Energy Independent By 2050?

This week's Scientific American has an interesting proposal to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash our greenhouse emissions by 2050. In "A Solar Grand Plan," a trio of scientists in the energy field put forth a plan to build massive solar installations in the deserts of the southwestern U.S. and route electricity to the rest of the country via a new direct-current transmission backbone.

It's an interesting idea. The authors project that the plan would require about $420 billion in governmental subsidies between now and 2020. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't--it's less than we'll spend on the Iraq war, and it's less than one year's worth of agricultural subsidies in the U.S. The money could be raised by a modest carbon tax paid over a number of years.

The plan may be pie in the sky. Many energy plans we read about are. What we like about this particular one is that it would practically replace all foreign oil imports over a time frame that is probably reasonable, and it would do so without impacting our food chain--in contrast to the pie in the sky biofuel proposals out there--while also vastly reducing our output of greenhouse gases.

It would be nice to hear some of the folks running for President discuss something like this, but they, of course, are so busy pandering to Iowa farmers and various other existing energy interests that it will never happen.

Mayor Bloomberg: perhaps this is an issue for you to get on board.

Electric Grid Overseer Calls For More Transmission Lines--Needs To Read Curmudgeon's Solution

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. has been chartered by Congress to enforce reliability of the nation's electric grid. NERC released its annual assessment yesterday, warning that the mid-Atlantic region is not keeping up with forecast demand. (See Electricity Overseer Says Grid Must Grow)

NERC's solution: more transmission lines and more massive generating plants to meet that demand.

We suggest NERC take a look at the Curmudgeon's solution: A Better Way To Satisfy Demand Without Expensive, Unsightly Transmission Lines. In a nutshell: take all that money designated for new transmission lines (over $1 billion in the mid-Atlantic region) and invest it into solar energy in partnership with businesses and individuals, generating roughly $3 billion in new solar investment to offset peak summer electric demand and eliminate the need for new transmission lines.

A Better Way To Satisfy Demand Without Expensive, Unsightly Transmission Lines

What if we could avoid construction of several hundred miles of unsightly, expensive high voltage transmission lines and instead create the conditions for installation of $6 billion in new solar power generation in the mid-Atlantic region?



It can be done. All it takes is some willpower and creativity. Here's the background.



Demand for electricity in the mid-Atlantic is booming. To meet that demand, electric utilities are proposing a number of new high voltage transmission lines, the largest of which is a 250 mile, $1.4 billion project by Dominion Power and Allegheny Power. Smaller projects around Norfolk and in Maryland bring the total cost of these unsightly new lines to around $2 billion, with the final cost probably being a good deal higher.



The main reason utilities need to build new transmission lines is to meet projected peak power demand in coming years. Peak power demand in our region comes on hot summer days when air conditioners are on full throttle. Typically, there may be 10-15 days when demand gets high enough to put a strain on the electric grid. The rest of year, the grid can handle our power needs without too much of a sweat.



Many opponents of the new transmission lines say they're simply not needed--that we can stave off the demand through conservation and construction of smaller generating plants closer to the areas with high demand. We're not so sure about that. Conservation is great--we encourage it (and practice it) here at the Curmudgeon. But as long as we have cheap power here, people aren't likely to conserve as much as we need them to. And they darn sure aren't going to turn off the A/C when it gets to 100 degrees.



There is an alternative, however: solar electricity. The great thing about solar electricity is that it's at its peak on hot summer days, exactly when it would be needed most. In contrast, transmission lines don't produce a single watt of electricity. Indeed, they lose electricity--the further the power has to travel from generation to use, the more is lost.



Here's how Dominion, Allegheny and the other mid-Atlantic utilities could translate $2 billion in transmission lines into $6 billion in new solar capacity. For most homeowners and businesses, solar electricity is not yet economical. However, if they could get a 30-40 percent subsidy, on top of federal (and sometimes state) tax credits, solar suddenly starts to look like a winning proposition.



Suppose the utilities subsidized one-third of the cost of solar installations, up to the $2 billion they were instead going to spend on ratepayer-financed transmission lines. That would translate into $6 billion in new solar capacity. Since the solar installations are placed at the same site as electric consumption (i.e., homes and businesses) there is no need for any additional transmission lines.


We could offset a large amount of peak power demand in this region with $6 billion in new solar cells on those critical hot summer days.


Our back of the envelope calculation is as follows: the peak output of the Curmudgeon's $20,000 solar array is about 2200 watts (2.2 kilowatts), reached in the middle of the afternoon on a sunny summer day. That's about .11 watts per dollar invested. So $6 billion would translate into 660 million watts, which is 660 megawatts--the generating capacity of a medium to large nuclear reactor. Except that in this case, almost no electricity would be lost in transmission, and our calculation is conservative because Dominion could find better sites than the Curmudgeon's (we don't have a true southern exposure) and could achieve economies of scale that we can't.



The net result would be have Dominion and other utilities partner with thousands of businesses and homeowners--generating an additional investment of $4 billion by those individuals and businesses--to bring widely distributed solar generation right to the source of demand.



The key to achieving this is to give Dominion and the other utilities the incentive to invest in solar power, rather than to invest in transmission lines. It's not that difficult--California has already done it.


We think that, given the right incentive, a private utility like Dominion would learn to become quite efficient at siting and installing solar power, thus bringing the cost down to some degree. (Solar will remain expensive, however, for a few more years due to capacity shortages in the industry.) Dominion would be likely to identify ideal candidates--for example, a larger business with plenty of unobstructed south-facing roof space--and then approach them with the subsidy needed to make the installation economical. Dominion would also be able to develop a unit with the expertise to install solar efficiently, and it would have sufficient purchasing power to obtain better deals on solar panels, inverters and other required equipment.



Of course, this process would also generate a huge "green" dividend, and if trading carbon credits becomes the norm, Dominion could reap fairly large additional benefits by selling its carbon credits to other utilities. In contrast, no transmission line is ever going to generate any carbon credits.



Ultimately, it becomes a "win-win" for both Dominion and its customers, not to mention the many thousands of landowners who won't be impacted by hundreds of miles of new steel towers and humming transmission lines. Why can't this be done?

Dry, Sunny May Sets Stage For Great Solar Month

May turned out to be a terrific month for our solar panels and our overall electricity consumption, with dry, sunny but not too hot days throughout the month.

Our net electric consumption for the month was only 338 kilowatt hours--our lowest total yet, beating what had been an already terrific April when we used 406 kwh.

Our total electric consumption--before factoring in the contribution from solar panels--was 718 kwh, a significant reduction from 1026 a year ago, showing that our conservation measures also continue to pay off.

In May, our solar panels contributed 380 kwh--more than half our consumption and a big jump from April's 251 kwh.

Alas, the outlook for June is not so, er, sunny. With the advent of summer humidity and temps approaching 90, we've turned on the A/C (although trying to go without it at night), and June is likely to be hazier than May, making for a little less productivity out of our solar panels. May will surely be our low water mark, in terms of net electric consumption, for the next few months.

We, of course, like to pat ourselves on the back for our reduced electric consumption. But we'd be the first to say that being green goes well beyond electricity, and the first to admit that, on other fronts (heating, auto gas mileage, water conservation, food, clothing) our progress has been much slower. Gives us something to work on.

Sunny Delight

Speaking of energy conservation (see post below), the new electric bill just arrived and April was our best month yet.

With our solar panels kicking in a solid 251 kwh, and our other conservation measures in full swing, we reduced our electric consumption by more than 50% compared to last year, from 856 kwh in April '06 to just 406 kwh in April '07. (Our bill was about $40.) We're particularly pleased that our solar panels contributed fully 38% of our power needs in April, despite a long stretch of cloudy, yucky days.

That will probably be our high water mark (or low water mark, as the case may be), at least until October, since pretty soon the Curmudgeon's family will demand running the air conditioning as the usual heat and humidity settle in.

For more on our solar panels and conservation measures, see:

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/11/solar-energy-good-feel-bad-deal.html

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-way-to-save-energy-and-money.html

http://xcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/02/energy-conservation-works-how.html

Our Shrinking Electric Bill

As we've been reporting since installing solar panels and instituting some conservation measures (notably replacing most of our lights with fluorescents and completely turning off all our electronics each night), our electric bill has declined dramatically.

March continued the trend, with our lowest monthly power bill ever, just 520 kilowatt hours (about $50 at Dominion's rates). That was 45% less than last March, and a mere one third of March 2005.

In March, the solar panels finally kicked in a significant share, knocking 202 kwh's off our bill (thus contributing about 30 percent of our electric needs for March), while conservation measures accounted for the rest.

We think we can do even better in April, with the solar panels contributing a bit more, and lighting needs being lower (last April was our lowest month before the latest round of savings' measures). We'll let you know.

Check out our archived posts for more info on the solar panels and the conservation measures we've instituted.

Solar Synergy For Northern Virgin-y

We were reading a Washington Post article today on the natural synergy in the Pacific Northwest between hydroelectric power and wind energy and it got us thinking about the local situation in Northern Virginia.

(The synergy in the Pacific NW occurs because wind farms can ideally be placed near existing underutilized high voltage transmission lines used for hydro power and because hydro can efficiently kick in when wind is scarce.)

In Northern Virginia, a different kind of synergy exists, with solar power.

As discussed in this blog on a number of occasions, Dominion Virginia Power plans to build a $300 million high voltage transmission line through parts of Northern Virginia to meet the region's voracious demand for electricity. Absent the new line, Dominion says some parts of NoVa may experience temporary blackouts by 2011 or 2012. While there's vigorous debate about some of Dominion's numbers and motives, there's not much dispute that NoVa's continued rapid development will, sooner or later, tax the region's distribution system IF something isn't done.

One answer is solar energy. We're the first to tell you that as a stand-alone proposition, solar electric is still not economical for the average home or business. However, solar has one quality that fits perfectly with NoVa's needs: it generates maximum output on hot summer afternoons when the distribution system is strained by high air conditioning demand. Solar, therefore, is a great relief valve that can stave off the need for additional high voltage lines. And, when you factor in the high costs of peak power and additional distribution capacity, solar suddenly becomes much more economical.

Alden Hathaway, who built a solar home in Loudon County and wrote a book about it, estimates that each zero energy solar electric home cancels out the need for peak power/additional distribution capacity of four standard homes on a hot summer afternoon. The Curmudgeon's experience with solar panels so far would seem to validate that: during the middle of the day on a sunny day, we're generating a good deal more electricity than we're using, putting it back into the local grid.

Solar electricity stabilizes the grid because it is usually produced right at the source of consumption, rather than miles away in a power plant, such that there is no need to build expensive high voltage lines to transfer it around. (In contrast, wind turbines often are most ideally situated in remote areas, requiring additional transmission lines to get the power to where its needed.)

Here's how Dominion--given the proper incentives--could alternatively invest $300 million in solar power in NoVa instead of building a new, ugly, intrusive, expensive high voltage line. Take the $300 million and offer homes and businesses a 25% subsidy for installing solar cells where they are suitable. The subsidy would make solar sufficiently economical for many homeowners and businesses to want to invest in the other 75%. That way, Dominion could transform its $300 million into $1.2 billion in new solar in NoVa, which would make a huge dent in peak summertime power consumption.

As an additional incentive, Dominion could credit solar power generators with a summer peak premium for the electricity they provide during certain hours on certain summer days, reflecting the true value of such power.

(While conservation is generally less expensive than solar, it is not that helpful on hot summer afternoons. For example, the cheapest conservation measure--installing fluorescent lighting--has little impact during daytime summer hours when lighting needs are minimal. Dominion could, however, encourage greater use of the most efficient air conditioning systems, especially in all new homes.)

Our back of the envelope calculation suggests Dominion could fund 60,000 Curmudgeon-sized solar systems (about 2.5 kws) with our 25% subsidy scheme, and could probably do much better because it could achieve greater economies and efficiencies. It would also stimulate a large investment in solar infrastructure for further development over time.

We'd also rather see Dominion--and other local utilities--head up programs like this because they'd generally be more efficient than government. For example, Dominion presumably would want to get the most bang for its buck and would therefore select solar sites with the most optimum characteristics.

The key, of course, is to give Dominion the proper incentives for structuring such a program, allowing it to recoup a premium on its investment. With a little creativity, we have no doubt that such incentives can be crafted, just as they have in other states. (Dominion could also increase the investment pot by being granted authority to charge a higher peak power rate, with the extra money going to solar and conservation subsidies.)

We note that environmental groups have, of late, had some success in sitting down with utility executives and negotiating agreements to reduce carbon emissions and invest in green power. Perhaps its time to do the same with Dominion?

Net Metering Update--Need For A National Law

Yesterday, the Curmudgeon highlighted a report from the Network for New Energy Choices grading various states' net metering laws and giving Virginia a "D".

We've since done some more research and concluded that the NNEC report, while useful in some respects, was misleading and confusing in others. So we want to correct the record and pull together some additional information here.

One of the things we learned is that the NNEC, which issued the report last November ('06) had some out of date information, including with respect to the states that don't allow net metering. It turns out that only 10 states (not 16 as NNEC reported) don't have net metering laws. For example, North Carolina, listed in the NNEC report as not having such a provision, in fact allowed net metering starting in 2005 (via an order from the Public Utilities Commission). We're sorry to say that our native state of South Carolina--whose couple hundred miles of beautiful coastline and whose historic city of Charleston are potential victims of global warming and superstorms--hasn't bothered to allow net metering yet.

We also looked at the methodology of the NNEC's report and concluded that it was not very sound. In grading states' net metering laws, the NNEC gave considerable weight to the number of customers who had signed up for the net metering programs. The problem with this is that those numbers are heavily confounded by other state laws, mainly those that in some states provide direct subsidies and tax breaks to individuals and businesses who install green energy generation.

For example, both California and New Jersey, which earned an "A" grade from NNEC, heavily subsidize solar, wind and other renewable energy in their states. It is those subsidies--not the net metering law per se--that have put those states far ahead of everyone else.

The NNEC also penalized some states for their limits on the size of alternative energy generators that could be plugged into the net, and provisions such as requiring liability insurance. In Virginia, the net metering law limits homeowners to no more than a 10 kw system, which we yesterday said was too small. At the time, however, we misunderstood what this means. It turns out a 10 kw system for a homeowner is pretty big. The Curmudgeon's solar photovoltaic array, which has 14 panels, is rated at 2.3 kw. Few homeowners could fit anything four times that size on their homes (and it would cost $75,00-100,000). Still, the limit should be raised since some farm owners could install very economical wind generators well in excess of 10 kw.

In contrast, Virginia's limit for commercial enterprises is 500 kw, which is a pretty large system. (We'd like to see it raised to 2 MW to encourage large businesses--such as AOL--to go for bigger systems.)

Virginia also requires generators in the net metering program to have liability insurance, but it turns out that a standard homeowners policy will suffice as long as it does not have specific exclusion against loss arising out of the use of a renewable fuel generator. So this is really not much of a disincentive.

Virginia requires a utility to carry forward any net generation for a year (this is important, because some generators create more electricity than they need in some months and use more than they generate in others--the carryforward smooths out the peaks and valleys). And Dominion Virginia Power will consider entering a purchase power contract with someone who's generating a lot of excess electricity.

The one real problem with Virginia's law is that it limits participation in the net metering program to 0.1 percent of a utility's total peak demand for electricity. In other words, if the number of participants exceeds 0.1 percent of Dominion's peak demand, Dominion can turn down additional participants. This is a silly limitation--Virginia should hope that participation will grow as large as possible. If a limit is kept, it should be set at 5 percent. Utilities benefit from net metering because it reduces overall demand and thus staves off the building of expensive new plants and controversial high voltage transmission lines. Also, solar generators tend to produce the most energy during periods of peak demand, thus decreasing the need for a utility to purchase very expensive peak power. Accordingly, any claim that expanded participation in net metering will hurt the utility or its ratepayers is hogwash.

While we think the NNEC's grading of the states was misleading--we'd give Virginia a "B"--maybe a "B-"--the report does have some utility. It notes "best practices" among the states, which in turn can be used to model much needed federal legislation.

Here's what we'd like to see from Congress. A national net metering law based largely on that in New Jersey, which would require all utilities to allow net metering. The stated goal of such legislation should be to encourage 5% of all electricity generated in the U.S. to be from net metered installations by 2017. (That's a lot of electricity--about 200 billion kilowatt hours.) There should be few limits on the size of net metered generators and paperwork should be kept to a minimum (Dominion's form is pretty easy to use). The law should also preempt localities from discouraging net metered home installations--we recently saw a report from Scarsdale, NY where the village council prohibited a couple from putting solar panels on their roof because neighbors complained about possible glare.

Net metering alone, however, will not get us where we need to be. Congress also needs to pass a package of generous tax incentives for individuals and businesses to install renewable net-metered electric generation. At present, federal law allows a tax credit for an individual of up to 50% of the cost of certain renewable energy sources, but the credit is limited to $2000. That means on a solar panel array costing $20,000, the credit is actually only 10%. Congress should remove, or greatly increase, the limit on the tax credit, and use elimination of tax subsidies for oil to fund the increased cost of the credit. A true 50% tax credit on renewable net-metered generation would make solar economical and would spur creation of a huge industry to meet demand for these types of installations.

We believe this is an area where bipartisan action can and should be taken--almost everyone has something to gain: utilities put off expensive new plants and purchases of peak power; every state gains new jobs and businesses installing net metered generation; we reduce the need for foreign oil imports and we reduce carbon emissions. What's not to like?

Virginia's Coastal Counties Have Huge Stake in Global Warming Issue--Should Try Following Arlington's Modest Initiatives

Virginians in coastal counties are finding it increasingly difficult and expensive to get homeowners' insurance as large insurers bail out due to concerns about more frequent and powerful hurricanes. Despite a tepid tropical season in '06, insurers looking down the road aren't taking any chances--they're moving aggressively to limit their risks.

[Coverage is still available, albeit at a steep price, from smaller carriers. No doubt such carriers can earn large profits over the short term by charging premium rates to coastal homeowners. We wonder how many of those insurers will be around to pay claims if a major hurricane strikes the coast.]

Like it or not, Virginia's coastal counties and their residents, which contain a huge percentage of Virginia's population, are at the greatest risk of the negative effects of global warming, including more frequent storms and a general increase in ocean sea levels. The growing insurance crisis should serve as a wake-up call to citizens of those counties.

With their large stake in the global-warming crisis, Virginia's coastal residents can and should take the lead in moving the state toward a leadership role in reducing CO2 emissions and investing in alternative energy options.

One place to look for a very modest beginning is the non-coastal county of Arlington. New County Board Chairman Paul Ferguson kicked off the new year by announcing a series of quite modest policy initiatives to make Arlington greener and reduce its carbon contribution. These include increasing the amount of wind power the county purchases from 3 percent to 5 percent, offering a tax break on hybrid cars, handing out compact-flourescent light bulbs to citizens and outfitting county buildings with solar panels.

[One thing missing from Arlington's green agenda is exempting homeowner installed alternative energy sources from property tax valuations. C'mon, Paul, this is an easy one!]

We'd like to see a more aggressive effort. For example, most of Arlington's schools could be outfitted with solar panels and some might even be suited to wind turbines, all of which could be used as teaching tools. However, we'll take it one step at a time. Further, such initiatives could be greatly improved by much-needed statewide legislation to make alternative fuel sources more competitive economically.

Virginia's coastal counties should similarly initiate programs to reduce their carbon output, as they are the ones who will suffer disproportionately from global warming. Perhaps those homeowners watching their insurance premiums rise faster than sea levels will get--and send--the right message.