The report says that the solar market has experienced as strong growth in 2011; with falling cost and rising employment creation. Some facts of the Solar Market in 2011 have been recorded in this article:

1. Solyndra – was part of a Growing Industry

Unfortunately, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in August 2011. However, this doesn’t mean that the market was weak. On the contrary, the market expanded by 140 percent and cost decreased by 40 percent. Solyndra failed to compete but the solar-energy market remains strong, as ‘90 percent of Americans believe that it is critical to progress towards the expansion of solar energy.

2. U.S Solar Industry Employees Above 100,000 Americans
In the recent years, the solar industry has become a growing employer. In America above 5,000 companies are employing more than 100,000 Americans in small, medium and large green solar companies. According to the solar Foundation’s national Job Census 2011, people were employed as engineers, administrative professionals, sales people, installers, electricians, plumbers, contractors and roofers. New job opportunity in the solar industry has been beneficial during the severe economic downturn.

3. Currently, the Solar Industry is one of American’s fastest growing sectors.

Most American companies support the growth of solar industry; This includes companies such as Google, Whole Foods, Target, Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, Safeway and others, which have invested significantly.

4. Cost of Solar Panels has Decreased by 40 %

In U.S there are approximately 1.5 million houses having solar water heaters while solar energy is currently powering 730,000 households. Yet, with increasing research and development as well as bulk production solar panels are getting cheaper. Since 2010 to 2011, the price of solar cells has decreased by more than 40 percent while only 2011’s second to third quarter experienced a fall in price by 14.4 percent.

5. Cut-throat competition in a Growing solar Industry
United state have experienced a tremendous growth in the export of solar technology, which highly positive for the domestic industry with job creation. In 2010, the net export of solar products reached $2 billion.

Companies in the solar industry are operating in a very uncertain environment with high dependency on governmental support. These investment mechanisms are determining the market losers as well as winners. In 2011, more than 22,000 energy projects were completed across the 50 states, with a total private investment amounting to $23 billion. The Congress is pushing for additional support to promote the industry over 2012.

In America, Solar really works well, and 2011 was a great year for the solar industry. Yet, constant struggle and devotion are required to drive the industry in 2012 together with well devised energy policies.

Source: Clean Technica

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2012. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Solar Power.

Spirit and Opportunity – Solar Powered Rovers

Apparently, solar power and nuclear power have some shortcomings in space. For instance, the solar panels used for Spirit, and Opportunity are made of gallium-arsenide. It is a niche product, with very high production cost per inch. The typical rooftop panels, which are silicon-based, are significantly cheaper.

In general solar power has been working fine on Mars with only some minor issues. On some occurrences dust storms reduced the capture sunlight by as much as 90 percent. A project known as ‘cleaning even’ referred to current that removed the dust that had accumulated on the cells.

The missions have been successful. Spirit is, however, no longer operating. But Opportunity has exceeded all expectations and operates fine after seven and half year of full functioning. Each of the rovers weights 400 pounds, and powered with lithium-ion battery, which stored the energy generated by cells. The maximum storage capacity was 140 watts. Here on earth, 140 watts are sufficient to run a monitor and a desktop computer. However, on Mars, the same amount of energy is used to power cameras, radios, other instruments as well as to propel the rover.

Curiosity – Nuclear Rover

The new Mars rover which was launched in November, 2011 had a far superior weight, being 2,000 pounds. The director of Space Nuclear System and Technologies division at the Idaho National Laboratory, Stephen G. Johnson says that this vehicle is as small as a car. The rover is equipped with laser that will be used to cut rocks, as well as other instruments that will facilitate the analysis of the materials. In other words, the energy required by this rover is far more than the Spirit and Opportunity.

An expert in Space technology from George Washington University, Dr. John M. Logsdon says that plutonium 238 is the only fuel that will be able to power the large space rover.

The machine is going to operate for two earth years which is equal to one Maritain year.

The space rover, Curiosity has nuclear-power packs that can constantly generate 110 watts. However, the system doesn’t work as typical nuclear reactors used on Earth. The uranium atoms aren’t split to make heat for the purpose of boiling water and to produce steam.

In space, the nuclear-power packs don’t use reactors. The atoms are not even split. The nuclear-power packs have plutonium 238, an isotope of 88 years, implying that the radioactive decay is extremely rapid and glows red-hot. This heat is directly changed into electricity. It is alpha particles that are released through the radioactive emission, which are practical and easy to catch.

Nevertheless, in the United States, nuclear materials are hard to find as it is getting old. The Energy Department shut the production of Savannah River Plant, found close to Aiken, S.C., in the 1980s. Since then there haven’t been any production of plutonium 238 in the US. America has been purchasing plutonium 238 from Russia ever since 1980s but today, not even Russia’s produce plutonium 238.

The National Academy of Science suggested the restarting of production of plutonium 238 in a ‘2009 report’. However, this hasn’t been initiated.

NASA has a substitute technology known as the ‘Stirling Engine System’. The system can generate five-fold the energy of each heat unit. It does therefore reduce the dependency for plutonium. Yet, there are several moving parts involved and this is why it hasn’t been adopted for space use.

According to Professor, Steven W. Squyres, of astronomy at Cornell who is also the chief scientist for Spirit and Opportunity rovers says that solar energy is cheaper and the best option to be used. Nuclear power is only used when there is no other suitable substitute.

In addition, NASA also launched Juno this year; a spaceship heading towards Jupiter powered with solar cells, due to the lack of plutonium. Jupiter is, nevertheless, not an ideal region to use solar cells as it is five times farther away from the sun than Earth thus the intensity of solar rays as 96 percent less, or only 4 percent of earth’s solar intensity.

There is a need to re-launch the production of plutonium 238, and to generate more efficient ways of using this energy.

Source: Green Blogs

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Solar Power.

Renewable energy companies around the globe have been hit by a mix of high inventories and slower demand after ramping up production last year to meet a surge in demand from Germany and Italy. Customers virtually rushed to buy solar panels before governments cut subsidies.

The feed-in tariff was reduced in Italy and Germany, so as to make the solar industry more effective. However, there is a paradox in profit and cost of solar technology. Recently, both the price and subsidies on solar technology have been decreasing faster than the cost of manufacturing. As a result, it has rendered the outlook for solar companies such as SolarWorld (German’s second largest solar company in respect to sales) into great difficulties. The profit level of solar companies has been downgraded significantly.

Frank Asbeck, Chief Executive of SolarWorld says that the entire market has experienced a shock after falling prices. A further reduction in the cost of solar modules by 10 percent in 2012 will bring profit down to single-digit margins. For 2011, the profit of the company is expected to reach 1 Bn Euros. This is aligned with the figured projected by analysts such as reuters( estimated 1.17 billion)

According to Marion Helmes, the finance chief of Q-cells says that figures are even worse. Q-Cells were known to be the world’s biggest solar module manufacturer but this is no longer the case.

The outlook for 2011 was a three-digit figure but profit levels have been falling by 25 percent since the previous year. For 2012, things look worse with prices of solar systems falling.

CFO, Marion Helmes, is leaving the company and this makes the situation even more alarming. In other words, the balance sheet of the Q-Cells is going through a stormy wind, and the ship is about to sink.

The situation is the same for other peers in the solar industry such as Yingli, First solar and Suntech, which have been equally badly affected by the 40 percent drop in the price of solar cells.

On the Frankfurt Technology index, SolarWorld and Q-cells have been leading the fall, with 6.4 and 18.5 percent, respectively.

Nordex, a wind-turbine maker has also been forced to reduce its expected earnings for 2011 due to the European debt crisis which is delaying several projects. Nordex is some of the companies that are blaming the Europe Crisis as being the main cause for poor business performance. They saw their sales dropping from the 2011 outlook of 1 billion down to 920 million euros.

Source: Business Financial Post

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Global Energy, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

Wall Street has been avoiding investing money in solar organizations. Even if so, USA has more solar jobs than steel jobs, and Germany has more solar jobs than nuclear jobs.

Fifty percent of Whitehall and majority of the energy giants claim that solar power can never amount to a significant part in the future energy supply of a nation’s energy plan. However, the United Nations along with several others arrived at a conclusion in the recent times that, in the future, the world is expected to operate mainly on renewable energy, solar would contribute a huge portion in the cake.

So, which of these views are correct?

It would be sensible to walk in the direction in which the money flows. Each time the manufacturing capacity of factories making solar PV (photovoltaic) panels is doubled, the median cost of churning these out across the globe has been dropping by 18 percent, for the past years. As a result, on average US PV energy plant which cost USD 7/Watt in 2007 is now available for USD 3/Watt.

In other words, it would be cheaper building a new PV plant than coal plant in US, assuming the plant would be completed in 6 years from now. The relentless decline of 18 percent in cost of soalr technology implies that solar power is soon going to cost the same as grid electricity. This condition is termed as Grid Parity by energy experts and is soon expected to be met in countries across the globe. The time may vary depending upon the price of electricity in every nation, but it is absolutely certain that solar power would come at a much cheaper price than current electricity. People believe that solar costs more than coal, and gas fail to correctly identify the future prospects. It is like looking just at one side of a coin.

The installation of a PV plant will take just one year, while that of a nuclear plant of the same capacity will take over 10 years. Speaking of solar equipments for rooftops, SolarCentury and SSE have proven with their service in UK that homes with no emission take just a few months to build.
This is a revolutionary trend is appreciated by at a few investors. A hitherto unheard amount of 211 Billion USD was invested in pure energy last year, the main contributors being wind power in China and solar roofs in Europe.

It would benefit Britain to partake in this revolution. The citizens of UK should also take advantage of it, considering that there won’t be many who wouldn’t have qualms paying the constantly increasing Big 6 utility costs which depend on gas, coal and nuclear sources and which exceed the grid parity point for UK.

It isn’t a valid argument to say that solar power is too expensive. Things have changed in the recent decade. For example, German’s railway system is planned to be operated on solar, wind and hydropower by Deutsche Bahn. The Ministry of German Economics in collaboration with German organizations operated a sample model of the German economy on a tangible combination of renewable sources of energy such as solar. The result showed that a stable economy of today can easily be sustained by solar power with a minimum amount of power, which will be provided to consumers by energy providers of the nation.

In addition, the International Energy Agency will later in 2011 release a report suggesting that 60 percent of the global electricity requirement will be met by solar power by the year 2060.

Contrary to the opinion of some, it would not be enough if UK decides to wait now and participate in the situation only at the time when a mass-market condition around the world cannot be avoided any more. This would be a strategy gone totally awry. We cannot possibly continue to forever import every part of UK’s power set-up. Matters of national security such as the Peak Oil crisis make it more than necessary that our industries are as independent and self-sufficient as possible – within human means.

The solar industry in UK, which is still in its pre-infant stage, is creating thousands of work opportunities. This is highly important given the situation of the country. Community assignments are being entrusted to thousands of citizens. The solar power feed-in tariff is the reason behind this. The feed-in tariff is a process to facilitate a good market creation. There are already forty nations across the world using this process, which comprises of premium prices for PV power, which is derived out of a minor fund levied on all utility bills. UK’s feed-in tariff was brought in, in April 2010.

There are several solutions for generating solar power. The Green Deal by the government is soon to stimulate some measures towards energy efficiency, with which, it would be possible to couple the solar measures at the same level. It would be possible to finance energy services in a creative and integrated manner. This would set free, significant savings on the cost of net energy costs.

A part of their inborn speciality is that feed-in tariff which is expected to go down every year with the decrease in solar costs. Solar does not need to be continually subsidized, the way nuclear power does. It is planned that the tariffs would reach zero within the next 10 years. It is also essential to bring the price down in stages so that it falls in sync with the market. Sharp and sudden decrease would not serve the purpose it would rather bring the markets to a standstill, according to observations of several governments in this year.

April 2012 will witness the first fall in solar PV tariffs for UK rooftops, which are being reviewed at the moment. This needs to be processed in the right manner by the government. The cut in the tariffs has to be sufficiently significant to portray the declining prices of solar power and at the same time not too sharp, or else it will hamper UK’s solar industry.

Among people who understand the situation are ministers such as Chris Huhne and Greg Barker. On the other side, there are those who support nuclear energy instead of solar power. For instance, the French nuclear sector has completely cut off the feed-in tariff, and consequently, the market for solar energy.

If UK desires to create an exemplary and brag-worthy case-study of green industrial revolution/Big Society, it would require the government to smoothen the way so that grid parity can easily glide its way into the power markets. People lobbying for clean energy can contribute significantly by providing thoughts and ideas, helping people to overcome the olden days and to see the benefits which the Chinese and investors in Silicon Valley can clearly see.

Source: TeleGraph

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Renewable Power.

The two young and dynamic businessmen who are looking forward to hitting a sales figure of £15M after completing one full year in business should ideally be applauded and not criticized. However, 28-year-old Toby Ferenczi and 30-year-old Toby Darbyshire, who are university pals, admit that their start-up venture Engensa, is regarded suspiciously by some sections of the government.

The cost of domestic rooftop solar panel ranges from £10,000 to £15,000. However, Engensa provides free installation of these panels to customers and later charges back the subsidy, also called ‘feed-in tariff’. With a view to promote production of renewable energy, this tariff was brought into force in April 2010. Engensa’s scheme has become very popular and is bringing in £1M as monthly revenues for the company while roping in 10 employees once in four weeks to meet the increasing orders.

A profit before tax of up to £2M is expected in 2011, whereas they are targeting revenue of £35M in 2012. However, this would be possible only if the feed-in tariffs remain constant, which does not seem likely to be the case.

If the model of the organization bears economic validity, why should the government levy subsidies on it considering the critical times of inflating energy costs?

Darbyshire’s argument is that, in the situation of energy producers spending billions procuring highly expensive fossil fuel while depriving more and more people from affordable fuel; one solution to the problem is getting the green energy ventures. He says that renewable-energy ventures should aim at generating not only £35M but as high as £100M and even £1Bn. It is essential to have steady progress so as to avoid a scenario of having fossil fuel as the main source of energy at the price of 200 or 300pc. People will then repent of not having tried to earn in the green energy industry when there was still time.

Owing to a new-found awareness about solar power among consumers, several installers like Engensa have begun to witness flourishing business. The tariffs claimed back by Engensa amount to annual returns up to 10pc, which considerably brings down utility bills.

Ferenczi and Darbyshire, both are not happy with the fact that the government vastly overstates the price of these subsidies levied on the public by way of energy bills, instead of taxes. According to critics, when pooled in together, green feed-in tariffs contribute up to 15pc to household utility bills. However, Ferenczi, who is a solar scientist and was formerly a GE engineer, reports Engensa’s very own research to estimate the price of the subsidies to be around £2.20 annually per home. He argues that it is not a very exorbitant price to sell out for an industry which gives rise to so many work opportunities and promotes green energy resources.

China is the main manufacturing of solar panels. But, the installation and after-sales service are provided locally. Engensa predicts the creation of 10,000 additional jobs by April 2012.

To visibly demonstrate the declining prices of renewable energy; feed-in tariffs are scheduled to steadily go down at timely intervals. The ultimate aim of this process is to set up an industry capable of producing inexpensive and green-technology without any need for subsidies.

However, installations which were large and medium in size were faced with an unexpectedly proposed cut in the tariff by the government in April 2011. The purpose of DECC (The Department of Energy and Climate Change) behind these sudden cuts was to make sure that the tariffs could also be availed by the smaller solar installations for which they were actually regulated for, instead of only the larger projects trying to monopolize and use feed-in tariffs for their own benefit.

This trend in Feed-in Tariff isn’t necessary good for Engensa. According to Ferenczi, the clarification regarding the size of the installations was just misleading information provided by the government. The actual reason for the cut applied to the scheme of feed-in tariffs, which was decided by the Coalition was mainly to reduce overall spending. What really happen was that the scheme was so popular that the budget was in danger of being exhausted.

Ferenczi said that limiting the budget is not allowed and accepted by the basic rules of tariffs. Tariffs are not meant to be levied to an industry which is withering but are temporarily brought in to help it stabilize its operations. The fact that they are in demand, shows that the concept of tariffs has gone well with the people.

However, he now sees the risk that the affinity of homeowners towards solar energy might spell a huge deduction in tariffs for installations on a domestic scale. The decision regarding this carries the same significance as that of the government ascertaining the need of a solar industry in the first place.

Going by the rumors heard by Ferenczi, there is definitely going to be a consultation held, during which, huge cuts would be advocated. He said that this would jeopardize the industry. By this the demand ebbs away and risks the entrepreneurs’ capabilities of luring potential investors to finance the free solar scheme. Even if it turns out to be a mere document of consultation, Ferenczi thinks that there is a high possibility that the numbers published would remain unchanged.

It comes as a surprise when Ferenczi agrees to the fact that the current tariff may be too high. He says that a point of reduction is just approaching, which is the way things should naturally be. When authorities introduced the concept, they anticipated a consistent decrease by 9pc. However, reductions as high as 30pc and more are being discussed today.

Darbyshire says that when you are operating a small venture, it is very frustrating to be surrounded with uncertainty. If you suddenly interject a business which has been operating and developing in full speed for two years and try to increase its cost of sales by 30pc, it is not going to be an easy situation. Such are some of the major issues being tackled by the two entrepreneurs who are working around the clock.

Engensa is focused on bringing down its costs in order to withstand any cuts. It intends to maintain their business policy of free solar and installation. However, if the tariff is cut to a large extent, it would hugely affect the company’s new business margins, and terms would have to be re-negotiated with Albion Ventures, Engensa’s financial provider.

The organization also has customers who wish to buy the solar panels and bear the tariff too, as a future investment. However, Engensa’s scheme of free solar will be prominently visible only if the company can afford to continue it, in spite of a tariff reduction. Ferenczi says that even if the tariff is not of much consequence to the consumer, Engensa can attain a balance in the business by being counted among the very few companies that offer both the facilities. The movement of the tariff will help it decide which product out of the two would bear a higher margin and which would bear the lower.

Even if the feed-in tariffs are a matter of controversy, Darbyshire is reasonable when he requests for clarity in the policy. He says that while it is important to take decisions, the thing that matters the most to the co-founders, and the investors is the long-term plans and clarity thereof. Business can be altered in order to adapt and meet the targets as well as innovations predicted. UK has been facing challenges related to energy since the last 50 years, and it is time for the policy foundations to become firm and permanent.

Source: Telegraph

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

Constantly rising utility bills, sparse financial conditions and wariness regarding the huge lack of funds in the government budgets, the global economic conditions and the Eurozone, are the worries of millions of citizens.

Given these situations, will the people really heed to the green economy concept?

As an answer to this question, it would suffice to state that in spite of all the other burdens, people will most certainly consider the option of green economy in the long run, provided that they are given the right presentation and explanation of the facts.

A recommended way to start is by explaining the overall long-term implications of the concept and cut off the cumbersome issues. Let’s take a look at the implications of a green economy.

1. A green economy would instil a greater sense of stability in comparison to the current economic conditions. A green economy involves the use of varied energy sources of gas as well as energy (both, renewable and nuclear), implying an economy where power prices don’t vary often. Thus, people won’t have to face a price hike of 16pc in power costs in merely two months, caused by fluctuations in the prices of gas.

3. It promises a much better economy than the current one. If every household ensures proper insulation and connects every appliance to a smart grid by way of smart usage; monitoring meters, the type and amount of energy required from a green economy will be available at a cheaper price for homeowners and the entire nation.

Needless to say, changes of such magnitude can’t be achieved overnight. It calls for pooling in huge effort and funds today to accomplish tasks such as electricity creation and diversification toward clean energy. However, it is only possible to meet future expected energy demand by starting to invest now.

But with the support extended by the Green Investment Bank, the leaders of the nation are procuring diversified means to produce power, electric supply to run cars, provision of smart meters and grids to every household. By doing this, they are making provisions that will facilitate the smooth functioning of the green economy in the years to come.

And it should be noted that there is no mentioning here of needing to make all these provision for reasons related to the environment. It is beyond doubt that it will win an accolade for Britain in the famous topic of a being a friend of the environment. Green energy can help Britain (as well as other nations) to contribute heavily towards the welfare of the planet Earth.

But an opinion collectively formed by all of us can be put forth, and this will supersede all of us who carry a passion for preserving the environment. A stable, secure and efficient economy is the ultimate outcome fervently wished for, by the people who don’t consider them to be environmentalists. Yet another benefit of the Green Economy concept is the estimated number of employment opportunities (additional 73,000) that will be generated exclusively by the Green Deal efficiency program. This benefit comes as a godsend in times, when everyone is anxious to see growth and employment.

We cannot afford to allow pessimistic thoughts into our minds at this stage. Instead, we all need to summon our strengths and surge ahead with an aim to etch out a secure future for our forthcoming generations, so that they will acknowledge our efforts and be thankful for securing their living conditions, irrespective of whatever they feel devoted to the environment or only the economy.

Source: Telegraph (UK)

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Global Energy, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

The power inverters provided by Emerson, converts DC current generated from solar panels into AC power. The electricity will thereafter be injected directly to the national grid to power households and businesses. The Solar Plants in Sardinia will together generate 10 MW of clean solar energy, which will be both monitored and controlled by Emerson’s Inverter Management system.

The Owner and President of Euro Project, Mr. Marco Lupini said that they have been having a long-term business relation with Emerson, so they were the absolute choice. It is a necessity to have strong assurance, and Emerson’s capabilities have already shown strong performance. Marco also highlighted that working with Emerson for Euro Project is a competitive solution to remain and grow strong in the provision of alternative energy at a world-wide market.

In July 2011, Villaperuccio, projects have been operating and supplying energy to approximately 3,200 households. A project that Euro Project fully financed, managed and developed.

Mr. Mark Bulanda, a global leader for Emerson’s Solar and Wind energy initiatives says that Euro Projects plants are one of a few exemplifications of Emerson’s strong know-how in renewable energy. He also added, that supplying energy to the largest solar-energy projects in Italy is a very great opportunity to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of our technology.

Emerson has a large portfolio of solar-energy projects. On a global basis, Emerson’s solar utility-scale inverters are already supporting in generating 400 MW of solar power worldwide. Sardinia is a strong addition to this portfolio of solar energy.

Source: Benzinga

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Solar Power.

The thermal component of the sun rays is absorbed by a collector – this is how water is heated and stored in a thermal store.

There are three systems of solar collectors:

1. Flat sheets of metal (either copper or aluminum) housed in an insulated casing covered with thin glass; the metal absorbs the solar heat and transfers it to the water tubing beneath.

3. Unglazed plastics that are direct collectors; they transfer the heated to – for example – swimming pools.

Also, depending on the way they circulate the heat absorbent, solar convectors are passive and active.

The first category uses simple convection systems; the collector fluid’s temperature is raised to the boiling point. It yields thermal energy to the domestic water piping and, at the same time. It condenses and re-enters the evaporation circuit.
The second category pumps cold water, at a calculated volume per time unit, into the collector. The heated water is then circuited into the household pipelines. The pump is either plugged to the indoor power system or is connected to a photovoltaic source – which is another initial investment.

The three types of solar systems have very different initial costs, but they perform at a similar efficiency. Discussions over this topic revealed that, if the plate metal system is technologically cheaper (overall system and materials), the vacuum system lands the market at similar prices, due to the massive Chinese dominance. The third system – unglazed plastic – has fewer, specialized uses, and doesn’t enter the wide range domestic use competition.

On the other hand, the choice is complicated by another technical differentiation: open-loop systems directly circulate the heated water through the collector, while the close-loop system heats the transfer fluid (pure water or glycol) which, in its turn, transfers heat to the household water piping.

Nevertheless, plate metal and evacuated systems eventually need an extra expense – the heat storage unit, even for tropical regions, where insolation is significantly superior to temperate regions,

Calculation have been made that revealed that, at an insolation of 3.2 kW.h/m2/day (temperate, e.g. Zurich, Switzerland), the average efficiency for all combinations is 5, while at an insolation of 6.5 kW.h/m2/day (tropical, e.g. Phoenix, Arizona, USA), at a double insolation, the efficiency is almost double, around 9.5.

The calculation above was done for 200 liters of heated water. It was also revealed that, in temperate regions, the water temperature was raised to approx. 17°C, while in tropical regions; the heated water reached 33°C.

The insolation rate differences also reflects in savings: in not so hot regions, the annual electrical power consumption economy varies from 30% to 50%, in tropical region’s savings; for heating household water could reach up to 70%

The payback period also depends on the insolation: 6.9 years for the sunny Australia, 12.6 for USA and 18.2 years for the rainy UK.

Source: Solar Novus

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Solar Power.

The consortium intends to complete the first part of the project by the end of 2019. The overall investment calculated for the green energy factories network would rise to more than €400 billion ($520bn). The project was already given a name: Desertec.

Chancellor Angela Merkel showed her support for Desertec, designed to be one of Germany’s medium and long-term economic strength projects. Other Germans powerful companies are also supportive for Desertec: Siemens, Deutsche Bank, RWE, E.ON., who is meeting soon in Munich with Italian and Spanish energy concerns, Club of Rome and Arab League representatives, in an attempt to draw an action plan for the near future.

Desertec is conceived as a chain of self-standing solar thermal plants, where solar rays are captured by a system of mobile mirrors, focused on a huge water tank to vaporize; the high pressure steam engaged, then the turbine of a power generator. Not only does the system require less investment, but it also is more efficient than solar panels. The power plants would be connected to a network of high-voltage lines going all the way from Maghreb desert to Europe. The project was under discussion in the German government for several years, but the infrastructure costs have delayed final decisions.

Another reason for delay was of electricity parameters drop along lines: the longer the wires, the more is the loss in energy. Alfons Benziger, a spokesman for Siemens, said: that they had developed a so-called high-voltage direct current energy transmission(HDCT). This can transport energy over long distances without heavy losses. Siemens does already use HDCT in power plants in India and China.

German Greepeace energy expert Andree Böhling also said that the initiative is one of the most intelligent answers to the world’s environmental and industrial problems.

Although government, investors and environmentalists are in full support to Desertec, there are voices who claim the project as being too risky because of the growing political instability in North African countries, and that terrorist attacks could be the main menace. On the other hand, such an enterprise would open a dependency situation very similar to African oil or Russian gas, with similar political and economic consequences. In their turn, anti-globalization activists claim European imperialism would affect the poor Saharan countries.

Beyond pros and cons, Desertec is – for the moment – just at the stage of a project. Bringing it to life seems to be another problem, because North African countries designated to host Desertec facilities have not been consulted at all or dialogues have been carried on limited levels.

Source: Independent

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

Department of Energy just recently released a report and based on the yearly price comparison of Photovoltaic system. In the report, Lawrence Berkely National Lab revealed that PV system installation both at the domestic and commercial level in 2010 cost 17% less than the amount required for the same installation in the year 2009.

Overall prices of setting up and installing a PV system for power generation as mentioned earlier reduced by 17% in 2010. Figures of 2011 are also very encouraging as until the midpoint of this year a further decline of 11 percent has been observed. Main factors attributing to this consistent decline is the drop in PV modules price is the presence of wholesales of PV. Berkeley Lab’s Galen Barbose who represents Environmental Energy Technologies Division revealed that the downward trend in the prices of PV units is being observed starting as from 2008 and this benefit is transferred to the end users as well. Mr. Barbose is also among the authors of the report.

The reduced costs of PV units are also linked with other major contributors, such as fall in prices of labour, inverters; overhead, etc. are also reducing gradually in the given period of year 2010 and definitely the trend in initial six months of year 2011. According to Ryan Wiser, a scientist at Berkeley Lab and part of the authors’ team of the report, non-modular cost reduction is also extremely important. He stated that receding in non-modular costs can be reflected immediately as compare to the PV system costs as they are reduced after a certain amount of R&D is done and invested. The same report revealed that the overall reduction in non-modular costs for domestic and commercial PV installations seen within years 2009 and 2010 were approximately 18%.

In Utility sector photovoltaic modules the 2010 prices are varying in nature. For instance, per watt (/watt) cost of PV system with the ability to generate Five thousand Kilowatts came within the range of $2.9 to $6.2. This huge per watt variations shows that there are enormous differences in size of the projects, and of course system configuration. If the utility sector was following the same trend as domestic and commercial, then the ‘per watt’,’ cost would fall even more, currently the boundaries are of $3.8 to $4.4 per watt.

Electricity generation through PV solar system is gaining very quick popularity in America, mainly due to (local and state) governments’ encouragement for people to rely more on solar energy instead of conventional power resources. Report published by Berkeley lab is fourth in line in the series “Tracking the Sun.” To compile the report the authors and researchers observed PV installations exceeding 115,000 in commercial, utility and household sectors within in the period of 1998 to 2010. The study covered no less than 42 U.S states, meaning about 80% of total grid connected PV installations were covered. Reason for study as shared by Naïm Darghouth of Berkely Lab is to make the stakeholders and decision makers aware that the research is based on facts related to trends and standards of costs involved in installation of PV systems.

Impact of Geographical location, kind and size of system on the overall cost
Analysis of the report revealed interesting correlation between the installation costs and PV system’s installation type, size and geographical location. Like among the American states the per unit installation cost of PV systems of 10 Kilowatts or less came out to be within range of $6.3 per watt to $8.4. Another interesting thing came up by the study was that the installation cost of PV units in new houses in residential sectors was less than the upgrade costs in older houses. In the Recommendations section of the report, it is advised on the foundation of collected data and Japanese and German PV rates, that in order to get the maximum cost reduction on PV units county, state or larger level deployments are necessary.

Report put a lot of emphasis on saving further costs by expanding the number of and types of installations. For example, 2 kW and lower systems’ average per watt cost identified was $ 9.8, which is way higher than their commercial counterpart units of over 1000 kW costing about $5.2. By connecting the other findings with this one, it can safely be assumed the costs must have gone down in the year 2011 as well. Big scale utility sector PV units also proved cheaper in 2010 with per watt cost ranging from $3 to $4.

PV systems cost declined in the year 2010 but lack of incentive is still a hindrance

States used to provide cash incentives to the people opting for PV units instead of conventional modes, and the amount went very high in the year 2002. Heights touched in 2002 are not likely to replicate again, and the cash incentives are constantly on a decline since then. Decrement in installation costs also resulted in the decline in Federal investment tax credit. Treasury grant associated with ITC also decreased as a result of overall decrement. So the incentives offered at federal level, particular state level got reduced resulting in counteracting the reduced installation costs of PV systems. Numbers wise the pre incentive per watt installation costs reduced by $1 and $1.5 for household and commercial PV systems respectively in year 2010. Whereas the post installations readings of the same came out as $0.4 and $0.8 for household and commercial sectors respectively.

Report full name is “Tracking the Sun IV: A Historical Summary of the Installed Cost of Photovoltaic in the United States from 1998 to 2010,.” Writer group associated with the report are Naïm Darghouth, Galen Barbose and Ryan Wiser. Report can be downloaded free of cost from the following link: by on Clicking Download report

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy department of United States Department of Energy afforded the expenses required for R&D to complete the report. Clean Energy State Alliance also contributed to the study. Clean Energy is a national-level agency working without intention of making any profits from their operations and promoting the alternate energy programs to reduce reliance on the mainstream adopted methods in many states.

Source: IBL and EV-Wind

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Renewable Power, Solar Power.