So much heat is being expended over solar power

Last week I discussed an article that appeared in the UK’s Telegraph with the sensational title “Oil industry [is] on borrowed time as switch to gas and solar accelerates”.

This week, I will discuss the other part of the article related to solar power where it asserted that the “breathtaking advances in solar power as scientists crack the secrets” is a threat to the oil industry and oil demand.

There is definitely plenty of evidence to show the inroads made by solar energy on global energy supplies. And especially since the beginning of this century, advances in solar technology and the development of its engineering systems have gone a long way to make the increased use of solar energy desirable and more practical.

But this is driven more by government policies as a way to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions and improve energy security by reducing their reliance on imported oil and gas. To encourage investors in this direction, governments almost always have to subsidise solar energy projects and undertake to connect the electricity produced that way to the grid.

The trend is supported by the relatively high prices of oil in the last 10 years, and the subsidies from governments on behalf of tax payers, especially in Germany, Italy, China, US, Japan and India.

But the subsidies are becoming contentious, especially as they rise with more plants coming on stream or planned. For this reason, the UK government, with 5,000MW of installed solar capacity, plans to remove subsidies in April 2015, two years earlier than previously promised. This is despite the objection of investing companies who stand to lose a lot if subsidies are removed, even with the guaranteed purchase of their production and the certainty of a minimum electricity tariff over 15 years, as reported in the Guardian.

But solar power, as good as it is, suffers from certain flows such as its intermittency and unreliability as it depends on daylight hours, which in Europe is not more than 25 per cent of the day. Therefore it has to be backed up by installing conventional power stations or large and very expensive sets of batteries to provide power round-the-clock.

Solar power requires large areas of land, which is not a problem in the desert but could well be in Europe. The area required for solar panels, batteries and roads and access for cleaning and maintenance could run into thousands of square kilometres.

Because of the low efficiency of solar power installation of not more 15 per cent, large-scale plants may create environmental damage over large areas of land as they reflect or turn into heat the rest of the sun’s energy. We really do not understand a lot about these issues yet due to the relative newness of such systems.

India’s plans for a large solar station costing $4 billion are now stalled by environmental objectors who are afraid that it may affect the local climate and prevent migratory birds from visiting the region. Given all the pros and cons of solar power, is it really eroding or becoming a threat to oil demand?

BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy tells us that global solar energy production and consumption in 2000 was 0.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) and in 2012 jumped to 21 mtoe after growth picked up since 2008. Therefore, according to the same source, solar energy consumption in 2012 is only 0.17 per cent of the total energy consumption of 12,476.6 mtoe, while oil’s share is 33 per cent and its consumption is 4,170.5 mtoe in 2012.

The International Energy Agency forecasts solar electricity generation in 2035 to be between 680 terawatt hours (TWh) and 1,389 TWh depending on the policies that may or may not evolve. This is to be compared with a total electricity generation of between 39,853 and 32,295 TWh respectively giving a share for solar electricity of not more than 4 per cent at best.

The evolution of solar energy is welcome to compliment other energy sources including oil, and solve a number of logistical problems in some areas as well. Especially so in our region, as in a barren desert space, many of its environmental risks can be avoided.

But the progress of solar energy should not be used to mislead the public into thinking that the oil era is about to be over. I conclude that the oil industry is not on borrowed time despite the growth of other energy sources including solar.

http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/so-much-heat-is-being-expended-over-solar-power-1.1378636

Texas law lets developers ban solar panels while subdivisions are growing

Eric Schirmer thought the time was right to add solar panels to his Plano home to cut electricity costs and help the environment.
The price of solar panels has dropped in recent years and an array on his south-facing rear roof would take full advantage of the ability to generate electricity from sunlight.
But when Schirmer submitted an application to his homeowner association, his request was denied — despite a Texas law that bans HOAs from restricting the use of solar power.
That’s because homes in his subdivision, the Trails of Glenwood, are still being built. And the law allows builders to restrict solar-energy devices while a housing development is under construction.
Solar advocates call this a legal loophole that creates unnecessary obstacles for homeowners who want to go green. But builders say it’s an exception that protects investments in new housing.
Developers object to the solar devices for aesthetic reasons, said Scott Norman, executive director of the Texas Association of Builders, which has 10,000 members.
“Their goal is to sell lots in a subdivision,” he said, adding that anything that impedes that goal isn’t good for business or the neighborhood.
And, he points out, the ban lasts only until the neighborhood is built out and the builder relinquishes control of the HOA board to residents.
In this hot market, that might not take long, Norman said.
But green-energy advocates say solar panels are no more unsightly than air-conditioning units and cite studies showing that solar energy increases the value of a home.
A 2011 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that solar panels can add 3 to 4 percent to the value of a home.
“As long as they’re installed safely, following codes, people just have to get used to them,” said Larry Howe, one of the founders Plano Solar Advocates, which coordinates group purchases of solar equipment for homeowners.
Last year, 20 Plano homes were equipped with solar panels through the “Solarize Plano” program.
Schirmer wanted to participate in this year’s program. Now he may have to wait two to three years until his neighborhood is built out.
At a time of growing concern about pollution and the depletion of natural resources, he finds it strange that “there are still major hurdles to jump over to help the environment in Texas.”
Schirmer isn’t the only homeowner blocked in an attempt to go solar.
Fort Worth resident Richard “Buzz” Smith has two electric cars, an electric lawn mower and a passion for clean energy.
Wanting to take the next step in reducing his carbon footprint, he said he was assured that he could install solar panels on his new home in the Lakes of River Trails West development.
But his application was rejected by the HOA board. A notation at the top of the association’s guidelines for solar-energy devices states: “Only approve after last lot sold.”
In Forney, Stan Conord said he also gave notice that he intended to put solar panels on the home he bought in the Trails of Chestnut Meadows.
He submitted all the necessary forms, paid the $470 fee for a solar permit from the city, and has paperwork showing his system met electrical and structural requirements.
But three months after installing a rooftop array, he was told to remove it because he failed to get permission from his HOA and the developer opted to ban the devices during the development period.
Today, Conord’s solar panels sit in a storage unit, gathering dust.
None of the builders or management companies contacted for this article would comment.
Despite the problems facing homeowners, solar energy is making headway.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments is spearheading an initiative to encourage cities to craft more solar-friendly regulations.
So far, more than 20 area cities are participating in the “Solar Ready II” project that is being underwritten by a $90,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Norman acknowledges that solar energy is becoming mainstream. “More and more builders are offering solar as an option,” he said. “That’s the growing trend.”
Advocates point out that the law gives developers the option to prohibit or allow solar arrays.
Homeowners thwarted in their attempts to go solar should enlist the support of their neighbors, advised Dave Power, deputy director of Public Citizen Texas, a consumer-advocacy group.
“If the neighborhood developer has a lot of really irritated homeowners, it’s going to make it difficult to sell additional lots,” he said.
And be persistent, he said. “Go to the meetings. Challenge the rules. Ask for a better reason than because.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/plano/headlines/20140816-texas-law-lets-developers-ban-solar-panels-while-subdivisions-are-growing.ece

Solar Industry Snapshot: A Volatile Sector Still in Search of Stability

Among solutions suggested by consultant, “Green Bank” to help finance new development -- or doing nothing

How can New Jersey avoid the boom-and-bust cycle that has afflicted the state's solar sector in recent years?
That is a question being debated by state officials, solar energy executives, and clean-energy advocates, all of whom are trying to figure out how to stabilize the sector, once one of the few fast-growing segments of New Jersey’s economy. At one time, it employed at least 6,500 people.

But with solar development slowing in early 2012, the state Legislature enacted a law to try to reduce market volatility, ordering state officials to see if they could determine how to smooth out the turbulence that drove off investors.
It is not an easy question to answer, as was made clear in a draft report prepared by the Boston-based Meisters Consulting Group, for the Rutgers Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy.
The report recommended that the state look at a range of options -- from doing nothing to establishing a Green Bank to help finance new solar installations to promoting more competitive procurement of long-term contracts -- among other suggestions given less credence.
New Jersey once ranked second the nation in the number of solar installations, but its status has dropped in recent years, depending on various studies. The draft report said the state ranked third in the cumulative number of solar installations, but a recent assessment by the Solar Energy Industries Association, an industry trade group, found it had slipped to fifth in the nation.
In part, New Jersey fell victim to its own success. The state’s lucrative solar incentives combined with valuable federal tax incentives combined to create a rush to build new solar systems by developers. The result led to a crash in the prices of solar credits earned by owners of the systems, drying up investment in the sector. The credits earn owners of the arrays a fluctuating price for the electricity their systems produce.
Since then, prices have somewhat rebounded and more solar is being installed in New Jersey, but the study noted that the state is still prone to a boom-and-bust cycle. For instance, the federal investment tax credit will drop from 30 percent to 10 percent in 2016, a factor that may create a new rush to install solar, once again roiling the marketplace by creating another significant overbuild, according to the consultant.
The next few months may produce somewhat of a consensus on what needs to be done, although that is far from being reached at the moment.
Some solar advocates, echoing a theme they have long advanced, endorse the approach of promoting competitive long-term contracts to install solar systems.
According to Lyle Rawlings, president and chief executive officer of Advanced Solar Products Inc., in Flemington, “It will not be possible to address the volatility, reduce costs to ratepayers, and decline the incentives for solar development without that kind of change,’’ Rawlings said.
Michael Flett, president of the Flett Exchange in Jersey City, which buys and sells solar credits, disagreed, saying the free marketplace ought to be given time to sort out problems with the solar sector. “I believe in the power of the marketplace to bring more efficiency,’’ Flett said.
Not everyone concurred.
But Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, argued that the draft report fails to focus on how New Jersey can regain its status as a leading state in developing solar installations. “There is nothing in this report to regain the momentum, which once had,’’ Tittel said.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/03/solar-industry-snapshot-a-volatile-sector-still-in-search-of-stability/

 

 

Solar industry hopeful that leased panels won’t be taxed

Solar industry officials see hope that a property tax will not hit the solar leasing market in Arizona as expected, citing discussions with the governor and lawmakers.
The solar rooftop leasing industry had scheduled a protest at the state Capitol on Wednesday to oppose property taxes on leased solar panels that could kick in later this year. But the protest has been cancelled.
“Due to the progress that has been made with preventing a tax increase on tens of thousands of solar users in Arizona, we are postponing the protest,” said Jason Rose, a spokesman for a group called called TUSK, or “Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed.”
“We certainly are reserving the right to return in numbers in the future,” he said.
TUSK held large protests last year at the headquarters of Arizona Public Service Co. and at the offices of utility regulators to oppose a different fee on rooftop solar.
The current debate is over property taxes. State law says that solar panels that generate power primarily used on site do not add value to property and are not included in the valuation for property tax purposes.
However, the Arizona Department of Revenue last year interpreted that state law to mean that solar panels that are leased should be subject to valuation for tax purposes, because leased panels are not owned by the property owner.
The department began sending notices to the owners of those systems, solar leasing companies such as Sunrun Inc. and SolarCity Corp. of California, telling them that the property they own in Arizona would be valued like any other power plant for taxation purposes, said the department’s spokesman Sean Laux.
The debate began when the Department of Revenue began reviewing the types of solar installed in Arizona and how they were valued for taxation purposes, he said.
After reviewing state tax laws and the financial arrangements used by solar companies, the department issued an interpretation in April that concluded solar panels that are purchased and generate power primarily for the home or business they are exempt from valuation under Arizona law.
But the department also determined that leased solar panels do not fit within that law, and are more like a merchant power plant, and should be valued and taxed, Laux said.
Based on that determination, a $30,000 solar panel array that is leased by a homeowner would be responsible for about $140 in property taxes in its first year, decreasing every year as the system depreciates, he said. The tax would be owed by the system owner, not the person leasing them, he said.
The Department of Revenue issued its interpretation of the law and then held three stakeholder meetings with the rooftop solar leasing companies and utilities to discuss the issue. Revenue Department officials were unmoved after the meetings, and recently began issuing valuation notices to the solar leasing companies that they would be taxed on the value of their installations in Arizona starting this fall.
Laux said the department gave the notice in time for the companies to seek a remedy at the state Legislature if they wanted.
The industry did just that, but the industry-backed bill, Senate Bill 1467, sponsored by Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix, doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. The bill would clarify that solar panels are not subject to property tax, regardless of who owns them, when they produce power used on site by a home or business.
Rose said despite little movement on the bill, the leasing industry is hopeful the issue will get resolved.
“There has been a lot of dialogue with the governor’s office and legislative leaders, and as a result of that, everyone acknowledges the problem and has committed to good faith efforts to resolve the problem,” Rose said. “There is a desire by TUSK and those concerned with this issue to give those efforts every opportunity to succeed.”
Arizona would be the only state to assess property taxes on leased rooftop solar panels, he said.
“It affects existing solar users, not just future users,” he said.
The solar industry is turning on itself amid the debate. While it’s possible for Arizona installers to offer leases, not all Arizona companies do. One of those that doesn’t offer leases called for its own counter protest to support the tax on leased panels.
“With 80 percent of the field going to solar leases, it might rub a few people the wrong way, for sure,” said Brooks Maschmeier, owner of Simply Solar of Arizona, who said he supports taxing leased solar panels.
His company decided a few years ago not to offer leases.
“There were too many hands in the pot,” he said. “At the end of the day, it didn’t work out for the customer.”
Maschmeier said the leased solar panels should be taxed as the state Department of Revenue has proposed.
Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, also introduced a bill, though his does the opposite of what the leasing companies hoped. House Bill 2595, aligns with the Department of Revenue and clarifies that the owners of the solar panels would be assessed taxes, regardless if the electricity is being used on site.
That bill also hasn’t moved beyond committees.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20140307solar-industry-hopeful-leased-panels-wont-taxed.html

Solar industry to launch marginal seats campaign to save renewables target

The solar industry is launching a marginal seats campaign to “save” the renewable energy target (RET) that underpins its business, as fears grow the Abbott government intends to drastically reduce, or even abolish, the policy.

The Australian solar council is deeply concerned the government’s promised review of the target, which requires 45,000 gigawatts hours of power to be sourced from renewables by 2020 and provides a subsidy to people installing solar systems, could result in changes that would cripple its industry.

Chief executive, John Grimes, says 4,500 small solar-installing businesses – predominantly working in outer-urban and regional electorates – would be lobbying local members and asking their customers to do the same.

Grimes argues changes made by the former government had already pared back the effective subsidy offered by the RET for solar, and the existing benefit (about $1,000 for a household putting in a solar system worth $6,500) is already legislated to wind down over time.

In opposition, the Coalition was highly supportive of the solar industry and critical of constant changes to government incentives.

The environment minister, Greg Hunt, once jumped out of a plane to support a previous “save our solar” campaign on the grounds that Labor’s decision to means-test the then $8,000 subsidy were putting the industry into “freefall”.

Guardian Australia understands the RET review is now likely to be overseen by the prime minister’s department, rather than by industry minister Ian Macfarlane or Hunt.

Both Hunt and Macfarlane have said the Coalition will keep its election promise to retain the RET which underpins the business case for solar, wind farms and other forms of renewable power after the carbon tax was scrapped.

Details are expected by the end of the month, with the government struggling to get around the legislative requirement that the review be undertaken by the climate change authority, which it intends to abolish but has not yet been able to.

Before Christmas prime minister Tony Abbott said the RET may have outlived its usefulness and become a burden on business.

“We support sensible use of renewable energy, and as you know it was [the] former Howard government which initially gave us the RET and at the time it was important because we made very little use of renewable energy … but we have to accept that in the changed circumstances of today, the renewable energy target is causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower … cheap energy ought to be one of our comparative advantages,” he said.

His chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has called for the renewable energy target to be scrapped and several Coalition backbenchers are also pushing for it to be axed.

Hunt has canvassed compromise options with industry including changing the existing target that 20% of energy come from renewable sources by 2020, to one requiring 25% from renewable sources by 2025. The plan would overcome the effect of falling electricity demand on the real impact of the RET.

Modelling released last week suggested abolishing the RET could cost 2,000 jobs in the solar panel industry.

The solar council is also planning a social media and email campaign and is calling for public donations to help “save solar”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/solar-industry-to-launch-marginal-seats-campaign-to-save-renewables-target