Museletter 251: There’s Only One Real Option for Averting Economic and Ecological Ruin | Richard Heinberg

Posted on by
Reply

It’s somewhat comforting in a perverse sort of way that I’m not the only Cassandra out there.  The sooner we wake up to he reality that we live on a finite sphere with limited resources, the better off we’ll be.   The age of conspicuous consumption for the sake of consumption really needs to end.

Renewable energy is great, I love it and believe we must transition away from fossil fuels.  The problem is that they’re so entrenched in our society that to go cold turkey would send the economy in to a death spiral.  We need to make a expeditious but gradual transition by implementing stringent energy conservation measures.

Heinberg goes in to greater detail about how this would work.  I encourage everyone to read it.  Click the link below for more information and thanks for reading.

Curt Sommer

Museletter 251: There’s Only One Real Option for Averting Economic and Ecological Ruin | Richard Heinberg.

Link to this post!

Spring Has Sprung

Posted on by
Reply

Actually, it will have sprung as of 7:02 AM EDT on Wednesday March 20th, 2013.  So I’m a little premature, but I can’t help myself.  I’m tired of the cold and cloudy days, but I suspect that won’t change for a few weeks yet either.  That’s just the Pacific Northwest.

All the same, our solar system is starting to ramp up production again.  January was our_solar_install 059actually a little higher than last year, but February was slightly lower than the previous year.  We’re currently at 195 kWh, which is almost 60% of last years output with twelve days to go.  Who knows, maybe we’ll beat last years output.

Of course production is not going vary significantly from year to year because the number of solar hours per day will not increase significantly.  However, it would be helpful to cut down, or at least prune a couple of nearby trees; especially the very large Doug Fir.  Unfortunately, that isn’t on our property.

The Vernal Equinox is a big deal, but it doesn’t overshadow the fact that March is the true-up month for homes with solar systems in the Portland General Electric (PGE) service territory.  The solar year for PGE runs from April through March.  At the end of this month we hope to see a check from the power company for the electricity that we supplied to the grid for the previous twelve months.  How often does one get a check from the power company?

Thanks for reading.

 

Curt Sommer

 

Link to this post!

Silicon Valley Investors Shifting to Power Grid After Solar Sours | Renewable Energy News Article

Posted on by
Reply

Solving the energy storage issue is the holy grail of renewable energy development.  Solar and wind technology are not capable of ‘storing’ energy by themselves.  Solar has the advantage of coinciding with peak demand but the sun isn’t always shining and the wind doesn’t always blow.

Geothermal and wave energy have the advantage of consistency in that the energy from underground and the waves doesn’t go through cycles.  But as with wind and solar they can’t ‘store’ energy in and of themselves.  It requires specific technology to do that.

Small scale battery systems would likely be more practical so the energy can be stored on site where it will be used.  This would avoid transmission loses to a large extent but utility scale battery systems will likely be necessary to some extent as well.

Better late than never but these are the questions we should have asked 20 years ago, like President Carter suggested.

Please click the link below to read the full article.

Silicon Valley Investors Shifting to Power Grid After Solar Sours | Renewable Energy News Article.

Link to this post!

Solar 101

Posted on by
Reply
solar_panel

Image provided courtesy of Microsoft.

The process of producing electricity with a solar system is not really a great mystery.  It’s actually a very simple process, and the real mystery is why the US isn’t using more of it.  The purpose of this post is to provide a brief overview of how solar PV systems work.  In essence, the light from the sun hits the panels, and the electrons in the solar cells become activated.  What this means is that they start moving around a lot more and in doing so, they start bumping in to each other more frequently.  The interaction of the electrons produces electricity in the form of friction.

A solar panel or module, is comprised of individual solar cells.  A solar cell is primarily silicon with some circuitry.  The more cells contained in a panel, the more energy it can produce.  A string of panels makes up an array and multiple arrays comprise a solar PV system.  A PV system (Photo-Voltaic) is different from a hot-water system which is used specifically to heat water.  A Concentrated Solar Power system (CSP) uses mirrors to focus sunlight on water, causing it to boil producing steam, which is then used to generate electricity.  However, the focus of this post is specifically on PV systems.

Solar PV systems are generally connected to the grid, but for people in more remote locations a battery back-up system is often more practical.  There are two primary types of solar panels; mono-crystalline and polycrystalline.  Without going into a lot of detail there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Silicon is most often used in solar panels as the primary active material in a solar cell because it has unique chemical properties.  A silicon atom (Si) is comprised of twelve electrons on three separate ‘shells’ or layers.  The outermost ‘shell’ has four electrons that are highly reactive.  The outer electron shell of a silicon atom is seeking reach of state of equilibrium by ‘sharing’ its electrons with other atoms.  Conversely, those other atoms will share their electrons as well.

diagram-how-solar-works

Image provided courtesy of Solar City.

Of course they’re always moving to begin with but the energy from the sun causes their rate of interaction to increase.  By bumping in to each other more frequently they generate friction.  This friction is a source of electrical energy.  From there it’s just a matter of channeling the current through all the wiring to the inverter.  The inverter converts the electricity from direct current to alternating currently because the electrical grid is not designed to handle direct current.

The transformed current flows to where the demand is the closest.  Depending on the demand within the building, the current will go there first to satisfy any existing demand.   In a grid tied system any excess current is supplied to the grid.  If it’s an off-grid system then presumably there is a battery back-up system to store excess current generated by the system for later use.

Most solar systems are designed to meet the average load of the building they serve, but they are typically not over-sized.  Over-sizing a system is not very economical and utility companies generally don’t approve them in the first place.  Producing electricity from the sun is a very practical way to meet our electrical demand.   Producing energy in the same location it is used is more efficient than transporting it over great distances.

For a more complete description of how solar produces energy please refer to the following article.

Thanks for reading.

 

Curt Sommer

 

Link to this post!

Climate Changed

Posted on by
Reply

While climate change deniers were disputing the reality or causes of climate change, Hurricane Sandy happened.  Climate change probably did not cause Hurricane Sandy to happen, because hurricanes have been happening for a long time.  But it most likely exacerbated the effects in terms of property damage and loss of life.  Linguist George Lakoff likens the misunderstanding among the public as the difference between “direct causation” and “systemic causation”.  Our climate is moister and much warmer than has been historically, and this is what enhances the devastating effects from previous tropical storms.

In the last 400,000 years the average daily temperature has not risen above 2 degrees Celsius for a significant period of time.  The Vostok temperature graph below indicates temperature and CO2  readings over the last 400,000 years, from an ice core in the Antarctic.  Current projections indicate that average global temperatures could increase between 2.4 and 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.  The climate has been relatively stable for the past 400,000 years because the temperature has not varied to a significant degree.

400000yearslarge

The debate around climate change centers around whether CO2 drives temperature or vice versa.  In this graph, CO2 levels lag temperature increases by as much as 800 years.  Is that sufficient justification for completely disregarding the data?  I think it depends on how much you value a stable climate. Can we say with absolute certainty that CO2 is not a driver of temperature increases?  I would argue most definitely not.  Current CO2 levels are approximately 394 PPM.  Dr. James Hansen of NASA predicts CO2 levels must be 350 or lower to avoid runaway catastrophic climate change.

Even the insurance industry which is one of the most conservative industries in the country, recognizes the threat posed by climate change.  Managing risk is the central focus of this industry and it recognizes climate change as a serious risk.  Denial is not an appropriate response when the fate of future generations, and potentially the human species hangs in the balance.

The Precautionary Principle dictates a proactive response to the potential threat of climate change.

“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

Dr. Roy Spencer is very persuasive and he presents one of the more cogent arguments that climate change is natural in origin. He believes climate change might be, could be or is possibly the result of natural forcing.  That is a far cry from definitely is the result of natural forcing.  Coupled with the fact the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe climate change is anthro-pogenic (human) in nature makes it difficult to believe climate deniers are objective.  His theories do not disprove human caused climate change, and if anything, merely suggest we need more data.

Does the climate go through cycles of cooling and warming on its own?  No scientist worth their salt would argue otherwise, but the question is how much is the current warming trend due to human activity?  Essentially, this is the largest science experiment ever conducted but we have very little control over it.  It would be irresponsible and imprudent to subject future generations to devastating effects of climate change when they had no part in creating it.  We must begin to act now.  If we’re wrong, and we created a more sustainable world for nothing, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

Thanks for reading.

Curt Sommer

Link to this post!

Our Solar Year – 2012

Posted on by
Reply

We finished December on somewhat of a down note with only 97 kWh generated through our solar system.  Even so, over 37% of our total annual consumption was produced through our system (4535 solar kwh – 2863 kwh net-metered / 4440 total = 37%) and our average daily gross production was 12.4 kwh.  Of course some of our production went in to the grid and we drew off the grid during evening hours and on cloudy days.  In March we’ll get a credit for the energy that was supplied in to the grid.  Most striking is the decrease in overall demand from last year of almost 47% (8264 kwh – (2768 PGE + 1672 solar kwh) / 8264 previous yr). The reduction in household size (a teenager no less) played a big part in that.

There are more statistics and figures indicated in the chart below.  Our gross production is   the first column, “Solar (kwh)” while power supplied by the utility is the second column*.  The Solar (kwh) figures represents the total production of the system for the entire year.  Power supplied to the utility PGE (Portland General Electric), is the ‘net-metered’ power, but we won’t know what that is until the utility does their ‘true-up’ in March.  Our previous years consumption and previous monthly bill are indicated in the next two columns with our current PGE bill for that month indicated in the last column.

In the calender year we supplied more power to the grid than what we drew from it (2863 kwh compared to 2768 kwh) but the utility doesn’t use a calender year for the net-metering department.

Our Solar Energy Production    
Month Solar (kwh) PGE (kwh) Net-metered (to PGE) Previous yr (kwh) Previous PGE Bill Current PGE Bill
Jan. 125 707 40 858 $105.42 $92.42
Feb. 214 688 72 743 $92.61 $80.66
Mar. 327 246 199 527 $68.58 $34.78
April 458 180 249 732 $91.35 $28.16
May 567 0 374 662 $83.62 $10.26
June 509 0 343 459 $61.49 $10.26
July 606 0 427 600 $77.93 $10.26
Aug, 641 0 444 667 $85.50 $10.26
Sept. 575 0 463 634 $81.75 $10.26
Oct. 303 0 185 711 $81.86 $10.26
Nov. 113 396 30 855 $96.44 $49.70
Dec. 97 551 37 816 $92.42 $65.08
Totals 4535 2768 2863 8264 $1,018.97 $412.36

We had six straight months of no electricity supplied by the local utility, so our utility bill consisted solely of the connection fee and taxes.  Connection fees and taxes are unavoidable , but otherwise we had the minimum electric bill from May through October.    To clarify, we did not have to pay anything up front to get it installed because it’s a leased system.  I also graphed the production figures and as one might expect there was a definite peak during the summer months.
solar_chart

 

The graph illustrates one year of solar production and our demand compared to the previous year.  The blue line indicates our production from the system and you can see that production increased over the summer months and then declined in the fall.  There was a corresponding decrease in our electric bill over the summer months as a result of the production from our solar system.

Our system is comprised of 27 – 195 watt Grape Solar mono-crystalline modules in three strings of panels with a Kaco Blueplanet 02xi inverter, on a Haticon racking system.  We were able to displace several thousand pounds of CO2 this year.  We saved money on our utility bill while simultaneously reducing our carbon footprint.  That’s a win-win situation anyway you look at it.

The estimated value of the system is approximately $38,500 including labor.  We saved just over $600 which indicates a rate of return of 3% in the first year.  This assumes that we fully utilized the federal tax credit that would be available to us if we had actually purchased the system.  Three percent is certainly a lot better than CD or money market rates, but here again, it assumes that one has the money to invest in the system in the first place.

*We did not yet receive a bill from the solar company for the use of the solar system for the entire year.  I expect that we will start receiving a bill in the near future.  The rental rate is $25 so our total bill including utility and solar power will still be less than what we were paying before we got the solar system.

Thanks for reading.

Curt Sommer

Link to this post!

Crowdfunding rewrites the rules of solar financing | ZDNet

Posted on by
Reply

This is so encouraging I think I’ll look in to it myself.  About 50% of Germany’s renewable energy is produced by consumer owned renewable energy systems.  But here in the US the major utilities are the big investors in renewable energy.  Do we really want to have corporations controlling our energy destiny?  Think ‘Enron’.

Please click the link below to read the full article.

Crowdfunding rewrites the rules of solar financing | ZDNet.

Link to this post!

New World Record Set for Solar Cells: 44% Efficiency : TreeHugger

Posted on by
Reply

Efficiency gains and technological innovations can’t come fast enough as oil prices are predicated to increase substantially in the coming years.  The question is whether or not they will come soon enough before our economy is decimated even further.

But as I mentioned in a previous post, efficiency is no substitute for conservation.  All the hype about shale oil and gas, is just that, a lot of hype.  The big question now is what ends will we go to and how much will we foul our nest in order to satisfy our fossil fuel addiction.

New World Record Set for Solar Cells: 44% Efficiency : TreeHugger.

Link to this post!

Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible

Posted on by
1

From the hopelessly optimistic department comes this rather interesting article.  This almost sounds too good to be true, but then I’m not an electrical engineer.  I’m not really an engineer anything, I just try to think like a scientist.

Basically it says we’re only using a small segment of the light spectrum.  Ranging from Ultra-violet to infra-red, there is only a very small segment of the light spectrum that we can actually see.  Figuring out how to capture more of the light spectrum is critical to meeting our energy needs in an environmentally friendly manner.  The innovation of this technology is that it removes the need for semiconductors which are a substantial part of the cost of a solar panel.  For more information please click the links below.

Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible.

This article is an updated version of the previous article.

‘Optical Battery’ Discovery Could Mean Solar Power Without Solar Cells

 

Link to this post!

Conservation vs. Efficiency

Posted on by
1

Former President Jimmy Carter was vilified for his 1977 fireside chat where he wore a cardigan sweater and suggested Americans should turn down the thermostat (http://tinyurl.com/y8p4awt).  How dare he suggest that Americans do something for their country.  That single event may very well have cost him any chance at re-election.  The irony is that the Arab Oil Embargo had occurred barely four years earlier.  True that was  an artificial event as opposed to a natural event, (like peak oil) but how soon we forget how much we depend on energy, and fossil fuels in particular.  Sometimes we have very short memories.

I never saw that talk (hooray for YouTube) but it seems to me he wasn’t suggesting anyone should freeze to death or be uncomfortable.  It seems to me he was merely suggesting we should practice some of that rugged individualism we have always prided ourselves on.  I believe he was suggesting we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our renewable energy resource portfolio.

President Carter’s message has never been more prescient than it is today.  Imagine how much different our society would be if we’d followed his energy vision.  Rising energy prices have generated much interest among the public in conservation and energy efficiency, and I believe there is much confusion among the public which seems to use the two interchangeably.  They have similar meanings but there is a fundamental difference.  Conservation is more resource focused while efficiency is more technology focused.

Conservation or conserve, means ‘to protect from loss or waste, to protect and preserve resources through management in a prudent manner’.  Efficiency or efficient, means to ‘accomplish a task or job with the minimum amount of time or effort’.  We were conserving resources long before we started using them more efficiently, so efficiency is not a substitution for conservation.  Some environmentalists might even say we haven’t done a very good job of conserving since we are approaching resource depletion in many areas including; fisheries, timber, and minerals specifically.  That’s a subject for a later post.

Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder, referring to efficiency in their book The Clean Tech Revolution wrote, ‘the cheapest kilowatt-hour of electricity you’ll ever buy is the one you don’t use.’  That’s actually refers more to conservation rather than energy efficiency.  Efficiency is using CFL’s or LED’s instead of incandescents, while conservation is just turning them off when they’re not in use.

I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination, otherwise I wouldn’t be such an ardent supporter of renewable energy.  Renewable energy depends on technology to generate and distribute energy and there’s no way around that.  I believe our society puts too much faith in technology, as though there is a technical solution for everything.  Kunstler refers to this as ‘techno-narcissism’ but to me it actually seems like ‘techno-fanticizing’.

There is no technological solution for the fact that energy (and oil in particular) is a finite resource; the First Law of Thermodynamics specifically says ‘energy is neither created or destroyed’.  It follows that there is a finite amount of energy because the earth is a self-contained sphere.  Eventually we will live within our ‘solar budget’ which is the amount of energy that we get from the sun on an annual basis.  The sun produces energy in the form of solar, wind, tidal, biomass and geothermal (to some extent).  Our mission is to utilize all forms of renewable energy to the greatest extent possible.

President Carter proposed an emphasis on conservation along with extensive renewable energy development. It’s unfortunate we didn’t have the foresight to follow his vision back then, which would have begun to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.  Now we need a crash program at much greater expense and with much less guarantee of predictable outcomes.  Let the Mayan New Year bring forth a shift in consciousness towards energy conservation.

Thanks for reading.

Curt Somm

Link to this post!