Solar PV Costs to Decrease by Over 40% in Next 3 Years

Combined with technology advances and an increase in polysilicon supply the costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells will decrease rapidly—by more than 40 percent in the next three years, according to a new assessment by the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C., and the Prometheus Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

According to the report global production of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells has risen sixfold since 2000 and grew 41% in 2006 alone. Although grid-connected solar capacity still provides less than 1 percent of the world's electricity, it increased nearly 50 percent in 2006, to 5,000 megawatts, propelled by booming markets in Germany and Japan.

Some further excerpts from the report:

This growth has been constrained by a shortage of manufacturing capacity for purified polysilicon, the same material that goes into semiconductor chips. But the situation will be reversed in the next two years as more than a dozen companies in Europe, China, Japan, and the United States bring on unprecedented levels of production capacity. In 2006, for the first time, more than half the world's polysilicon was used to produce solar PV cells.

“Solar energy is the world’s most plentiful energy resource, and the challenge has been tapping it cost-effectively and efficiently,” says Janet Sawin, a senior researcher at Worldwatch, who authored the update. “We are now seeing two major trends that will accelerate the growth of PV: the development of advanced technologies, and the emergence of China as a low-cost producer.”

The biggest surprise in 2006 was the dramatic growth in PV production in China. Last year, China passed the United States to become the world’s third largest producer of the cells—trailing only Germany and Japan.

"To say that Chinese PV producers plan to expand production rapidly in the year ahead would be an understatement,” says Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute. “They have raised billions from international IPOs to build capacity and increase scale with the goal of driving down costs. Four Chinese IPOs are expected to come to market this month alone."

In the meantime, supply shortages have led manufacturers to find ways to use polysilicon more efficiently, and have accelerated the introduction of new technologies that do not rely on purified silicon and are inherently less expensive to manufacture. So-called thin film cells can be made from amorphous silicon and other low-cost materials, and companies developing these technologies have recently become the darlings of Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

Although in the past, thin film cells have not been efficient enough to compete with conventional cells, today over a dozen companies—including Miasole, Nanosolar, and Ovonics—are competing to scale up production of low-cost solar modules that can be churned out like rolls of plastic.

"The conventional energy industry will be surprised by how quickly solar PV becomes mainstream—cheap enough to provide carbon-free electricity on rooftops, while also meeting the energy needs of hundreds of millions of poor people who currently lack electricity," Sawin says.

This assessment confirms what has been reported in The Energy Blog over the past two years, that in about three years, in 2010, costs of PV solar will start to come down significantly as silicon supply increases and thin film suppliers start to undercut silicon PV costs. While this market will be large and supplement baseload power during the daylight hours, it will not be until energy storage technologies, such as flow batteries, become more economical, extending the usefulness of solar for a few hours, to the end of peak power demand, that PV solar can become mainstream.  Until that time solar thermal, for which energy storage is becoming developed, should remain the main source of utility power.  Until then PV solar will be limited, for the most part, to areas that offer substantial subsidies.  During this time concentrating PV solar power has a good chance of becoming the lowest cost supplier of distributed power.  If PV solar meets cost expectations, it should eventually become the dominant source of solar power. The role of solar power, after that, will only be limited by the costs of distribution of the power.

Solar power supplemented by wind power and ocean power, both with energy storage; and geothermal power and hydro-power then would be capable of suppling all our power needs. However until that time we must depend on coal power, hopefully with carbon sequestration, and nuclear power for the majority of our power production. Although conservation of power should become a major component of our energy usage, this probably will only happen in a big way when the cost of power becomes much higher than it is now.

Comments

[Susan K]

Since 2/3 of energy is lost in transmission lines, then solar on your roof has got to be more efficient.

V2G Plug in hybrids can be the storage batteries we need to complete this circle.

[Ronald Brak]

Actually only about 7% of power is lost in transmission. But since power grids are expensive to build, point of use solar power can save a lot on infrastructure costs. For example, in my town the council installs solar powered lights in parks because it's cheaper than going through the expense of connecting them to the grid.

[Dr. Hussain Alrobaei]

Currently, wide-ranging research and development programmes in developed as well as in developing countries are oriented towards the effective utilization of solar energy technologies. Moreover, current interest and activities in PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems for various applications are also expending rapidly. A considerable amount of experimental and theoretical works has been carried out in the literature on the utilization of solar energy for various applications. The potential for integrating PV in the built environment is large in terms of available area on roofs of houses and buildings and on facades. Annual electrical production is generally in the 70 - 200 kWh /m2 range depending on
the climate. However,PV solar panels actually produce more heat than electricity so putting this heat to use improves the system total efficiency and cost effectiveness. The production of heat can be obtained by means of circulation of air or water in the shell absorber attached with the PV-modules. Solar PV/thermal (PV/T) hybrid collectors represent a smart solution towards the improvement of economic performances of PV systems [1]. The availability of heat together with electricity is a good chance for better design the system integration into the user overall energy demand scheme.It is also well known that the cooling effect due to water (or air) circulation within the collector gives a positive contribution to the electric efficiency of the PV/T collector. Solar PV/T systems seem to be the most promising option according to the following considerations: lower costs, best performances at low temperatures , best building integration possibilities . Building integration is the main issue for this typology of systems, provided the very impressive growth of use of PV components in this field. The long-term goal is to realize PV/T systems that produce electrical as well as thermal energy at sufficiently low cost. This means that investment costs has to be lowered as much as possible. This can only be achieved by careful design, proper realization, optimisation, standardization and mass production. In addition to this, PV/T building elements should also be
designed in such a way that they meet architectural requirements and technical standards and look attractive to consumers as well.
1. Hussain Alrobaei,2007, Performance and Effectiveness of Solar PV/T Systems/The Third International Conference on Thermal Engineering: Theory and Applications,May 21-23, 2007, Amman, Jordan.

[averagejoe]

This is great news. Maybe in five years I'll be able to buy affordable quantum dot solar panels and more durable batteries (Firefly, A123 ?). Now that would really be great news!

[Kit P.]

Actually, to be more accurate this is not news at all; this is recycling. Recycling press releases.

This site (www.worldwater.com ) provides some real time data. Three locations in California at capacity factors if 4%, 5%, and 18%. One NJ site had 13%.

In other words, solar PV is not a very good way to make electricity. Lowering the price of solar panels will not help.

[average joe]

Well, for the limited applications that I have in mind, solar PV will do nicely. To each his own, I suppose.

[Ronald Brak]

So Kit, because solar power can have low capacity factors (presumably on account of night and other causes) even if the price of solar panels comes down it will not help? Could you explain how the price of something people are willing to buy coming down is not helpful? You see, if the price of currently available solar power systems dropped by two thirds or more it would be cheaper for me to buy one than to continue to buy electricity from the grid. In what way would this not be helpful to me? I don't mind if you use the terms supply and demand in your answer.

[JimB]

"If PV solar meets cost expectations, it should eventually become the dominant source of solar power."

Wondering if someone can tell me what these expectations are?

[Dong Wang]

"If PV solar meets cost expectations, it should eventually become the dominant source of solar power."

This means that if the solar electricity cost comes down to the conventional electricity cost, then solar power will replace the conventional power.

See more China solar energy industry information on http://solar-in-china.blogspot.com

[Kit P.]

Yes, Ronald that right. If you are trying to meet consumer demand for electricity while minimizing global warming, the price of solar panels will not help. This is because solar is not a very good way to make electricity. Making electricity is something I know a lot about.

If you are trying to sell solar panels, I am not sure how the price affects sales. I do know a little about marketing renewable energy to utilities. There is no point of lying to the nice people who work hard to make sure your electricity is always on because they are very smart.

I just purchased another set of solar walkway lights because they were cheap. Also the 'availability factor' of of the solar lights was 100%. That is they fulfill the purpose for which I bought them.

Solar PV might be a good way of peak shaving in the US southwest. I have seen at least one study that provides evidence of this. However, there is a startling lack of use of Solar PV for peak shaving by utilities in the US southwest. There are mandates, grant mining, and public relations efforts that result in lots of press releases about solar but again nothing indicates that solar is anything but a fraud for consumers. When the solar industry starts talking about how much electricity they produced in a year instead of how successful they were at lowering the cost of the fraud.

[petr]

well, Germany with its National Renewable Energy Act - plans to have 20% of its energy renewable by 2020 and they are not just on target but will be more likely 30%.
ANd theyre not particularly sunny climate.
ITs done through cash incentives..
all solar panel owners get 50c kwh they send to grid but they pay only 20c for electricity
they buy from the grid.. so it didnt take long to figure out people can make money.
Since the price is fixed for 20years they can easily recoup their investment costs and the grid receives a huge infusion of new solar energy.

[Ronald Brak]

Um, Kit, solar isn't used for peak saving because it's too expensive. But if the price of solar power decreases, then it might be used. Currently there are quite a few people in my country who pay about $1.60 U.S. per kilowatt-hour of electricity because they use diesel generators as there is no grid power in isolated areas. Quite a few of these people are changing to solar power instead of diesel and saving money. Don't really see how this could count as fraud on the part of solar power companies. And if the cost of solar power systems decreases (this post is about decreasing costs) then presumably solar electric systems will become even more attractive and become more popular. If the price became cheap enough, that is, much cheaper than now, then I would buy one for myself even though I have access to grid power. Although the solar electric system would only make power in the day, in Australia power companies insist on chargeing for electricity used in the daytime so I would come out ahead.

[Kit P.]

Petr and Ronald, I can see that you have bought into the solar fraud hook line and sinker. If this, if that, maybe someday!!!

I will stop calling the solar industry a collective pack of liars when they starts providing data on electricity generation and reliability. Again, the problem with solar PV is not cost.

[Mike_A]

"When the solar industry starts talking about how much electricity they produced in a year instead of how successful they were at lowering the cost of the fraud."

KitP has a point here. Its about kWhs harvested over a given time over the cost of the instalation. Much of the rest is secondary.

Ciao

Mike

[petr]

not only have we bought into it, but so has the German govt. if you drive along the autobahns they are lined with solar panels which feed into the grid...
if youre going to talk about 'costs' then
you should compare the 'costs' of externalities like dumping ghgs into the atmosphere - with fossil fuels.
let me give another example - SunEdison which sets up panels on flat roofs of buildings (like Whole foods Supermarkets etc.) Sunedison pays the upfront costs of installing and maintaining the panels, and the client agrees to buy the power over 20yrs for a guaranteed fixed price.. (how many utilities can offer that?)
It doesnt provide total energy, only 15% of year round use, but it provides the bulk of daytime energy in summer when its hottest and electricity is most expensive.
Wheres the fraud in that?
now if carbon credits were calculated into the equation we might even see more savings.

[Kit P]

Okat, petr, let us compare the 'costs' of externalities. I went to the web site for SunEdison. They do not discuss externalities or how much electricity is produced.

Their business model may not be a scam aimed at individuals but it would appear they have mastered ripping off tax payers. What is good about the SunEdison business model is that it reduces externalities. If SunEdison gets 20 years out of the panels compared to a 10 years for a home owner by properly maintaining them, externalities are reduced by 50%. If a SunEdison gets a capacity factor of 20% by properly locating solar panels so they do not have a capacity factor of 5% is 4 times better.

[Ronald Brak]

Kit, I say I would buy an electric solar system if they became cheap enough and you say I have brought into the solar fraud. Exactly what lies am I believing? Is it a lie that solar PV will come down in price? Well this blog post is about solar PV coming down in price so if you have reasons to believe it won't, here would be a good place to state them.

And you say that the problem with solar PV is not the cost. What is the problem then? If I could buy a houshold solar PV system for one dollar why wouldn't that be a good thing? Do they cause cancer? Do they anger the gods? Or perhaps they cause earthquakes?

[disdaniel]

Ron,

I think the question to ask Kit P is "solar PV is not a very good way to make electricity" relative to what?

4-5% is actually a fine capacity factor...10x better than photosynthisis which is what actually powers our planet.

Dollars to donuts Kit P is a nuclear power nut...they are the only people who bother arguing in blog comments that solar is bad.

Yes, one needs sunlight for solar PV to work...lucky for us the sun will last another 4 billion+ years :)

[petr]

well Id say the fossil fuels industry has been ripping off taxpayers for years - what with
low royalties and various taxbreaks among other things.. not to mention the third party cost of dumping ghgs into the atmosphere..
I have nothing against nuclear power..although
nuclear power plants are VERY expensive to build and take years to come online..
regarding SunEdison - (from a nova interview) JIGAR SHAH (CEO Sunedison): I know exactly how much sun is going to hit these panels every year. I know exactly how long these panels are going to last, which is about 40 years. And because of that, just based on interest rates and based on my cost of installation, I can figure out exactly whether these systems will be profitable or unprofitable from day one.

[Kit P]

disdaniel, I am not following your logic. You may be confusing capacity factor with efficiency, also a small number for solar. All of this has nothing to do with photosynthesis. Maybe disdaniel is thinking of photo electric effect.

When it comes to photosynthesis, at a 0% electricity capacity factor and efficiency; it turns out to be a marvelous way to make energy, food and fiber. If you really want to offset coal and reduce AGW, plant a shade tree. Perfect for passive solar in the winter and providing compost for the garden. Trim a few limbs and you have fire wood for backup heat. Oh how marvelous nature is to find a way to store solar energy until it is needed.

Now that how you use the sun.

So disdaniel, the correct comparison for solar PV, are other ways of making electricity. There are five good ways to make electricity:

1.Hydroelectric
2.Oxidation of coal
3.Oxidation of of natural gas.
4.Fissioning U-235
5.Oxidation of biomass

These five good ways account for 99% of the electricity produced in the world. A good capacity factor is 101%. Not bad is is 80%.

So there we have it. Solar PV is not a good way to make electricity or protect the environment.

[petr]

I know you said solar pv.
but 1. 2. 3. 5. are all secondary solar anyway (which ultimately is nuclear fusion). (And except for 5 which is somewhat carbon neutral - depending on how much fertilizer you use) 1.2.3. all add to green house gases.
Aside from the manufacturing stage solar pv does not.
and how efficient are ice engines burning fossil fuels?

[Lenny]

Another point is that when costs for the photovoltaic panels go down you obviously have more money to spend on storage systems.
These storage systems would evidently increase the reliability of the entire system.

[disdaniel]

Kit P

Capacity factor = time producing energy/total time

Which is roughly equal for solar energy devices and photosynthetic processes (except leaves are frequently shadowed by other leaves).

I must admit I have never heard of "electricity capacity factor" as you describe it.

"A good capacity factor is 101%. Not bad is is 80%."

101% would mean it produces energy > total time...which I find a suspect measure although I can see why you might like such a source.

PS If anyone cares to ask, I can tell you how to boost your PV panel output by 20-25% for the price of a mirror.

[Kit P]

Disdaniel, you may have confused availability factor with capacity factor. From wiki, “The capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated a full capacity of that time period.”

Availability factor is important too if you add the words 'when you need it.'

Solar has been shown to be a good source of electricity during peak periods in the US southwest.

[disdaniel]

Kit P

Oh I see...depending on your definition "full capacity" any technology can provide from 0-1000% capacity factor.

I can't for the life of me see why you think this is a relevant quantity.

Solar + storage = 100% power availability which is all any power consumer cares about.

[disdaniel]

Oh yeah, cost is important too (depending on how you measure it).

[mds]

"Solar has been shown to be a good source of electricity during peak periods in the US southwest."
EXACTLY!!!
Solar has had a cost effective niche for years now for remote power and for homes that are too far off the grid in sunny areas. Now it is becoming cost effective for reducing peak power costs in sunny areas of the USA. This is a huge market! When even Kit P, the nuclear power skeptic, starts to agree then you know it's true.

Capacitiy factor is of no consequence if it is cost effective. Why do you think we've been driving 15% effecient ICE cars for 100 years? It made economic sense for a lot of years when oil was plentiful. Now that is changing. Page 42 of Travis Bradford's book "Solar Revolution" shows the changes in our electricity sources that occured after the 1970s. Oil use for electricity generation went from 24.7% in 1973 to 6.9% in 2003, 30 years. It was replaced by Natural Gas and Nuclear. This is now happening again. This time an increasing amount of power will come from wind, solar (solar will easily bypass wind), nuclear, and waves. We will still have the other sources, but their percentage contribution will be less. For solar this will happen faster because it is a consumer item and does not require utility scale planning and investment.

Flat panel PV and BIPV have three big advantages over other power sources:
1. It's available to replace peak power loads in the USA sun belt and corresponds in time to this peak load. (Not perfectly, but a little cold water or cold rock storage can fix that cheaply for the main load problem: AC.)
2. It is a consumer product that produces power where it is needed. Utility investment and transmission infrastructure are not needed. It must compete with consumer electricity prices, not with utility electricity prices, to be competitive.
3. There is no environmental impact when mounting solar panels on the roof of a house.

Solar is now breaking into huge markets. Si PV solar is dropping in price due to manufacturing improvements and economies of scale. It will continue to drop for the same reason and because raw Si production will catch up and also drop in price. This will open up even more markets. There are already two AC devices, I know of, with backup power. One uses battery backup. The other makes ice. As solar PV gets cheaper these will make more sense, will sell more, and will drop in price. New battery technology is coming to the market. Batteries will have more capacity and will support more deep discharge cycles, at a reduced price. As solar gets cheaper the cost to store solar will also get cheaper. This will be the last and final hurdle in the Solar Revolution.
We will have more EVs and PHEVs. The batteries are already coming to market for this. Cars in the USA are "parked 96%" of the time.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1115
The Solar Revolution and Electric Car Revolution have started and will aid each other.

I’m pro-Nuclear, but also very pro-Solar.
Neat to see this happening!

[averagejoe]

mds,

Your idea about storing energy in the form of chilled water sounds interesting. I saw a similar technique that used ice. Basically, it involves filling a cooler with ice and blowing room air through it. The device that I saw was really just a lid for the cooler with two round holes cut in it. One of the holes had a computer fan mounted over it. Room air was blown over the ice and exitted the other hole through a curved PVC plumbing fitting that directed the air. Overall, it sounded like a neat idea. Granted, it won't cool off your whole house, but it might be effective for smaller applications like cooling a small room or the interior of your car if you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for hours.
Anyway, just thought I'd pass that along.
I agree that energy storage doesn't always have to involve expensive batteries.

[Clee]

There are ice-chiller systems that work just fine for applications as large as houses and 1 million square foot factories.
http://www.ice-energy.com/
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10890

[averagejoe]

Clee,

Thanks for the website addresses. It's encouraging to know that the concept works on a larger scale too. Interestingly, the volume of ice needed for a whole house, residential system wasn't all that big. The sales literature mentioned about 8 hours of cooling, equivalent to a 5 ton AC system... pretty darned impressive. Seems like it would save a lot of $$ by using off peak electricity. Neat system, but I don't have several thousand dollars to spend at the moment.
I'm wondering if something slightly smaller might be accomplished by using a chest freezer, flexible ductwork, a timer, and a small blower fan. Seems like it might work for a room or two. Certainly would be cheaper.
Of course, the holy grail would be a system that used ice made by solar powered intermittant absorption technology. Then the only power you'd need would be for the fan. Oh well, maybe next year.

[Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant]

Energy Independence begins with Energy efficiency - It's cheaper to save energy than to make energy.

Updated
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R18
By Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects, replacement of appliances, motors, HVAC with the use of energy efficient materials-products, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, insulation, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
May 31, 2007

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.

I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.

"the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change."
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2

4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).

Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.

Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.

The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,"

solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.

Disenco Energy of the UK has announced it has reached important
milestones leading to full commercialization, such as the completion of
field trials for its home, micro combined heat and power plant (m-CHP).
The company expects to begin a product roll out in the second quarter of
2008.
Operating at over 90 percent efficiency, the m-CHP will be able to
provide 15 kilowatts of thermal energy (about 50,000 Btu’s) for heat and
hot water and generate 3 kilowatts of electricity. The m-CHP uses a
Stirling engine generator and would be a direct replacement for a home’s
boiler.
Running on piped-in natural gas the unit would create some independence
from the power grid, but still remain connected to the gas supply
network.
Whereas heat is supplied only when the generator is running (or
conversely electricity is generated only when heat is needed) a back-up
battery system and heavily insulated hot water storage tank seem
eventual options for more complete energy independence.

FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
"The government should serve as an example to its citizens"

A new innovative renewable energy generating technology is in development. The idea behind Promethean Power came from Matthew Orosz, an MIT graduate student who has worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the African nation of Lesotho. Orosz wanted to provide electric power, refrigeration, and hot water to people without electricity. He and some MIT colleagues designed a set of mirrors that focus sunlight onto tubes filled with coolant. The hot coolant turns to pressurized vapor, which turns a turbine to make electricity. The leftover heat can be used to warm a tank of water and to run a refrigerator or an air conditioner, using a gas-absorption process that chills liquid ammonia by first heating it.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, ... Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. ...
A major increase in daily petroleum output is deemed essential to meet U.S. and international oil requirements in 2020, and so we should expect recurring oil shortages and price increases. Only by expediting the diminishing our day-to-day consumption of petroleum and implementing of efficiency and renewable energy policy can we hope to reduce our exposure to costly oil-supply disruptions and lower the risk of economic strangulation.

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: [email protected]
Posted on: 06/27/2007

[Kit P.]

Jay, I have been hearing that line of crap out of California for 30 years. I have yet to have the first mechanical engineer provide me the first shred of evidence. Solar and conservation are not working to reduce in demand in California.

As a mechanical engineer specializing in energy I can explain part of it. Jay has provided a model that assumes greater than 20% capacity factor for roof install PV. Before advocating a requirement that all new houses have solar panels, maybe jay should have some data. I have proved data that 4% should all that is expected for 5 years.

While I advocate a small RPS, Jays 100% renewable energy position is irresponsible and misguided.

[Clee]

Well yeah, changing the form of energy used doesn't do much to save energy. Conservation on the other hand has reduced demand in California as compared with other states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274_pf.html
"Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent... While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 -- and that's counting renewable energy sources."

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/1990s_calif_in_context/page3.html#footer
Figure 31
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/images/es3.jpg

While that's not a decrease in absolute terms, it's pretty impressive compared with not bothering trying to conserve. Title 24 has helped.

[Jules]

"Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant"

That's nice, but if half the population of Mexico moves to southern California, it's all for nothing. I'd be willing to bet that the total energy usage in Mexifornia has skyrocketed since 1974. If our friends from south of the border keep pouring into the southwest, the infrastructure will not be able to keep up.

Solar, wind, and wave power are all very good, but there's no way in hell that they can keep up with the population explosion. Ditto for the fresh water supply. The only way out of that problem is building desalination plants, and they take plenty of electricity to run, exascerbating the power problem. [Not directed at Clee] It always amazes me how the left coast lunies turn a blind eye to the immigration problem. They talk about banning coal plants and incandescant light bulbs while at the same time, they offer sanctuary to illegal aliens in places like L.A. and San Francisco. Pure insanity.

If the idiots in California want to turn their state into an overcrowded replica of Mexico, then they should supply their own resources without leaching power and water from the surroundng states.

[Kit P]

Clee, California is not providing any leadership in conservation. California may lead the nation in driving energy intensive jobs out of state. Try comparing the average household electricity use in Spain instead of Michigan.

I am not impressed by anything related to energy that comes out of California except the amount of BS.

[Clee]

Looks like I fell for the propaganda of the pretty graph.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2003/hurry/23.pdf
Slide 3 shows that energy efficiency standards and programs have reduced annual use of electricity in CA By 35 TWH or about 14% of annual use in California in 2001. That's not the 50% that the other graph implies. 14% is significant and useful in reducing the number of new power plants we need to build, but I'll admit, I personally don't find it so impressive.

[medical billing and coding]

technologies have recently become the darlings of Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

[Job Descriptions]

That is great to hear. I am starting to "go green" so it will be really beneficial.

[Job descriptions]

For the manufacture of PV systems, structural adhesives used between glass and frame of metal or composite, and also used to set the framework for the grid, "said Nicole Wood, a Business Development Manager for LORD Corporation.

-syeds-

[Solar Flux]

I dont think that now it is that much expensive.nice to read you.Thanks