Sunday, December 18, 2011

Step by step


Breakthrough design will produce conversion efficiency far in excess of current solar technology




Solar3D has announced the results of a simulated test of its new solar cell design that projects the conversion efficiency to be in excess of 25%. The test results indicate that the company's innovative design will produce conversion efficiency far in excess of current solar technology.

"We are very encouraged by these test results," said Jim Nelson, President and CEO of Solar3D.

"We are now evaluating various methods of fabricating a prototype. If the results of our tests hold up in fabrication, as we expect, then our product's performance will be among the very highest conversion efficiencies achieved by silicon solar cells."

After completion of its prototype, the company's management plans to seek a manufacturing partner that will participate in bringing its 3-dimensional solar cell to market. Likely manufacturing partners include some of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturers.

Nelson continued, "These test results are very exciting and give us a great deal of confidence in the development path we have chosen. We think that our novel 3-dimensional solar cell has the potential to dramatically change the economics of solar power. A high efficiency solar cell manufactured with low cost silicon could result in the lowest cost per watt in the industry."

"Increasing conversion efficiency and reducing manufacturing costs will ultimately drive solar to economic parity with the low cost alternatives," said Nelson.

"With the increased efficiency that comes from our new design, we take a giant step in that direction."

Solardaily.com
staff article

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Steep learning curve





811MW of solar installed in the use in the 4th quarter of 2011. That is almost the equivalent of a nuclear reactor. While today's grid tied solar only has a 25% capacity factor; meaning it is producing peak electricity only 6hrs a day, this is a significant amount of power. 1MW powers approximately 200 US homes.

In the 4th quarter of 2011 South Carolina approved installs for approximately 90kw that's 1000th of the overall US market. California is still the US leader with 38% of the US market. NJ is 11% of the overall market leaving the 47 remaining mainland states to divide up 51%. Assuming the top 5 of those take 8% each that leaves 11% for the remaining 42 states. That is a 1/4% for each state. That gives SC a target of 2MW a quarter and 8MW a year goal to be considered even thinking of contributing to a domestic energy policy. That's a steep curve but one we could easily achieve if we worked together.

In Q3’11, the US PV market grew by 32% from Q2’11 and could reach 1.9 GW for the year, which would mean that the market has doubled in size for the second consecutive year. For large-scale non-residential and utility-scale projects in Q3’11 and Q4’11, the scheduled expiration of the US federal cash grant has encouraged progress to meet qualifying requirements; ongoing installation will continue throughout 2012, stimulated by the progress requirements for these cash grants.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Solar Shakeout Could Soon Reach China

The price of polysilicon, the key material in conventional solar panels, dropped more than 90 percent from its February 2008 high of $475 a kilogram, to the end of last month. Source: Graphic by David Yanofsky
By Eric Roston and Ehren Goossens Nov 8, 2011 9:48 AM ET


If oil prices fell from their 2008 peak as far as solar component prices have, a barrel of oil would cost about $10 – a 93 percent drop. Everyone could afford to fuel his own Formula One racecar.
Instead, more utilities and companies can now afford to install solar power. A kilogram of polysilicon, the basic material in solar panels, dropped from $475 in February 2008 to less than $35 Oct. 31. Not every manufacturer can stay in business with prices so low. The great shakeout has begun in the U.S. and elsewhere -- even as the largest producers continue to ramp up output. But what’s going on in China?

The price drops are a stunning turnaround for this alternative to traditional power generation, the economics of which have long prevented its widespread adoption.
Polysilicon manufacturing has been growing at an annual rate usually reserved for another silicon product, computer chips. By the end of 2010, the world produced enough photovoltaic panels theoretically to power about four New York Cities. At about 42 gigawatts, that's 43 percent more solar capacity built than in 2009, which itself was a third higher than 2008.
Solar is already competitive with fossil fuel power in many markets around the world, especially where supply is unreliable and diesel backup generation is uncommon.

"People are missing out about how cheap solar power has become,” said Ramesh Misra, senior analyst covering solar and technology at Brigantine Advisors in New York. "There is no other energy source that can make that claim."
The falling prices have changed the competitive landscape and knocked smaller manufacturers out of business, including Evergreen Solar, the Marlboro, Massachusetts panel-maker, and Solyndra, the thin-film solar manufacturer whose bankruptcy kicked up a solar storm in Washington, DC, because the Obama administration backed $537 million in loans.

Analysts and investors are studying the effect of this price shakeout on the global solar industry. Leading companies in the U.S., Germany, Korea, Norway and Japan are easier to read than their secretive peers in China. A Chinese analyst, Xie Chen, gave Bloomberg News a glimpse behind the Chinese Wall at the end of last week.

About 90 percent of plants in China risk suspensions in production because of the low prices, said Xie, an analyst at the China Nonferrous Metals Industrial Association, something of a cross between a think tank and a government agency. Those factories, most of them quite small, produce about half of China’s overall polysilicon output.
The closings, though perhaps temporary, will lead China to import more polysilicon from large international competitors, Xie said, such as Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., in Hemlock, Michigan, and Wacher Chemie AG, in Munich.

Aaron Chew, a senior analyst at Maxim Group LLC in New York, attributes the price drop to aggressive sales from larger firms such as GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Ltd., in Hong Kong, and OCI Company Ltd., in Seoul. "I don't think the smaller polysilicon manufacturers are responsible for the current downward pricing pressure,” he said. "Even if all of the capacity of these smaller players went offline, there would still be enough to supply the industry."​

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

DOE Regains Its Clean Energy Chops

WASHINGTON — Throughout September, Energy Secretary Steven Chu heard the jeers. They came from Republican legislators who used the Solyndra bankruptcy for political fodder. They came from taxpayers who wanted him to halt the loan guarantee program ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline. And they came from Beltway pundits clamoring for a clean energy scandal. Mostly, he sat silent.

But it was on a rain-soaked first day of October when the clouds finally lifted. Fresh off a flurry of nearly $5 billion in loan guarantees closed the night before, Chu allowed himself to listen to the cheers. They came from hundreds of students from universities across the country in an event that also included some of the best young talent from four continents.

This was the awards ceremony for the fifth Solar Decathlon, an event put on by the Energy Department. Chu had the stage on the National Mall, and he had something to say.

Of course, he was up there to commend the students for another highly successful event that served to educate and inspire those who built the solar-powered homes and the tens of thousands who toured them. He was also there to crown the University of Maryland, winners of the 20-team competition.

Perhaps unexpectedly, Chu was also there to set the record straight. He’s been awfully quiet over the past month in regards to Solyndra and the deal that went bad. But on Saturday, Chu reaffirmed his stance on clean energy, and he signaled how the Obama administration views the challenge.

Consider some of his key points from his speech:

On Asian dominance: “China gave $30 billion in government financing to solar last year. These countries have studied our playbook, and they want to beat us at our own game.”

On American ingenuity: “We invented solar cells, wind turbines and the lithium-ion battery, but we no longer lead in manufacturing. We’re working to recapture the lead.”

On historic achievement: “The question we now face is ‘Where do we go from here?’ In past times of national stress, we took the long view.” Chu spoke about endeavors launched during difficult periods. The groundwork for the first transcontinental railroad, the creation of the National Academy of Sciences and the foundation for land grant schools, which eventually led to places like UC-Berkeley and MIT, all came during the Civil War.

On making an investment: “Did we say then that we could not afford to do these things, that government intervention wasn’t needed, that the free market will solve all our problems?”

On retaking the lead: “It’s not enough for our country to invent clean energy technologies. We have to make them and we have to use them, and they have to be sold around the world.”

This speaks loudly against the growing chorus that American manufacturing can’t compete with the lower-cost options in China. Under the current scenario, it may be true. But that’s largely because the deck has been stacked against America’s favor at exactly the moment when the solar industry and other renewable industries started their march toward achieving scale.

The question now is how does the U.S. catch up? Yes, it’s through innovation and, yes, it’s by fusing solar into the building process as the homes on display at the Solar Decathlon show. More than anything, though, it’s about our federal commitment to making it happen. It’s also about our leaders’ ability to explain that to a public that may be skeptical about new solutions to old problems, and the larger bill that may come at the outset.

This past weekend’s final loan approvals also set up an interesting autumn on Capitol Hill. Chu is scheduled to testify before the House energy committee within the next few weeks. The Congressional Super-Committee will also continue to meet as it searches for ways to drastically cut federal spending. A key Republican member of that group, Rep. Fred Upton, is a strong critic of the Energy Department loan program and has shown scant support of federally backed clean energy programs. We’ll also start to see some of the groundwork being laid for many of these large-scale renewable energy projects that once installed would significantly boost clean power capacity.

Maybe Secretary Chu said it best on Saturday when he told the young crowd — the ones he called the next generation of leaders in the clean energy race — that we’re at a crossroads. Which direction we take will be defined by the resolve of those in charge.

If last Friday and Saturday are any indication, things may bode well.

DOE Regains Its Clean Energy Chops

By Steve Leone
October 3, 2011

Saturday, September 17, 2011

growth Market



Evergreen and Solyndra have filed for chapter 11. These once promising manufacturers of solar panels based in Mass. and CA, USA, could not lower prices fast enough or gain enough market share or distribution partners to stem the increasing onslaught from Chinese manufacturers who are building US based factories and undercutting prices across the board.

While bankruptcy is always sad; there are still 100’s of US based companies surviving and thriving in the overly competitive world of solar. This is also an incredibly exciting time to be in the solar industry. I can remember dreaming of a time when residential solar would be under $6 a watt installed. Well that day has come. I can also remember being disappointed when a utility industry leader told me that they would pursue solar when the install price was under $4 a watt. At that time I thought it was years away; well, that day has come too!

Solar in the US is actually an export business; $1.9B in 2011. The combined exports to China are in the $250 million dollar range. Most of this is in high-tech electrical components and industrial process machinery; areas of the market other than panels. (SEIA industry report 2011)

The political and economic uncertainty in the past 6 months has made this a very challenging time for most businesses but especially small solar companies in SC who have a product that is not yet critical to day to day operations. I think that is about to change.

Poly silicon prices have dropped dramatically and continued competition should propel that trend. The US economy is on the road to recovery. For the national market 1.8GWh of solar is expected to come on-line this year.

Several states currently have private leases for solar at the residential and commercial level. This influx of private capital has alleviated the up-front cost of solar and allowed securitization of solar projects. When investors get involved the market matures. $400m from Google to Solar City, $280m invested in Sungevity, Sun Edison offering leases in 6 states. This influx of capital is still generated by tax credits at the state and federal level so we are not at true parity yet.

What we do have is a way for both utilities and private companies to generate returns from solar projects that will enable growth and sustainable levelized costs.

One thing I have heard consistently from people in the energy industry in SC is that they do not want a mandate. We have mandates in 29 states; they specify a certain amount of energy must come from energy efficiency and renewable energy.

One way to ensure a mandate doesn’t materialize at the state level is to pre-emptively institute a PPA structure across the state that pays a small premium for renewable sources of energy. SC has the Progress Energy Sun sense program that is a perfect example of this.

If utilities paid 13c a kWh over a ten year contract then private equity can see returns, business owners can see the cost benefit and solar will grow in SC. 1% energy increases in NC has covered these costs. This creates jobs encourages out of state investment equity and shows a real commitment to community.

We have concrete proof in other states that capital market participation is the key to unlocking true ingenuity and job creation. I believe you institute this program and parity with coal will come years sooner. Ultimately diversifying our energy portfolio even on a small scale is good for all of us.

Bloody waters



Evergreen and Solyndra have filed for chapter 11. These once promising manufacturers of solar panels based in Mass. and CA, USA, could not lower prices fast enough or gain enough market share or distribution partners to stem the increasing onslaught from Chinese manufacturers who are building US based factories and undercutting prices across the board.

While bankruptcy is always sad there are still 100’s of US based companies surviving and thriving in the overly competitive world of solar. This is also an incredibly exciting time to be in the solar industry. I can remember dreaming of a time when residential solar would be under $6 a watt installed. Well that day has come. I can also remember being disappointed when a utility industry leader told me that they would pursue solar when the install price was under $4 a watt. At that time I thought it was years away; well, that day has come too!

Solar in the US is actually an export business; $1.9B in 2011. The combined exports to China are in the $250 million dollar range. Most of this is in high-tech electrical components and industrial process machinery; areas of the market other than panels. (SEIA industry report 2011)

The political and economic uncertainty in the past 6 months has made this a very challenging time for most businesses but especially small solar companies in SC who have a product that is not yet critical to day to day operations. I think that is about to change.

Poly silicon prices have dropped dramatically and continued competition should propel that trend. The US economy is on the road to recovery. For the national market 1.8GWh of solar is expected to come on-line this year.

Several states currently have private leases for solar at the residential and commercial level. This influx of private capital has alleviated the up-front cost of solar and allowed securitization of solar projects. When investors get involved the market matures. $400m from Google to Solar City, $280m invested in Sungevity, Sun Edison offering leases in 6 states. This influx of capital is still generated by tax credits at the state and federal level so we are not at true parity yet.

What we do have is a way for both utilities and private companies to generate returns from solar projects that will enable growth and sustainable levelized costs.

One thing I have heard consistently from people in the energy industry in SC is that they do not want a mandate. We have mandates in 29 states; they specify a certain amount of energy must come from energy efficiency and renewable energy.

One way to ensure a mandate doesn’t materialize at the state level is to pre-emptively institute a PPA structure across the state that pays a small premium for renewable sources of energy. SC has the Progress Energy Sun sense program that is a perfect example of this.

If utilities paid 13c a kWh over a ten year contract then private equity can see returns, business owners can see the cost benefit and solar will grow in SC. 1% energy increases in NC has covered these costs. This creates jobs encourages out of state investment equity and shows a real commitment to community.

We have concrete proof in other states that capital market participation is the key to unlocking true ingenuity and job creation. I believe you institute this program and parity with coal will come years sooner. Ultimately diversifying our energy portfolio even on a small scale is good for all of us.

Monday, August 22, 2011

New rules for a changing energy landscape


How do you find an equitable solution to the solar question?


I try to understand the whole energy issue. I have studied the history of the electrification of America, from the Rochdale Principals to the first hydro plant purchased by James Buck Duke and his subsequent decades of philanthropy. I have studied The french physicist A. E. Becquerel who discovered the photovoltaic effect, Thomas Edison's pursuit of a DC electric grid and his loss of market and eventual dominance of John Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla's AC grid.

The reason I have done this is because I knew very little about electricity before getting involved in solar except that I like electricity and want to continue to have access to it.

I have been extremely lucky in that I have been invited to see a working hydro, coal and nuclear plant. For someone who grew up loving motors and horsepower this has been fantastic, a lifetime memory. I have seen the immense raw power that drives our way of life and keeps our economy running. The bone tingling hum of 125MW of hydro turbines is more impressive than an F15 fighter jet or a 1000cc motorcycle at 150mph. I like to think I get it, the grid is immense, powerful, complicated and difficult to maintain. All of the people who run and operate electrical distribution or generation should be proud of what they do and are greatly under-appreciated. I recently had a capacitor break on my condensing unit in July during a 99' day, I sincerely recognize that electricity is the life blood of South Carolina.

I am a solar guy, I always will be. What does that mean? It means that I have looked at all the energy generation methods available to us, including fusion and I have come to the conclusion that only one resource can eventually permanently satisfy our energy needs and that is solar power.

The earth is a closed system, the only thing entering our atmosphere is photons from the sun. We are told the earth is round so we have finite resources other than the sun. That being said I need to emphasize that I said eventually. Solar today cannot directly compete with the energy output of coal or nuclear. Both of these combined currently account for 70% of our total electrical power generation in the US. I believe we currently consume 374 Terawatts or 374 trillion watts annually. This is a lot of power!

Solar today accounts for less than 1% of that power. If we covered every roof in the state with today's solar we could get 25% of our daytime power from solar. So the technical challenges are huge. I recognize that SC is a nuclear state with heavy investments from the federal government in research and development. Does this make SC mutually exclusive when we talk about starting a solar industry; far from it, I think it means we have a much higher threshold of integration before we have to worry about dispatchability or base load generation issues.

I also recognize we are asking for a new paradigm from our electrical generation and distribution companies. We want cheap, reliable, electricity all the time and we want you to shoulder the burden of research and development of the next generation of electrical production today at no cost to us the rate payers and members.

So how do we come together, the people of South Carolina, those that want solar and the thousands of engineers and other hard working professionals who provide today's electrical needs? Luckily I think it is possible, with careful steps, open dialogue and economic development we can achieve a new set of rules for this changing electrical industry.

Solar in North Carolina has been regulated and mandated. What has this achieved? 1350 solar jobs created during the recession, $300m dollars of economic activity and less than 1% increase in rates for North Carolina. This seems to be a positive step towards economic development, grid security and job creation.

It all has happened with no meaningful impact to the overall health and well-being of NC power generation and distribution companies. So if we promise to take into account the history, economics and politics of our energy landscape I am sure we can find willing partners to build a solar industry in the state we all love and live in.

Andrew Streit is the founder of the Solar Business Alliance, a trade association created to foster the growth of solar energy in SC.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Solar will continue to grow


NC dominates Renewable energy in the SE but everyone I know in solar is eking by in this downturn and slow recovery despite the lack of incentives, low energy costs in SC, and uncertain economic outlook.

Why is that? I think it can be boiled down to three key issues.

1. It has been pointed out very well by a part-time SC resident and very successful oil investor Richard Rainwater. Back in 2001, Mr. Rainwater forecast oil at $129 a barrel. This is pre-Katrina. He had read a book called The Limits of Growth that scarily portends fights for scarce natural resources and a growing world population that can’t be fed without fossil fuel. So the first issue is energy. We need it and don’t have enough of it. Everyone quietly recognizes that we will have to create sustainable reserves of hydro-carbon fuel replacements. I believe that comes partly from electricity. We need mass transport-ation and personal transportation from electricity because we can produce it more efficiently than burning fossil fuels. We also need to find a way to produce new oil—not by drilling, but by massive algae farms that absorb Co2 and produce oil. I am not a scientist so if algae aren’t feasible there has to be something. Let’s find it.


2. The reason is weather. I think we have all seen record temperatures this year, maybe not in SC where it is always hotter than just about anywhere in the summer, but just as scientists predicted: tornadoes in MA, snow in UT in May, record heat waves across the US. No scientist ever said global warming would be predictable; just that it would impact known weather patterns and could hamper world food growth. Solar can play a small part in slowing this process.


3. We have economic returns. Everyone wants predictable costs in the future and solar can provide that. While the payback is long in SC, the risk return is great. As we get older, the investment looks better and better. Most people won’t outlive their solar install, which should be a great feeling. NASA has panels from the 1960s that still generate voltage. That’s a safe bet in my book.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

New rules for a changing landscape

How do you find an equitable solution to the solar question?

I try to understand the whole energy issue. I have studied the history of the electrification of America, from the Rochdale Principals to the first hydro plant purchased by James Buck Duke and his subsequent decades of philanthropy. I have studied The french physicist A. E. Becquerel who discovered the photovoltaic effect, Thomas Edison's pursuit of a DC electric grid and his loss of market and eventual dominance of John Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla's AC grid.

The reason I have done this is because I knew very little about electricity before getting involved in solar except that I like electricity and want to continue to have access to it.

I have been extremely lucky in that I have been invited to see a working hydro, coal and nuclear plant. For someone who grew up loving motors and horsepower this has been fantastic, a lifetime memory. I have seen the immense raw power that drives our way of life and keeps our economy running. The bone tingling hum of 125MW of hydro turbines is more impressive than an F15 fighter jet or a 1000cc motorcycle at 150mph. I like to think I get it, the grid is immense, powerful, complicated and difficult to maintain. All of the people who run and operate electrical distribution or generation should be proud of what they do and are greatly under-appreciated. I recently had a capacitor break on my condensing unit in July during a 99' day, I sincerely recognize that electricity is the life blood of South Carolina.

I am a solar guy, I always will be. What does that mean? It means that I have looked at all the energy generation methods available to us, including fusion and I have come to the conclusion that only one resource can eventually permanently satisfy our energy needs and that is solar power.

The earth is a closed system, the only thing entering our atmosphere is photons from the sun. We are told the earth is round so we have finite resources other than the sun. That being said I need to emphasize that I said eventually. Solar today cannot directly compete with the energy output of coal or nuclear. Both of these combined currently account for 70% of our total electrical power generation in the US. I believe we currently consume 374 Terawatts or 374 trillion watts annually. This is a lot of power!

Solar today accounts for less than 1% of that power. If we covered every roof in the state with today's solar we could get 25% of our daytime power from solar. So the technical challenges are huge. I recognize that SC is a nuclear state with heavy investments from the federal government in research and development. Does this make SC mutually exclusive when we talk about starting a solar industry, far from it I think it means we have a much higher threshold of integration before we have to worry about dispatchability or base load generation issues.

I also recognize we are asking for a new paradigm from our electrical generation and distribution companies. We want cheap, reliable, electricity all the time and we want you to shoulder the burden of research and development of the next generation of electrical production today at no cost to us the rate payers and members.

So how do we come together, me the rabid solar guy and the thousands of engineers and other professional who provide today's electrical needs? Luckily I think it is possible, with careful steps, open dialogue and economic development we can achieve a new set of rules for this changing electrical industry.

Solar in North Carolina has been regulated and mandated. What has this achieved? 1350 solar jobs created during the recession, $300m dollars of economic activity and less than 1% increase in rates for North Carolina. This seems to be a positive step towards the solar future I envision.

It all has happened with no true impact to the overall health and well-being of NC power generation and distribution companies. So I promise to take into account the history, economics and politics of our energy landscape if I can find willing partners to build a nascent industry in the state we all love and live in.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Where does all the money go?

The cost of energy; this will make some historians chuckle and hopefully make some of you angry.
It cost Saudi Arabia $5-$12 a barrel to extract oil from 1986 to until 2002, 16yrs of steady prices.




Emerging countries saw economic growth over that period only hampered by the currency bailout in the 1990’s. Developed countries saw an overall decline of 1% over 20yrs all caused by the banking fiasco otherwise it would have been 1% growth.
Here is a quote from today’s Wall St Journal, the bastion of pure capitalism...

“Several OPEC countries have boosted spending this year to create jobs and build more housing. They therefore need a historically high oil price to cover the increased costs. Merrill Lynch said in an April research note that Saudi Arabia now needs as much as $95 a barrel to defray the costs after announcing the equivalent of $129 billion in new spending.”

While the US borrows to soften the economic impact of the downturn, Saudi Arabia and other Oil producing nations are charging us to bribe their people not to have democracy.

Does Saudi Arabia actually get $95 dollars a barrel? No of course not, how could Exxon report the single largest profits in history if it all went to the Arabs.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a capitalist, I just want you to recognize when people talk about ‘transference of wealth’ they mean they want it to continue to go to them and not to you.
So the cost of solar today per energy unit produced is high if you do not take into account 100yrs of infrastructure support from Governments for fossil fuel; the energy industry when regulated has guaranteed profits and receives between $23 and $52 dollars in incentives from government per ratepayer, per year; and new Nuclear cannot be built without government loans, insurance and guarantees, private capital won’t touch it with a ten foot stick.

I think we need Nuclear for one more generation of energy so we can develop dispatchable renewables or storage; which no energy source today has other than pump storage via fossil or nuclear. None of this broaches the subject of environmental impact, which is becoming so abundantly clear that to deny it makes you appear extreme and out of touch. So the next time someone tells you that solar is expensive please ask them in relation to what?

Sunday, May 8, 2011

25 yrs in the making

I recently attended the SC conservation’s groups’ oyster roast. It was a fun event with a great turnout. The food, music and company were outstanding; there was also some adult beverages that I enjoyed as well.

I had a great conversation with an environmental activist who had been at it for a while longer than me.
She said that American’s use too much energy and resources, that nuclear was dangerous and things should be different. I was quietly asking myself how this socialist English boy I thought I was, was ambivalent with almost everything she said. The only way I could explain it was thus;

Feudal societies ruled Europe for much longer than our current form of democracy. Meaning 7ft dudes who were proficient with swords did very well and the rest of us fought over the crumbs. My conversation partner would likely have said nothing has changed except my liege is now a modern day CEO. As a 21st century serf I can’t help but disagree.


Most of us died before age 45 prior to democracy and fossil fuels; entertainment was watching your neighbor getting his hands cut off for stealing royal game or 12hr days fighting the elements to produce enough food to live. Your children could die from cuts, colds, malnutrition or violence and there was little you could do.

Today we use resources because we learned to utilize them. We have created modern life through cheap energy and brilliant engineering not to exploit the world but to lead, who else is creating the future?

We do need activists to stop greed and lethargy in business now more than ever but I do not believe there is an evil capitalist at the helm of earth’s future.
I see it more as a group of people trying to make their way and adjusting every 50yrs or so when and if they realize they’ve made mistakes. Feudalism and over consumption have similar paths, I believe we will eventually get it right.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

My Prayers are with you and your family

I have a dear friend who has quietly been a leader for solar and other renewables since I have worked in the field. With little recognition or praise this wonderful person has persistantly reached out to people, given solid advice and has lead with integrity. Not many people I know can say the same thing. I am so sick of these two dimensional arguments about how government is ruining the country. We are the government, you your kid's school teachers, the local police, your cousin in the national guard, yourneighbor who works for an engineering company. My dear friend can always be found friday afternoons at her desk well after 5pm and yet she had a government job?! She doesn't anymore, she quit because she has morals and ethics. On the day she quit she lost her father in an automobile accident. It breaks my heart that she has to carry this burden of sadness and loss when he was only 55 and she was getting ready to embark on a new chapter in life. Her husband is a good man and a strong soul so I hope he can help her in her time of mourning. I wish the both of them the very best in their future and I want them to know they are always welcome in our home for a meal or place to rest or to share some stories. Erika was one of the first to help me when I had no friends in the industry and I'll never forget that. Arron (forgive the spelling mate) would put up with me asking for their help on weekends when Erika and I would work on Solar videos for free, because we believe in a brighter future. Thanks to both of you and God bless.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

space travel is more important than lipstick



Elon Musk on the 3 inventions that will change the worldElon Musk is a 39-year-old engineer and serial entrepreneur. At 28, he co-founded popular e-payment company Paypal. He then went on to start SpaceX, the first private company to launch a rocket into space, and Tesla Motors, which builds electric cars.

I recently talked to Musk about inventions he thinks will change the world. You can check out the transcript below and watch part of our Skype conversation, which encapsulates Musk’s particular brand of big, big thinking (in particular, why we should expand human life into space).

Amar Bakshi: What three inventions do you foresee changing the world in the years ahead?

Elon Musk: One of the most important things that I think that will be invented this century, hopefully by SpaceX, is the first (1) fully reusable orbital rocket. It’s the fundamental invention necessary for humanity to expand to the stars and to become multiplanetary. (Check out the video above to see why Musk thinks expanding to the stars is important for humanity.)

The cost of fuel is only about 0.2% or 0.3% of the cost of the rocket. In fact, the cost to refuel one of our Falcon 9 rockets is about as much as the cost to refuel a Boeing 747 plane.

However, a 747 can be used tens of thousands of times. And that’s the reason a ticket to London doesn’t cost a half a billion dollars (a 747 is about a quarter-billion dollars, and you would need two of them for a round-trip flight if you didn’t have reusable planes). Now you’re paying a few thousand dollars for the ticket because you can reuse the craft.

(2) Rapid, low-cost, perfect DNA sequencing will have a huge effect on humanity. Human DNA has not yet been completely decoded. The most that anyone has gotten is about 91% or 92%, and that has been with a huge numbers of errors. Trying to read our DNA is like trying to understand software code - with only 90% of the code riddled with errors. It’s very difficult in that case to understand and predict what that software code is going to do.

That’s where things are right now in DNA decoding. There’s a company called Halcyon that’s trying to solve that problem. I’m an investor, and I’m on the Board of Halcyon, but I think if Halcyon succeeds in doing perfect DNA sequencing, it will have a huge impact on humanity.

I should mention another important thing. With DNA, you have to be able to tell which genes are turned on or off. Current DNA sequencing cannot do that. The next generation of DNA sequencing needs to be able to do this. If somebody invents this, then we can start to very precisely identify cures for diseases. It will be a really huge advancement for humanity.

We’ll be able to design treatments specifically for individual people and be able to tell beforehand if certain treatments would result in negative side effects for certain individuals.

There are a lot of people that think (3) viable fusion is not possible. But fusion is the “energy forever” solution. You know all energy in the universe originates with fusion. We get our energy from the sun, so that’s indirect reliance on fusion.

Do I think it will be solved this century? It may not be possible – or at least, not on a commercially viable scale. It’s a very, very difficult technical problem, one of the most difficult technical problems that humanity will ever try to solve. But if we solve it, we will have “energy forever.”

Bakshi: Where do you think these innovations are going to happen? Around the world? Or mostly on the west coast of the U.S.?

Musk: Primarily the west coast of the U.S. It is remarkable how much is invented in California. It’s kind of ridiculous. It’s not necessarily the people who were born in California. It’s just that people come here because this is an environment that is really conducive to invention despite the high taxes and all the constraints that one faces.

I was born in Africa. I came to California because it’s really where new technologies can be brought to fruition, and I don’t see a viable competitor. It’s not to say that California is perfect – far from it. But it’s the least imperfect of any place in the world that I know of for bringing new inventions to mass market.

Silicon Valley has evolved a critical mass of engineers and venture capitalists and all the support structure – the law firms, the real estate, all that – that are all actually geared toward being accepting of startups.

You go to some other part of the world, and you know you can't get a lease because your company hasn’t been around long enough; the law firm won't give you legal advice, nobody will give you funding, you can't find the technical talent you need. But in California, all this has arisen organically.

Post by:

CNN's Amar C. Bakshi

Sunday, March 20, 2011

NEW ENERGY NOW



less than 200 miles from the epi-center of the earthquake these turbines stand tall and provide electricity to Japan. I recognize that the nuke plants were hit by earthquake AND Tsunami but the point still remains, a diversified energy portfolio protects you best from unforeseen disasters.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Oil companies have their hand in your wallet


Why Oil Companies Need A Windfall Profit Tax .
Thursday, 03 March 2011 Green Chip Stocks .As oil prices rise, oil companies should be assessed a windfall profit tax to prevent profiting from deceiving their customers. Oil companies' failure to notify customers of Peak Oil is the same as cigarette companies deceiving their customers about cancer.

The following graph illustrates the basic nature of oil field geology. Oil companies understand oil field geology and have publicly denied it to the peril of their customers.



Trust is essential to free market capitalism. Profits drive action. Each of us specializes in order to profit from our primary talents. We pay a profit to vendors that specialize in filling other needs to be reliable suppliers. Society benefits as each of us specializes in tasks where we can compete most profitably, adding the greatest value at the least cost. Benefits of specialization and collaboration collapse as trust diminishes.

In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki notes:

Modern capitalism made the idea of trusting people with whom you had "no prior personal ties" seem reasonable, if only by demonstrating that strangers would not, as a matter of course, betray you. This helped trust become woven into the basic fabric of everyday business. Buying and selling no longer required a personal connection. It could be driven instead by the benefits of mutual exchange.

Through social experiments, Surowiecki illustrates how free markets build trust through reciprocity, rewarding fair dealing with profits and punishing breaches of trust. Capitalism requires profits and punishment of vendors who violate their customers’ trust by incompetence, deceit or failing to inform them of critical information relative to the vendor’s specialty:

Cigarette companies misled their customers about links between cigarettes and cancer for decades. Eventually they were held accountable. Now that cigarette companies are more honest about cancer, lawsuits are fewer and less punishing.
Oil companies are dishonestly profiting from rising oil prices because they have failed to warn their customers about Peak Oil, misleading customers by reassuring them that there is plenty of oil (which there is) without informing them that:
The conventional crude oil on which we build our infrastructure and economy has peaked and is in permanent decline, as noted by IEA’s 2010 World Energy Outlook and the U.S. military’s Joint Forces Command’s Joint Operating Environment 2010.Six or more years are required to develop an oil resource. Customers are being led to believe they can currently rely on oil that will not be available for a decade.
Capital to develop these oil resources has not been allocated and may never be.
Previous attempts to develop some of these oil sources failed after billions of dollars were invested -- so there is no certainty that technical skills exist, within plausible financial limitations, to develop the oil fields.
Net Energy from these resources may be less than 5:1. Oil as the lifeblood of the U.S. economy is based on Net Energy of greater than 10:1. At 5:1, it will take twice as much oil, at far greater costs, to obtain the oil we use to accomplish the economic work that is required to sustain the current economy.
The price of gasoline from such sources may far exceed $5 a gallon.
Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies
Life requires energy. Less affordable energy, less life. Because energy is critical to life, and energy infrastructure takes decades to replace, energy vendors have a responsibility to inform their customers of energy risks far enough in advance of those risks for customers to adapt. Customers’ lives, livelihoods and families are at stake. Instead of warning their customers, oil companies encouraged and lobbied governments to subsidize the creation of oil’s Potato Famine potential: A monolithic dependence on a single source of energy 65% beyond the nation’s ability to control.

Peak Oil (the limits of oil field geology) was proven in 1970 when U.S. domestic oil production peaked as predicted in 1956 by Dr. Hubbert. World Crude Oil Production effectively peaked in 2005 at 74 million barrels per day (mb/d). Oil companies such as Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX), Arco, Shell (RDS.A), BP, etc., do not deserve to profit from deceiving, misleading and failing to inform their customers of these global conditions. Federal government officials also failed to warn citizens, and they are culpable for the consequences.

Awareness and Action
If you are surprised by rising gasoline prices, then hold the vendors accountable. By about 2030, there will be 95% less Net Energy from oil. If this surprises you, then your vendors have not informed you of risks in a meaningful way.

The United States of America existed in 1900 with little use of oil. Today we know far more about materials, technology, manufacturing and science than in 1900. We have applied these insights to the communications infrastructure since 1984, creating millions of jobs, vast innovation and re-tooling of a fundamental infrastructure. Power and transport infrastructure networks remain frozen in the government’s central planning that mobilized World War I (see below). We have the gas mileage of the Model T. The highway and oil are monolithic government solutions.

In a free market, the lifeblood of our economy will change from oil to ingenuity.

Investment Guide
Consequences of Peak Oil are so huge that picking single companies or even market segments is as difficult as forecasting Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), and Facebook in 1984.

But this general principle will hold true. Life requires energy. Less affordable energy, less life. More efficiency, more life.

Long-term energy investments focused on Net Energy solutions of 20:1 or better will likely do very well; wind and solar both fit this category. Investments in efficiency products will do well. Investments in depleting resources will likely do poorly.

Investing in companies that deceive their customers is very risky. Protecting capitalism requires vendors be trusworthy or be prevented from profiting by deceipt or incompetence. My best guess is oil products will be rationed sooner than later, likely when gasoline hits $5 a gallon.

Network investments seem likely to be big winners. The government subsidies to oil and central planning of highways limit efficiency to 32 passenger-miles per gallon. Free market networks, such as railroads, are 97 times more efficient, averaging 436 ton-miles per gallon. When governments end central planning, innovations applied to communication networks will be applied to power and transport networks. Investing in this shift seems attractive.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Feed in tarriff's help or hurt?

As you can see from the following article, Feed-in tarriffs or FITs can lead to a boom and bust mentality that I am sure we are all sick of. The question is are premium payments for energy a good idea? I think the answer is yes becuase the real question is, "Do we currently have a viable alternative to fossil fuel when prices spiral out of control?" The answer to that is NO we don't and currently all fossil fuel companies are happily waiting for prices to rise. FITs have been wildly successful in Germany, Spain and now the UK. The real issue is how much should the premium payment be and for how long. Scaling the payments to incentivize early system adoption is a good idea, coupling the payment with tax credits for system owners is a good idea too. Creating investment vehicles with strong profits by levying a premium payment against the utilities or govt is not a good idea when it is not sustainable long-term. Gradual growth and price decreases due to efficiency and scale are the way to go for all renewable energy's.

I fully expect the price of solar to drop below $4 a watt installed by 2013. This would mean a solar system could be financed by the savings with a 20% downpayment in the Southeast US.



The introduction of the Feed-in Tariff in the UK in April 2010 has sparked an explosive reaction in the UK renewable energy market, with the solar PV market seeing the largest growth

According to a recent report from the analysis firm Greenbang (of which I happen to be the lead author), in just a half-year since the tariff was introduced, more than 10,000 solar photovoltaic (PV) installations were recorded, with the majority consisting of domestic installations. This has led to an increase of twice the 2009 installed capacity in the first six months.

The overall installed capacity is also set to rapidly increase as larger-scale (5 MW) solar farms come into play in the next 12-18 months. These outcomes demonstrate the positive effect the feed-in tariff has had on the UK solar market, despite the poor economic conditions.

The only way for the UK renewable energy market to grow to a respectable size comparable with Germany is for it to have the full support of the incumbent government. The fact that large-scale solar PV farms are beginning to appear in the English countryside should be celebrated as a success of the government’s FIT policy.

Instead, the scheme is being portrayed as an enemy to micro-generation, with little regard for the fact that large-scale solar PV helps companies to achieve lower costs that can then be passed on to domestic installations.

This week, Chris Huhne, Britain’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced the government would start its first review of the FIT scheme for small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation. This news comes earlier than expected and will lead to uncertainty within the UK renewable market, in particular for solar PV.

Before we get into the changes, let’s have a brief explanation of the UK feed-in tariff.

The measure can be separated into two sections: one provides a fixed payment for electricity generated, called the “generation tariff,” and the other, which enables any unused electricity to be exported to the grid, is known as the “export tariff.”

Each type of technology (solar PV, wind, hydro, anaerobic digestion (AD) and micro-combined heat and power, or micro-CHP) is implemented differently, with contrasting prices for kWh of electricity produced by each system. This is to ensure a level playing field by encouraging the installation of the more expensive technologies, such as solar PV, which receives the highest rates.

For the FIT to be sustainable, the tariff rates are reduced annually after the first two years of implementation, in line with predicted price reductions for each of the technologies due to advancement of production techniques and related cost reductions.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Today is the day for Solar

Let’s talk Seriously now. North Carolina has a standard, a mandate and while some of it has been challenging to implement, solar is on time and under price on all original estimates, period!

We have invested 150yrs worth of infrastructure and private and government support around fossil fuel. Fossil fuel was all worthwhile but to say solar can’t compete is not telling the whole story.
SC Senator Glenn Reese who taught physics for 15yrs recently captured it best when he said “..the good Lord may be laughing at us, he gave us an infinite energy source right there in the sky..”

Today’s solar is 300% more efficient than 1958’s solar. I’d like to hear from leaders how we plan to transition away from finite fuel sources. Tomorrow’s solar is closer than we think.
Today we can feasibly put 20% generation from wind and solar and NOT require more base-load capacity.
Today we can put people back to work.
Today solar could easily grow by 35% a year with incentives and renewable energy goals in place from the legislature.
Today our utilities are making strides to do renewable energy and clean power production. SCE&G, Duke and Progress all have programs in place that are leaps and bounds from where they were 3 years ago. The Co-ops are leading the nation in an efficiency program they just need to initiate it. As leaders in business in the state and the region they have some of the brightest minds in the nation working for them. Ironically a few people still say they don’t see any customer benefit with renewables. NC has implemented 20MW of solar (and counting) for, at most, 83c a month per customer. 1000’s of people work in renewable energy in NC. New Coal costs $2.50 per month to build and fuel costs are subject to rise ad infinitum. Nuclear can meet our base load demand and we can build out renewable sources as they become more and more competitive. As business people and South Carolinians we ask the leaders of SC to figure out how can we create a renewable industry that protects rate payers, rewards utilities for a job well done and employs 100’s or 1000’s of South Carolinians so that they are paying into the state we live in. Incentives in 2011 and Goals for Renewable Energy before 2012 is the economic development we need. We are surrounded by states that have already improved their economies this way. Today is the day for solar.

Monday, January 3, 2011

SC lags in all areas of solar development


States Drive Renewable Energy
14 December 2010

States continue to drive renewable energy according to the 2010 edition of the policy guide looking at net metering and interconnection procedures across the states, Freeing the Grid.
"Electricity rules and regulations can be incredibly complex and difficult to get right, particularly in the pioneering territory of renewables and self-generation. Freeing the Grid is intended to help states understand how their policies currently rank and how to improve them to achieve real renewable energy market and job growth," says Kyle Rabin, Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC).

"The tremendous progress we’ve seen over the four short years of the report’s publication leaves no doubt that states are able and willing to tackle these tough issues and advance our clean energy economy."

Freeing the Grid 2010 Highlights:
Net metering rules: In 2010, 37 states received A or B grades for their net metering policies, up from 13 states in 2007;
Interconnection procedures: In 2010, 20 states received A or B grades for good interconnection practices, a tremendous improvement over the solitary B grade awarded in 2007;
Head of the Class: Massachusetts and Utah received exceptional ‘A’ grades in both interconnection and net metering. This is the first time in the report’s history that any state has achieved ‘A’ grades in both categories;
Most Likely to Succeed: Colorado’s use of proven best practices and new policy models earned it the top score in net metering. Colorado allows many customer types and systems sizes to benefit from net metering, enabling broad participation in the state’s renewable energy economy. In 2010, the state also took pioneering steps to allow shared, community solar energy systems to receive net metering credits through Community Solar Gardens.
"I am proud that Colorado is leading the way on distributed renewable energy," says Colorado Governor Bill Ritter.

"We have worked hard to diversify our energy supplies and create jobs, while also trying to make distributed renewable energy affordable for our commercial and residential sectors. This is smart, forward-thinking policy that other states can, and should, follow."

Adam Browning, Executive Director of Vote Solar, adds: "With gridlock at the Federal level, state and local leaders have been busy expanding opportunities for Americans to invest in our new energy economy. These states are to be applauded for their leadership and vision in driving real renewable energy progress and job growth.

“In combination with policies that grow wholesale renewable generation for the utility sector, these state-level policies for customer self-generation are building robust and sustainable renewable energy markets across the country.”

Community Solar Programs
"One of the most exciting developments graded for the first time this year’s Freeing the Grid is the state-wide community solar programs that are moving forward in a number of places throughout the country. Community solar allows renters, customers with shaded roofs, and others who were formerly unable to participate solar energy to do so which supports green jobs in their local communities while simultaneously expanding markets for renewable energy," comments Joseph Wiedman, Partner at Keyes and Fox, LLP which represents IREC.

Freeing the Grid is produced annually by NNEC in partnership with Vote Solar, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), and the North Carolina Solar Center.