Renewable Energy

It's all about energy, from renewable sources to energy-efficient usage.

Add to My MSN

7/22/2015

Have you ever wondered how wind turbines are assembled? This video shows exactly what goes into building these renewable energy superstars.

Video originally posted by: MidAmerican EnergyCo

 



7/21/2015

Solar Energy Infographic 

Using solar energy can save you thousands of dollars. But how do you make sure you’re keeping track of all your savings? We’ll show you how to tally it all up!

How to Calculate What You Save With Solar

1. Take advantage of all rebates and incentives. Many states offer rebates or incentives to encourage people to install a solar energy system. The federal government offers the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which provides you a tax credit for 30 percent of the cost of your solar energy system. If you live in a state with great incentives, you could save upwards of 50 percent of the costs of going solar by combining both state and federal programs.

For example, New York has one of the most generous incentive programs in the country. If you took full advantage of the incentives in New York, you would receive about a 60% discount on of the cost of buying a solar energy system.

Needless to say, fully utilizing all rebates and incentives can significantly lower your upfront costs, and make a big difference in your final return on investment.

2. Count what you didn’t have to pay your utility company. Think of all the utility bills you have to pay in one year. Now think of all the utility bills you’d pay in 20 years! When you go solar, you’ll be avoiding at least 20 years of bills from your electricity utility.

The most recent data from the United States Energy Information Administration shows that the average monthly electric bill for an American household was around $111 in 2014. Assuming your energy consumption is near this national average, a switch to solar would save you approximately $1,333 in the first year alone.

3. Consider the uphill climb of energy rates. Just multiplying one year’s worth of electric bills by 20 years doesn’t capture the entirety of your savings. You also have to account for the fact that the price of electricity increases almost every year.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, the average price of power increased 3.1 percent from 2013 to 2014. This means that if your bill is $111 now, in five years it will be up to $126 per month. Twenty years from now, your monthly power bill will have risen to over $185.

This means that in 20 years, you would have paid over $35,000 to your utility company. That’s all money that you could have saved if you’d gone solar.

4. Make money with solar renewable energy certificates. In some states, you have the ability to sell credits for producing clean power. Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, or SRECS, are credits you receive each year for producing clean energy. SRECS can be sold to your utility company, and depending on their market rate, you can make several hundred dollars per year. The SREC market in New Jersey is one of the most profitable markets in the country. The Massachusetts SREC market also provides a great return for investors.

5. Consider the entire lifetime of the solar energy system you buy or lease. When you’re calculating how much you save by using solar energy, you need to think about your costs and savings over the lifetime of your solar energy system. When you buy a solar energy system, almost all of your costs come from the installation of the system. When you lease your solar energy system, your costs are spread out over your use of the system in the form of monthly payments. In either scenario, you will save the most with solar by trying to minimize your costs (upfront or monthly).

6. Compare your savings for a leased system. When you lease your solar energy system, you save money by paying a much lower rate for power than you would normally pay to the utility company. This is because the payments you’ll make to the system’s owner should be lower than the increasing payment amounts you’d anticipate paying your utility.

However, make sure to ask the solar leasing company that owns your solar energy system what data they’re using to inform the calculation about how much your electricity payments are forecasted to increase each year.

Get Informed Before Going Solar

Solar is still a growing industry and it can be confusing to navigate. Make sure you have all the information you need when trying to choose a solar installer and deciding how to best finance your system. There are some great resources for understanding the industry and picking the installer that’s right for you. Check out the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and EnergySage for help.


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page.



7/20/2015

Farms and construction sites can be expensive endeavours, even with a well-thought out budget in place. Between materials, parts, equipment and labor, things start to add up. But there’s one item that is not always correctly accounted for - the cost of fuel.

Why is it then, that a controllable substance like fuel is not often scrutinized when it comes to saving, especially when heavy equipment remains idle 40 percent of the time on average?

Perhaps it’s that regulations vary from state to state and by degrees and this undermines the importance of saving fuel. Regardless, high fuel consumption is a symptom of a much more insidious problem within the construction and agriculture industry and it affects more than just the bottom line.

 

A Case Study in Savings Over Time

According to findings from an investigation into clean construction from the EPA to the Associated General Contractors of America, equipment idling for 10 minutes per day wastes 24.6 gallons of fuel per year, per unit.

If for example a piece of heavy equipment sat idle for 50 percent of an operator’s shift, a 50 percent reduction in idle time over a 5-year period would cut back 500 engine hours, decrease service and repair costs by 5-10 percent, increase its resale value and generate $9,625 in savings assuming prices held at a $3.85 per gallon.

But how exactly do you go about achieving this? Well, there are a number of idle-reduction initiatives that can be employed to reduce the impact that idling has.

Essentially, you’ll need to:

1. Limit Idle Times Prior to Startup and Shutdown

The manufacturing processes that produce heavy machinery have been streamlined over the past few years to where new engines have become vastly more efficient than most previous models.

This has affected the length of time it takes for engines to warm up and cool down, and this means that machines can be put to use and/or shut down almost immediately without repercussions.

2. Reduce Driving Speeds

For construction sites to become more economically viable and environmentally-friendly, it’s important that all contractors and subcontractors realize that regulating driving speed represents a clear-cut solution to the overarching problem of excessive fuel usage.

3. Optimize Gear Up and Throttle Down

Aside from keeping machines at peak performance-level, thought should be given to the way changes in gear affect fuel consumption. By simply reducing engine RPM without overloading at ground speed, fuel efficiency can be increased by 15-30 percent at half power and 5-15 percent at 75 power.

4. Maintain Proper Tire Pressure

Like driving, tire pressure can adversely affect the fuel efficiency of vehicles and may result in a 3 percent cost increase given a pressure gauge reading just 6 psi below what’s optimal. To correct this, ensure the tires of all heavy equipment are regularly inspected.

5. Anticipate Repositioning Requirements

Arbitrarily repositioning heavy equipment due to a lack of foresight equates to improperly allocated resources. In some cases this will be unavoidable such as when new equipment needs to be called in upon completion of particular sections.

As long as other machines aren’t impeding the way or have to navigate cramped areas due to space limitations, this is a problem that can be easily fixed with appropriate planning. 

While a suitable anti-idling policy will help to keep things in check, communication will be key in implementing any of the aforementioned cost-saving measures. That said, there are many other avenues you can take.


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page. 



7/20/2015

 

There are only so many sources of renewable energy, and it’s disheartening to see a developed nation take a backwards step when it comes to solar power, wind power and hydropower. But that’s exactly what prime minister Tony Abbot and his Coalition have done. A directive issued to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) by finance minister, Mathis Cormann and treasurer, Joe Hockey forced the authority to discontinue its financing of mature wind farm technologies.

The real tragedy, however, is that this is not news to the Australian people, or the sector which has suffered through 18 months of uncertainty after a bi-partisan deal was struck to lower the RET from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh by 2020.

A Lifeline Amidst Investor Apprehension

While private investors are expected to contribute AU$8.7 billion over the next five years, the loss of a corporation that has injected AU$300 million into wind projects since its three-year history represents a significant setback. Co-financing options backed by the CEFC are what have allowed wind technology projects to operate at levels of high risk and cost implementation. According to the company’s website, one third of all proposals received are in relation to wind energy.

Leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten has accused the government of sabotaging the health of an entire industry based on runaway political ideologies. And Greg Hunt, labor spokesman for the environment, has condemned the mandate. 

Government Sets Sight on Solar Energy

Projects involving wind turbines have been described by the prime minister as “visually awful” in recent months, and now small-scale household solar energy initiatives join them in the crosshairs. The Abbott administration is once again threatening to abolish the CEFC despite the Senate blocking such actions on two previous and separate occasions. The company has posted gains of some 7 percent per annum, comfortably above baseline returns. In its first year alone, the fund garnered AU$900 million in contracted investments, and though government directives may be issued, they must be in line with the company’s objective to facilitate investment opportunities in clean and efficient technologies. If the government succeeds in its endeavor to crush the efforts of its predecessor, it may strip the industry of thousands of jobs — this at a time when unemployment is at 6 percent and rising.

This conflict of interest goes against the sensibilities of many Australians and may trigger a double dissolution closer to the next election, which greens leader Christine Milne says the Senate is not afraid of doing.

Spillover Effects and International Condemnation

Abbott’s refusal to coordinate with the global effort in reaction to carbon emissions and his unwillingness to adopt broader strategic energy management processes are placing downward pressure on relationships with potential foreign investors. The mining boom is over and despite the government’s insistence that only emerging technologies be explored for their cost-efficiency, it seems unlikely this segment will be able to survive without its established counterparts. Any reallocation of funds across the 33 percent solar, 21 percent wind and 16 percent other technology divide will result in the irreversible destabilization of a sector that supports and is supported by the public interest.

Why such directives have even been issued can only be attributed to reasons relating to self-interest and self-preservation. The fact that a commissioner has been appointed to conduct and oversee research into the potentially harmful side effects of wind farms is as transparent as it is egregious.                                                                                                                                                          

One thing that’s clear to all concerned is that the environment is fighting a losing battle against the prime minister of Australia.


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page.



7/2/2015

Hydropower is often considered a clean energy source, free of climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions. But although dams have been demonized for disrupting fish migrations and flooding valleys inhabited by families for generations, this so-called renewable form of energy has largely escaped scrutiny for its climate impacts. After all, how could the atmosphere be harmed by letting a river flow through a few energy-generating turbines encased within a 50-foot wall of concrete and steel?

Hydropower is the world’s leading form of renewable energy, accounting for more than 16 percent of global electricity generation. But dam enthusiasts who tout hydro’s climate credentials may not like the news about its emissions numbers.

Studies conducted over the past decade have shown that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, are produced by hydroelectric systems in potentially huge amounts.

In some cases, emissions from hydropower can even exceed those that would have been produced from burning conventional fossil fuels instead. For example, a 2014 study finds that the Curuá-Una Reservoir in Brazil emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted had the electricity come from oil.

How Hydroelectric Dams Produce Greenhouse Gases

When a dam is built for energy generation, the land upstream of the impoundment is flooded. The more than 45,000 large dams built around the world cover a combined area the size of Montana (Barros et al., 2011). For many, within their depths lies former forest land.

As the submerged trees, grasses, shrubs and soil decompose, microbes convert the carbon stored in the vegetation into gas that can bubble up to the surface and escape to the atmosphere. Carbon trapped within the soil percolates out in the form of carbon dioxide.

Age matters. Studies show that younger reservoirs may be bigger emitters than older one, because most carbon is released from drowned vegetation within the first several years of flooding.

Location matters, too. Emissions seem to be highest from dams built in the tropics, presumably because higher temperatures give decomposer microbes the metabolic boost to do their work.

Methane Matters

Methane is of particular concern. The gas is made anywhere methanogenic (methane-producing) bacteria can thrive without oxygen—so, in the guts of pigs and people, peat bogs and permafrost. Unfortunately, methane is also 25 times more potent a planet warmer than carbon dioxide over 100 years. And warm, tropical places can produce more of it.

Methane has plenty of opportunities to escape during the hydropower process: It bubbles up from the oxygen-free muck that accumulates at the bottom of reservoirs. It is churned out in the spray coming off spinning turbines. For miles, it wafts off the newly agitated surface of the river downstream from a dam.

So much methane is produced that studies suggest more than 20 percent of what humans are responsible for may come from dams, which may be releasing up to 104 teragrams of the gas annually. (This may be more than all the methane produced per year from burning fossil fuels, according to NASA.)

A Lack of Information or Regulatory Failure?

Of course, impacts from big hydro projects go beyond greenhouse gas emissions to include altered land use, the collapse of migratory fish populations and the displacement of people. Coastal erosion can occur downstream from reservoirs when sediment becomes trapped behind dam impoundments, preventing the silty particles from reaching   the sea where they build and stabilize coastlines.

Despite large hydro’s detrimental impacts on life, land and atmosphere, many nations fail to include emissions associated with dams in their total greenhouse gas reporting. This gap in information makes hydro emissions difficult to track—and to regulate.

Most hydropower is concentrated in Asia, but more than 150 countries employ the technology for at least some of their energy. The Worldwatch Institute reports that “in 2008, four countries—Albania, Bhutan, Lesotho, and Paraguay—generated all their electricity from hydropower,” and “15 countries generated at least 90 percent of their electricity from hydro.”

Moreover, when nations have made steps to report hydro emissions, the international hydroelectricity industry has attempted to muddy the waters by downplaying the amount of carbon degassing from their projects.

Take Down the Dams?

Before you think tearing down all dams is the answer, consider this: Taking down a large dam may actually release more greenhouse gases from the newly exposed, carbon-rich soil than were produced throughout the entire life of the dam.

For example, decommissioning Arizona’s Glen Canyon Dam in the United States, which provides power from Lake Powell, would theoretically produce nine times more methane following takedown than all the methane produced during Glen Canyon’s 100-year operation.

What is the Solution?

What many believe would be a good first step is for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s foremost scientific authority on the subject, to ask all participating nations to report greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs. Can that happen with so many questions left unanswered?

More research on the climate impacts of hydropower is needed, in more places and at all stages of big dams’ lifecycles. Until then, policymakers may be overlooking a potentially significant contributor to climate change, perhaps difficult to calculate but ever present, hidden at the bottom of a placid reservoir.

References

Barros et al. (2011). Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nature Geoscience, 4, 593-596.

Demarty, M. & Bastien, J. (2011). GHG emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in tropical and equatorial regions: Review of 20 years of CH4 emission measurements. Energy Policy, 39, 4197-4206.

International Energy Agency [IEA]. (2010). Renewable Eenergy essentials: Hydropower. Free publication. Accessed May 11, 2015, from http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/hydropower_essentials.pdf.

IPCC. (2006). Appendix 3: CH4 emissions from flooded land: Basis for future methodological development. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Magill, B. & Climate Central. (29 October 2014). Methane emissions may swell from behind dams. Scientific American. In Energy & Sustainability. Accessed May 09, 2015, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions-may-swell-from-behind-dams/.

NASA. (2010). Education: Global methane inventory. GISS Institute on Climate and Planets. Accessed May 11, 2015, from http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html.

Pacca, S. (2007). Impacts from decommissioning of hydroelectric dams: a life cycle perspective. Climate Change, 84, 281-294.

Worldwatch Institute. (2013). Use and capacity of gobal hydropower increases. In Vital Signs. Accessed May 09, 2015, from http://www.worldwatch.org/use-and-capacity-global-hydropower-increases-0.

Yang, L., Lu, F., Zhou, X., Wang, X., Duan, X., & Sun, B. (2014). Progress in the studies on the greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34, 204-212.

Photo by Robert Campbell, Wikimedia Commons


Kale Roberts is the Blogging Coordinator for MOTHER EARTH NEWS and a Rachel Carson Scholar at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy. His interests include renewable energy, real food and sustainable rural development. You can find him on Google+.



6/17/2015

Woodgas Generator

This is a guest post by Ben Peterson, author of the Wood Gasifier Builder's Bible.

A wood gasifier is a marvel of technology. Imagine being able to turn dead tree branches from your own property into motor fuel. Make power just about anywhere, at any time...for free. Sounds futuristic, right? Well, it's actually an age-old technology from the industrial revolution that is still used to this very day by homesteaders and folks in developing countries where power is expensive or non-existent.

Wood gasification is again growing in popularity as people return to the land in search of clean, sustainable living. Its utility is becoming recognized as more off-grid solar systems are installed and the reality of cloudy days and dark winter nights are experienced firsthand. "What can I use to fuel my backup generator that isn't petroleum based?"

My Experience Going Back to the Land

When my kids were old enough to swim in a pond and chase off coyotes, we bought an old homestead and moved onto 20 acres in the sticks. I wanted them to experience nature firsthand and not just read about it in a book. I get irked by concrete-dwelling city environmentalists, but I digress.

Our dilapidated old farm had two main problems: Weak power and mountains of wood waste. So I started looking for a solution to both problems and stumbled across wood gasification. It turns out people had used wood gasifiers to power 1 million cars, factories, boats and homes during WWII— a forgotten technology with real potential. Living in Western Washington, we have tons of wood. I like to joke that we are the Saudi Arabia of wood.

On July 4th weekend 2007, I was able to cobble some scrap metal together into one of these gasifier contraptions using a set of FEMA plans. A quick proof of concept. It only made a belch of gas, but it was magic! I felt like a wizard. Hillbilly witchcraft in action.

Then, I discovered the MOTHER EARTH NEWS wood gasifier plans from the 1970s used during the gas crisis. I grabbed my torch and a water heater and went to work! A major improvement, indeed. I was making steady gas now and my mind raced with the possibilities.

For a time, I built a new machine every week just to test new ideas and check the assumptions of others. There was a lot of good information online blended in with a lot of armchair theory. I'm not going to lie, it was frustrating at times.

But the frustration paid off during the catastrophic winter of 2008. The freeway flooded, then froze, water pipes too. Power was down for a long time. There was no gas in my town of 900 people. Luckily my kids had gone south with their mom. It was just me and my dog and our frozen farm as a laboratory to test wood gas in action. I needed power and all I had for fuel was wood. It was a perfect match.

I used a wood gasifier made from propane tanks to fuel an old Lincoln welder generator. This gave me both electricity and welding ability to keep working. The old welder generator was very forgiving and worked beautifully. I was able to get the lights back on and defrost pipes so I could flush the toilet and take a shower. It wasn't the fanciest setup, but it worked. It made me a believer.

Woodgas Generator Flames 

Building a Wood Gasifier

Wood gasifiers can be built from mostly local parts like propane tanks and scrap steel. Expect to spend $1,500 and up for a low-budget DIY build. If you can afford stainless, then please use it in the high temperature areas to extend their life. A 180-amp mig welder or larger is desirable for the welding, but a stick welder can work if you use propane tanks.

Many people use oil drums, but I avoid them because they are very thin and prone to rust through or burn through. Why do the same job twice? I outline a complete step-by-step build in my book so you can see the entire process from start to finish.

1. Instead of having a weld shop build your gasifier, look for a blacksmith or metal artist. They have more passion and cost half as much.

2. If you use a fab shop, tell them you are an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) to get their best rates. Let them know this is a prototype.

You do need to modify the intake of your engine to accept wood gas and still run on its standard fuel, too. Here is a video I put together that explains the process better:

Challenges and Dangers

No fuel source is perfect and wood gas is no different. Here are the nitty gritty facts:

• Wood gas is best for spark-ignited engines; diesel engines need 20 percent diesel fuel to auto ignite.
• Wood gas has about half the power of gasoline, but this is overcome by using larger engines, which don't cost much more.
• It does take a little effort to gather and chunk wood. Small chips don't work well. Forget about using grass. Pellets can be problematic.
• There are hot surfaces on a wood gasifier. You wouldn't grab a wood stove would you?
• There is carbon monoxide in the gas, so use it in a well ventilated area. Don't use indoors. • Expect to run for several hours, but not 24/7.
• If you don't get your setup correct, you can make tar and stick an engine valve. (This usually only happens to newbies.)
• There is a small amount of soot in the gas even after filtering. Keep the gas above the dew point and it will flow into your combustion chamber nice and dry and get burned up with the rest. You may notice a darkening of your oil, but it's not a problem. Feel the oil between your fingers to validate it still has lubricity.

The Benefits of Wood Gasification

A wood gasifier is a marvel, because it puts refining capability on your own property and the cost of the fuel once you are set up is just the time it takes to pick up sticks and chunk them down. It has these benefits and more:

• Make your own fuel day or night.
• Keep your energy supply chain on your own property.
• Proven at scale during war time.
• High power capability compared to other renewables. 5-20 kilowatts stationary power is easily achieved.
• Portable, so you can take it with you in case of an emergency.
• Utilize cheap land with wood and avoid expensive power lines.
• Use the activated carbon (charcoal) for water filtration.


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page.



6/12/2015

 

Solar energy has been an attractive alternative energy source for decades, but it wasn’t until recently that widespread adoption has increased. The cost of panels, installation and system maintenance have fallen, making the prospect of solar affordable and appealing to both homeowners and businesses.

To encourage solar power consumption, the federal government has implemented tax incentives. The ITC (Solar Investment Tax Credit) provides a 30-percent tax credit for solar systems on residential and commercial properties. Competition among solar companies has also helped to lower costs and simplify the solar installation and rebate process.

Part of the government’s interest in solar isn’t just about helping the environment; it’s about helping the economy. The solar industry has contributed a substantial number of new jobs. In the last four years, job creation has grown by 86 percent, a period during which many industries were stagnant or shrinking.

Unfortunately, not everyone has been so welcoming to the new kid on the block. As residential and commercial solar installation surges, utility companies who have grown accustomed to large market share are pushing back.

Utility Push-Back

As more consumers make the switch to solar, utility companies around the country are looking for ways to curb the trend. Though solar power still makes up less than 1 percent of the energy produced in the United States, many utility companies can sense a shift in the energy market and are fighting to maintain market share.

The demographics of solar consumers have changed dramatically in the last few decades, due to both affordability and public awareness. Over 40 years ago, most solar panels were being installed on structures that were off the electrical grid. In contrast, today over 95 percent of installations are “grid-tied.” With these changes, utility companies set on sticking to the status quo may have reason to be concerned.

To stop solar expansion, utility companies are spending a lot of money to sway public opinion and push legislation to increase fees for solar users.

Net Metering

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided tax breaks for consumers making energy conservation improvements on their home and mandated all public utility companies to provide net metering options when customers request it. Since then, 43 states have adopted net metering policies and solar power consumer adoption has grown by over 1,600 percent.

The debate surrounding solar energy production primarily deals with the issue of net metering, which is the practice of solar customers selling excess power generated from the panels to power companies. Many utility companies feel that net metering isn’t fair because it forces them to buy solar-produced power. They argue that the cost of maintaining the grid should be shared by everyone that benefits from it.

The problem, utility companies say, is that the solar consumers who produce excess power are not paying anything to maintain the use of the grid. Because utility companies are required to buy and sell the power produced at retail cost, they don’t recoup the cost of maintaining the grid system.

Meanwhile, solar companies contend that the excess power produced by residential solar panels helps generate power for their neighbors on the grid, which decreases the load for central plants. The fees that utility companies are pushing for are intended to force solar companies and consumers to pay additional costs and deter “freeloaders” on the grid from using solar.

Whether your residential solar panels are self-installed or installed by solar providers, these proposals for legislation and utility fees have the potential to impact you as a solar user. In many states, utility companies have proposed a fee for customers to sell their excess power. Additionally, states like Arizona, Utah and California are seeing an increased lobbying effort to gain support for discontinuing net metering policies.

Solar Battle in the “Valley of the Sun”

Phoenix and surrounding areas see almost 300 days of sun a year, making Arizona a “hotbed” for solar expansion and energy competition. Arizona’s largest electric utility company, Arizona Public Services (APS), began pushing for monthly $50 solar fees in 2013, but was only able to get a $5 fee approved.

As solar continued its growth, APS hired nonprofit lobby firm Prosper to release several ads describing the perceived burden of solar customers on the whole grid. Just before a proposal for rate hikes to the Arizona Corporation Commission, one ad claimed that every solar system "adds $20,000 in costs to customers." In addition to the APS ad spending, Arizona utility company Salt River Project (SRP) spent roughly $1.7 million on advertising in an effort to increase support for solar rate hikes and solar fees.

No matter how large or small these policies and fees are, they are intended to discourage widespread solar energy and reduce the competition traditional utility companies are facing. Although solar power is the most popular alternative energy source, with public support near 80 percent, utility companies are still succeeding in their efforts to raise fees and dissuade the public.

In February 2015, the SRP board of directors approved a basic service fee increase for solar consumers, as well as an additional fee of $50 a month. With every increase in fees, solar systems become less profitable, making the prospect of clean and renewable solar power less appealing. Solar customers are facing similar situations all over the country.

The Future of Solar

Despite legal and policy battles, many industry analysts say that the future of solar looks bright. A recent report from Deutsche Bank projected that rooftop solar will become as affordable, if not more affordable, than grid power by 2016 in all but 3 states. That affordability will continue to drive massive solar adoption.

The Solar Energy Industries Association reports that US solar capacity increased to 20 gigawatts in 2014, an increase of 30 percent. They predict solar capacity will double to 40 gigawatts by the end of 2016, producing enough power for 7.6 million homes.

To stay competitive, solar companies are determined to find solutions that will require less support from the grid. One option gaining in popularity is the use of batteries that can store the power generated during peak daylight hours for use in the evening. Energy consumers have shown they’re ready and willing to use alternative energy sources, which will continue to drive innovative solar technology advancements.

Solar energy is a renewable energy source that benefits the world. Some utility companies have seen the opportunity to increase their market share by entering the solar space as well. Ideally, utility companies will adapt to changing markets and work together with solar providers to create new renewable solutions for everyone.

Photo by morgueFile/Jusben

This is a guest post by Bryan Phelps at Vivint Solar.


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page.









Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.