Solar interest shines; incentives a bit dullLow electricity prices among reasons for resistance By Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, March 3, 2008
Grace Beahm Chris Salmon, owner of Argand Energy Solutions wires together solar panels during the instillation project at Blackbaud Stadium. The soccer stadium is going completely "green" and the solar power will generate their energy. 
Melissa Haneline Beezer Molton, owner of Half Moon Outfitters stands by $40K worth of solar panels mounted atop the business headquarters in North Charleston. 
The Post and Courier On a bright, cloudless winter afternoon, Beezer Molten dons sunglasses as he looks at the year-old solar panels on his warehouse in North Charleston. Molten owns Half-Moon Outfitters, and his business was one of the first in South Carolina to sell excess power from solar panels back to a power company. During some months, the panels cut his electric bills in half. He expected his investment in solar power and other conservation equipment to pay for itself in five years. "I think it will happen sooner than that," he says. Across the Cooper River, at the far end of Blackbaud Stadium, Andrew Bell squints at 60 new solar panels crews put up the day before. "We live in a sunny place," says Bell, director of public relations and marketing for the Charleston Battery soccer team. "Why not have the sun beat down on solar panels?" Half-Moon Outfitters and the Charleston Battery are among a small but growing number of local businesses and residents harnessing the sun's energy to generate electricity. Last year, South Carolinians installed 49 solar systems, up from 12 in 2002, according to the South Carolina Energy Office. "We're getting tons of calls and e-mails a day — I'd say triple to quadruple the number last year," said Erika Hartwig, who works in the office's renewable energy division. "I think the demand for solar is out there." Energy experts and investors say advances in solar panel technology and other forms of renewable electricity generation have made it increasingly attractive for homeowners and businesses to become their own mini-utilities. It's a trend that could transform the way South Carolinians generate and receive their electricity. The experts and investors say that thousands of rooftop solar arrays someday could create a powerful network that makes the nation's power grid more bulletproof to blackouts, terrorist attacks and natural disasters, while reducing vast amounts of greenhouse gasses. They argue it could reduce the need for new coal-burning power plants, such as the one Santee Cooper wants to build on the Great Pee Dee River. Skeptics say that solar power is still a pie-in-the-sky concept that doesn't make economic sense and couldn't produce enough power to meet growing demand. And even solar power advocates concede that solar installations are cost-effective only because of hefty government subsidies. Solar power's future in South Carolina is further clouded by resistance from utilities, which have been slow to accept net metering, a program that allows customers to sell electricity they generate back to a utility. South Carolina remains one of 10 states that has yet to establish statewide net-metering standards and rates, though utilities in some parts of the state recently began experimenting with limited buyback programs. On March 10, Santee Cooper begins its "Solar Homes Initiative," offering up to $12,000 in rebates to the first 10 homeowners who install solar equipment and participate in their net-metering program. Qualifying homes are eligible for another $5,500 in federal and tax credits. "We are doing all we can to get solar panels into our customers' homes," said Mark Tye, Santee Cooper's vice president of conservation and renewable energy. But critics say net-metering programs in South Carolina lag far behind those in other states. Molten said that he managed to work out a special contract with South Carolina Electric & Gas only after one of his Half-Moon staffers made "a relentless number of phone calls." It's not the best deal, either, he added. When he sells his excess power to SCE&G, the utility pays him only 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, SCE&G charges Half-Moon 9 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. (In New Jersey and other states with more established net-metering programs, utilities pay the same amount as they charge.) Most days, Molten's warehouse doesn't have extra electricity to spare, but the solar panels offset what he would take from SCE&G, so his bills are much lower. "I might pay $270 a month now, and for a 10,000-square-foot warehouse, that's great." Charlie Sneed and Libby Smith plan to install solar panels on their home in James Island, but they were surprised to learn they would save just $7 to $20 a month under a net-metering plan SCE&G recently submitted to state regulators. "It's pretty underwhelming," said Smith, who recently set up a foundation called SCGreen. "But we still want to do it because we think it's important to move toward cleaner energy." Smith and some other solar power supporters say it's not surprising that utilities aren't pushing for net-metering because it presents a fundamental challenge to their business models. "Utilities make money by generating power and selling it," said David Odell, president of Sunstore Solar, a solar installer in Greer. If customers make their own power, utilities could take a financial hit. But as more people install panels, they'll put pressure on utilities to pay fair rates, Odell said. "Solar might not be the solution to our energy package today, but I'm convinced it will be soon." Opportunity awaits South Carolina has plenty of sunshine; it also has some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation, a key factor that makes solar power and renewable energy less attractive here. But in the western United States, Japan, Europe and other places where electric rates are high, interest in solar power has grown dramatically. Last month, Wal-Mart finished the first of 22 planned solar rooftop projects in California and Hawaii. Google said last year it would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on its "Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal" campaign. At its headquarters, it installed panels that can generate enough energy to power 1,000 homes. The company says it could recoup its costs in energy savings in five years. In 2006, German businesses and residents installed solar panels capable of generating 1,050 megawatts, equivalent to power generated by a coal-fired power plant. The renewable industry's holy grail is "grid parity" — making renewable energy systems competitive with coal, nuclear and gas. To reach this goal, companies around the world are investing billions of dollars in new solar manufacturing plants, which experts say will drive down costs. Share prices for solar energy stocks have skyrocketed. Last year, Atlanta media mogul Ted Turner called solar energy the "biggest business opportunity the world has ever seen." But some economists say solar power won't become cost-competitive unless the government places a very large tax on carbon from coal-fired power plants. "We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV (photovoltaic) technology, which is a loser," Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California, Berkeley, Energy Institute, wrote in a report in January. Borenstein found that a typical solar panel system costs $86,000 to $91,000, but the value of its power ranges from $19,000 to $51,000 over the system's lifespan. "We need a major scientific breakthrough and we won't get it by putting panels up on houses," he wrote. It's just a matter of time Federal energy officials and others say it's a matter of time before these breakthroughs happen and solar power reaches grid parity. The U.S. Energy Department estimates that solar manufacturing should increase 12 times by 2010, making solar competitive with coal and nuclear power by 2015. In some parts of the country, wind power already is cheaper than coal and nuclear generators, said Arjun Makhijani, a physicist with the Washington-area Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Makhijani said that as solar and wind become more competitive, it could fundamentally reshape the way the world powers its machines, lights and cars. People now get their energy from a centralized grid powered by a relatively small number of large generators owned by utilities, but individuals and businesses with their own solar or wind generators could create a "distributed" grid, Makhijani wrote in his recent book, "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy." In the book, Makhijani argues that global warming, instability in oil-producing countries and nuclear proliferation threaten to disrupt the existing energy infrastructure. A distributed grid would be much more robust in a natural disaster or a terrorist attack of a power plant, he said. Makhijani's particularly interested in the concept of putting solar panels in parking lots, which could eventually be used to charge plug-in hybrid cars. Erik Lensch, owner of Argand Energy Solutions, the company that installed systems for Half-Moon and the Charleston Battery, said he gets frustrated when he hears Santee Cooper officials tout their plans for a new coal-fired power plant. "The idea that the only solution is another coal-fired power plant is ludicrous," Lensch said. "That would negate a lot of great work companies are trying to do to reduce global warming." Battery scores with solar Before the Charleston Battery installed its solar panels, it worked with the Sustainability Institute in North Charleston to find ways to make the team's operation more efficient, said Bell, the team's marketing director. Among other things, the team installed special lighting and a geothermal heat pump. "You have to be as efficient as possible first, or the solar panels don't make much sense," he said. The last puzzle piece was the solar array. The team placed 60 solar panels on six poles at the north end of the soccer stadium, making sure they were tough enough to withstand the impact of a errant soccer ball. On sunny days, the panels will generate 11 kilowatts of power and offset about 12 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Every fan in the stadium will be able to see the solar panels. "We are a wasteful society, but small adjustments can make a big difference," Bell said. "Our solar panels won't produce all the energy the Charleston Battery needs, by a large margin, but installing them forced us to concentrate on ways to lessen our daily use." Reach Tony Bartelme at tbartelme@postandcourier.com or 937-5554. |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 15 comment(s)
Posted by majorjohnson on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A distributed power network may sound real nice, but consider that when a hurricane comes through right now the power company sends out teams to fix the downed lines and your power is back up. With everyone dependent on their own power station which is destroyed by a hurricane, not only does the power company have to get the lines back up, every house that had their power station destroyed has to have their individual station repaired. If you think doing without power for a week or two in August is a bummer, in this distributed network scenario you can figure months.
In Texas they've added massive wind turbine power farms rather than add new coal/gas/nuclear plants. Just last month when demand was at a peak the wind died, and they had to go to emergency reduction to non-essential customers because they didn't have the ability without wind to keep peoples homes heated otherwise. If those arrays get blasted in a hurricane or tornado in the middle of July or August, there are gonna be a lot of people crying because they can't run their air conditioners and businesses will be shut down.
And as was mentioned, for a homeowner you may reduce your electric bill by half, but the payments on the loan you will have to take out to purchase and install solar power generation will cost more every month than what you save, and your power plant will not last as long as it takes to pay off the loan. It's a net loss at both ends. And that's if a hurricane doesn't destroy your solar panels.
If we all had solar panels why would the power companies maintain enough plants to ensure every user could still meet their needs in the event that the sun doesn't shine? They won't be able to sell power when it does, then when it doesn't they are supposed to have invested millions of dollars they can't recoup so you can still have your a/c running and watch TV? Fat chance of that.
Per net metering, the power companies shouldn't have to pay you what they charge for power. At the very most they should have to pay what it costs them to generate electricity, not what they sell it for. When they sell you a watt of electricity, that price pays for power lines and equipment, crews to fix lines and switch boxes and trucks and the equipment those crews need to do so. Why should they pay you the portion of the electrical bill that covers those things when they still have to supply them? That's more of the non-thinking nonsense solutions to a problem that could only create more problems than it will solve.
Posted by theronce on March 3, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, major. I think that the public, in gereral, does get it. Be carefull how you change what works.
Posted by zmysticman on March 3, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While the American goverment is fighting a war for oil, the coal companies advertise about clean coal and nuclear energy is still supposed to be the best. The largest oil producing country in the world, Saudi Arabia, and Dubai are now one of the leading countries studing solar power and the technology. The US could of in the past 8 years spent the TRILLION DOllORS on alternative energy instead of on a endless war. But hey, then Bush and his corporate backers wouldnt be profiting 40 billion off the American people every quarter. And if the Arabs, are investing in solar with all their oil revenues maybe we should take a note. Or we could just keep building coal fired power plants and keep triing to figure out how to get another mile or two out of or gas engines. Even the Saudi's know oil is not the way in the long run.
Posted by 512c on March 3, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting point about hurricanes... Although, Laminated glass can withstand the wind, and particles/objects Most of the time...
Another point to bring up that is immensely important is the high energy lights that people use, which are going bye bye...
with LED tech moving in, so that all lights are 1/100th the amount of power, and thus, solar can easily work.
AC tech is also in for big changes with smarter tech.
Posted by ColdBeer on March 3, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Solar power, beyond landscaping lights, is just WAY too expensive right now. By the time you add up the costs (including government subsidies) it would be almost impossible for a panel installation to pay for itself. Half Moon Outfitters might break even in 5 years, but those of us paying for the subsidies via our tax dollars will still be a long way from "breaking even".
Having said all of that, I think the technology still needs to be looked and so that it can be improved upon. Oil will not last forever. Nuclear Power is a safe alternative. We just need to figure out what to do with the long term radioactive waste that is generated.
Posted by majorjohnson on March 3, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of this emphasis on low power lighting is looking at the splinter past the log. Your air conditioning and heating are the biggest source of energy use. Refrigeration, water heaters, computers and televisions are next. The power to run your lights is a small part or your overall power footprint, especially outside of winter. That doesn't mean that it's not good to use less consumptive lighting, just that it isn't a panacea.
What's more, while I use CFLs in appropriate areas, many people put these in closets, pantries, bathrooms...it takes a couple of hours of continuous use before a CFL actually becomes more efficient than an incandescent. In other words, a CFL in your closet not only costs more to purchase, it uses more electricity if you just turn it on for a couple of minutes and then turn it off. Also, it is the surge of power at startup that kills light bulbs. The more often you turn a bulb on, the faster it will die, so these expensive and more power consumptive uses of a CFL also reduces its lifetime leading to another costly replacement. Another example of feel good activity which actually results in the direct opposite effect to the intention. LED lighting is nice, but still very expensive. Once the industry finds a means to make those cost effective we'll have billions of mercury containing CFLs to dispose of. LED lighting will not affect the cost effectiveness of solar panels, as lighting is too small a portion of your electic usage.
As far as laminated plastics protecting your solar panels from a hurricane, tornado, hail storm, lightning strike...good luck with that. It may not break, but it won't keep your solar system in the same place it was when 100+ mile an hour winds or waves hit. And scratched up laminated plastic diffuses light, reducing the ability of solar panels to produce electricity.
Also take note that in California a homeowner with a solar panel on his roof successfully sued his neighbor because the neighbors trees grew tall enough to shade the panels. The neighbor now has to pay both of their legal expenses and pay an arborist to cut back the trees every time they grow high enough to shade those solar panels. Essentially this homeowner is paying big bucks for his neighbors electricity generation capability.
Posted by LutherVanderhorst on March 3, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hubris and folly.
Posted by matt213213 on March 3, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As some who entered the argument wanting to support solar, I think major’s comments are one sided. I wish solar was cheaper, it’s not. Neither is oil, but your right, solar is way more costly. I don’t want my cash going overseas so I would like to at least support solar initiatives over oil. I can tell you right now, solar, wind, bio, and distributed grids aren’t solving the problem anytime soon, if ever. So what is going to solve it? Nuclear? Hybrid cars? Hydrogen? I’m grasping at straws here. I just think if you end many of the “Solar sucks” comments with “that’s why I want my money going to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela” all those comment take on a different tone.
Posted by theronce on March 3, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have plenty of our own oil. We do not have to depend on the oil from off. Let's mine our own. Also, if enough people get into the solar power business, then the government will have a way to tax the sunshine. I would so hate that.
Posted by majorjohnson on March 3, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't said I'm against solar, wind or bio. I saying that they are not ready for prime time and are not panaceas for the problem of oil from overseas. I can point out many problems with what is occurring right now with our dependence on oil from other countries. I was addressing this article. If you have a problem right now with your electric bill don't expect that borrowing $20,000 for solar to get a tax deduction and reduce your bill by half to solve that for you. If the issue is dependence on foreign oil that's not a huge problem here, as most of our electricity in SC is from hydro, nuclear and coal.
Solar as a solution right now is like ethanol is a solution. Someone is getting rich with that one, but that solution increases energy consumption to produce the ethanol, increases pollution and greenhouse ga##es by reducing mileage, increases the cost of gas because it is more expensive and reducing mileage, increases the tax burden for subsidies, reduces food supply and increases food cost. Great solution that one is. While reducing dependence on foreign oil to a minor extent it's introduced a slew of very bad problems, like increasing hunger, as most poorly thought out feel good solutions do.
Kind of like the solution that the post and courier use which will not allow me to post this unless I use ga##es instead of the proper word I tried to use...great profanity checker they have there.
Posted by 512c on March 3, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can't a person protect or put away their power panels before a storm?
Posted by sgtwitherspoon on March 3, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Major Johnson,
I think your science has been proven otherwise. I may be mistaken, but I saw a 'Mythbuster's episode that disproved the time on/off vs. lightbulb efficiency issue. I don't remember the details, but I do remember that the start up wattage, measured in different time increments, never became efficient over time. So, the old addage about flourescent lights using more electricity being turned off and on, ratherer than remaining on, was not reliable.
Regardless, in our home we have replaced all of our bulbs with compact flourescents and utilize timers and motion detection switches to help. We set the thermostats to 68 degrees in the winter and 78 degrees in the summer. We are going to replace our gas water heater, when it dies, with a tankless version for heat on demand. Our HVAC's are the highest SEER rating available. All of these actions cost no more than normal maintenance (believe me, I analyze it all.) Our home is very comfortable and as efficient as a modern home could be, within reason.
Other ideas we are tinkering with are getting rid of the dishwasher. It is hugely wasteful in electricity, water, and expense. I grew up washing dishes and it didn't kill me. So I think I might take it up again.
Semper Fi,
Q
Posted by buff_o_rilla on March 3, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent post Major
Posted by ImplantedYankee on March 3, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I've said before, I priced solar arrays for my house not too long ago, and after doing the math, I realized that even under the best of circumstances, I'd have to live in my house for 75 years before I made back the price of my investment. It is very unlikely I will even live that long.
No, solar arrays cannot be simply taken down before a storm. Instead, they will likely be sticking out of a neighbor's roof when the storm clears, along with a piece of your roof still stuck to the panel.
Mythbusters is HARDLY the authority on scientific fact. Let's remember that the show is ENTERTAINMENT. While there is a certain degree of scientific method, they did not try every single light on the market. I think only the very naive thought it was true for all lights -- even as a young child I knew it was only true for fluorescents. The difference, however, does not occur on the order of hours, however, but rather minutes or seconds. The real issue is that a CFL or other fluorescent bulb will, under continuous use, outlast its incandescent counterpart, it will NOT under repeated cycling. For a light only used for a few seconds at at time, you're better off buying a $0.25 60 Watt bulb. You'll either replace a CLF before you make back the $6 or you'll move away first. For outside lights and any lights that get a great deal of use, however, CFL's DO (over years and years) make back the cost of the bulb. It's amusing, however, that the same people who are decrying the mercury pollution from power plants are buying these mercury-containing lights by the gross and installing them in such a way that they just end up in a landfill before they save any reasonable amount of energy.
Lastly, calling the war in Iraq an oil war is both ignorant and foolish. "No blood for oil" is the mating call of those who want to sound off on the war but have nothing intelligent to say. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of world markets and current events knows that no amount of oil from any kind of Iraq could make any difference in the global price of oil. First -- it's not enough to make a dent, and second, OPEC controls the world prices by controlling a big enough portion of the supply/production to essentially set prices at will. If you hear a politician trying to call it an oil war, they are either truly stupid or simply lying to your face (neither is too unbelievable). Last time I checked, the flow of tankers out of Basra had not changed the price at the pump.
Posted by majorjohnson on March 4, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends replacing standard bulbs in areas where lights are used frequently and left on for a long time, such as family rooms, living rooms, kitchens, dining rooms, and porches.
National Lighting Product Information Program research shows that life expectancy of CFLs where the light is only turned on for 5, 15 and 60 minutes are 15, 30 and 80% of that for those which are left on for 2 hours or more. Bulbs which require longer start times handle off-on cycles better than those with short start times. Recommended on cycles are 3 hours to achieve advertised life and energy savings.
CFL must reach a minimum operating temperature to start. An outside CFL in Minnesota in the winter will not operate.