While it’s certainly true that photovoltaic (PV) Solar Solutions save their owners thousands of dollars annually over a 30+ year period, and also reduce carbon emissions, there’s another important impact seldom talked about.  This is the impact on Grid Capacity Requirements…specifically the peak capacity that must be provided by local utilities.

Most people just turn on a light switch or the TV without thinking about what’s required to support their usage of electric power.  Any single device – be it a single light bulb, a chest freezer or a large hot-tub – has a specified demand in terms of current required for it to operate at the design voltage (120VAC, or 240VAC).  Small devices such as cell-phone chargers require only tiny amounts of current at 120V, whereas an air conditioning unit or family hot-tub can draw much more power from the grid.  The challenge for utility companies is to figure out how much overall demand for electric power they will experience over the long term and build capacity that will handle the maximum or “peak” demand they may face.  When a utility is unable to supply sufficient capacity to meet the full peak demand at any specific time, the result is often a brown-out, or even a potential black-out due to overloading of the grid.

Thus, electric utilities build their grids so as to produce sufficient power to handle the peak points in demand over time.  But that’s expensive, because the utility essentially needs a network of power plants with the overall capacity to produce energy at that peak level all the time, even if the peak demand only occurs a fraction of the time.  In terms of efficiency of electric energy production, the most efficient grid system would be one where peak capacity is utilized almost 100% of the time, yielding the most energy production and utilization possible from a given set of assets (e.g. power plants).  But in the real world, most electric utilities operate at an average load factor (percentage of total potential capacity) of much less than that:  often just 35-50%.  The gap between potential generation capacity and actual production is essentially wasted capacity…much like empty seats on an airplane that just took off.  The airline could have carried more passengers in those empty seats at almost zero incremental cost.  However, since those empty seats weren’t sold, the plane left the gate, flew its flight plan, and delivered a fewer number of total passengers with less revenue collected, yet at roughly the same costs they would have incurred if they would have booked a full flight.  The situation is similar when it comes to energy production from large generation plants — operating at maximim capacity is always the most efficient.

So, how can a utility company boost its load factor when that’s essentially determined by when consumers decide to turn on their oven, range, hot tub, etc?   A substantial improvement could be achieved in limiting the need for utilities to build larger plants to cover rare peaks in demand, if more electric power consumers were to deploy a combination of energy efficiency (EE) solutions and distributed renewable energy (RE) technologies that would save energy, reduce carbon emissions and assist in balancing the load by time-shifting some of the demand, while offsetting a good portion.  If the use of photovoltaic solar solutions, for example, were more broadly implemented, they would help alleviate some demand, taking demand pressure off of the utility grid and in so- doing, also provide downward pressure on electric utility rates.  Since the production of electric power from solar energy solutions would also take place during daylight hours (in alignment with the period of highest demand for electric power), PV solar installations can make a tremendous impact on net demand that’s required from electric power generation plants…and that can help utilities increase their load factor.  Something to think about.

Read more by clicking here: IBM Sets New World Record For Photovoltaic Cell Efficiency | Inhabitat – Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Photovoltaic cells are best known for turning sunlight into electrical power–and they’re big business. But did you know that there’s a type of PV cell that eats heat instead of light to make power?   It could replace the Li-ion battery in your cell phone, and it may also be used to scavenge waste heat from almost anything that normally dumps it into the environment, from your TV’s electronics to your car’s engine (even an electrical one).

Thermal PV technology has been around for ages, and works the same way as the solar variety: Incoming radiation excites the atoms in its semiconductor structure, which then push electrons out–generating current.  And much as is the case for solar PV cells, the advances in the PV thermal technology have all been about improving their efficiency.  Scientists at MIT have recently honed this technology, pushing the efficiency up so far that thermal PV cells are now a viable alternative to all sorts of other tech.  MIT’s breakthrough was to add a layer of tungsten to the front of a PV cell, with a surface that’s been etched on a nanoscopic scale so that when heated it emits infrared light (heat) at wavelengths precisely tuned to the best efficiency of the PV cell behind it.

Right now, MIT is building the tech into tiny silicon micro-reactors. These are tiny furnaces that burn butane to generate heat, and then extract the heat to produce electricity. If that sounds convoluted, then this will impress you: The microreactors are small enough to replace the button cell Li-ion batteries you find in devices like watches, and convert the chemical ingredients that make them tick with three times better efficiency than Li-ion can match. Better yet, when they run out of fuel you simply snap in an extra cartridge of butane to recharge them.

But because MIT’s system is so very efficient, and is based on a material that’s not too rare or expensive, it could be used to build fuel-less heat-scavenging units that are stuck inside all sorts of devices to recover the wasted heat energy that nearly every machine we’ve ever made kicks out (thanks to the lovely laws of physics). How about the hot back of your TV? Or the hot chassis of the electric motor in your Nissan Leaf? Let’s get fanciful and imagine it would be possible to claw back a few milliwatts of energy from the hot shower water you simply let run down the drain.

The MIT team is confident it can further improve the energy density of its micro-reactors though, and they’re confident it could get to the point your smartphone could go for a week without needing a recharge, just by capturing and leveraging energy generated from its own heat.

At Arise Energy Solutions we often have clients ask us about ways they can save energy around their home.  Here’s a link to a slide presentation we developed to help educate our clients about Energy Efficiency approaches and how they can get the best bang for the buck!   Feel free to call us if you have any questions!

http://www.filesharesite.com/files/201203/1332144101Arise_Energy_Solutions_Presentation_Energy_Efficiency.pdf.html

You would think that with all the effort being put behind energy efficiency, renewable energy solutions, and greenhouse gas emission reduction, we would be seeing an impact on global carbon emissions.  The “Kaya” factors that scientists have associated with carbon emissions have long suggested the anticipated CO2 reductions (from carbon intensity and energy intensity improvements) would not be achieved, primarily due to our inability to curb global population growth.   Feel free to email us for more information on the Kaya Identity, which provides an intuitive approach to the interpretation of historical trends and future projections of carbon dioxide emissions.  Basically, it is a mathematical expression that’s used to describe the relationships among the factors that influence trends in emissions: carbon intensity of energy (the amount of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions emitted per unit of energy produced), energy intensity of the economy (energy consumed per dollar of GDP), output per capita (GDP per person), and population.

Anyway, here’s the data to prove the lack of progress thus far…so much for a temporary reprieve from climate change!  According to the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, global greenhouse-gas emissions jumped by 6 percent in 2010 — a record one-year increase — reversing the lull in carbon pollution that was observed immediately following the financial crisis.  This means our world is now keeping pace with the worst-case emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Arise Energy strives to minimize carbon emissions through our own operations, while assisting clients in the design and implementation of renewable energy solutions that deliver electrical power with zero carbon emissions for decades after their installation.  Further, these systems save clients on their total cost of energy while reducing their carbon footprints.  For an average sized (4kw) residential solar photovoltaic system installed here in Colorado, we see a typical reduction in CO2 emissions of about 14,500 pounds annually for the life of the system because the solar power generated replaces energy that would have come from burning fossil fuels.

For more information give us a call!

Source:  CO2 Data: IEA.  Scenarios: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has denied Xcel Energy Inc.’s request for a $100 million interim electricity-rate hike while regulators review the utility’s request for a $141.9 million increase.  The requested increase, if approved, would raise the average residential monthly electric bill by about 6 percent.

Last November Xcel requested a $141.9 million increase, to be effective starting Dec. 23rd.  But since it could be this coming summer before the PUC reaches a decision on the request, Xcel asked for the interim hike.  The PUC rejected that request this past Wednesday, saying the company failed to show it would be adversely impacted by maintaining current rates while the commission reviews the $141.9 million request.

Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz says Xcel officials are disappointed because they feel “regulatory lag” is a growing concern, but they’re looking forward to deliberations on the full request.

Arise Energy Solutions Perspective:

“This is great news for Colorado residents living in Xcel’s service area,” said Jim Bartlett, Arise Energy co-founder and CEO.  “After the sizable rate increases we experienced just 18 months ago, this interim increase seems particularly onerous – thus we were very pleased to see the PUC’s ruling against Xcel in this case.”

“Although we’ve received good news for the time being, it’s very likely that Xcel will receive approval for a sizable portion of the requested rate increase later this year following the PUC’s full review of the request,” said Bartlett.  “This should reinforce the importance of making greater investments in renewable energy solutions — and sooner rather than later.  As electric utility rates go up, our solar energy clients see a corresponding increase in the return-on-investment (ROI) from their systems.  That means faster paybacks, and thus a more compelling reason for investing in solar energy now.”

For more information on how a solar energy system can lock in energy rates, save money, and reduce carbon footprints, contact Arise Energy Systems for a free consultation and site assessment.   Call 720-468-3225 or email .

Last month, a Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) team received $491,000 in Federal grant funds to develop a system that will cut red tape and cost for solar panel installations.

“Every municipality has been going about trying to set standards in a piecemeal fashion and that has added to cost,” said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association.

Non-hardware costs, such as permitting, installation, design and maintenance account for up to 40 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop system, according to the US Dept. of Energy, which awarded the grant.

A report released last year estimates that local permitting and inspection costs add roughly $2,500 to the average residential solar installation, nation-wide.

The average residential solar installation is now between $12,000 and $18,000 and half the costs are currently for permitting, regulatory, interconnection, customer acquisition, installation, and other similar charges, Lurie said.

The COSEIA team will work with municipalities to develop consistent lists of best practices, on-line tools and other standards, with the goal of cutting application costs by 25 percent, Lurie said.

“The Energy Department is investing in this Colorado project to unleash the community’s solar potential by making it faster, easier, and cheaper to finance and deploy solar power,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.

The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association team also includes: the Rocky Mountain Institute, the City of Denver, Boulder County, the city of Fort Collins, the city of Golden, and the American Solar Energy Society.

“We’re proud of the work that COSEIA is doing and the leadership our state’s solar industry organization is providing in this area to help cut red-tape and reduce administrative, permitting and inspection costs associated with the installation of solar energy systems here in Colorado,” said Arise Energy Solutions co-founder and CEO Jim Bartlett.  “Through our experience installing systems in a number of counties and municipalities across this part of Colorado,  we’ve experienced a vast range in terms of the application and permitting requirements placed on renewable-energy contractors, and it doesn’t need to be that way.”

Bartlett reiterated that all of the unique application processes used by various jurisdictions just add unnecessary time and cost to the application, permitting and inspection process, and that these costs ultimately are passed on to the system owner.

“Every additional dollar spent on aspects of the system that don’t have anything to do with actually generating electric energy, (such as application, permitting and inspection costs) just extends the time required to reach the “break-even” point for a solar solution,” said Bartlett.   “Therefore, anything we can do to streamline the process and make it more “standardized” across all jurisdictions will help lower the total cost of all systems, allowing for more rapid pay-back of renewable-energy system investments, and thus provide a more compelling financial scenario for prospective system owners.”

Arise Energy Solutions, LLC is an active member of COSEIA, and designs, integrates and installs solar energy solutions for clients in the greater Denver metro area.  Over the last two years Arise has worked to document some of the unique aspects of the paperwork and application processes used by the dozens of individual municipalities and counties when those jurisdictions are evaluating, permitting, inspecting and approving solar energy solutions.

We often get asked to share our views on why electric energy rates will go up, how fast, and why. The biggest reasons we believe the rates we pay for electric power will continue to go up are related to coal, because most of the electricity used in the US comes from coal fired plants. For as far back as anyone alive can remember, coal has been the dominant source of electric power provided here in the US.  In some places (such as Colorado, up until fairly recently) coal provides as much as 90% of electric power consumed. In other parts of our country coal may only account for 40-50% of electric power production today, but across the country the cost and availability of coal are still tremendous factors in the cost of electric power. 

Here in Colorado, Xcel Energy (the dominant electric utility) has developed and begun executing a plan to migrate almost all of its plants from coal to natural gas, with this migration expected to be complete by 2014.  The migration involves closing some coal-fired plants, re-tooling and converting some coal-fired plants so they can burn natural gas instead, and building new natural-gas-fired plants to replace the capacity lost through closure of older coal-based plants.  All of this is a smart strategy… and in rolling it out here in Colorado, Xcel has put our state in a good position.  Not only will the switch to natural gas be beneficial in terms of air quality, it will also prepare us to avoid the brunt of coal shortages that may be expected within the next 20 years.

Using natural gas as the fuel to generate our electric power is a good change. However, it will translate into higher costs for electric power because:

• The capital investments being made to convert to natural gas are substantial, and Xcel Energy is seeking to have those investments paid back through increased rates. These rate increase requests have already been submitted to the PUC.
• As we begin to use natural gas to generate electric power, doing so will drive up our rates further, because using natural gas is more expensive than using coal, per unit energy produced. Once again, the increased costs will naturally be passed along to rate payers by the utilities.

Coal resources in this country are now thought to be more like 40 years, instead of the 200+ years we’ve been told repeatedly in the past.  Part of the reason electric power has been so inexpensive here in Colorado (compared with many other parts of the country), is that the largest source of coal in the US is Wyoming, and the cost of transporting that coal to plants in Colorado is very modest given the distance involved.  This can be expected to change as we shift to burning natural gas that’s piped in from much further away.

For an interesting view on the larger issue our country faces as we approach the end of of our coal resources, check out this video interview with Leslie Glustrom, Director of Research and Policy at Clean Energy Action (CEA).   Although the interview is from 2009, the message is still very relevant today.   A report available from CEA includes a detailed analysis of the coal situation in the US.

At Arise Energy, we are passionate about the need for greater investment in renewable energy, and particularly in solar energy in areas where that resource is so abundant, as it is here in Colorado.   We continue to work with the governor’s energy office, COSEIA, and other industry leaders to drive for increased investment in solar energy here in our state, and for the required financing and incentives to make solar energy affordable for more Colorado businesses and homeowners.

New legislation agreed upon by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on Dec. 22 – which focuses on a payroll tax extension, unemployment insurance benefits and Medicare – does not include an extension of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Section 1603 cash-grant program, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011.

The solar sector and other renewable energy stakeholders had vigorously lobbied for the continuation of this program in recent months.

The final agreement, which has been signed into law by President Obama, includes future work by senators and representatives on reconciling the differences between the chambers. Congress is expected to reconvene the week of January 23, 2012.

Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), said in a letter to members that these negotiations – while controversial and uncertain – may provide a new opportunity for including an extension of the Section 1603 program and other renewable energy tax provisions.

Resch wrote that there is “support in Congress for addressing business and energy tax extenders as part of a longer-term agreement” on payroll taxes and other economic provisions, and that SEIA plans to continue to push for extension of the popular 1603 program.

“Of course this is a big disappointment to all of us in the solar energy industry,” said Jim Bartlett, co-founder and CEO of Arise Energy Solutions. “The impact will be solely on new commercial installations. Existing commercial clients who previously qualified for a 1603 cash grant are unaffected,” said Bartlett. “Furthermore, our residential clients still have the ability to file for the 30% Federal tax credit, which remains uncapped, and expected to be in place until 2016.”