Remember a while back when I was describing Feed-in Tariffs?  Well, OK, so you weren’t paying attention.  No brownie points for you.

Anyway, FiTs are handy government programs that allow small electrical generating operations (such as homeowners with a will and a way) to build an electrical generating operation, tie in to the electrical grid and sell electricity to the power company.  There are some programs, such as the one in Florida that I mentioned previously, paying enough per kilowatt hour to make it a profitable investment.

Well good golly miss molly, the Canadian government has gone bonkers!

On September 24, 2009, the Government of Ontario officially launched Canada’s first feed-in tariff (pays up to $.802 per kWh produced), a new renewable energy program established under the landmark Green Energy Act.  The feed-in tariff is a cornerstone of the province’s plan, Government’s 10 steps to green energy, to make Ontario a North American leader in the development of green energy and jobs.  

The 80.2 cents per kWh most assuredly makes them the craziest most enthusiastic promoter of renewable energy generation!

FIT Program

   The Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Program is designed to accelerate the growth of renewable sources of energy, including bio-energy, solar, water, and wind. In the process thousands of new jobs will be created right here in Ontario due to required Ontario content regulations. The program will attract a diverse range of renewable energy producers including homeowners, community-based groups and larger scale commercial generators by: 

• Guaranteeing rates for energy generated from renewable sources. Through the 20 year microFIT offering, Solar PV is the highest paying at $0.802 per kWh generated.

This Canadian program requires that most of the money spent on the solar PV generating system goes to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian contractors.  This makes sense because guaranteeing that high rate paid to purchase electricity and then selling it at a loss means taxes will be paying the difference.

So how the hell can the power company agree to pay out 5 times as much as they sell it for??  (I’m estimating here, might be more or less)

Do you think any people in Canada are stepping forward and voluntarily paying 90 cents per kWh to cover the higher costs of generating this GREEN electricity?  I doubt it.  The only way this discrepancy is going to be paid for is through taxes.

From the previous posting about the Florida town and their FiT program, we learned that one entrepreneur was installing a solar PV system, borrowing money to do it, and he estimated that he would make a $14,000.00 dollar profit per year from the investment for the 20 years they guaranteed to buy electric from him!

That’s a good deal!  The Florida program’s payments for the electric are about what the power company was selling it for.   No huge dollar loss per kWh to put the program into effect, but still spur renewable energy generation development.

All right, so if the guy in Florida can make $14,000.00 on his installation, then a Canadian with the same resources could make $50,000.00 a year??  (once again I’m estimating, it could be more)

That’s right, borrow money, buy local, install a solar cell PV (photovoltaic) electric generating system and retire!!!  (I’m exagerating  slightly to make a point)

I’m all for promoting renewable and non polluting energy sources, but this seems over the edge!  Almost like it’s a give away for people who “qualify”!

 Dadgummit, we need programs that are sustainable and don’t look like giveaways!  If this program turns out to be political shenanigans then it puts all other legitimate programs under suspicion!

I mean really, it’s everywhere of course, (knock off the ”what’s he been smoking” comments)  but for a solar application, what is the optimum location?  Would it be near the equator and in a desert?  Stop scratching your head!!  That was a rhetorical question!! Of course that’s where it is.

Apparently Saudi Arabia fits those parameters, according to official data, the sun emits 7,000 watts of energy per square meter during an average 12 hours per day of sunshine. Good grief, it doesn’t rain there, does it?   So, they have abundant oil and abundant sunshine and they sure have enough money to start building solar powered electrical generation systems.   

 The income from solar generated electricity produced in Saudi Arabia and sold locally and to surrounding countries would exceed their current income from oil production and export, or so the estimates say.  Isn’t that a pisser?  The electricity would be produced at a cost of 30 halalas per kilowatt/hour or 0.08 cents US. 

There you have it, Saudi Arabia is smart enough to capitalize on their natural resources, oil and now sun.

But…….  Saudi Arabia is not the only country with desert and sunshine!  Let’s get practical.

Many countries in the middle east have large desert areas with few people living in them.  Solar generating facilities located there could be a primary supplier for northern Africa and major parts of Europe.

Electrical generation systems in a desert wouldn’t be affected by the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) problem we have here in the United States.  Nobody seems to want those huge distribution towers any where near them.  Go figure.

What will be done?  Well, Saudi Arabia has the money and the technology to move forward successfully.  The non oil rich countries (such as Egypt, who the US sends money)  would need major assistance.

Oh well, probably the rich countries will build the solar powered generating facilities and get richer, and the poor countries will continue to receive billions of dollars in aid.

Ain’t it great?

Why is solar hot water practical?

Well, let’s say hot water needs to be supplied for 3 to 4 people every day.  This works out to approximately 80 gallons of water to be generated every 24 hours, rain or shine.  In the South Carolina coastal area (where I live) electricity costs about 11 cents per kWh.  Access to sunlight is about average to good,  AND South Carolina has an Energy Tax Credit.  (your location will change these assumptions, of course)

So, my location gives me 5.02 kWh/Sq-m/day (kilowatt hours per square meter per day) which means I need 6 sq-m (square meters) or 64.6 sq-f (square feet) of collector surface.  In this example, 2 collectors would be used and mounted in a place and angle to gather the maximum sunshine.

About the way this information is presented:

• Kilowatt hours is so you don’t have to convert BTUs into electrical energy.
• Actual hours per day consist of when the sun is high and shining.
• Using “meters” mixed with “feet” is just to piss people off.

Using cost figures based on buying a complete installation by a contractor, (I know, crazy me, but this is just to show that it is very practical cost wise, even if you don’t install it yourself) the total system, including collectors, piping, control system, backup water heating and miscellaneous curse words involved would come to $6,500.00.  Again, your location and local contractor pricing would change this.

Federal and State tax break incentives can come to $1,625.00 and $1,950.00 respectively (assuming you have any respect for either of them) leaving you with an actual installation cost of  $2,925.00!

The BREAKEVEN point is in 4 years, even when PAYING A CONTRACTOR TO DO THE WORK!!  This is amazing, outrageous, extraordinary and why the hell heck (sorry) isn’t the government promoting this???  This is something that has a serious reduction in fossil fuel burning AND is obviously beneficial to all homeowners!!

Greenhouse gas saved is 56 tons and over the estimated 15 year system life, 112,000 auto miles is an equivalent.

Here is a site that I enjoyed reading and has some very practical ideas, but first, here is an excerpt that is very true and very entertaining as well:

Important disclaimer

It is possible to hurt your self. You can cut, burn, choke, poison, or scald yourself messing about with this. You could also fall from the roof or fall down the ladder with a cable around your neck on to a wooden stake. You could electrocute your self ( with power tools ). Blow lamps can explode and solder flux can give you dermatitis. You could get tetanus or blood poisoning from a splinter or paper cut. You could have an accident on the way to B&Q in the car. So if you follow these instructions its at your own risk. Wear goggles, steel toe cap boots, thick leather gloves, a face mask and hard hat at all times. Use an RCD and proper scaffolding . Never work outside in a thunder storm. Anything you do is your own fault, it’s not my fault. I am not your mum. Good Luck see you in the next life.

This is the URL, there are items for sale, but I don’t know if they are good or bad, I just liked the solar hot water application described, completely do it yourself, and enjoyed the presentation:

http://www.solarfriend.co.uk/

Have fun.

Poor Flipper came up our creek looking for warm water to bathe and had to leave! No solar hot water!

Maybe.

A “Feed-in Tariff” (FiT) is what a power company can be REQUIRED to pay a person or company who supplies electricity generated from renewable sources.    These sources can consist of Solar PV (photo-voltaic) and wind turbines.  Couldn’t find any reference to hydro, geo-thermal or other generating methods. Maybe there are, or will be soon.

The purpose behind creating Feed-in Tariffs is to make installing alternative generating systems profitable, or at least not foolish, for investors, companies and the common person to spend the large amounts of money required for renewable energy applications.   The investment is protected by the power company being required to pay dramatically more for the electricity generated by these alternative systems than what they can generate it themselves. 

For instance, Solar PV generated power could be sold to the power company at 4 times what the electricity could be supplied by coal fired generation.  (This is just an example, apparently there are many different standards determining the amounts paid.)  The rate paid is guaranteed for the life of the renewable energy system (20 to 25 years for solar PV) and adjusted for inflation. 

Obviously, the government has to set these FiTs up and enforce them, those wild and crazy power company execs wouldn’t have come up with this idea!

This is: Incredible!  Amazing!  About time!   NOT HAPPENING in the U.S. YET! 

Well, not much, anyway.

 The Herald Tribune of Sarasota Florida reports that “Gainesville Florida is the first city in North America that requires utility customers to pay a premium for solar energy, twice the going rate for the city’s coal-generated electricity.”

They mean that the utility company will pay energy entrepreneurs who are supplying electricity to them twice what it costs them now.

And:

“Thanks to a wealth of roof space at his Gainesville warehouse, Mike Roach will soon install nearly 100 solar panels and earn an annual profit of $14,000 by selling his solar energy back to the electric company.”

Solar panels are expensive and typically take decades to generate a return on investment, so how is Roach making good money right from the start?  That premium price that the power company is forced to pay makes the difference.

The rest of Florida is not so lucky apparently.  The Herald Tribune has another article about utility companies fighting any additional cities, counties or the state from initiating this type of windfall to “energy entrepreneurs”.

“With billions of dollars at stake, FPL (Florida Power and Light)  is pushing for legislation that favors large energy companies and large solar plants over small-scale solar production on homes and businesses.”

“The timing of this is suspiciously motivated to make sure they get the legislation they want in Tallahassee and extend their monopoly over renewable energy,” said John Burges, a Sarasota-based expert on renewable energy financing.

At Thursday’s press conference, FPL’s vice president and chief development officer, Eric Silagy, dismissed the argument Burges and others have made for small-scale solar development, which has proven to be cheaper and provided more jobs in other countries, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

“We find it’s very efficient when you have the larger scale facilities,” Silagy said.

So, there you have it.  It’s probably NOT going to spread across Florida and provide a kick start to implementing small applications of renewable energy quickly.  DARN IT!

Of course, FiT will cause electricity rates to climb.  BUT, I think they are going to climb regardless.  Coal, which is the primary energy source to generate electricity in the U.S., is spewing MERCURY and all sorts of other pollutants into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. This is crazy and dangerous to our health.  And it stinks.

Either “Clean Coal” methods need to be implemented (which doesn’t seem to be happening AND is very expensive) or we need other sources for our electricity generation.  I believe Feed-in Tariffs would help get the ball rolling and MOST IMPORTANTLY would create the favorable investment environment that would open the gates to BANK FINANCING!!

If there is a payback, the banks will look on your loan application paper with something more than that “this will be fine in the bottom of my bird cage” look.

Have fun.

Some resources related to Feed-in Tariffs:

USA

• NREL: Feed-in Tariffs Legal in USA When Certain Conditions Met–The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has issued a long-awaited legal analysis of how states could implement feed-in tariffs and still comply with federal law. . .
• Chabot 2010 Price-Setting Workshops Advanced Preparation–One of the purposes of the workshops is to learn a technique for calculating the tariffs needed to cover the “cost of generation plus a reasonable profit” that is a hallmark of successful feed-in tariff programs. . .
• Feed-in Tariff Price-Setting Technical Workshops with Bernard Chabot–These are advanced workshops intended only for those seriously interested in the economic theory behind tariff setting and the formulas necessary to calculate tariffs that pay for the cost of generation plus a reasonable profit. . .
• FITness Testing: Exploring the myths and misconceptions about feed-in tariff policies–The booklet published in January 2010, reviews common criticisms of feed-in tariffs (FITs). Discussion about FITs and other policies to boost renewable energies has grown considerably in the USA – this brochure explains how FITs work and what they can contribute to improve energy security, create new jobs, and address the growing risks of climate change. . .
• New York Times: Feed-In Tariff 2.0 by John Lorinc–Just months after starting, a more lucrative version of Ontario’s feed-in-tariff program has attracted thousands of renewable energy investors, additional evidence that this particular policy lever, pioneered in Germany, can stimulate rapid growth in decentralized green power resources. . .
• NW Energy Coalition Passes Resolution in Support of FITs–The Northwest Energy Coalition passed a resolution in support of feed-in tariffs at its annual conference on November 14, 2009 in Seattle, Washington. . .
• Vote Solar Doesn’t Understand German FITs Says Author–”Vote Solar has probably never really understood FITs, and they get two things wrong here,” says Craig Morris, author of Energy Switch: Proven Solutions for a Renewable Future. . .
• Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs: Lessons Learned from the U.S. and Abroad by Karlynn Cory, NREL
• Grist: Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought by Craig Morris–As a boy growing up near the Louisiana Gulf Coast, I remember looking out of the car window at times and seeing gigantic flames over the bayous: gas flares. Around 1970, the flaring of natural gas peaked. Oil prices were so low back then that marketing gas would not have been profitable. . .
• National Journal: States Test Ways To Turn Consumers Into Producers by Emily Vaughn–Four states this year implemented feed-in tariffs, incentives that pay customers for the renewable energy they produce and “feed” back into electricity grids. Three did it for the first time, joining Washington state and California, which beefed up its law. . .
• Deutsche Bank: What Investors Want is Transparency, Longevity and Certainty-FITs–In a 36-page report issued in October, Deutsche Bank Climate Advisors identified feed-in tariffs as key tool to develop renewable energy on the scale needed. . .
• The Nation: Where’s the Clean Energy? by Robert Eshelman–It was in Germany that Ed Regan realized Gainesville, Florida, was going about things all wrong. The assistant manager at Gainesville Regional Utility (GRU) was out looking for ways to boost his city’s renewable energy capacity. “Germany was a game-changer,” Regan says. Wind turbines and solar panels seemed to be everywhere. He soon learned the secret. . .
• Proposed Indiana (Midwest) Feed-in Tariffs 2009–The tariffs suggested are applicable throughout the Midwest and not solely to Indiana. The tariffs, or prices paid for renewable generation per kilowatt-hour, are based on my professional judgment of current best practice worldwide and best practice specifically in North America. . .
• America’s Berlin Wall of Energy by Denis Du Bois–Germany’s feed-in tariff is largely responsible for the country’s dominant position in the global renewable-energy industry. The role of ratepayer in unified Germany is reversible. Independent producers of renewable energy can sell power back to utilities, and utilities are required to pay a favorable set rate. A solar energy industry has blossomed where division once blocked the way. . .
• New York Times: Worldwide Feed-in Tariffs Best for Investors By John Lorinc–Countries that adopt policies obliging utilities to purchase a percentage of their power from renewable sources at above-market prices ­ also known as a “feed-in tariff” ­ represent the safest harbors for investors looking to finance clean-energy ventures, according to a broad-ranging risk analysis released Monday by Deutsche Bank’s global asset management group and Columbia University’s Earth Institute. . .
• Solar Alliance Position Paper on Feed-in Tariffs–The Solar Alliance, the US industry trade association for solar PV manufacturers and project developers, has recently posted a position paper supportive of feed-in tariffs (FITs) to their web site. . .
• NYT: Have a Nice Day By Thomas L. Friedman–All but uses the words feed-in tariff to describe a necessary policy measure for the USA.
• North American Feed-in Tariff Policies Take Off by Ben Block, WorldWatch–Clean energy advocates in Europe have long considered the feed-in tariff as an antidote to the industrial world’s fossil fuel dependency. Now, the United States and Canada are starting to catch on as well. . .
• Spreadsheet Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Program Costs–Feed-in tariff advocates must develop some understanding of the possible monetary costs associated with the policy simply because of the questions that are invariably raised–justified or not. . .
• New York Times: US House Will Get Another Shot at Feed-In Tariffs
• State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the United States by Karlynn Cory, Toby Couture, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), May, 2009
• Presentation by Karlynn Cory, NREL, on Feed-in Tariffs in the USA: ASES’ Solar 2009, Buffalo, NY
• Electricity Feed Laws: Fast Track to Renewable Energy Growth? by Paul Gipe, Solar Today, May-June 2009
• Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions by Karlynn Cory, Toby Couture, and Claire Kreycik, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March, 2009
• Wind of Change: Enabling Power to the People by Carolyn Jack, Geniocity
• Should We Follow Germany’s Lead On Renewables? by Bradford Plummer, The New Republic, on feed-in tariffs
• Clean Break: A new strategy could offer the best, and quickest, solution to global warming by Bradford Plummer, Audubon Magazine special feature on feed-in tariffs for the USA
• Critical Evaluation of the U.S. Renewable Energy Policy by Christian Paulus–We conclude that the German EEG policy does not promote many of the undesirable behaviors, which can occur as a result of the U.S. Policy directions. We recommend introducing feed – in tariffs into the U.S. energy legislation to further increase adoption of renewable energies. . .
• Feed-in Tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable Energy Policy that Works by John Farrell, ILSR
• Why Isn’t the U.S. Embracing Feed-in Tariffs? by Dan Haugen
• FiTs in the USA by Craig Morris–Future U.S. policy may have begun on March 1 in Gainesville, Florida – population 250,000. The local municipal utility company adopted feed-in rates based on the European model. . .
• States & Provinces Considering Feed-in Tariffs: 2009
• The Rooftop Revolution: A little-known policy is turning sleepy central Florida into a green energy hub. Could it do the same for America at large? By Mariah Blake, Washington Monthly
• Power Magazine: Feed-in tariff coming to America?
• National Audubon and Environmental Entrepreneurs Support Feed-in Tariffs
• Paul Gipe Presentation to Midwest Ag-Energy Summit December 15, 2008
• Paul Gipe Presentation to National Caucus of Environmental Legislators December 12, 2008
• Center for American Progress on Feed-in Tariffs
• Paul Gipe Presentation to Midwest Ag-Energy Web Conf, October 28, 2008
• Paul Gipe Presentation to WFC Feed-in Tariff Workshop San Diego, October 12, 2008 (9 mb)
• Allianced for Renewable Energy Launched: North American coalition promotes Renewable Energy Payments (REPs) —the “World’s Most Effective Renewable Energy Policy”
• The Cost of Lost Opportunities: The Bailout, the War, and Renewable Energy
• Despite its damp climate, Germany has become the global leader in wind and solar power through a pioneering law. Now, Congress is weighing a similar bill. (Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2008)
• Gore Calls for 100% Renewable Electricity in the US within 10 years
• Post Carbon Institute: Response to Gore’s Call for 100% Renewable Power by 2018
• A Challenge Worthy of North America by Paul Gipe, WWEA Conference, opening plenary session, Kingston, Ontario, June 24, 2008
• Getting FIT by Welch (Home Power Magazine, June-July, 2008)
• Feed-in Tariffs and Renewable Energy in the USA-–a Policy Update by Wilson Rickerson, Florian Bennhold, and James Bradbury (May 2008)
• Summary of Representative Inslee’s Feed-in Tariff Bill (2008)
• Representative Inslee Introduces US Feed-in Tariff Bill (Renewable Energy Jobs and Security Act, H.R. 6401)
• Renewable Energy in the U.S.: Sneaking in the Backdoor or Walking Through the Front? by Michael Hoexter, Ph.D. (A thoughtful but hard-hitting piece on how to more honestly and forthrightly support renewable energy development.)
• North American Renewable Tariffs Challenges & Opportunities, WWEA Feed-in Tariff Workshop, June 23, 2008, Kingston, Ontario
• WWEA Feed-in Tariff Workshop Opening Session Summary, June 23, 2008, Kingston, Ontario
• Feed-in Tariff Workshop Introduction by Paul Gipe, WWEA Conference, Kingston, Ontario
• McKibben Calls for National Feed-in Tariffs (Getting Connected: Why sharing electrons, local produce and Radiohead makes for better communities by Bill McKibben)
• The Missing Piece in Climate Policy: Renewable Heat and Cooling in Germany and the U.S. (2008) (Note pages 47-52 on the use of the “Bonus Model” or feed-in tariffs)
• U.S. State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? by Stephen Lacey, Renewable Energy World
• Advanced Renewable Tariffs: New Policy Option for North America, ASES Solar 2008, San Diego
• Status of the Feed-in Tariff Movement in the USA: Forum May 7, 10.30 am at the American Solar Energy Society’s Solar 2008, San Diego, California
• The German FIT for Renewable Energy — A Bargain! by Marcus Maedl, Applied Technologies
• Feed-In Tariffs: A Redistribution of Power? by former CEC Commissioner John Geesman
• Congressman Jay Inslee unveils plan to give guarantees to clean-energy generators (Legislation would be first in Congress to bring successful German program to the U.S.)
• Building a FIT Renewable Energy Market in the U.S. by Stephen Lacey, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
• Podcast Interview with Congressman Jay Inslee (D-Wash) on his Renewable Energy Buyback Act by Stephen Lacey, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
• The Renewable Electron Economy XIV: Renewable Energy Finance and Feed In Tariffs by Michael Hoexter
• The Feed-In Tariff Channel–Audio and video interviews with policy leaders by Marc Strassman (Note: a video player will install on your browser)
• FIT for the Future: Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) and their application in the United States–a Workshop
• Feed-in Tariffs: Solar FiT for the USA by Edgar A. Gunther
• Policy Food Fight: Feed-In Tariffs vs. Tax Credits by Jennifer Kho
• Does Goldman Sachs Endorse Feed-in Tariffs?
• The Case for Feed-in Tariffs in the United States by Jeffrey Michel (3 mb pdf)
• Renewable Tariffs at Progressive Blog Daily Kos
• All Renewables and Renewables for All: Renewable Tariffs for North America
• Feed-In Tariffs & Long Beach: The English Take on Solar Power 2007 by Miguel Mendonca, World Future Council
• Solar Without Limits: Breaking Free from Net Metering
• Presentation on Feed-in Tariffs and Ontario’s SOC Program by Paul Gipe at ASES 2007 in Cleveland (3 mb)
• The Irony of U.S. and UK Renewable Policies by Craig Morris
• Energy from Hot Air: Taking a close look at the U.S. & European renewable energy legacies by Craig Morris
• Gore Calls for Renewable Energy Tariffs in Congressional Testimony
• The Debate over Fixed Price Incentives for Renewable Electricity in Europe and the United States
• Policies to Promote Non-hydro Renewable Energy in the United States and Selected Countries, US DOE, 2005–A Review
• Sierra Club (USA) 2006 Energy Resources Policy: Endorses Advanced Renewable Tariffs
• Sierra Club (USA)Endorses Electricity Feed Law (2002)

www.practicalgreensystems.com

clyder@practicalgreensystems.com

 For Custom Computer Programming and Consulting please visit: Practical Systems

Pollution and wasteful squandering of irreplaceable resources just isn’t right!

In 1975 I was gathering information on alternative and renewable energy.  Wind power at that time was discussed and written about frequently because it had been around a long time and was known to work.

One of the pamphlets I sent for via mail($2.00) was Electric Power From The Wind by Henry Clews. At that time, his book and his company, Solar Wind, were among the very few sources for wind power equipment and information on actual applications.  Clews and his family were living completely off the grid at that time. 

Some interesting articles from:

Popular Mechanics  November 1974

Popular Science July 1974

have quotes from Mr. Clews and discuss his experiences living strictly off wind power and the costs involved.

Of course, in the pamphlet he gives a great deal more detail and information than found in the above articles, but I’m sure the pamphlet is no longer generally available.

Solar Wind company in 1974 was selling a 1000 kilowatt-hour per month wind turbine with battery storage for “about” $18,000.00. This did not include installation.  Mr. Clews did his own installation for himself and sold equipment to others to do with as they would.

That $18,000.00 adjusted for inflation is $78,330.00 in today’s dollars. And don’t forget, it isn’t installed yet! It is quite possible that with installation included the cost could have exceeded $95,000.00. At that time the average electricity price was 0.04 cents per kWh.  In today’s dollars that is 0.17 cents per kWh.  Assuming the full 1,000 kilowatt-hour per month usage, that comes to a savings of only $2,040.00 per year in today’s dollars.  Not many people could afford to “save” that small amount in proportion to the investment.  Also, the 1,000 kWh per month would not be enough for the average home today.

It just wasn’t practical.

In his pamphlet is a worldwide list of manufacturers of wind generators in 1974.  The total was 5.  Of those 5 only one was in the United States and NONE of them are building wind generators today!

Popular Science of July 1982 has an article titled “33 Windmills You Can Buy Today!”  Apparently the energy crisis of 1973 and 1979 opened some eyes.  For a while anyway!

However, the crisis passed, the world went back to its gluttonous ways and wind power once again was not a viable energy source.  It would be interesting to find out how many of the 33 manufacturers of wind generators from the 1982 article are still selling them today.

The designs shown in these old articles are no different than those today.  The methods of application are the same as well.  Only slightly increased efficiencies are evident as improvements.

Now, let’s look at the potential for wind generated energy today.

We’ll use the same home as in the previous post, 2,400 sq. ft. located in the southeastern United States with an $150.00 per month average electric bill.  At 0.11 cents per kWh that works out to 1,364 kWh used per month.

A grid-tie system (no batteries, all power generated is used immediately or fed back to the utility) designed to generate 35% of the electricity used would cost approximately $24,500.00 (this could vary +/- 10% depending on installation variations).  Federal and State tax credits could, depending on your tax situation, bring this down to $17,150.00.

Using the same inflation and assumptions we used in the previous posting the breakeven point is in 14 years.

Better than the solar cell system which the breakeven point was at 17 years.

BUT……

The estimated life span for the solar cell system is 25 years and the life span for a wind generator system is 15 years.  If you’re going to spend the money, the solar cell system is a better investment.

Also, the solar cell system would probably have less potential problems from storms and require less maintenance.  The wind turbines require oil changes occasionally and they are on top of a tall pole!

See the solar cell post for comments on adding batteries and having a completely off the grid electric generating system.  It isn’t cost effective with wind power either.

So, there you have it.  There is a payback with grid-tie solar and wind turbine electricity generation.  But, it is expensive!  And not actually practical or affordable for most people.

NOW though, keep in mind the 70 tons of CO2 NOT polluting the atmosphere!

We will next review some other alternative energy applications and how practical they are.

www.practicalgreensystems.com

clyder@practicalgreensystems.com

For Custom Computer Programming and Consulting please visit: Practical Systems

But………..

In 1975 solar cells were mostly not mentioned in discussions concerning alternative energy.  The reason: COST.

Here is a Solarex Unipanel solar cell ad showing a 12 volt 0.08 amp capacity panel for $75.00.That is ONE WATT for $75.00 in 1975!Adjusted for inflation to 2009 cost gives us $299.00 per watt.

Here is a different company selling a 12 volt 0.3 amp 3.9 watt solar panel for $319.00.That is $81.79 per watt in 1975. Adjusted for inflation to 2009 values equals $1,272.00 per panel which works out to $326.00 per watt.Notice the panel size of 19 3/8″ by 16″.  This equals 80 square inches required per watt of output.

In 2010 there are many different brands and configurations of panels available.Here is a 2010 Kyocera panel at  $345.00.  It’s nominal voltage is 12 volts 3.75 amps and 65 watts.That is $5.31 per watt!The size of this panel is approximately 30″ x 26″ or 780 square inches. Divide that by the 65 watts produced shows that only 12 square inches are required to produce one watt of electric.

Well, step back, it is still very expensive and the payback time is very long.  Let’s look at an example of a potential solar installation.

We will use a 2,400 sq ft home located in the Southeastern United States for the calculations.  Average monthly electric bill is $150.00 which at 0.11 cents per kilowatt hour works out to 1,364 kWh per month.

A grid-tie system (no batteries, all power generated is used immediately or fed back to the utility) designed to generate 50% of the electricity used would cost approximately $56,520.00 (this could vary +/- 10% depending on installation variations).  Federal and State tax credits could, depending on your tax situation, bring this down to $27,695.00. 

Theoretically this system could increase the value of your home $18,000.00.  Of course, it would also affect, possibly negatively, the salability of your home as well.  Not everybody is comfortable with alternative energy.

Also, keep in mind that a grid-tie system is NOT a backup power system, if the electric supplied by your utility is interrupted, you still lose all power.

Now to the cost effectiveness of this investment.

Using yearly utility savings (50% of total electric used) which is  adjusted for annual kWh cost increases (at 3.78%) and the replacement of the inverter at the 15 year point, the break even point is in 17 years.  At the end of the 25 year useful life of the system you would be $24,754.00 ahead of the game.  But wait, that 25 thousand is in dollars adjusted for inflation to 2035 values.  To give us perspective in 2010 we would have to reverse the inflation.  That would bring if down to about $12,000.00. 

And….

Solar cells lose their efficiency over time so….. it is time to replace the entire system because it has reached the end of its service life. 

To me, it doesn’t seem worth while at this time.  Look at the dramatic changes the last 35 years have brought to the solar cell industry.  At this time 60% of the cost of this system is the solar panels, surely that will change soon.

To supply all your needs AND have power available when the utility power grid was inoperable, you need batteries sufficient to carry the load, with an inverter and charging system to control it.  With the cost of the batteries, environmentally controlled storage area, inverter, charge controller, house wiring transfer gear and additional labor you could easily spend another $30,000.00 on top of the double amount mentioned above. We’re up to $143,000.00.  AND the batteries only have a usable life of 7 to 15 years depending on the batteries you buy. (the long life ones are 3 times more expensive)  You get the idea.  I don’t believe there would ever be a breakeven or payback time for a completely independent system able to supply a modern (all the luxuries) home.

The home used in the example above through electricity generation causes the release of 27,372 pounds per year of carbon dioxide.

Yuk!

That is equivalent to driving 30,332 miles in an average car.

So, let’s keep the pressure on for technology improvements!

www.practicalgreensystems.com

clyder@practicalgreensystems.com

For Custom Computer Programming and Consulting please visit: Practical Systems

 Thirty-seven years ago, in 1973, the first energy crisis happened and government and media sources spent a great deal of time discussing and promoting “Alternative Energy”.  (The use of “Green” this and that is a recent phenomenon.) 

No gas in 1974, rationing soon.

The second energy crisis happened 1979.

Gas lines in 1979

So what happened?  After 1980, energy costs went back down to acceptable rates and the heck with that new fangled different energy crap!

In 1975, I was very interested in what was being said about energy sources, primarily because I hoped it would save money.  So I gathered, via books and regular mail ( no computers, no internet, no email ) some literature describing what was available then and the experiments being made to produce additional methods to save energy and eliminate our oil dependency.

A major information source was the Whole Earth Epilog dated 1975.  At that time the WEE had 17 pages of alternative energy and related information consisting of where to purchase items, books and pamphlets.  The catalog is 11″ x 14.5″ in size, it was a lot of information.

In 1981, the The Next Whole Earth Catalog had 19 pages of alternative energy related material.  Obviously the memory of gas lines was still very fresh.

The Millennium Whole Earth Catalog from 1994 has only 4 pages, AND, only 5 information sources spread out over the 11″ x 14.5″ pages.  Alternative Energy just was not important any more.

IT JUST WASN’T PRACTICAL!

Next we’ll review some of why it wasn’t practical in 1973, and hopefully find some things that could be practical now.

www.practicalgreensystems.com