Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down

Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down When Wednesday, Jun 9, 2010 GMT-05:00 Where http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com Who • Scott's Contracting • scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com

--> Washington, D.C., June 7, 2010 — About 85 percent of state energy regulators responding to an annual survey expect the cost of residential electricity to increase next year, according to the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions.
The survey, which Deloitte conducted earlier in the spring, also found a growing number of surveyed regulators fear rate increases will be financially onerous on the public.

More than a third (34.3 percent) felt that consumers would not accept any rate increase at all — up from 23.3 percent one year ago. Moreover, while 53.3 percent of surveyed regulators last year said that the public would accept a five percent rate increase, this year that number dropped almost 20 percentage points to 34.3 percent.

"Our survey demonstrates that state utility regulators are increasingly cognizant of electricity costs and the burden they represent on the average consumer," says Branko Terzic, energy and resources regulatory policy leader for Deloitte.
Terzic, previously a state regulator and a former commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), explains that most surveyed regulators (65.7 percent) expect rate increases because of rising environmental costs, while many (48.6 percent) also believe they will be linked to capital costs.

He goes on to point out that surveyed regulators see the high costs associated with renewable energy sources as an impediment to their adoption. "The vast majority of commissioners (68.6 percent) this year listed 'high prices to consumers' as the leading barrier to more renewable energy. This is a 10 point increase over last year's 58.3 percent number."

Exploring another issue that could have a dramatic impact on the consumer's pocketbook, Deloitte's survey looked at the regulatory preferences for 'time-of-day rates,' a concept that would allow utilities to adjust the rates they charge consumers throughout the day depending on demand peaks and dips.
Of the regulators responding to the survey, 60 percent reported that they were considering 'time-of-day' rates for their rate payers. And, when asked 'whether they believed that time-of-day should be considered,' 82.9 percent responded by saying 'yes.'

"Clearly," commented Terzic, "regulators are interested in time-of-day rates as way for the public to benefit from cheaper access to energy, especially in light of the current economic downturn."

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Invitation: Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down @ Wed Jun 9, 2010 (scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com)

more details » Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down When Wed Jun 9, 2010 Where http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com (map) Calendar scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com Who • Scott's Contracting - organizer • scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com Going?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar You are receiving this courtesy email at the account scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

Solar Information

Solar Panels Guide contact-

 Scotty for additional information and to schedule a Free Site Evaluation

Solar panels, mounting hardware, inverter, wiring and conduit, specialized meters: these are the components of all photovoltaic (PV) systems. But it's the solar panels themselves that not only make up the bulk of your solar quote, but whose technology, costs, and applications are the most hotly contested. People ask all the time what the differences are among panels–here's a thorough but lay-person friendly answer.

Before the overview, a quick vocab lesson:  A solar cell is the actual, wafer-thin semiconductor that produces electricity. A solar module is multiple solar cells connected to one another. A solar panel is one or more solar modules sealed up in a single object (frame) and used as part of a solar array. A solar array is the whole shebang mentioned above: the solar panels plus all the ancillary equipment necessary to not only produce electricity from sunlight, but to channel and use it.

Crystalline Solar
Crystalline solar panels have been around, in varying stages of efficiency and attractiveness, for decades. They're on space stations and satellites–they're reliable and they last for ages. The semicondutor–the element responsible for the actual electric generation–is a thin sheet of crystalline silicon. There are two kinds of crystalline solar cells, which differ in how they're manufactured, their efficiency levels, and ultimately, their end cost to the consumer.

• monocrystalline solar cells: Literally of one crystal, these cells are wafers sliced off one large, organically grown cylindrical silicon crystal. With their nearly perfect crystalline structure, these wafers are superb conductors of electricity. Current monocrystalline solar panels on the market can turn more than 15 percent of the sunlight that hits their surface into electricity.
  • The crystal growth and extrusion process is time- and labor-intensive, and there is great materials loss involved in cutting the circular crystal wafers into usable octagonal solar cells, which is why solar modules made with these cells are the most expensive ones on the market.
  • They are only cost-effective in some scenarios because their high efficiency means they produce more power over time than other, cheaper modules. Efficiency can go as high as 22 percent on the market, and just over 25 percent in the lab.
  • You can tell when you're looking at a monocrystalline solar module because you'll see little white diamonds (or black, with some manufacturers) formed by the empty space between the edges of the octagonal cells.

• polycrystalline solar cells: These solar cells are cut from multicrystalline silicon cast in large shallow trays. There's a lot less labor, cutting, and waste involved with polycrystalline, so they're cheaper than their mono brethren. However, the casting process produces a less perfect crystalline structure, which means these cells don't transmit energy as efficiently. These are very standard solar modules: good efficiency, decent price.
  • Polycrystalline solar modules have a uniform appearance. Their color is a prettily mottled blue-black. Efficiency is usually more like 12-15 percent. These are the go-to type of solar panel for residential installations in particular, where the slight step down from monocrystalline efficiency is more than offset by the cost savings. You'll hear monocrystalline solar panels referred to as "the best"; this isn't necessarily true. Mono- and poly-cells simply have different niches.

Amorphous or Thin-Film Solar
This is the technology that's set the industry abuzz with news of ultra-cheap solar: $1/watt or less. For the record, they're talking about manufactured costs here–by no means does that number reflect what you could expect to pay as a consumer. Super cheap solar is indeed nothing more than a rumor. It's simply fact: this is high technology. High technology costs money. Federal, state, and utility solar incentives, however, can combine to lower the net cost of solar energy systems drastically, and turn a big ticket item into one excellent investment.

But yes, it's exciting that there is a cheaper solar technology afoot, and it has some great applications. Thin film can be made of different materials, sometimes silicon based and sometimes using chemical polymers as the semiconductor.  Thin film drawbacks? Very low efficiency compared to crystalline, with rates typically in the 8-9 percent range; and dubious life expectancy. Crystalline solar panels are warrantied for 25-30 years, and history has proven that they can and will produce energy long after that range. Thin-film has no such tried and true promise of efficacy, which means it can be difficult to predict its returns over a longer period. It's also easier to damage. Crystalline solar modules, encased in glass and weather-sealed, are built to tough out the elements and have been proven to do so successfully. Additionally, thin film only works for solar installation sites where space is no object and angle no concern–either a perfectly tilted roof (best angle for solar is equal to the latitude of the install site) or a perfectly flat one.
In summary:

Monocrystalline: Most efficient; most expensive; attractive octagonal design; especially good for solar installations where space is at a premium.

Polycrystalline: Efficient; moderately priced; classic "solar panel" coloration and design; best all-around choice.

Thin film: Inefficient; cheap; best for commercial installations where higher quantity can compensate for lower quality.

 http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com for your solar systems

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

BPs Financial Woes

BP bankruptcy ahead? Rivals 'licking their chops

Play Video CNBC – BP's Worst Case Scenario

• Slideshow:Gulf Coast Oil Spill
• Play Video Video:New video of blaze after rig blast Reuters

Related Quotes

Symbol	Price	Change
^DJI	9,939.98	+123.49
^GSPC	1,062.00	+11.53
^IXIC	2,170.57	-3.33

Reuters – A sea turtle is mired in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Grand Terre Island, Louisiana, June …

More from The Newsroom:

• Primary elections live blog: SC, AR, NV, CA
• Lieberman coy about supporting former culture-war foe Linda McMahon
• Border Patrol agent kills 15-year-old boy in Texas after rocks were thrown
• Oil spill dominates week in traditional media, while Israeli flotilla raid was leading story online
• Obama's 'needy' media exhorters demand more emotion
• How Nikki Haley managed a Teflon primary run
• Iconic Princess Diana dress sells at auction
• Solider accused of murder in Afghanistan crossed paths with the Palin family

More »

Tue Jun 8, 2:40 pm ET

Some have wondered whether BP can financially survive the disaster in the Gulf. Sure, the oil giant is a diverse, international money-making machine, but the Guardian reported Monday that BP had already spent $1.25 billion seven weeks into the oil spill, with no clear end in sight. The company will be dealing with an avalanche of lawsuits for years (a New Orleans attorney told me she expects that some local law school grads will spend the bulk of their careers working on spill-related cases) and the company's stock recently nose-dived. In spite of all this, BP CEO Tony Hayward has repeatedly insisted that his company will see the disaster through until the Gulf Coast is "made whole" again.

But New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin notes that many industry watchers doubt BP can survive. Rivals Exxon and Shell are already circling like buzzards in anticipation that the company may stagger into oblivion. Or, as Sorkin puts it, they're "licking their chops" hoping to acquire a BP in bankruptcy: "Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

Sorkin reckons that the company's legal liability and long-term cleanup costs could work out to a red-ink tally of $15 billion to $40 billion. He writes: "The company has about $12 billion in cash and short-term investments, but there is already a debate about whether it should cut its dividend out of fear that it could run out of money. Of course, it could sell assets or seek loans, which in this environment is still not that easy."

Sorkin notes that Wall Streeters are already talking about a "Texaco scenario" — a buyout from an industry rival akin to the deal struck allowing Pennzoil to take over Texaco after the former firm won a multibillion-dollar jury verdict against the latter in a dispute over the sale of Getty Oil. But that was the outcome of a bare-knuckled clash of corporate chieftains, and the BP catastrophe probably won't produce any such dramatic resolution overnight. After all, Exxon — the company responsible for the Alaska Valdez disaster, which had formerly been the largest oil spill in U.S. history — is now the most profitable and highest-capitalized corporation in the country.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.