Solar Panel Manufacturing Environmental Costs and Benefits

Article Highlights:

1. An average 5 kW solar electric installation ... will produce an equivalent of 10 to 12 barrels of oil each year... save about 10,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions...similar to planting 20 mature trees annually or driving your car 7,000 miles less a year.
2. From the first day a PV installation is turned on, it will create clean, green electricity.
3. negative news you hear about solar is generated from incumbent energy producers- (Big Oil and Big Coal) 
4. They want us to believe that our current energy infrastructure is the only logical answer when it is clearly not.
5. PV polycrystalline module will produce enough clean power in about four years to offset the energy required to manufacture it 
6. After a module is manufactured and installed, it will be a zero emissions energy source for the rest of its life
   
7.  30 year life expectancy, almost 90% of the energy generated from the solar panel will be pollution free.
   

_______________________________

The Environmental Cost of Solar Panel Manufacturing (Original Article WebLink Click Here)

Saturday, 12 February 2011 Brightstar Solar

Many people wonder if the manufacturing processes for photovoltaic solar modules and other PV equipment are harmful to the environment or particularly carbon intensive.  There has also been a lot of negative press that photovoltaic solar panels can be toxic to the environment.  Do the benefits of the energy generated from solar panels outweigh the harmful effects of the manufacturing process?

According to NREL (the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), the truth is a PV polycrystalline module will produce enough clean power in about four years to offset the energy required to manufacture it.  You unfortunately have to consume a little energy to save a lot more.  After a module is manufactured and installed, it will be a zero emissions energy source for the rest of its life.  Over a 30 year life expectancy, almost 90% of the energy generated from the solar panel will be pollution free. 

The major manufacturing input of PV modules is silicon, one of the most abundant elements on earth.  It is easily gathered from the top of the earth's crust and is available all over the world, eliminating the need to transport heavy raw materials. Purifying and crystallizing silicon is the most energy intensive process of manufacturing PV panels.  Energy is also expelled when cutting silicon wafers, processing wafers into cells, and assembling cells into panels.  The industry is moving towards recycling PV modules which will save energy in the reuse of silicon cells and metals.

In regards to the toxicity of solar panels, experts have been discussing the use of chemicals in the manufacturing process.  As a result, the EPA has cited certain panels as toxic and has imposed regulations on employee safety when handling chemicals and the disposal of toxic materials.  This has, in turn, made PV manufacturers more aware of risks and they have implemented standards to make the production safer.

A lot of the negative news you hear about solar is generated from incumbent energy producers.  They want us to believe that our current energy infrastructure is the only logical answer when it is clearly not.  From the first day a PV installation is turned on, it will create clean, green electricity.  And, whatever the system generates will reduce its owner's need to purchase "dirty" electricity.  An average 5 kW solar electric installation in Massachusetts or Connecticut will produce an equivalent of 10 to 12 barrels of oil each year.  This would save about 10,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, which would be similar to planting 20 mature trees annually or driving your car 7,000 miles less a year.

Brightstar Solar enables our customers to make their own sustainable solar power safely, dependably, and with an attractive return on investment.  Please contact us if you're interested in a free solar evaluation of your home or business in Massachusetts or Connecticut.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com

Example of Green Job Boost and Clean Energy FIT

Article Highlights: 

1. FiTs are not a tax but rather a redistribution of utility funds to provide a fair return to small energy producers
   
2. By avoiding the cost of new transmission, power plants and hefty built in profit margins for utilities, it can save ratepayers plenty, despite its name
3. Smaller Projects require NO Transmission Lines while delivering a 5% Ratepayer Savings
4. Effective Policy for Cost-Effective Renewable Energy
5. The Clean Local Energy/Feed-in Tariff (FiT) policy is designed to do just that by insuring a fair financial return to investors in local, decentralized rooftop PV, wind and other renewable energy.

_________________________________

The green job boost Colorado needs February 11th, 2011 1:59 pm MT

Continue reading on Examiner.com: The green job boost Colorado needs - Denver renewable energy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/renewable-energy-in-denver/the-policy-tool-we-need-for-green-jobs#ixzz1DqqG5iEV

"Smaller projects that can get us there fast with no transmission lines and deliver 5% ratepayer savings. This is the most effective policy in the world for getting cost-effective renewable energy online. It's simple, fair and effective."
                                                           Ted Ko, Associate Executive Director, CLEAN Coalition

Should small renewable energy producers get the same deal as big corporate energy producers?  The Clean Local Energy/Feed-in Tariff (FiT) policy is designed to do just that by insuring a fair financial return to investors in local, decentralized rooftop PV, wind and other renewable energy.

New bill introduced

A new bill introduced by Senator Schwartz and Representatives Vigil and Massey (HB 11-1228) to the Colorado Assembly would promote economic development through the use of distributed renewable energy generation. The bill directs the office of economic development to commission a study of the potential benefits of adopting incentives, such as a CLEAN/FiT style policy, to "increase the amount of distributed generation included in utilities' portfolios for the purpose of job creation and economic development".

The bill requires the study to look at the potential for job creation by region, type of renewable energy source, attraction of new businesses and new capital, expansion of revenue streams for farmers, ranchers, and retirees, and creation of additional tax revenue for the state.  The study will be conducted by an independent entity and funded through gifts, grants, and private donations.

The policy tool has spurred a virtual explosion in renewable energy installations in Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and now Canada.  Germany installed a record 8 Gigawatts in solar power in 2010 alone.

Adoption of a FiT has been much slower in the US, due to strong resistance from investor-owned utilities, including Xcel Energy.

At a 2009 renewable energy conference in Minneapolis, Xcel Energy representatives told the audience, "the honest truth is we earn our returns by building plants and putting them into rate base and making profits on them". A feed-in tariff "takes away that opportunity of utilities to earn on their investments".

Name change

Another reason FiTs have not gone over so well in the US is the name. The term "Feed-in tariff" has led some to misunderstand the policy.  FiTs are not a tax but rather a redistribution of utility funds to provide a fair return to small energy producers.  By avoiding the cost of new transmission, power plants and hefty built in profit margins for utilities, it can save ratepayers plenty, despite its name. 

Local renewable energy advocates in the US are grappling with a new name for FiTs, because of the vulnerability of the term "tariff" to attack from anti-tax activists and others who either don't understand, or outright oppose parity for small energy producers.

According to FiT expert John Farrell, with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, those who oppose FiTs, "will say this is going to be very expensive.  They'll say you're going to pay 10 times more for electricity", thus feeding misconceptions of costly taxation.

The alternative term, "Clean Local Energy Accessible Now" (CLEAN), has been adopted by some policy proponents in an attempt to avoid these pitfalls and describe the policy more accurately.

Overly studied

The study called for won't be the first study on CLEAN/FiT incentives.  In fact, FiTs have been studied extensively in the US. Some would say almost to death.

Earlier this year the Los Angeles Business Council released a study on how to design an effective FiT based on its application throughout Europe and in a growing number of US communities to accelerate renewable energy development and Co2 reductions.

Unbeknown to many, our own Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Staff prepared a report on FiTS in 2009 that concluded:

"A FiT can be used to accomplish the legal and policy goals of an RPS and can be the driving mechanism enabling utilities to meet their renewable requirements".

The report also concludes that an effective FiT could create jobs, benefit rural areas through community-based renewable energy development, and avoid the need for costly new transmission.

Not to be outdone, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, Colorado also has a lot to say about FiTs.  See: NREL Analysts Dig FiTs

Despite utility opposition, the policy is catching on in a growing number of municipalities and states in the US.

No matter what name it uses, if Colorado gets it right, it could finally have the policy incentive it needs to ignite a real renewable energy revolution that includes all renewable energy producers, large and small and fulfills the green job promise we've all been waiting for.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: The green job boost Colorado needs - Denver renewable energy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/renewable-energy-in-denver/the-policy-tool-we-need-for-green-jobs#ixzz1Dqpuaxar

Article By Cecelia Smith

• Denver Renewable Energy Examiner

Ceal Smith is a consultant, writer and resiliency activist who lives in the San Luis Valley. She has a MSci in Ecology and has worked throughout...Read more

Grid, Smart Grid, New Transmission Lines- What a Crock of ___ ...

Aug 20, 2010

Simpleton Example: if 5 of the 10 Houses on my Block utilize RE Producing Systems. This can lower the need of Electricity Generated by the Electric Company by 1/2 for my Block. With no Transmission Lines Needed

Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com

Enter the Dream Home Giveaway-Courtesy of HGTV

Sweepstakes Ends Friday: Enter again for a chance to win HGTV Dream Home 2011!
This message contains images, click here if you don't see them.

Remember to enter again at HGTV's FrontDoor.com.
More Dream Home | 360-Degree Room Tours | Photos | Videos | Win Housewarming Gifts | Blog | Shop
About This Sweepstakes | Subscribe | Legal | Privacy
© 2011 Scripps Networks Interactive, all rights reserved. 9721 Sherrill Blvd., Knoxville, TN 37932

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com

Example of Solar Out Producing Wind

Spokane, WA, USA -- Blustery gusts keep a wind turbine spinning at Inland Power and Light's corporate headquarters on the West Plains, but solar panels are the real powerhouse at the utility's alternative energy pilot project..solar panels have produced about five times as much electricity as the wind turbine..Solar panels, on the other hand, generate a certain amount of electricity even on cloudy days..our meter runs backwards...

Solar Takes Wind in Test

By Becky Kramer, The Spokesman-Review   |   January 31, 2011

Utility hopes to inform customers with project

The solar panels have produced about five times as much electricity as the wind turbine over the past 14 months. The sun's ability to generate more electricity than the wind – even during short winter days – has surprised the utility's engineers.

"Solar," said Richard Damiano, the utility's chief engineer, "is trouncing wind."

Inland Power set up the experiment to help the utility customers compare alternative-energy options for their homes. Each year, the utility fields from 50 to 60 calls from people interested in producing some of their own electricity. Initially, most think they want a wind turbine, Damiano said.

To help customers with the analysis, Inland Power officials decided to collect their own data.

The utility bought a 35-foot wind turbine and a bank of solar panels. The systems are representative of technology scaled to individual homeowner use, Damiano said. Each cost from $22,000 to $24,000 to install.

Conventional thinking suggested that wind turbines would outperform solar panels, particularly on gray winter days.

"It's the West Plains, so there's a perception that the wind is always blowing," Damiano said.

But wind is more erratic than people realize, he said. The wind dies down, for instance, during hot weather and cold spells. Inland Power's turbine is similar to the larger ones installed in the Columbia River Gorge. It needs a stiff breeze of around 12 miles per hour to start producing electricity.

Solar panels, on the other hand, generate a certain amount of electricity even on cloudy days.

During the first 13 days of January, Inland Power's solar panels produced 35 kilowatt-hours of electricity, compared with 10 kilowatt-hours from wind generation.

The results don't surprise Linda Finney, who sold the wind turbine to Inland Power. She and her husband initially installed it on a grassy hill above their home on the Palouse Highway, about 12 miles south of Spokane. After two years, they took the turbine down because it wasn't generating the results they hoped for, and they replaced it with 16 solar panels.

At certain times of the year, "our meter runs backwards," said Finney, executive director of Leadership Spokane. "We're banking energy during the summer months."

Damiano said some customers do the research and still end up with wind turbines. In areas heavily shaded by trees, for instance, wind turbines can outperform solar panels.

In the Inland Power pilot project, the solar panels produced about 15 percent of a typical household's electric needs over the course of a year. The wind turbine produced less than 3 percent.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, erecting a wind turbine or putting in solar panels is still a reach for most homeowners, Damiano said. Those who take the plunge are making a lifestyle choice to reduce their carbon footprint, he said. Recovering the installation costs for turbines or solar panels can take years, even with the 30 percent tax subsidy available to homeowners.

"It will take you a chunk of time," Finney acknowledged. But she encourages people to think about the long-term benefits.

"Some people spend $25,000 on a new car," she said. "We decided this is how we wanted to live and how we wanted to spend our money."

Becky Kramer is a reporter for The Spokesman-Review in the Idaho department. She covers the environment, natural resources and utilities.

Copyright 2011.  Reproduced with permission of The Spokesman-Review. Permission is granted in the interest of public discussion and does not imply endorsement of any product, service or organization otherwise mentioned herein.

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

Fossil Fuels Out--In with Solar, Wind, and Water

For wind energy aficionados, one of the most interesting stories to make its way across the internet last week involved an academic study claiming that the installation of 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines could generate half the world's power needs by 2030.

Published in the respected journal Energy Policy, and entitled 'Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power,' the study noted climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time.

"Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure," said the two California academics, Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi. "Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS)."

Jacobson, who is in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, and Delucchi, in the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California in Davis, estimate that by combining the 3.8 million wind turbines with enough concentrated solar, solar PV, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as wave devices and tidal turbines, by 2030 the world could use electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.

"Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59% more of the world's land for footprint and spacing, respectively," they said.

"We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today."

Their study showed that wind power could supply article continues click here

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

Solar Energy Investing News

Truth About Solar Energy Stocks

The bottom line is that the sun can provide us with more energy than we actually use on a daily basis.

Of all the energy sources available to us, the Sun is our largest source by far, dropping 970 trillion kWh worth of free energy on us every day. Enough solar energy strikes the United States each day to supply its needs for one and a half years.

Put another way, the amount of solar energy the Earth receives every minute is greater than the amount of energy from fossil fuels the world uses in a year!

Now modern attempts to harvest the sun's energy date back to the 1870s, and the first solar motor company was founded in 1900. The first documented design was a concentrating solar power (CSP) device.

Today, CSP plants have been radically improved. Modern plants usually use huge arrays of parabolic trough mirrors to superheat oil or molten salts, which is then used to drive a turbine. Such designs have two key advantages: They can provide their own power storage and continue operating when the sun goes down; or when the sun isn't shining, they can be switched over to run on natural gas.

Of course, most solar investors will find the bulk of solar opportunities – not in CSP – but in photovoltaics (PV).

PV is what most people think of when talking about solar. This is what you see when you gaze upon solar panels on the roof of a home or building.

From solar cells to panels to ingots – silicon-based PV is where we've seen the most opportunity for investors. Some of the most establish PV or PV-related companies include

shut down expected over (dirty) coal-burning electricity generating plant over pollution

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey is joining in a lawsuit that seeks to shut down a western Pennsylvania coal-burning electricity generating plant over pollution.

The lawsuit was initially filed by the federal government, New York and Pennsylvania. It wants the court to shut down the plant until it meets standards of the Clean Air Act, civil penalties and other relief.

Article Continues:http://online.wsj.com/article/AP722b2cc148c343329572657b6044d071.html

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com