The costs and benefits of solar panels was one of the many topics explored during this year's 4th annual "Energy and You - Individual Choices ... Global Impact" workshop seminar at Wilson College.
As a renewable energy consultant with Mountain View Solar and Wind - and someone with a background in real estate - Michelle Liefke spoke about the real estate value of solar panels.
In her work, Liefke said she comes across four different types of buyers when it comes to solar panels - investors, libertarians, environmentalists and jet setters - each with different goals and purposes for their choice to go solar.
"It's appealing to use in many different ways," she said. "Understanding who you are will help you understand the next person who might be purchasing your home." Nancy Lindenmeyer, Fayetteville, agreed, stating she and her husband were a mix of the first three in their decision to install solar panels on their home.
They wanted to reduce their electric bill as well as be energy efficient and independent, Lindenmeyer said.
"We just liked that," she said. "We wanted to do out part."
There are many values of solar panels and the energy they produce which include reducing or eliminating your electric bill, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, providing a highly durable form of energy production and being a product with one of the best return on investment, Liefke said.
"The solar future looks really bright for our area," she said.
At Mountain View, in 2009 a five kilowatt system cost $42,000 but its net cost after state and federal incentives was $18,200, Liefke said. Today that same system costs $26,000 with a net cost of $18,200.
In addition, an April 2011 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that homes in California that had a six kilowatt solar system saw a $33,000 increase in the value of the home, she said.
From 2009 to 2010, solar integration has doubled and it has increased eight times since 2006, Liefke said.
In 2010, Pennsylvania was ranked sixth in terms of grid-connected capacity installed, which Liefke attributes to a healthy Sunshine grant act, since Pennsylvania wasn't even on the list a few years ago.
Although many of the top ranking states, such as California, New Mexico and Nevada, are ones that are extremely hot, Liefke advised that heat has nothing to do with solar production. It's the amount of energy absorbed from the sun at any given time that does.
Judy Bricker, Waynesboro, compared this to the fact that you can still get sunburned in the winter even though it's not hot out because the sun is still producing energy.
Bricker said she and her family took a lot of things into consideration - such as when they would realize their investment, what if they moved shortly after installing, the aesthetics of solar panels - before deciding to install them on their home.
"They're not tacky," she said. "They're showing people that I do care."
2012年2月12日星期日
2011年11月10日星期四
Solar panel subsidy cuts condemned by UK's biggest business group
The UK's biggest business group today added its voice to criticism over Government plans to slash the subsidies for household solar electricity.
The CBI's director-general John Cridland said plans to halve feed-in tariffs, which are paid to people who generate electricity from small scale renewables, for domestic solar panels was 'the latest in a string of Government own goals'.
Under the proposals, the subsidies will be halved for new units installed from December 12, even before the consultation is due to end.
Ministers say the reductions are necessary to ensure that the feed-in tariffs paid for household solar, which has proved much more popular than anticipated, do not end up costing consumers - who pay for the scheme on their bills - too much.
But Mr Cridland said moving the goal posts in this way destroyed projects and jobs, and undermined investor confidence.
In a speech to the CBI East Midlands annual dinner tonight, Mr Cridland called for an industrial policy that helps the UK expand its share of the low-carbon sector, which has been growing globally throughout the recession.
He said the dramatic cut in the solar feed-in tariff, on the cards from April next year but now being brought in in December, was the latest in a string of own goals by the Government, which had already turned the carbon reduction commitment incentive scheme into 'a pure revenue-raiser'.
He said: 'Moving the goal posts doesn't just destroy projects and jobs, it creates a mood of uncertainty that puts off investors and they wonder what's coming next.
'Some companies have invested heavily in solar photovoltaic systems and in the supply chains needed to install them.
'That commitment has been undermined by the feed-in tariff decision - and so industry trust and confidence in the Government has evaporated. This bodes poorly for investment in future initiatives.
'A new industrial policy needs to recognise the real-time costs of these decisions, and should set out a clear path that investors understand and can believe in.'
His comments follow an attack on the Government's plans to cut solar subsidies by the Local Government Association, who warned it would cost councils who had attempted to roll out the technology to poorer households hundreds of millions.
Projects would be cancelled and low-income families would miss out on the chance to see reductions on their energy bills delivered by access to free energy from the solar panels, the LGA warned.
The LGA is urging the Government to extend the deadline for qualifying for the existing tariffs to the end of the financial year, next April, and protect schemes which are beneficial to the community.
The CBI's director-general John Cridland said plans to halve feed-in tariffs, which are paid to people who generate electricity from small scale renewables, for domestic solar panels was 'the latest in a string of Government own goals'.
Under the proposals, the subsidies will be halved for new units installed from December 12, even before the consultation is due to end.
Ministers say the reductions are necessary to ensure that the feed-in tariffs paid for household solar, which has proved much more popular than anticipated, do not end up costing consumers - who pay for the scheme on their bills - too much.
But Mr Cridland said moving the goal posts in this way destroyed projects and jobs, and undermined investor confidence.
In a speech to the CBI East Midlands annual dinner tonight, Mr Cridland called for an industrial policy that helps the UK expand its share of the low-carbon sector, which has been growing globally throughout the recession.
He said the dramatic cut in the solar feed-in tariff, on the cards from April next year but now being brought in in December, was the latest in a string of own goals by the Government, which had already turned the carbon reduction commitment incentive scheme into 'a pure revenue-raiser'.
He said: 'Moving the goal posts doesn't just destroy projects and jobs, it creates a mood of uncertainty that puts off investors and they wonder what's coming next.
'Some companies have invested heavily in solar photovoltaic systems and in the supply chains needed to install them.
'That commitment has been undermined by the feed-in tariff decision - and so industry trust and confidence in the Government has evaporated. This bodes poorly for investment in future initiatives.
'A new industrial policy needs to recognise the real-time costs of these decisions, and should set out a clear path that investors understand and can believe in.'
His comments follow an attack on the Government's plans to cut solar subsidies by the Local Government Association, who warned it would cost councils who had attempted to roll out the technology to poorer households hundreds of millions.
Projects would be cancelled and low-income families would miss out on the chance to see reductions on their energy bills delivered by access to free energy from the solar panels, the LGA warned.
The LGA is urging the Government to extend the deadline for qualifying for the existing tariffs to the end of the financial year, next April, and protect schemes which are beneficial to the community.
2011年11月8日星期二
It's time for solar power
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore's Law - in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months - has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.
Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.
But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That's right, solar power.
If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let's talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking.
Fracking - injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels - is an impressive technology. But it's also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to "internalize" those costs - that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation's infrastructure.
So it's worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government "pick winners," yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
And now for something completely different: The success story you haven't heard about.
These days, mention solar power and you'll probably hear cries of "Solyndra!" Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste - although claims of a major scandal are nonsense - and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.
But Solyndra's failure was actually caused by technological success: The price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn't keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, "there's now frequent talk of a 'Moore's law' in solar energy," with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues - and if anything it seems to be accelerating - we're just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.
But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That's right, solar power.
If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let's talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking.
Fracking - injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels - is an impressive technology. But it's also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to "internalize" those costs - that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation's infrastructure.
So it's worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government "pick winners," yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
And now for something completely different: The success story you haven't heard about.
These days, mention solar power and you'll probably hear cries of "Solyndra!" Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste - although claims of a major scandal are nonsense - and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.
But Solyndra's failure was actually caused by technological success: The price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn't keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, "there's now frequent talk of a 'Moore's law' in solar energy," with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues - and if anything it seems to be accelerating - we're just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
2011年4月26日星期二
MIT Professors Use Virus to Boost Solar Cell Efficiency
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is famed around the world for developing some of the biggest innovations in science and technology over the past century. This week, researchers at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university announced they are working with viruses to help boost the efficiency of solar panel systems.
According to MIT researchers, viruses help ensure that nanoscale components in solar modules work properly; using the tiny microbes, the scientists discovered they could boost solar module efficiency by over 30 percent - a vast improvement.
Scientists had previously worked with carbon nanotubes to increase solar panel efficiency, but the tools had their own drawbacks. However, the MIT researchers discovered that M13, a bacteria-eating virus, has the ability to bind to carbon nanotubes and make the process of increasing the effectiveness of the cells go much more smoothly than it would otherwise.
The viruses help keep the carbon nanotubes in place and are also genetically engineered to generate a layer of titanium dioxide, a key component in certain solar cells. In total, the virus helped researchers to increase the solar cell's power conversion by 10.6 percent from 8 percent, representing an improvement of about 30 percent.
MIT professor Angela Belcher, who heads the research, said the experiment illustrated the interplay of different scientific disciplines - in this case, physics and biology. "A little biology goes a long way," Belcher affirmed.
According to MIT researchers, viruses help ensure that nanoscale components in solar modules work properly; using the tiny microbes, the scientists discovered they could boost solar module efficiency by over 30 percent - a vast improvement.
Scientists had previously worked with carbon nanotubes to increase solar panel efficiency, but the tools had their own drawbacks. However, the MIT researchers discovered that M13, a bacteria-eating virus, has the ability to bind to carbon nanotubes and make the process of increasing the effectiveness of the cells go much more smoothly than it would otherwise.
The viruses help keep the carbon nanotubes in place and are also genetically engineered to generate a layer of titanium dioxide, a key component in certain solar cells. In total, the virus helped researchers to increase the solar cell's power conversion by 10.6 percent from 8 percent, representing an improvement of about 30 percent.
MIT professor Angela Belcher, who heads the research, said the experiment illustrated the interplay of different scientific disciplines - in this case, physics and biology. "A little biology goes a long way," Belcher affirmed.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)