Poor Families Can Go Solar Too, In California At Least
by Zachary Shahan September 23, 2010
Clean Technica
"Sustainability" is often thought of as an environmental buzz word, but when you delve into actual sustainability theory, you quickly find the idea that it's really about a proper balance between environmental needs, economic needs, and social equity. A program in San Diego I just found out about looks like it nails this balance.
The program is called MASH, or Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing, and it is using $108 million—a small portion of the $3.2 billion California Solar Initiative—to help put solar panels on low-income homes.
The MASH program's first solar installation was recently completed on Hacienda Townhomes, an affordable downtown housing complex owned and managed by the San Diego Community Housing Corporation. Some residents living there earn only $27,500 a year for a family of four.
This one project's environmental and economic benefits are substantial. The Hacienda Townhomes installation of 96 photovoltaic panels will create 34,726 kilowatt-hours of energy, cut electricity bills and, over 25 years, reduce CO2 emissions by 595 tons, "the equivalent of planting 23,812 trees or driving a small car over 2 million miles." The project created 5 temporary jobs and "justified" 3 permanent jobs.
Up to this point, the California Solar Initiative (CSI) has been taken advantage of primarily by wealthy California residents and has been criticized by those concerned about social equity. In reference to Governor Schwarzenegger's goal of creating 1 million solar homes in California, Mindy Spatt of the Utility Reform Network, a California consumer groups, said that CSI is more like "1 million solar homes for millionaires." MASH helps to address that issue. (Though, it seems to me that the portion of that CSI pie going towards MASH should be a little larger. As it is now, subtracting Hacienda Townhomes' 52 low-income units, that's 999,948 homes for millionaires.)
While solar for the rich may be more viable, the financial savings of solar for the poor are far more meaningful.
Omega Hatch, 23, is one of the residents of Hacienda Townhomes that has benefited from the new solar panels—she saw her August electricity bill fall from an average of $90 to $56. And she is extremely grateful for that. "Thank God," she told Greenwire, "because I could use the money elsewhere. I have a 7-year-old, he's about to go back to school. Any penny helps me get what I need to do for him."
In addition to this being a great boon for the low-income families that live in Hacienda Townhomes, it also happened to be the 10,000th solar installation in the San Diego Gas & Electric service area. Go San Diego!
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks we should have more such programs helping those most in need cut their electricity bills, clean their environments, and protect the global climate (I hope not). If you think a program like MASH should be implemented nationwide, don't forget to let your representatives in government know by signing the petition on the Clean Technica website.
Showing posts with label renewable Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renewable Energy. Show all posts
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
More dispatches from the Renewable Energy front
Bloomberg/BusinessWeek
Numbers
By Tara Kalwarski
Americans are using less renewable energy as a share of their total energy consumption than they did in the early 1980s. And the oldest forms of renewable energy, water and wood, are in decline. Since 2000, alternative-energy companies’ shares have risen far less than those of traditional energy companies.
http://www.businessweek.com/images/ss/09/10/1001_numbers/1.htm
Managing Forward; The Reset Economy
Rewiring the Utility Business
Peter A. Darbee used to dock his three children 50¢ when they left a room without turning out the lights. Now, as CEO of PG&E (PCG), the former investment banker and high school wrestling champion is trying to save energy on a grander scale. Paradoxically, he is helping his customers buy less of his product. “When I tell big customers we would be happy if we sold them less electricity, they look at me like I’ve burned out a few brain cells,” says Darbee. But the logic is inescapable. “You are not making a lot of money anymore building large power plants,” says Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “You have to figure out what business you are in, big time.”
How can utilities make more by selling less? Instead of spending $2 billion on a new 1,000-megawatt power plant, it can use the money to insulate homes, pay customers to install more efficient equipment, and make the grid smarter. Those steps would slash power consumption, eliminating the need for the power plant. The CEO would then ask the state public utility commission to raise electricity rates enough to pay for the $2 billion investment—plus a negotiated profit—just as he would for a new power plant. If the commission agrees, the utility gets revenue from its investment.
Continue article here
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/management_innovation/blog/archives/2009/10/utilities.html
Numbers
By Tara Kalwarski
Americans are using less renewable energy as a share of their total energy consumption than they did in the early 1980s. And the oldest forms of renewable energy, water and wood, are in decline. Since 2000, alternative-energy companies’ shares have risen far less than those of traditional energy companies.
http://www.businessweek.com/images/ss/09/10/1001_numbers/1.htm
Managing Forward; The Reset Economy
Rewiring the Utility Business
Peter A. Darbee used to dock his three children 50¢ when they left a room without turning out the lights. Now, as CEO of PG&E (PCG), the former investment banker and high school wrestling champion is trying to save energy on a grander scale. Paradoxically, he is helping his customers buy less of his product. “When I tell big customers we would be happy if we sold them less electricity, they look at me like I’ve burned out a few brain cells,” says Darbee. But the logic is inescapable. “You are not making a lot of money anymore building large power plants,” says Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “You have to figure out what business you are in, big time.”
How can utilities make more by selling less? Instead of spending $2 billion on a new 1,000-megawatt power plant, it can use the money to insulate homes, pay customers to install more efficient equipment, and make the grid smarter. Those steps would slash power consumption, eliminating the need for the power plant. The CEO would then ask the state public utility commission to raise electricity rates enough to pay for the $2 billion investment—plus a negotiated profit—just as he would for a new power plant. If the commission agrees, the utility gets revenue from its investment.
Continue article here
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/management_innovation/blog/archives/2009/10/utilities.html
Thursday, April 22, 2010
US Renewable Energy Advocates in Germany
US Renewable Energy Advocates in Germany; Discussing COP15 and beyond from the trenches
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/
A Feed-in WHAT?!
21 January 2010 by RE fan
Want something to work on that promotes the use of renewable energy so that the US has something to show at COP16? A renewable energy policy that began in the United States (Jimmy Carter: 1978), was popularized by Germany, is slowly (ever so slowly) making its way back to its maker—the “feed-in tariff” or FiT. (A tariff? could be dangerous. Well, make sure you read paragraph 4) Gainesville, FL adopted a FiT in March 2009 and has experienced huge gains in solar installations. There are a few other FiTs in Vermont and California too. That’s great, but what is a FiT anyway?
The Sunshine State!
Using sources of renewable energy (eg. solar, wind) is currently more expensive than traditional sources (eg. coal). Unless purchasing renewable energy is incentivised, the prohibitive high prices of renewables may mean that these clean energy technologies never take off, where economies of scale can allow renewable energy to reach grid parity (ie. same price as traditional energy sources). Basically, a FiT requires that utilities pay above market prices for energy produced from renewable sources and this is guaranteed for a set amount of time. The extra cost is distributed among the consumers where (in Germany) they may pay ~ 3% more on their electricity bill. So once you install solar panels, which are likely to be subsidized, the utilities will pay you for the electricity you produce!
Renewables Pay
In Germany, this incentive is designed to taper off to promote more efficient and greater production of renewables. The added cost per German household in 2007 was 3-4 Euros per month, or approximately 1 latte, as reported in the National Journal. Neville Williams, author of “Chasing the Sun: Solar Adventures around the World” (I recommend this to anyone interested in the potential impact that renewables can have in developing countries), comments on both the FiT adoption in Florida and Germany’s added costs to the consumer. He says the added costs in Florida is much cheaper than building new power plants for the needed energy.
For what it represents, the name “feed-in tariff” is quite misleading and may actually be one of the main reasons why it has not succeeded in the US thus far. Using the word “tariff” is big no-no for politicians. The original German term is “Einspeiseverguetung” Einspeise (feed-in, from “ein” and “speisen”) Verguetung (compensation, fee or payment). Basically, it is “compensation” for you (the producer) “feed(ing)-in” the renewable energy you produce to the grid. Wherever this policy is implemented, renewable installations take off! Germany has the solar isolation (amount of sunlight hitting the earth) equivalent to Alaska and they still accounted for almost half of all solar installations worldwide in 2007.
The U.S. can do Better
Think this is a great idea? It can be. There are some logistical/technical problems associated “tying into the grid” such as how to balance production using variable (coal) and intermittent (wind, solar, etc) power sources to meet demand. This has produced some headaches. For example, I was told that one really windy day a while back, wind turbines produced so much extra electricity in Germany that a coal-fired power plant had to be shut down for a while. All RE had to be purchased and to prevent excess electricity from being wasted the plant had to go offline. Cool right? Well, it is very difficult to stop and start a coal-fired power plant. Imagine having to synchronize something like this with more RE in the mix. That’s where careful planning, redesigning the grid and scientific breakthroughs in energy storage come in…what are you waiting for? Get to work!
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/
A Feed-in WHAT?!
21 January 2010 by RE fan
Want something to work on that promotes the use of renewable energy so that the US has something to show at COP16? A renewable energy policy that began in the United States (Jimmy Carter: 1978), was popularized by Germany, is slowly (ever so slowly) making its way back to its maker—the “feed-in tariff” or FiT. (A tariff? could be dangerous. Well, make sure you read paragraph 4) Gainesville, FL adopted a FiT in March 2009 and has experienced huge gains in solar installations. There are a few other FiTs in Vermont and California too. That’s great, but what is a FiT anyway?
The Sunshine State!
Using sources of renewable energy (eg. solar, wind) is currently more expensive than traditional sources (eg. coal). Unless purchasing renewable energy is incentivised, the prohibitive high prices of renewables may mean that these clean energy technologies never take off, where economies of scale can allow renewable energy to reach grid parity (ie. same price as traditional energy sources). Basically, a FiT requires that utilities pay above market prices for energy produced from renewable sources and this is guaranteed for a set amount of time. The extra cost is distributed among the consumers where (in Germany) they may pay ~ 3% more on their electricity bill. So once you install solar panels, which are likely to be subsidized, the utilities will pay you for the electricity you produce!
Renewables Pay
In Germany, this incentive is designed to taper off to promote more efficient and greater production of renewables. The added cost per German household in 2007 was 3-4 Euros per month, or approximately 1 latte, as reported in the National Journal. Neville Williams, author of “Chasing the Sun: Solar Adventures around the World” (I recommend this to anyone interested in the potential impact that renewables can have in developing countries), comments on both the FiT adoption in Florida and Germany’s added costs to the consumer. He says the added costs in Florida is much cheaper than building new power plants for the needed energy.
For what it represents, the name “feed-in tariff” is quite misleading and may actually be one of the main reasons why it has not succeeded in the US thus far. Using the word “tariff” is big no-no for politicians. The original German term is “Einspeiseverguetung” Einspeise (feed-in, from “ein” and “speisen”) Verguetung (compensation, fee or payment). Basically, it is “compensation” for you (the producer) “feed(ing)-in” the renewable energy you produce to the grid. Wherever this policy is implemented, renewable installations take off! Germany has the solar isolation (amount of sunlight hitting the earth) equivalent to Alaska and they still accounted for almost half of all solar installations worldwide in 2007.
The U.S. can do Better
Think this is a great idea? It can be. There are some logistical/technical problems associated “tying into the grid” such as how to balance production using variable (coal) and intermittent (wind, solar, etc) power sources to meet demand. This has produced some headaches. For example, I was told that one really windy day a while back, wind turbines produced so much extra electricity in Germany that a coal-fired power plant had to be shut down for a while. All RE had to be purchased and to prevent excess electricity from being wasted the plant had to go offline. Cool right? Well, it is very difficult to stop and start a coal-fired power plant. Imagine having to synchronize something like this with more RE in the mix. That’s where careful planning, redesigning the grid and scientific breakthroughs in energy storage come in…what are you waiting for? Get to work!
http://renewableadvocates.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-feed-in-what/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
