Israel demolishing solar panels, depriving Palestinian of electricity

Hundreds of Palestinians will be left without electricity should Israel’s order for the demolition of 8 solar panels in the West Bank go ahead, in what many say is an attempt to drive Palestinians out of the Israeli-controlled part of the territory.

“We are suspended between heaven and earth; the solar panels were a glimmer of hope for us,” Ali Mohamed Ihrizat, the village head of Imenizil, one of the places where the solar panels are scheduled to be demolished, told Agence France-Presse.

The panels were constructed by international charities, but the Israeli authorities say they were built without permission.

Guy Inbar, a spokesman for the Israeli military, has explained the decision: “Using the backing of international assistance does not give immunity to violations.”

This is just the latest standoff in Area C – a festering flashpoint of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where the battles are fought not with guns and rockets, but permits and bulldozers.

Created under the Oslo Accords in 1995, it constitutes nearly two-thirds of the West Bank, and is administered by Israel. More than 300,000 Jews live there alongside 70,000 Palestinians.

Over the past decade Israel has freely given Area C’s Jewish residents permits to build entire new “settlements,” which Israel’s critics have branded a form of colonization by stealth. In turn, Israel has routinely rejected over 90 per cent of Palestinian applications for construction and demolished nearly 2,000 Palestinian buildings in the last decade.

While the Israeli settlements are hooked up to the Israeli water and electricity grid, the Palestinian settlements have to rely on wells and generators.

“The denial of permits for Palestinians on such a large scale raises the fear that there is a specific policy by the authorities to encourage a ‘silent transfer’ of the Palestinian population from Area C,” claims Peace Now, an Israeli think-tank sympathetic to Palestinians.

This is where the solar panels come in. Funded by European governments, NGOs have built dozens of these devices across Area C, serving an estimated 1,500 Palestinians. Each panel costs tens of thousands of dollars.

An unnamed UN source told the Guardian that the demolition is not random. “From December 2010 to April 2011, we saw a systematic targeting of the water infrastructure in Hebron, Bethlehem and the Jordan valley,” the source said. “Now, in the last couple of months, they are targeting electricity. Two villages in the area have had their electrical poles demolished. There is this systematic effort by the civil administration targeting all Palestinian infrastructure in Hebron.”

A legal challenge by activist group Rabbis for Human Rights has temporarily frozen the demolition orders, though there are no plans as yet to cancel them.

Noam Dotan, an Israeli who heads one of the NGOs that installed the panels, says the Israeli plan is immoral and self-defeating. He told AFP, “The panels are not a security threat. It’s a positive project. What do they want? Do they want the people to be more poor? To be more violent?”

Sun Sets on Another Solar Energy Company

Energy Conversion Devices, a player in the solar and alternative energy space, became the latest green energy firm to file for bankruptcy last week.

The Auburn Hills, Mich.-based company filed paperwork in Detroit’s U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last Tuesday. In addition, ECD completed a separate bankruptcy filing for its subsidiary United Solar Ovonic (Uni-Solar) brand, which manufactures flexible commercial thin-film laminated photovoltaic energy panels, as part of a broader asset liquidation move.

ECD has around $987 million worth of assets with an outstanding debt of around $250 million. Executives from the company disclosed in a statement that legacy costs coupled with difficulties associated with its capital structuring were the primary factors toward the bankruptcy decision. During the process, United Solar Ovonic will continue with its current operations until a potential buyer emerges.

The increasingly volatile domestic solar panel and alternative energy industry is coping with markedly lower revenues due to overcapacity issues, all despite an increase in factory closures.

Furthermore Germany, which is currently the biggest global market for solar panels, is widely expected to drastically reduce government incentive investments this year for both corporations and consumers. Inevitably, the German decision will have a severely negative impact on domestic solar panel manufacturers, principally because excess panels will likely be sold to a growing Chinese market at a significantly lower cost.

The plight of ECD echoes that of a growing list of alternative energy companies, which have dealt with bankruptcy procedures. Chiefly among them are Evergreen Energy Inc., Beacon Power Corp., Ener1 Inc., Spectrawatt Inc., and most publicly notable Solyndra LLC. Solyndra accepted around $500 million in federal loans and loan guarantees, and became a political lightning rod in the wake of its shutdown due to its involvement with President Obama’s energy policy initiative.

ECD is unlikely to deal with a similarly polarizing political backlash primarily because it has received only around $13 million in federal tax credits.

With its wide exposure to turbulent international markets, relatively slow domestic business and consumer adoption, and a complex assortment of both federal and state grant and credit programs, the U.S. alternative energy market is grappling with an inextricably uncertain future.

Perhaps in another nonelection year, with a more comprehensive bipartisan energy public policy initiative akin to that of Germany, and with improved market conditions, investments in the alternative energy industry could become a more financially viable endeavor.

MVDHS gets board’s first solar panel system

Madawaska Valley District High School is now producing electricity through alternative sources of energy as it recently installed the first microfit solar panel system in the Renfrew County District School Board.

The six-kilowatt ground-mounted fixed-panel system is being funded by the school board, which has signed a 20-year contract with the provincial government to produce electricity that goes straight to the grid.

In return, the board gets 64.2 cents per kilowatt hour for all the electricity it produces.

Lauren Wilson, the MVDHS principal, said she, as the co-chair of the board's conservation committee, has been pushing the board to get into such programs for a long time.

She said after discussion, the committee recommended MVDHS as a good site for the project.

Once approved by the board, the school had to then wait for all the financing and applications to be finalized.

Jeff Millar of Ottawa Valley Solar – who installed the panels – said applications were required for both the Ontario Power Authority and from Hydro.

After that was approved, construction happened very quickly at the school.

Wilson noted the costs of the equipment have come down a lot and the system was installed for about $38,000 instead of the original estimate of $55,000.

She also said with the return rates, the system pays for itself in about eight or nine years.

The final system, which sits along the edge of the field in between the school and the soccer field, actually will produce more energy than originally estimated.

Millar said since prices for the equipment have come down so much in the last year, the originally-planned five kilowatt system was increased to a six kilowatt system.

"So you get a little more power for the same price," he said.

For explanation's sake, Millar said that's enough energy to power about two houses.

Where the panels sit, they will run at about 90 or 92 per cent efficiency.

Millar said the location was chosen partially for aesthetics (so the panels wouldn't encroach too much on the field) and based on the shading from the surrounding trees.

The panels are not yet producing electricity, however. Brian Yemen of Yemen Electric – who is connecting the panels – said it will probably be another six weeks because they need to wait for an electrical inspection and for a permit from hydro.

They also need to put the inverter on the panel, which switches the DC-produced power into useable AC power.

Once things are up and running, the school will have a live-feed monitoring system that will allow students and staff to see how much energy is being produced.

Overall, Millar said the system is a win-win situation.

"It covers itself financially," he said referring to the monthly cheques the board will receive for producing the electricity, "and there's the education factor for the kids."

Wilson echoed this sentiment.

She said the school is excited at the different ways the information can be incorporated into the school's specialist high skills major programs such as construction, energy and environment.

During the initial phase, some students even had the opportunity to help with the system's construction.

But the hands-on aspect isn't the only benefit; there are the environmental ones as well.

"This is about helping our kids see the future and feel they are a part of it," Wilson said.

Solar energy heating up Clarkson Valley council chambers

Jim and Frances Babb want Clarkson Valley to see the light about the benefits of solar energy.

Instead, they fear city officials are placing a premium on looks and smothering their rights.

The Babbs, who live on Kehrsdale Court in Kehrs Mill Estates West subdivision, want to install 100 panels on the front of their 14-year-old house. The system will save them about 90 percent of their energy costs, they said.

The panels would face south, which they said is the best alignment to pick up the most solar energy.

The couple applied Oct. 14 to the city for a permit to put in the panels, but the permit is on hold while city officials draw up a new law regulating solar systems.

"I feel we've been discriminated against by the city, because it was only after our application went in that the city decided to restrict solar," said Jim Babb, an electrical engineer.

Babb said the city should have give him a permit based on its existing law.

"State law says solar energy is a property right," he said. "If your new law is so restrictive that I can't put solar on the front of my house, you've taken away that right."

While the law isn't finalized, some early provisions include:

Solar panels cannot be on the front or side of a roof and ground-mounted solar panels are prohibited.

For firefighters' safety and proper roof ventilation, panels would have to be located at least three feet below the roofline.

A city permit would be required to install solar panels.

Any electrical connection to the panels would have to be in accord with rules of the local utility company.

City officials say they want to make sure any solar systems law they approve will ensure safety and keep up property values.

"There's not a single person on this board against solar panels, and we're not taking an adversarial position," Mayor Scott Douglass said.

The council is not expected to vote on a final version until at least January, Douglass said.

In the meantime, the city is seeking comments on the proposed law. A Dec. 7 work session was attended by residents and city officials of Clarkson Valley and nearby communities, and representatives of solar energy companies.

Ellen Barnett, a neighbor of the Babbs in Kehrs Mill Estates, said she was concerned about how the panels would look.

"If it covers the entire roof, it could look trashy," she said. "The average home price in this city is $500,000 or more. Solar energy is great, but how long will these panels last? Will they fall off the roof?"

Jim Babb said panels have a 25-year warranty.

The city needs an ordinance that makes it reasonable to put solar panels on a house, but protects nearby property owners, said Dane Glueck, president of Straight Up Solar. Glueck is also president of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association, which advocates for solar energy growth and reasonable practices.

Glueck called the proposed law under consideration too restrictive, such as in denying panels on the front of a building.

"It's based on Frontenac's, which is the most restrictive ordinance my organization has seen, and I'd hesitate to use it as a template," Glueck said.

Dr. Joseph Gira, a Town & Country resident, told the board he'd encountered problems last year in getting a freestanding, ground-mounted solar array installed in his back yard.

The array is about 690 square feet, painted black and less than six feet tall, and sits near a retaining wall and woods.

"Once the system was set up, our mayor and aldermen saw it was unobtrusive, and it's providing a significant percentage of our energy," Gira said.

Town & Country Alderman Phil Behnen said since the Gira system was approved, the city has approved four more such installations on a case-by-case basis through a permit process and by applicants going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. None of those approved requested panels on the front of a house, he said.

"We found we can't restrict solar based on the aesthetics argument, because the courts, time and time again, have thrown that out," Behnen told the board.

The move toward investing in solar power has been embraced by not only homeowners, but local governments, said Chuck Welegala, a Wildwood resident, who owns Heartland Alternative Energy.

Manchester recently installed a solar photovoltaic array on the city's public works garage roof, and Ballwin is putting a solar array on the roof of the city government center, said Welegala, who worked as consultant with both cities.

Chesterfield city hall, within the last year, has installed a rooftop solar system, called an evacuated tube solar thermal collector.

Behnen offered Clarkson Valley officials some advice.

"I caution you against setting up too many restrictions," he said. "Instead, you need to be proactive and ask people what the city can do to help."

Solar Industry Fears Losing Federal Support Amid Profit Decline

The hubbub over Solyndra’s $535 million federal loan guarantee, a glut of solar panels and a 40 percent drop in prices for them are stirring worries from the solar energy advocates that they would lose a popular solar grant program and see big cutbacks in research and development budgets of solar companies.

The death of the grant program and the cuts to R&D budgets would be bad news for the young solar industry, which needs government help to grow and hopes to reduce that reliance by coming up with innovations that will cut the installation cost and make solar electricity cheaper. Worries about losing both have grown as solar energy proponents see what they believe to a campaign to discredit solar as a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. Advocacy group Vote Solar Initiative titled a blog post last week, “Reports of solar’s death are greatly exaggerated.”

The concerns stem from the mounting criticism of a $535 million government loan guarantee to solar startup Solyndra and, by extension, the loan program itself and the solar industry’s dependence on government incentives. The loan guarantee program is set to end on by the end of thismonth, and the Department of Energy is working on finalizing at least a dozen loan guarantees before then. In a surprising announcement Thursday, First Solar said it won’t be able to get a guarantee for a $1.9 billion loan for a California solar farm from the same program because “there was insufficient time to process all requirements before the Sept. 30, 2011 deadline.” First Solar spokesman Alan Bernheimer said in an email that the company “wouldn’t speculate” about any connection between the Solyndra controversy and its own loan guarantee application.

The Solyndra controversy is erupting at a time when solar equipment manufacturers are trying desperately to reverse the severe losses they have experienced for much of this year. If manufacturers continue to see declining profits or post heavier losses, they will likely shrink their R&D spending, said Paula Mints, director of energy at Navigant Consulting.

“It’s very hard to make a buck and have a positive margin. In a situation such as this, it’s hard to conduct a solid R&D that we need to move the industry forward,” said Mints in a webinar hosted Vote Solar Wednesday.

Large solar panel manufacturers are selling their products for as low as $1.10 per watt when they need to sell them for more than $2 per watt to make a healthy profit, Mints said. Wholesale solar panel prices already have fallen about 40 percent this year, according to GTM Researech.

The low prices, while they benefit buyers, aren’t good for the seller or the solar industry overall, Mints said. The prices have plummeted because incentive declines in Europe, the largest solar market in the world, have lowered demand and caused a pile up of solar panels in warehouses.

“Candidly, this is not something to rejoice on because with $1.10, there is a manufacturer losing money there. That’s not a healthy industry,” Mints said.

Companies have to cut costs heavily to limit losses, including their R&D investments, yet they face increasing pressures to improve the efficiency and installation cost of their equipment in order to survive. Last month, CEOs of solar factory equipment makers Applied Materials and GT Advanced Technologies both noted that their customers are asking for more tools that will help them produce more efficient equipment.

Omaha man uses billboards in fight to keep solar panels

The Omaha resident has turned a dispute with his neighborhood association into a public battle, putting up billboards, launching a website and taking to social media to publicize a lawsuit filed against him over the installation of solar panels on the roof of his home near Lake Zorinsky.

"It's not about money," Adams, 49, said. "It's about sticking up for principles. If it's about spending tens of thousands of dollars educating people, I will do it."

Adams, an orthodontist who lives in the upscale home with his wife and their eight children, said he didn't know he needed permission from the South Shore Heights Homeowners Association before putting up the $39,000 panels last fall. He made the decision, in part, because he wanted to switch to renewable energy and save money on his electricity bills. Adams said the panels are generating more than enough electricity to power his home and he's saving enough on energy bills to have his investment returned in 10 to 12 years.

That's if he's allowed to keep them.

The homeowners association that governs 226 homes asked Adams to take them down. He's refused, so the association got permission from its membership to take him to court. A lawsuit was filed in late March in Douglas County District Court.

Adams violated the association's rules — or covenants — that requires its permission before exterior home improvements or additions.

Al Williams, president of the homeowners association, declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but said residents are given copies of the neighborhood rules each year in their handbook, so they should know what they can and can't do. The rules were last renewed in 2006 and govern house size, improvements such as swimming pools, dog houses and flag poles, and storage of boats, campers and lawn mowers, among other things, in an attempt to protect home values.

Adams has pleaded ignorance of the rules. He's sought to drum up support to keep the solar panels and draw attention to the lawsuit through a barrage of letters to his neighbors, billboards posted at high-traffic intersections in Omaha and an online campaign that includes a website, Facebook page and Twitter account.

"This is a problem throughout the nation, where people want to put up solar panels but someone says they're ugly," Adams said.

Williams said there are homeowners in the association on both sides of the issue, and it's causing some friction.

"I don't wish this on any neighborhood," he said.

The Nebraska Energy Office does not keep track of the number of homes that generate solar power. Spokesman Jerry Loos said there is no permit process and homeowners aren't required to notify the state.

Loos said he wasn't aware of any specific disputes between Nebraska homeowners and their neighborhood associations over solar energy devices but noted such disputes aren't uncommon elsewhere.

Almost half of states have laws protecting homeowners' rights to install and operate solar energy devices, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Nebraska is not among them, but it does have a law allowing for easements and zoning variances to accommodate solar projects.

A handful of U.S. cities, including Madison, Wis., have passed local ordinances protecting homeowners' rights to solar access. Omaha's planning department is updating the city's master plan, and among the suggested changes is revising city codes to protect solar access. Adams' media blitz asks supporters to contact Omaha officials and push for such an ordinance.

Some of Adams' neighbors don't think solar panels are the real issue in his dispute with the homeowners association. They said it's really about being a good neighbor.

Wayne Gill, whose house faces Adams' solar panels, said: "Unfortunately, this has turned into an issue about solar power, when it's really about your neighbors and taking them into account before doing something."

He said he doesn't mind the solar panels and "when I first saw them up, I said, 'That's cool.'" But, he added, Adams didn't get permission to put them up and he never apologized for doing so.

Another neighbor, Jonathan McIntosh, said he doesn't think the association would have approved the solar panels had Adams sought permission. He said the rules are in place to protect the integrity and value of the neighborhood, and Adams is compromising that.

"It damages the neighborhood," he said. "If you don't have those covenants in place, you get a free-for-all. I don't want that. We have a great neighborhood."

Adams agreed that the dispute isn't really about installing solar panels without permission. He said he feels his homeowners association has been lax in enforcing its rules in the past but it is compelled to fight him after receiving a written complaint from another homeowner.

"It's about using this as a platform to reassert their authority," Adams said. "They're taking on the wrong case. Go after someone who's not cutting their grass or (is) putting up faulty siding."