As the Solar Energy Industries Association released the latest quarterly report, the numbers spoke for themselves; 449.2 MW of PV installations were commissioned from July to September of last year. More than in any quarter ever before and more than in the entire year of 2009 together. An unbelievable 140% increase over the same time period last year. “A+” you would say if the solar industry was a student, and you’d give them a big pat on the back and promote them to the next semester.

What’s an even greater success story is that behind each of these numbers are jobs, livelihoods of families and individuals. Over 100,000 Americans are employed in the solar industry today, 50% more than a mere two years ago. Many of those are workers who previously had lost their jobs in the construction and other related industries that were hardest hit during the recession. Being closely involved in PV-industry education and training, it is exciting to see electricians, roofers, HVAC and other professionals as well as construction companies sending their workers to attend PV-training classes. Many of them that I have had the privilege of meeting have told me heartbreaking personal stories of their struggles and how a new or redirected career in the clean energy industry has been their rescue. Another gold star for our poster book student, you say? Maybe a spot on the president’s list?

If the solar industry were in fact a student, it would be one you award with a scholarship and support in its every endeavor. You most definitely wouldn’t pull the rug out from under such a well-performing individual that shows all the promise to be an all-star performer. Despite the shining record the solar industry has, Congress has been dragging its feet about extending the 1603-Program of the Department of Treasury, a most successful “scholarship program” for domestic energy sources and technologies since 2009. Now President Obama has put it back on the 2013 Budget Request. The president’s support of the public program could help create as much as 37,000 jobs in the solar industry this year alone.

The grant, which is offered in conjunction with the Department of Energy, offers eligible developers a 30% cash payment for a project’s total costs in lieu of the investment tax credit. Especially small to mid-size companies profit from the opportunity to have cash to finance energy projects since the availability of tax equity to fund projects has dried up severely since 2008. Since the grant was put on hold at the end of 2011, small and family size solar business felt the repercussions especially hard and had to postpone hiring additional workers because of the program’s uncertain future. “At a time when the nation’s economy is on the verge of recovery, now is not the time to walk away from smart, proven policies like the 1603 Program that create jobs and support small business growth,” commented Rhone Resch, President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industry Association.

In the past two years the program has funded an amazing 22,747 projects in each of the 50 states. From wind power in Alaska to geothermal heat pumps in Ohio and biomass in Wisconsin—1603 has put thousands and thousands of Americans to work, has contributed in weaning the nation from its dangerous dependency on foreign oil and created a myriad of clean, sustainable energy options. With the high-performance products and materials available on the market today, many of these projects will still be up and running splendidly in 30 and 40 years and help sustain future generations in a world of dwindling resources.

The vast majority of funded projects were solar projects (22,060 to be specific) of an average size of 40kW—not really big fish but what we call the “bread and butter” business in the PV-industry. It’s those that will keep America’s economy alive and going again at a healthy pace, it’s the family-owned, small to medium size businesses that are deeply rooted in American values and that are proud to be the green and clean high-tech engines of recovery and progress. Another proof of the program’s success are the $23.9 Billion it has triggered in private sector investment—since stimulating money flow is exactly what the grant had been set out to do to begin with. $23,900,000,000.00 is a big number, and I bet it’s really big to those whose jobs and professions were saved.

Conservative estimates say that if the 1603 Program is not renewed, the financing capability of energy projects would shrink by a massive 52%. Although close to $8 Billion were awarded to wind technology projects, the majority of jobs, as mentioned, has been created in the solar field and would clearly be hardest hit. It’s obviously impossible to predict the future, but it’s safe to say that jobs lost without 1603 would get costly again at the unemployment office and be a shock frost to the financing capabilities of the industry. Of course, in an economic environment where global financial leaders paint worrisome scenarios of a potential deepening global economic and financial crisis, it would be hard to imagine that our elected officials would allow for America’s best performing industry job program to cede and consequently self-destruct the success story it has just created.

Written by Sylvia Minton, Public Policy Chair of the Georgia Solar Energy Association. A long time journalist and communications specialist, the Sr. VP of Corporate Affairs for MAGE SOLAR, a complete solar PV systems & components provider, is a member of the board of directors of the MAGE SOLAR ACADEMY in Dublin, GA, USA. MAGE SOLAR ACADEMY, located at the corporate campus of MAGE SOLAR USA in Dublin, GA, is a premier educational arena for professionals of all levels and occupations in the expanding PV-market. Actively training top PV professionals on both sides of the Atlantic, the American unit of MAGE SOLAR ACADEMY boasts over 10,000 sq ft of state-of-the-art educational technology, indoor and outdoor training and simulation areas.

President Obama’s 2013 budget caused a lot of smiles this week among energy efficiency advocates – even if it is more of a wish list than anything else. Obama calls for about $1.2 billion in spending for energy efficiency.

What’s this mean to the energy efficiency industry?

Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, says that Obama’s budget represents a dramatic increase from current efficiency spending. And while the sector won’t receive that kind of money in the final budget, it still should do well, given that the starting point is so high in a time when many budget items begin with cuts.

“The administration’s vigorous support for energy efficiency at this stage of the game should help ensure that we get funding almost as robust as we have currently,” she said.

It’s not easy figuring exactly how much the federal government spends on efficiency now, since funding is spread out over several programs and sometimes infused into budgets for defense, science, agriculture, environment and commerce.

By ASE’s count Congress appropriated $811 million in 2012 for energy efficiency programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and $50 million for Energy Star at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In all, Obama increases the Department of Energy budget by 3.2%, bringing it to $27.2 billion for 2013. He allots $2.3 billion for both the efficiency and renewable energy programs in EERE, and maintains Energy Star spending at the same level. Funding for high-risk research increases 27% and for manufacturing advancement 150%. Obama offers an 80% increase in programs that cut energy use in buildings and factories. He also continues to press Congress to pass the HomeStar bill to reduce household energy use.

Raising spending might sound alarms, given the US deficit. However, spending on efficiency actually decreases society’s energy expenses. Energy efficiency cost about 1.6 to 3.3 cents/kWh for utilities in 14 states studied by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Had those utilities built power plants rather than conserved energy, they would have paid 6 to 14 cents/kWh.

“The President clearly recognizes that energy efficiency is a critical component of our economic future and is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to meet growing energy needs,” said Terry Singer, executive director of the National Association of Energy Service Companies.

Obama also cuts $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. This is significant because subsidies tend to depress fossil fuel prices and encouage more consumption. The International Energy Agency has been strongly pushing for the kind of fossil fuel subsidy cuts Obama proposed. Here are some of the reasons IEA gives in a report issued late last year.

Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide totaled $409 billion in 2010, up $110 billion from the previous year
Without reforms, the subsidies will reach $660 billion or 0.7% of world GDP by 2020
Poor people don’t benefit from these subsidies. Only 8% of the $409 billion went to the poorest 20%.
Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would decrease energy consumption by 4.1%

Obama’s tried before to make the fossil fuel cuts, and chances are they are more wish than real, much like the dramatic increases in energy efficiency spending. But the budget news is not all ‘if wishes were horses.’ It signals a general support for energy efficiency at the top of US government. Coupled with the aggressive energy efficiency policies in many states, Obama’s budget suggests a strong year ahead for the energy efficiency industry.

Efficiency is a good thing. It can make cars go farther on a gallon of gas, and light bulbs brighter at the same wattage. But when it comes to solar cells, what exactly do we mean by efficiency? And how important are efficiency ratings when choosing a solar electric system? The answer may surprise you.

Simply put, the “energy conversion efficiency” of a solar cell is a measure of input vs. output. If 100 percent of the sunlight energy striking a solar cell could be converted into electrical energy, the cell would be “100 percent efficient.” However, the laws of physics apply to everything. Some energy always escapes through heat and reflectance — and efficiency is taxed further when individual cells are connected to form a usable solar “module.”

Today’s best-selling modules typically range from 12 to 18 percent in efficiency. Tremendous R&D investments throughout the industry keep these efficiency ratings rising. Companies like Kyocera pursue efficiency improvement as a strategic priority, because in the long term, better efficiency will make solar energy feasible in more and more applications. For these reasons, as buyers seek a common metric for comparing solar modules, it is natural to ask: Should efficiency be that metric?

Efficiency and Cost
For years, energy conversion efficiency was the most important variable influencing the cost of solar power. This was especially true when the raw materials for producing solar cells, like highly purified silicon, were in short supply. Greater efficiency meant getting the same amount of power from less silicon. However, the industry has evolved rapidly in recent years. Silicon supplies have expanded dramatically and their cost has stabilized. Finally, mass production has created unprecedented economies of scale — influencing the price of solar power more than the cost of raw materials. In fact, the declining price of solar modules over the past five years has had almost nothing to do with improvements in energy conversion efficiency.

Where Solar Efficiency Matters Most
Improving energy conversion efficiency is a strategic priority for most solar module manufacturers because it holds the key to opening new applications for photovoltaic technology. Efficiency improvement helped bring solar electricity out of the lab and into the NASA space program in the 1960s. It helped create terrestrial applications for solar energy in the 1970s, and it also enabled residential and commercial solar power starting in the 1980s. The dream of solar energy costing less than conventional power will be achieved someday, in part, through better efficiency. But what about today?

Today, solar modules with higher efficiency ratings generally cost more. Because of this, buyers may equate efficiency with quality and reliability, although they are not necessarily related. They may also assume that installing higher-efficiency solar modules guarantees you’ll produce more power. But is this really the case? In a word, no.

For today’s consumer, module efficiency matters most where space is limited. Obviously, your rooftop system can’t be larger than your roof. If the available space isn’t enough to meet your power goal, then you may need higher-efficiency modules. But for the needs of most home and business applications, space is not the limiting factor. In some cases, in fact, a user could install a greater number of lower-efficiency modules and actually produce more energy for the same total investment. It pays to compare.

What Are You Actually Buying?
For the consumer, it’s crucial to understand what you’re actually buying when you install a solar electric generating system. You’re buying electricity, measured in kilowatt hours. It is not the efficiency rating that runs your appliances; they run on kilowatt hours. For this reason, if you’re considering solar power, estimating the system’s long-term, real-world output, in kilowatt hours, is much more useful than comparing efficiency ratings.

The Dashboard Analogy
One helpful analogy is the dashboard of your car. The speedometer measures speed at any given moment, the way “instantaneous output” may be measured in a solar installation. Like a car, which rarely (if ever) operates at top speed, your solar installation reaches “peak rated output” only on the best part of the best sunny day.

A car’s odometer measures miles traveled, the way a solar electric system measures “kilowatt hours produced.” This is the most important gauge of a solar installation’s usefulness. Kilowatt hours are the power you use. If you can accurately estimate the number of kilowatt hours a system will produce in a year, you can estimate when your investment will pay for itself.

A dashboard “miles-per-gallon” readout displays your car’s efficiency. In a car, this is a very useful rating, since it tells you how far you can go on a gallon of gas. But on your roof, efficiency does not predict how many kilowatt hours a solar module will generate. In fact, two 300-watt modules with different efficiency ratings should generate the same amount of power, given the same sunlight exposure. For today’s buyer, the main difference is size — the higher-efficiency module is slightly smaller than a lower efficiency module of the same wattage.

Getting What You’ve Paid For
In the end, the “return” you receive from investing in solar power depends on three variables: cost, annual power production, and longevity. Your installer can inform you of the first – the cost to install and maintain your system over its expected lifespan. Your installer can also estimate the system’s annual production of kilowatt hours, which can help you estimate how many years it will take to recoup your investment. But what about longevity? Can you trust a 25-year warranty from a manufacturer that has only been in business a few years? This may be the most important question.

Fortunately, you can review unbiased research analyzing the performance of various technologies and brands side by side, and form your own conclusions.

Desert Knowledge Australia Solar Centre

Some of the most advanced research in real-world solar performance is publicly available from the Desert Knowledge Australia Solar Centre (DKASC), an independent demonstration facility for commercialized solar technologies. This government-funded public showcase features a broad range of solar power technologies from manufacturers like BP Solar, First Solar, Kaneka, Kyocera, Sanyo, Shurjo, Sun Grid, Sunpower and Trina Solar. Observing different solar installations under the same real-world conditions allows meaningful comparisons of performance among various brands. You may be surprised by what the data show. Anyone can view live data feeds comparing the performance of various solar technologies at no charge. Visit www.dkasolarcentre.com.au for more information.

In summary, if you’re shopping for solar, don’t get distracted by peak ratings or efficiency percentages. These are calculated under laboratory conditions and may not predict your system’s real-world performance.

Look for a solar module that delivers the most kilowatt hours per installed kilowatt — with minimal degradation over time. Has the manufacturer been around long enough to see its earliest products go out of warranty? Are its oldest modules still delivering trouble-free performance? Will that manufacturer still be around in another 25 years? The answers to these questions will predict your satisfaction better than any individual performance rating.

Written by Cecilia Aguillon, Kyocera Solar, Inc. Cecilia Aguillon is director of market development and government policy for Kyocera Solar, Inc., recognized as a world-leading supplier of solar electric energy products since 1975.

Image: graur codrin / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Ogi Kavazovic, Vice President of Strategy and Marketing for OPOWER, discusses how OPOWER’s new marketplace will enhance a utility’s customer service.

Full transcript:

For a long time ‘clean’ and ‘green’ marked the forward trend in the energy industry. Then came the quest for ‘smart’ energy. And now ‘innovation’ is the buzzword.

It’s easy to see why. As Americans, we believe our ability to innovate sets us apart in today’s international market. Sure China can manufacture computers and cell phones more quickly and cheaply, but we came up with Google and IPhones in the first place.

The energy industry offers a lot of opportunity for US innovators, given our aging grid, quest for alternatives to fossil fuels, and our glimpse into the possibilities of a virtual, democratized grid that gives consumers more control over their energy use and production.

But will energy innovation help the US job market? Or will the products be conceived here but be manufactured elsewhere?

Siemens U.S. CEO Eric Spiegel offers some interesting thinking in a recent piece: “Where the Jobs Are: Higher Technology Manufacturing.” He takes issue with the idea that US manufacturing is doomed.

Such thinking wrongly assumes that the manufactured products of the future, like those of today, will be commodities, “the kind that could be built of equal quality, with equal technology, anywhere in the world,” Spiegel wrote. Blue jeans are his example.

He said that if innovation delivers, tomorrow’s products will be more high-end and require “skilled workers, precision assembly, intensive research, and complex technology,” the kind of thing the US does well.

Many new energy products, like smart grid technologies and wind turbines, require skilled manufacturing. Another, he points out, is the high efficiency natural gas turbine that Siemens builds in North Carolina. If the US remains an innovation leader, more of these high-end manufacturing jobs will make their way here, according to Spiegel.

But he isn’t Pollyanna about the US’ economic future. Sure, high-end energy manufacturing is occurring in the US, but it’s happening elsewhere as well: Europe, Brazil and parts of Asia. They too are innovating.

So the US has no reason to be overly confident about its innovation economy. Well aware of the intense competition, the federal government, states, universities and others are trying to create a more favorable climate for innovators. Below are a few ways that’s happening. I welcome readers to add to the list in the comments section of this blog. With the exception of the NYSERDA program, all of these were announced this week.

The US Department of Energy is offering $12 million to speed solar energy innovation from the lab to the marketplace through the federal SunShot Incubator program, with applications due April 9 Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy said in his mid-term budget address that the state will make $250 million available for high tech innovators.
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center awarded $120,000 in clean energy research grants for early stage investigation into energy efficient fibers, microalgae for biofuels, and electrolytes for energy storage.
A five-year $469 million program is underway at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to foster innovation in energy-related technology and market development.
The American Chemistry Council has launched a campaign to foster a national energy strategy, and also is making known chemistry’s role in energy breakthroughs. Chemistry has helped bring about products that save 10.9 quadrillion Btus of energy annually, enough to power up to 56 million households or up to 135 million vehicles each year, cutting $85 billion in energy costs annually, according to an ACC study.
Stay-tuned for a major energy innovation grant announcement from the University of Pittsburgh.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose articles can be found at www.RealEnergyWriters.com.

The International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook, released in November, sent a stark message to the participants at the climate negotiations in Durban: “The world is locking itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system. And time is running out to take action before changes become irreversible”.

While such talk of “irreversible changes” may be subject to debate, no one is questioning whether or not a lower carbon future is preferable. All things equal, clean energy sources lack the emission, national security and trade balance challenges of higher carbon alternatives.

Europe has blazed the lower carbon trail, but China and Brazil are both working to contain CO2 emissions. And last year, Australia became one of the first countries to enact a carbon tax on its largest emitters, with the proceeds being used for tax cuts and pension enhancements for the population at large.

The concept of “polluter pays” is well established in solid waste (ask any construction company about the cost of landfill access). Now it is merely being applied to gaseous pollutants.

In the United States, The Save Our Climate Act (H.R, 3242) was introduced last year to place a revenue-neutral tax on carbon at the source (with these funds then returned to each citizen in the form of a dividend.) The affect of such legislation would be to provide businesses and consumers with a predictable carbon cost on which to base decisions. Lower carbon choices become relatively less expensive to investors and consumers, and carbon dioxide levels would eventually decline from the inevitable behavioral shift.

The benefits to the USA of such legislation are potentially numerous. The American Solar Energy Association estimates that carbon legislation of this type would add 4.2 million new jobs to the US economy over ten years. Technological leadership would more easily follow from clear and transparent policies. And any reduction in the $200 billion spent annually on imported oil would improve our national security and trade deficits.

While the likelihood of such legislation being enacted in an election year is quite modest, the direction is clear: A lower carbon future awaits.

Mr. Sadler is President and Chief Investment Officer of Boardwalk Capital Management, an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm focused on Sustainable and Responsible Investing. He is based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Who knew you could get an eco-friendly haircut. Green Endeavors Inc. offers just that at 2 locations in northern Utah. The Salt Lake area business boasts that they have never gone green; because they began that way. The two locations both take part in Rocky Mountain Power’s Visionary Blue Sky program; utilizing as much renewable energy as possible. One of the locations, based in Liberty Heights is the only salon named as an E2 Business (Salt Lake City businesses devoted to environmental and economic sustainability).

Now, you’re likely asking why a finance writer is so concerned about a haircut? Well Green Endeavors (GRNE) is traded as a pink sheet. This means the company has shares that trade just like the Dow or the S&P. The price for one share: $0.0003. Would numerous people call this a worthless stock to own? Yes. Is it likely a terrible investment for many people, yes. Can money be made from this investment? Yes.

The first question to ask if you are continuing to read is, what is your level of risk aversion? The younger you are the less aversion to risk you likely have. For $300 a person could purchase 1,000,000 shares of GRNE. That $300 can turn to nothing, or if that stock rises to let’s say a penny a share, you would now have $10,000. Is it likely to see this kind or return? No. It is possible however.

HHNS a company also traded as a pink sheet that manufactures mostly wipes for the medical and veterinary field recently rose from $0.0003 per share to $0.002 per share. No one noticed, no one except investors who gained 667% on this movement.

Normally companies who trade at this price are indeed worthless. Don’t get me wrong, GRNE however has been doing well of late. On January 19^th they announced that revenues topped $2.8 million in 2011 as well as seeing December revenues up 15% from 2010. November revenues were up 17% from 2010, also 17% in October and the third quarter saw 29% growth compared to 2010. I think it is safe to say this stock will not hit zero in the immediate future.

Some things to keep in mind when dealing with pink slips are that the market is much more inefficient than more known markets. Differences between the ask and bid price can be large. Also, being able to buy and sell immediately is highly unlikely so one must plan when to buy and when to sell. For example, within a 15 minute span HHNS traded at $0.0015, dropped to $0.0009 and rose back to $0.00015. Anyone who waited to see this move was unable to purchase any stocks.

Overall, GRNE looks to being doing all the right things as well as keeping as eye out for being green, this kind of behavior should be supported by investment regardless of the fact that if this business trend continues the stock price will also reflect the strong gains the company is making.

Written by: Benjamin H. Childers

Image by: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=989 

Mark Gerencser and Gary Rahl Booz Allen share their thoughts on President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address specifically highlighting energy innovations, infrastructure and the role of Megacommunities theory.

Full transcript:

CODA Energy’s Senior Vice President Ed Solar talks about CODA Energy, the reason for its birth and its competitive advantage against competitive battery manufacturers.

Full Transcript:

NewScientist’s January 28 issue is likely to unsettle clean energy advocates – but it is worth the read.

The cover article, “Power paradox: Clean might not be green forever,” posits that even renewable energy can warm the planet, and eventually change climate, if we continue to ratchet up power production to serve our ever increasing demand for electricity.

It turns out that wind farms create heat, albeit a miniscule amount compared with fossil fuels or nuclear power, according to the article. Research from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign indicates that wind turbines heat the ground nearby at night, apparently caused by the turbines sucking air downward from above.

Solar panels, too, create unintended heat. The article points to a study that indicates building a 1-TW solar power plant in California’s Mojave desert could raise temperatures in the air by 0.4 degrees Celsius. When dark solar panels cover light-colored sand, they warm the air and change temperature and wind patterns within a 300-kilometer radius, the article says.

Energy almost always creates some sort of waste heat, even in powering our cell phones and computers, says Eric Chaisson of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in the article. Electricity heats the circuits. We don’t use this heat; it dissipates into the air.

Of course, this is one of those glass half-full or half-empty issues. Heat by-products are not bad thing if we make use of them. Farmers already take advantage of the localized warming caused by wind turbines to fight frost, says the article. And while solar panels may generate heat when they cover light-colored surfaces, like sand, they cool when placed over dark surfaces, like a black roof.

More importantly, we can sometimes use recycled heat instead of fossil fuels. Residential solar panels are now available that convert waste heat from the panels into useful energy for cooling a house. And for many years we’ve captured and used waste heat in buildings and factories through combined heat and power (CHP) and recycled industrial waste heat systems.

Plenty of need exists to channel heat energy for useful purposes, including air conditioning in the US, as our aging population continues to shift southward. Globally, about 47% of the energy we consume goes toward heating/cooling, with industry as the largest single user, consuming about 43%. Homes follow at 41%, then commercial and public buildings, 9% and agriculture 6%, according to the International Energy Agency.

Should we worry that renewables generate heat? Perhaps. But the impact is small. Heat from renewables poses no immediate threat. Long term, however, waste heat from all sources could become a serious contributor to climate warming, if we continue to increase our consumption of electricity at the current rate of about two percent annually, the article says.

So clearly, it would be hard to take any argument against renewable energy seriously based on its heat output – particularly since renewables can displace fossil fuels that create far more warming. But the findings do underscore the value of exploring energy efficiency measures that make use of waste heat. We hear a lot about smart power; but stay tuned as smart heat rises up as a new priority.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose articles can be found at www.RealEnergyWriters.com.