first steps for angle, azimuth, and cost of power.  Also enter the size of the system you want in kilowatts.  Click on the calculate button and you'll see the production per month for a year.  This can help you determine payback.

Finally: Determine a budget
Possibly the most important part is deciding how much you can spend on a system.  Most complete solar power kits cost between $4 and $6 per watt, depending on the size and racking system.  Be sure to take into account all state, local, and utility incentive programs, which can be found here.  You may even find a supplier that will take the rebates off the price of the system, then the manufacturer goes after the rebate.  Sharp has a program like this.

Next we'll determine what skills and tools are needed, and start planning the installation.

—————-

Kriss Bergethon lives off the grid with his wife in Colorado.  For more information visit his website at Solar Power Kits.

One key aspect of the discussion this week at the Transatlantic Media Dialog – part of the ongoing effort of climate and energy cooperation began earlier this years as the "Transatlantic Climate Bridge" in which I've had the opportunity to participate – was the issue of perception. Specifically how climate change and climate policy is perceived in the US and EU, as well as across the globe. As I wrote in my post A Sense of Urgency Ahead of COP15 earlier this week from the conference, many (all?) nations look upon the US as "climate laggards," scratching their heads at the antics in Congress, and expressing what at times seems holy indignation over the apparent lack of concern in the US about climate change and sustainability in the general populace.

Whether that perception is fully warranted or not, there is a perception in the US that concern over and certainly action taken on climate change rests solely in the purview of those from a particular political party or worldview – democrats and liberal tree-huggers.

Granted, that is a simple-minded approach, and many understand there are much more nuanced outlooks toward climate change across the political and idealogical spectrum, but the perception persists nonetheless – and not without some validity.

David Catarious was one of the speakers at the conference this week. Catarious is a consultant for the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA),and was on the team that helped prepare an assessment report that considered the national security risks of climate change. CNA brought together a Military Advisory Board chaired by former army Chief-of-Staff General Gordon Sullivan and consisting of  11 retired three and four-start admirals and generals. The group comprises a vast body of experience and unique perspective on world affairs. As on example, one board member, Admiral Richard Truly, is a former astronaut (shuttle pilot), Administrator of NASA, and former director of the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado. These guys aren't out there towing a enviro-liberal  agenda.

The report was tasked with assessing the national security threat of projected climate change over the next thirty to forty years, encompassing the time frame for developing new military threats and capabilities.

A threat multiplier

The report concludes that climate change is indeed a threat to America's national security, and key to that finding is the conclusion that global warming is a "threat multiplier" for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and that such volatility will reach even the most stable regions due to the tensions caused by climate change.

The report focuses on four key aspects of climate change risk that will likely lead to global instability and thus threaten national security:

1. Water
2. Food security
3. Health risks from vector borne diseases
4. Land loss and flooding

One of the first likely examples of climate-based instability is Darfur, where herders and farmers co-existed peeacefully for many years. When the region became plagued with a prolonged draught, herders began moving their livestock on to their productive land, that was rapidly becoming leas productive as a result of the draught. That situation led to ethnic conflict, which led to the genocide that we see today.

Water is one of the largest concerns raised in the report, and the melting glacial ice sheet of the Himalayas, the third largest ice sheet in the world behind Greenland and Antarctica, is one key focal point of that concern. Many of the world's poorest and most volatile regions depend on the Himalayan ice pack for their water, billions of people, including India and Pakistan.

All these risks taken by themselves are serious problems and threats to global stability. Taken in concert they become a profound threat multiplier placing enormous stress on regional, national, and international security and stability.

A military perspective on climate science

In 2006, when the Military Advisory Board first began the process of assessing climate change risk to national security, chairman Sullivan addressed the idea of "100 percent certainty" concerning the science on global warming. From a military perspective, waiting to act until there is 100 percent certainty of a potential threat or outcome is simply, and fatally, to act far too late. Sullivan was aware, especially back in 2006, that the work of the CNA and Military Advisory Board would come under fire (s0 to speak) from ideologues determined to sidestep and marginalize the issue of climate change. When framing the issue from a military perspective – threat assessment and action planning – it becomes more difficult to marginalize the very serious potential threat posed by climate change.

CNA is well aware that the perception of climate change can make a big difference on how people respond to the issue. Speak of dying polar bears and shrinking polar ice caps may for some lead to doubt and derision. Talk of climate change in terms of military threat assessment and national security, and those same folks are all ears.

The military is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It has enormous power to become a change agents, innovators, and first adopters. The CNA and Military Advisory Board  sees that as prudent planning for future national security.

Read the full CNA Climate Security report.

We are told that buying local is better for the Earth and for people. The idea is that local products have a smaller environmental footprint than those produced more distantly. Advocates of buying local suggest that this preserves the environment while strengthening the local economy. However, we live in a global economy and it is worth questioning whether this approach actually benefits the earth and its inhabitants.

Buy local advocates share many of the same concerns as sustainability advocates, however measures of sustainability go beyond geography and include every step that brings products to market.

Locally bought products are not always sustainable products. For example, locally produced agriculture can include pesticides, chemical fertilizers, hormones, and non-therapeutic antibiotics. Nor are locally produced goods always the more energy efficient choice. According to Alex Avery, director of global food research at the Hudson Institute, the best way to minimize agriculture-related emissions is to buy food from regions where it grows best. His argument suggests that efficiency be used as a conservation tool.

Although buying locally is perceived as contributing to better working conditions, diverting purchases from developing countries removes potential buyers from the market and this can substantially worsen the condition of those who can least afford it. According to John Clark, a social development specialist for East Asia at the World Bank, "a local focus can breed an unhealthy provincialism and lead to practices that harm both the environment and the poor in developing nations."

As Clark has said “we need more sophistication than just, 'buy local, biases in favor of local production techniques can lead not only to wasteful energy systems such as growing bananas in domestic hothouses, but also to a mistaken idea that techniques most familiar to consumers are also ecofriendly."

Buying locally often causes us to forget to think globally. We simply cannot afford to exclude the wider world from our purchasing decisions. This is the view of Roy Jacobowitz, senior vice president for development and communications at Acción International, a Boston-based nonprofit  lender to micro-entrepreneurs in developing nations. "The 'buy locally' argument is an isolationist argument, which I think is a dangerous one. Poor entrepreneurs in the emerging world need the opportunity to sell into markets that can pay fair prices for their goods," Mr. Jacobowitz said.

Local purchasing cannot be reflexively equated with moral purchasing. When considering the sustainability of a product, there are a lot of questions to ask beyond where it was manufactured or produced.

Smart buying decisions are not always the most obvious. Finding the right buying channels cannot be reduced to a popular slogan. The environmental footprint of a product is measured by more than just the distance it travels. Rather than framing buying decisions as a buy local imperative, we should consider making buying decisions based on a comparative assessment of a product’s overall sustainability profile.

—————-

Richard Matthews is a consultant, eco-entrepreneur, sustainable investor and writer. He is the owner of THE GREEN MARKET, one of the Web’s most comprehensive resources for information and tools on sustainability. He is also the author of numerous articles on sustainable positioning, green investing, enviro-politics and eco-economics.