Source: AJC
Green's is going green.
Green's Beverage Store, a leading seller of beer, wine, and liquor in metro Atlanta, is covering most of its Buford Highway store's roof with photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, the company announced monday.
It expects to cut energy usage by 20 percent.
The new Solyndra PV system, 57kW, designed and installed by an Atlanta-based solar company, will produce about 86,000 kilowatt hours of power annualy, the company said.
Jeff Greenbaum, president of Green's parent, BINS Corp., said the company has been investigating ways to save energy because of its refridgeration requirements.
The Buford Highway location is also getting a reflective white roof.
Solar entrepreneurs have seen an uptick in commercial installations over the past year, spurred by tax credits and rising power costs.
This is a perfect example of how the green market can be both economical and environmental, saving a company money on bills which will hopefully translate into lower prices for consumers as well as improving environmental conditions from the adoption of clean energy sources. And it makes us happiest to see this solar project being installed ontop of a reflective white roof, presumably metal with a Kynar coating.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Georgia can power electric car grid
Source: AJC
With our leaders seeking new paths to growth sectors, I’d submit that Georgia has an opportunity staring us right in the face.
By 2015, analysts are predicting nearly 1 million electric vehicles will be on the nation’s roads.
Our state is offering a number of incentives to fuel this growth with the standing $5,000 tax credit for purchasing vehicles and tax credits for the building of charging stations. In Atlanta, the Metro Atlanta EV Readiness Task Force was organized to help plan a charging infrastructure in the city.
It’s an exciting vision, really — a whole new generation of clean, energy-efficient plug-in electric vehicles capable of running for long periods from a single charge at home overnight.
Then when parked at the office, school or curbside, they could instantly and easily plug in for a recharge or someday even provide excess power to the electrical grid. This vision is bringing into focus a major obstacle to the development, deployment and adoption of electric vehicles on a large scale.
The fact is the electrical utility grid, as it exists today, simply can’t support large numbers of vehicles. In general, our electrical grid system doesn’t even know when a consumer has lost power until they phone the utility to tell someone.
There are a number of innovation hubs across the country focused on the drive trains, batteries and other features to improve the performance of these cars. What is missing is a focused effort targeting the “charging infrastructure” required to make electric vehicle use feasible. This is a leadership opportunity that Georgia can grab and run with. We can take the lessons we learn locally and turn them into a national example while making our state into a incubator for new companies in this field.
What would be the focus of this effort? One of the early assumptions about electric cars is that people would recharge the batteries overnight while their car is parked in their garage, paying for this electricity on their normal monthly utility bill. There’s just one problem with that scenario: A lot of people don’t or can’t park the car in their garage.
For many people, it might make more sense to charge cars up in a more central location, such as an employer’s or a MARTA station’s parking lot.
But this, too, raises questions: Who gets financially charged for that electricity? What if you travel outside your utility company’s service region — how do you pay for that electricity you use? And how do all those cars recharge their batteries during the day in what is already a peak usage period for electricity, especially if they are geographically concentrated at work or transit stations?
The answers to these questions all start with getting increased intelligence and information flowing side by side with the electrons.
So what makes our state well-suited to address the electrical grid and charging infrastructure challenges?
First, our local business community is already organizing around the issue with dozens of partners participating in the Technology Association of Georgia’s (TAG) Smart Grid Society. Leveraging Georgia Tech and its world class research and engineering expertise is critical to addressing this challenge.
Georgia is home to more than 230 automotive-related manufacturing companies, so we clearly have a concentration of partners locally. All this will be complemented by Georgia’s 42 electric membership cooperatives and providers like Cobb Energy and Southern Company.
Also, Georgia Power has already begun work with auto manufacturers to research the impact of electric vehicles on the grid, and is helping to develop industry standards for electric vehicles.
The U.S. government has already committed billions of economic stimulus money to support electric transportation roll-outs across the country.
Georgia has won some of this funding to electrify at least 85 parking spaces at three or more different truck stops. With the right, focused effort around charging infrastructure, Georgia could possibly attract even more stimulus funding.
Making sure Georgia is in on the ground level for this new part of the green ecosystem will be central to accelerating economic development, creating new high-paying jobs and entrepreneurial innovation locally.
With our leaders seeking new paths to growth sectors, I’d submit that Georgia has an opportunity staring us right in the face.
By 2015, analysts are predicting nearly 1 million electric vehicles will be on the nation’s roads.
Our state is offering a number of incentives to fuel this growth with the standing $5,000 tax credit for purchasing vehicles and tax credits for the building of charging stations. In Atlanta, the Metro Atlanta EV Readiness Task Force was organized to help plan a charging infrastructure in the city.
It’s an exciting vision, really — a whole new generation of clean, energy-efficient plug-in electric vehicles capable of running for long periods from a single charge at home overnight.
Then when parked at the office, school or curbside, they could instantly and easily plug in for a recharge or someday even provide excess power to the electrical grid. This vision is bringing into focus a major obstacle to the development, deployment and adoption of electric vehicles on a large scale.
The fact is the electrical utility grid, as it exists today, simply can’t support large numbers of vehicles. In general, our electrical grid system doesn’t even know when a consumer has lost power until they phone the utility to tell someone.
There are a number of innovation hubs across the country focused on the drive trains, batteries and other features to improve the performance of these cars. What is missing is a focused effort targeting the “charging infrastructure” required to make electric vehicle use feasible. This is a leadership opportunity that Georgia can grab and run with. We can take the lessons we learn locally and turn them into a national example while making our state into a incubator for new companies in this field.
What would be the focus of this effort? One of the early assumptions about electric cars is that people would recharge the batteries overnight while their car is parked in their garage, paying for this electricity on their normal monthly utility bill. There’s just one problem with that scenario: A lot of people don’t or can’t park the car in their garage.
For many people, it might make more sense to charge cars up in a more central location, such as an employer’s or a MARTA station’s parking lot.
But this, too, raises questions: Who gets financially charged for that electricity? What if you travel outside your utility company’s service region — how do you pay for that electricity you use? And how do all those cars recharge their batteries during the day in what is already a peak usage period for electricity, especially if they are geographically concentrated at work or transit stations?
The answers to these questions all start with getting increased intelligence and information flowing side by side with the electrons.
So what makes our state well-suited to address the electrical grid and charging infrastructure challenges?
First, our local business community is already organizing around the issue with dozens of partners participating in the Technology Association of Georgia’s (TAG) Smart Grid Society. Leveraging Georgia Tech and its world class research and engineering expertise is critical to addressing this challenge.
Georgia is home to more than 230 automotive-related manufacturing companies, so we clearly have a concentration of partners locally. All this will be complemented by Georgia’s 42 electric membership cooperatives and providers like Cobb Energy and Southern Company.
Also, Georgia Power has already begun work with auto manufacturers to research the impact of electric vehicles on the grid, and is helping to develop industry standards for electric vehicles.
The U.S. government has already committed billions of economic stimulus money to support electric transportation roll-outs across the country.
Georgia has won some of this funding to electrify at least 85 parking spaces at three or more different truck stops. With the right, focused effort around charging infrastructure, Georgia could possibly attract even more stimulus funding.
Making sure Georgia is in on the ground level for this new part of the green ecosystem will be central to accelerating economic development, creating new high-paying jobs and entrepreneurial innovation locally.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
GA Power Customers To See 10% Rate Hike
From AJC:
Georgia Power rates will go up $844 million over the next three years, according to a deal reached Friday.
Signed by the company, the litigating staff of the state Public Service Commission and a group of large retailers, the deal would push up the typical residential customer's bill by an average of $15 per month by 2013.
The bulk of that, or $10.86 per month, would take effect Jan. 1.
The five-member PSC still has to approve the settlement, and will vote on it Dec. 21.
With both the commission staff and an unusually united group of major retailers on board, the settlement deal is almost certain to pass.
“We feel this agreement will allow us to continue to provide reliable service while meeting environmental requirements and keeping rates below the national average," said company spokesman Jeff Wilson, in an e-mailed statement.
The company agreed to an 11.15 percent return on equity, which is less than both the 11.95 percent return it requested in July and the 11.25 percent return it earns now.
The deal does not include two utility-proposed changes in the way the company would raise its charges in the future.
Georgia Power had asked for a more automatic way of raising rates, which would have allowed it to adjust its charges up annually if it wasn't making its allowed returns. The proposal was part of what united retailers against the rate hike request.
The company also wanted the PSC to allow it to begin charging customers for new power plants and other investments without having a formal rate case.
Neither proposal made it into the settlement deal. But the staff and retailers did agree to a provision allowing Georgia Power to raise rates inside of the settlement's three-year life, if its returns fall too low.
Any such increase would be temporary and would expire in 2014.
A final round of hearings in the case will still go forward on Dec.1, three weeks before the commission's vote.
Several parties who had participated in the case aren't named on the settlement, including the Georgia Industrial Group, the consumer group Georgia Watch, and senior advocacy organization AARP.
None could be reached for comment after Georgia Power released the settlement news Friday evening.
In a statement, the company said business customers will see an increase of about 7 percent to 8.7 percent in their bills, while residential rates would rise 10 percent.
Georgia Power had originally asked for more than $1.1 billion in new revenue, along with the proposed overhaul of the rate-making process.
The company said it needed the money to recoup its investments in power transmission and distribution systems, a new natural gas power plant near Smyrna and for environmental controls required by state and federal law.
Georgia Power said it has invested almost $5 billion since its last rate request was approved three years ago.
The company's retail rates were about 7 percent below the Southeast average and 14 percent below the national average, according to the latest available numbers from the federal Energy Information Administration in December 2009.
Georgia Power rates will go up $844 million over the next three years, according to a deal reached Friday.
Signed by the company, the litigating staff of the state Public Service Commission and a group of large retailers, the deal would push up the typical residential customer's bill by an average of $15 per month by 2013.
The bulk of that, or $10.86 per month, would take effect Jan. 1.
The five-member PSC still has to approve the settlement, and will vote on it Dec. 21.
With both the commission staff and an unusually united group of major retailers on board, the settlement deal is almost certain to pass.
“We feel this agreement will allow us to continue to provide reliable service while meeting environmental requirements and keeping rates below the national average," said company spokesman Jeff Wilson, in an e-mailed statement.
The company agreed to an 11.15 percent return on equity, which is less than both the 11.95 percent return it requested in July and the 11.25 percent return it earns now.
The deal does not include two utility-proposed changes in the way the company would raise its charges in the future.
Georgia Power had asked for a more automatic way of raising rates, which would have allowed it to adjust its charges up annually if it wasn't making its allowed returns. The proposal was part of what united retailers against the rate hike request.
The company also wanted the PSC to allow it to begin charging customers for new power plants and other investments without having a formal rate case.
Neither proposal made it into the settlement deal. But the staff and retailers did agree to a provision allowing Georgia Power to raise rates inside of the settlement's three-year life, if its returns fall too low.
Any such increase would be temporary and would expire in 2014.
A final round of hearings in the case will still go forward on Dec.1, three weeks before the commission's vote.
Several parties who had participated in the case aren't named on the settlement, including the Georgia Industrial Group, the consumer group Georgia Watch, and senior advocacy organization AARP.
None could be reached for comment after Georgia Power released the settlement news Friday evening.
In a statement, the company said business customers will see an increase of about 7 percent to 8.7 percent in their bills, while residential rates would rise 10 percent.
Georgia Power had originally asked for more than $1.1 billion in new revenue, along with the proposed overhaul of the rate-making process.
The company said it needed the money to recoup its investments in power transmission and distribution systems, a new natural gas power plant near Smyrna and for environmental controls required by state and federal law.
Georgia Power said it has invested almost $5 billion since its last rate request was approved three years ago.
The company's retail rates were about 7 percent below the Southeast average and 14 percent below the national average, according to the latest available numbers from the federal Energy Information Administration in December 2009.
Cool Roof $1,500 Dollar Tax Credit Scam
Do you have a cool roof such as PVC or TPO white flat roof, or metal roof not rated as “cool” by Energy Star?
Tough luck – you will not be getting that $1500 promised to you by the Economic Recovery Act, and here is why:
The energy-efficiency tax credit, so widely advertised by the government and roof manufacturers, turned out to be a scam for those homeowners who installed a truly “COOL ROOF” such as a white PVC or TPO roof, White Roof Coating, or even a Spray-Foam Roofing system. It reminds me a Bush-like patronage of the Big-Oil in terms of support which this Energy Efficiency Tax Credit Bill provides for Asphalt Shingles manufacturers, while cool roofing manufacturers and roof owners get screwed.
In the end, the tax credit applies only to Metal Roofing systems (which are cool as it is, even when you do not consider a cool-roof paint, such as Kynar 500 or Hylar 5000, and similar metal roof coatings), and – you got it – “cool” asphalt shingles, as well as other bitumen-based roofing systems which are considered “cool” by Energy Star and EPA.
Really – asphalt shingles??? Asphalt shingles would be the least energy efficient roofing system for sloped roofs. They store solar heat, and transfer it into your house even after sun goes down. An average color (not black) asphalt shingle roof goes up-to 165-170 F degrees on a 95 F degree day, and remains hot almost into the next morning.
The asphalt shingles manufacturers such as GAF, Tamko, Certain Teed and others, created a gimmick in form of Cool Roof shingles. OK – these shingles are lighter in color, and the granular surface is coated with reflective materials, but they still will be much hotter than any metal roof without Cool Roof paint / coating. And the cost a lot more than regular shingles – over $2500 extra on an average 20 squares new asphalt shingles roof. The roof prices for such “cool asphalt roofs” are very close to a metal roof such as Interlocking Steel shingles, and assuming a life span of average asphalt roof to be about 15-20 years, vs. Metal Roof life of over 50 years, it looks like a very bad deal for the homeowner. Keep in mind that both a Metal Roof and a cool asphalt shingles roof would qualify for the cool roof tax credit of up-to $1500.
Owners of true Cool Roofs are getting screwed to benefit the oil industry.
The most ironic fact in this story, is that this so called “energy efficiency tax credit” supports big roofing manufacturers, who use petroleum-based products to produce these supposedly cool roofs. And these “cool asphalt roofs” will end up in a landfill in 15-20 years, making our nation “even greener” than it already is. This reminds me of G.W. Bush era, when US was getting greener, but somehow big oil was getting more and more support form the government, while green energy and green building companies were struggling and there were minimal subsidies (if any) for any green or solar projects.
While the uncool asphalt shingles roofs do qualify for energy tax credit, the truly cool roofs are out of luck. Consider these facts:
A white PVC (and TPO) roofing membrane such as IB Flat Roof, reflects over 95% of solar heat. On a 95 F degree day, this white PVC roof will barely reach 100 F degrees. You can put your bare knees on this roof and it won’t burn your skin. Try doing that on a black surface roof such as rubber roof. You will jump up almost immediately, as your skin will start to “burn” when in contact with a 170 F degrees surface. Try to be in a room under such black rubber roof. Unless you crank your AC to maximum power, you will be sweating as if you were in a sauna.
There are some Metal Roofs, which do not have a cool roof coating, or are made from unpainted metals – so called mill finish metal roof. These metal roofs are still very energy efficient, even though they do not have a “Cool Roof” label.These roofs will be in fact much cooler that the “coolest” asphalt shingle roofs, or a cool modified bitumen roof, but its not cool enough to get you $1500 tax credit.
If you have a black roof (e.g. a rubber roof, tar roof or bitumen roof), and decided to either be “green”, or reduce your HVAC operation costs, or both, and hired a roofing contractor specializing in spray-roof coatings to install this liquid-applied white roof. Well, you too are out of luck…
So it does not matter if you have an “actually cool” roofing type on the roof of your home or business – you will not be getting your Energy Efficiency Tax Credit if you have any of the above mentioned roofing material types. Keep in mind that Energy Star actually recognizes white (and some other colors) PVC and TPO Roofing systems, as well as spray-roof coatings as Cool Roofs. They just did not include these roofing materials into the Cool Roof Tax Credit program.
It is unfortunate and a shame that real cool roofs and homeowners who invest in these premium priced roofing systems, get screwed, while an imitation products like cool asphalt shingles qualify for this $1500 tax credit.
*From: http://www.roofingcalculator.org/cool-roof-tax-credit-scam.php
Tough luck – you will not be getting that $1500 promised to you by the Economic Recovery Act, and here is why:
The energy-efficiency tax credit, so widely advertised by the government and roof manufacturers, turned out to be a scam for those homeowners who installed a truly “COOL ROOF” such as a white PVC or TPO roof, White Roof Coating, or even a Spray-Foam Roofing system. It reminds me a Bush-like patronage of the Big-Oil in terms of support which this Energy Efficiency Tax Credit Bill provides for Asphalt Shingles manufacturers, while cool roofing manufacturers and roof owners get screwed.
In the end, the tax credit applies only to Metal Roofing systems (which are cool as it is, even when you do not consider a cool-roof paint, such as Kynar 500 or Hylar 5000, and similar metal roof coatings), and – you got it – “cool” asphalt shingles, as well as other bitumen-based roofing systems which are considered “cool” by Energy Star and EPA.
Really – asphalt shingles??? Asphalt shingles would be the least energy efficient roofing system for sloped roofs. They store solar heat, and transfer it into your house even after sun goes down. An average color (not black) asphalt shingle roof goes up-to 165-170 F degrees on a 95 F degree day, and remains hot almost into the next morning.
The asphalt shingles manufacturers such as GAF, Tamko, Certain Teed and others, created a gimmick in form of Cool Roof shingles. OK – these shingles are lighter in color, and the granular surface is coated with reflective materials, but they still will be much hotter than any metal roof without Cool Roof paint / coating. And the cost a lot more than regular shingles – over $2500 extra on an average 20 squares new asphalt shingles roof. The roof prices for such “cool asphalt roofs” are very close to a metal roof such as Interlocking Steel shingles, and assuming a life span of average asphalt roof to be about 15-20 years, vs. Metal Roof life of over 50 years, it looks like a very bad deal for the homeowner. Keep in mind that both a Metal Roof and a cool asphalt shingles roof would qualify for the cool roof tax credit of up-to $1500.
Owners of true Cool Roofs are getting screwed to benefit the oil industry.
The most ironic fact in this story, is that this so called “energy efficiency tax credit” supports big roofing manufacturers, who use petroleum-based products to produce these supposedly cool roofs. And these “cool asphalt roofs” will end up in a landfill in 15-20 years, making our nation “even greener” than it already is. This reminds me of G.W. Bush era, when US was getting greener, but somehow big oil was getting more and more support form the government, while green energy and green building companies were struggling and there were minimal subsidies (if any) for any green or solar projects.
While the uncool asphalt shingles roofs do qualify for energy tax credit, the truly cool roofs are out of luck. Consider these facts:
A white PVC (and TPO) roofing membrane such as IB Flat Roof, reflects over 95% of solar heat. On a 95 F degree day, this white PVC roof will barely reach 100 F degrees. You can put your bare knees on this roof and it won’t burn your skin. Try doing that on a black surface roof such as rubber roof. You will jump up almost immediately, as your skin will start to “burn” when in contact with a 170 F degrees surface. Try to be in a room under such black rubber roof. Unless you crank your AC to maximum power, you will be sweating as if you were in a sauna.
There are some Metal Roofs, which do not have a cool roof coating, or are made from unpainted metals – so called mill finish metal roof. These metal roofs are still very energy efficient, even though they do not have a “Cool Roof” label.These roofs will be in fact much cooler that the “coolest” asphalt shingle roofs, or a cool modified bitumen roof, but its not cool enough to get you $1500 tax credit.
If you have a black roof (e.g. a rubber roof, tar roof or bitumen roof), and decided to either be “green”, or reduce your HVAC operation costs, or both, and hired a roofing contractor specializing in spray-roof coatings to install this liquid-applied white roof. Well, you too are out of luck…
So it does not matter if you have an “actually cool” roofing type on the roof of your home or business – you will not be getting your Energy Efficiency Tax Credit if you have any of the above mentioned roofing material types. Keep in mind that Energy Star actually recognizes white (and some other colors) PVC and TPO Roofing systems, as well as spray-roof coatings as Cool Roofs. They just did not include these roofing materials into the Cool Roof Tax Credit program.
It is unfortunate and a shame that real cool roofs and homeowners who invest in these premium priced roofing systems, get screwed, while an imitation products like cool asphalt shingles qualify for this $1500 tax credit.
*From: http://www.roofingcalculator.org/cool-roof-tax-credit-scam.php
Friday, November 19, 2010
Solar Delivers More Than Electricity - Renewables As A Branding Tool
Source: Treehugger
As I write this post, I'm waiting for my annual car inspection. I'm staring at a flat-screen monitor that communicates just how much power is being channeled down from the 16.4kw PV array on the roof to help power the inspection. It's just one more example of why asking when solar will reach grid parity is at least partially missing the point. Done right, for businesses at least, solar and other renewables are a great way to differentiate yourself too.
In as competitive and cost conscious a marketplace as car maintenance and repair, anything you can do to differentiate yourself is a smart move. That's why the solar installation at Chapel Hill Tires Company is a particularly wise strategic manouver. By stepping up and putting its green money where its mouth is, the company has gotten countless column inches in the local press, it has cemented itself with its loyal following (in an admittedly fairly green-minded town), and it has given itself an opportunity to talk about something more than tires, oil changes, or the price of its services. That last point is crucial, because unless you can show how you are different from the other guys in terms of the services you provide and/or the values you stand for, then all you have to compete on is price—and that's a one-way road to diminishing profit margins.
Don't get me wrong. As my colleague Jerry Stifelman wrote in his piece on why being green is not enough, all the solar panels in the world wouldn't make a difference if the company was known for shoddy work or poor service. But once it has established itself as a trusted, reliable partner for the community, the fact that it has also made a bold, substantial statement about its environmental values is not just a good thing to do, it's a savvy business move that cannot be measured with simple metrics about the energy being saved.
Crucially, the solar installation is not an isolated step, but part of a bolder range of offerings. From providing synthetic recycled motor oil that uses 85% less energy to manufacture, through purchasing carbon offsets on customers' behalfs, to training its staff in hybrid vehicle maintenance, this is a company that understands its market and is approaching sustainable business from an integrated, ambitious, yet business-savvy perspective.
Who says solar is too expensive?
As I write this post, I'm waiting for my annual car inspection. I'm staring at a flat-screen monitor that communicates just how much power is being channeled down from the 16.4kw PV array on the roof to help power the inspection. It's just one more example of why asking when solar will reach grid parity is at least partially missing the point. Done right, for businesses at least, solar and other renewables are a great way to differentiate yourself too.
In as competitive and cost conscious a marketplace as car maintenance and repair, anything you can do to differentiate yourself is a smart move. That's why the solar installation at Chapel Hill Tires Company is a particularly wise strategic manouver. By stepping up and putting its green money where its mouth is, the company has gotten countless column inches in the local press, it has cemented itself with its loyal following (in an admittedly fairly green-minded town), and it has given itself an opportunity to talk about something more than tires, oil changes, or the price of its services. That last point is crucial, because unless you can show how you are different from the other guys in terms of the services you provide and/or the values you stand for, then all you have to compete on is price—and that's a one-way road to diminishing profit margins.
Don't get me wrong. As my colleague Jerry Stifelman wrote in his piece on why being green is not enough, all the solar panels in the world wouldn't make a difference if the company was known for shoddy work or poor service. But once it has established itself as a trusted, reliable partner for the community, the fact that it has also made a bold, substantial statement about its environmental values is not just a good thing to do, it's a savvy business move that cannot be measured with simple metrics about the energy being saved.
Crucially, the solar installation is not an isolated step, but part of a bolder range of offerings. From providing synthetic recycled motor oil that uses 85% less energy to manufacture, through purchasing carbon offsets on customers' behalfs, to training its staff in hybrid vehicle maintenance, this is a company that understands its market and is approaching sustainable business from an integrated, ambitious, yet business-savvy perspective.
Who says solar is too expensive?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Age, Type Of Roof Affects Economics Of Going Solar
From 1BOG
The Condition and Age of Your Roof
Solar panels covering your roof will certainly reduce some of the weatherization wear on the portion being covered by your roof. However, solar panels are not a replacement for a new roof, unless they’re solar powered roofing tiles (photovoltaic shingles), known as “BIPV” or Building Integrated Photo Voltaic tiles.
It’s therefore important to know the warranty on your roof and how many years are left on the life of your roof. If you’re close to the end of your warranty and have had a lot of leaks in the past few years, you should probably replace your roof before going solar. Yes, this will cost you more money, but it will cost you even more in labor costs to remove the solar panels in order to replace or make repairs on your roof after the solar is installed.
If you think you’re about five or more years away from a roof replacement, it usually makes sense to go solar first.
Luckily, we are Energy Roofing Systems are 1 step ahead of the game. We've got your metal roof needs covered as well as your solar panel needs. Please visit our website.
The Condition and Age of Your Roof
Solar panels covering your roof will certainly reduce some of the weatherization wear on the portion being covered by your roof. However, solar panels are not a replacement for a new roof, unless they’re solar powered roofing tiles (photovoltaic shingles), known as “BIPV” or Building Integrated Photo Voltaic tiles.
It’s therefore important to know the warranty on your roof and how many years are left on the life of your roof. If you’re close to the end of your warranty and have had a lot of leaks in the past few years, you should probably replace your roof before going solar. Yes, this will cost you more money, but it will cost you even more in labor costs to remove the solar panels in order to replace or make repairs on your roof after the solar is installed.
If you think you’re about five or more years away from a roof replacement, it usually makes sense to go solar first.
Luckily, we are Energy Roofing Systems are 1 step ahead of the game. We've got your metal roof needs covered as well as your solar panel needs. Please visit our website.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEMs)
From RESNET
There is an emerging market force towards energy efficient homes. From Florida to Alaska mortgage lenders are increasingly using energy mortgages to make homes more affordable and poising their companies to capture this new market trend.
What is an Energy Mortgage?
An energy mortgage is a mortgage that credits a home's energy efficiency in the home loan. For an energy efficient home, for example, it could mean giving the home buyer the ability to buy a higher quality home because of the lower monthly costs of heating and cooling the home. For homes in which the energy efficiency can be improved, this concept allows the money saved in monthly utility bills to finance energy improvements.
There are Two Types of Energy Mortgages:
- Energy Improvement Mortgage - Finances the energy upgrades of an existing home in the mortgage loan using monthly energy savings.
- Energy Efficient Mortgage - Uses the energy savings from a new energy efficient home to increase the home buying power of consumers and capitalizes the energy savings in the appraisal.
Increases Purchasing Power
The ability to leverage a home buyer's investment in energy efficiency increases the number of qualified home buyers and increases the purchasing power of the consumer. A recent analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that energy efficient mortgages can have a dramatic impact on increasing the opportunities for home ownership. The analysis found that an average of 6.8% more families would be able to qualify for a mortgage through an energy efficient mortgage.
Increases Market Value of Homes
Another study published in the Appraisal Journal documented that the market value of a home increases $20 for every $1 decrease in the annual energy costs. According to a recent analysis by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory building a home to exceed the Model Energy Code would result in an annual savings of $170 to $425. Applying these findings to the analysis published in the Appraisal Journal would equate to an increased home market value of between $4,250 to $10,625.
Energy Efficient Mortgage Guidelines
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA and VA have adopted special underwriting guidelines to make financing energy efficiency less burdensome. The energy mortgage guidelines for each secondary mortgage market can be accessed below: | FHA Energy Mortgage Program |
 | Veterans Administration Energy Mortgage Program |
 | Freddie Mac Support for Energy Conservation |
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Polyester Films Manufacturer Expands Covington Production Facility
SKC, Inc. to create 120 jobs, invest $100 million | 11/5/2010
STATE OF GEORGIA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
ATLANTA, November 5, 2010—Governor Sonny Perdue announced today that SKC, Inc., a Georgia-based manufacturer of polyester films, will open a new production facility in Covington in Newton County. This new project is expected to create 120 new jobs, and represents a $100 million investment. The new facility will be located on SKC’s existing Covington campus, which also houses SKC’s U.S. corporate headquarters, polyester film production facilities and a new chemical systems house that opened in May 2010.
“Since opening its headquarters here in Georgia in 1999, SKC, Inc. has been a valued member of the manufacturing community in our state,” said Governor Perdue. “I am excited to see SKC expand the scope of its business in Georgia, and continue to create jobs that positively impact our state’s economy.”
The new 200,000-square-foot manufacturing facility will produce plastic film components for the budding U.S. solar panel industry as well as other products, and is expected to be built in two phases.
SKC opened its state-of-the-art headquarters and manufacturing facility in Covington in May 1999, and currently manufactures a variety of Skyrol® brand polyester films on three production lines. The company’s Newton County operation ranks as the most productive and advanced plant in the polyester films manufacturing sector.
“Covington/Newton County is fortunate to have such a strong community partner in SKC. We have worked closely with them since their opening in 1999,” said Hunter Hall, president of the Covington/Newton County Chamber of Commerce. “We’ve enjoyed watching their growth and are pleased beyond words that they have chosen to locate their solar venture in Covington/Newton County. We look forward to a long and prosperous future with SKC as our partners.”
The company expects to begin hiring for the jobs created through the SKC expansion in April 2011.
About SKC, Inc.
SKC, Inc. is a subsidiary of SK group the world’s leading manufacturer of specialty & PET film sold under Skyrol ®, Skywel® Skynex®, and SKC PI® film brand based in Korea. The SK group conglomerate operates in the energy, petrochemicals, fibers, films, telecommunications, life sciences, consumer products, trading and finance sectors.
SKC, Inc. produces a wide range of films used in packaging, industrial, imaging, electrical, bio-compostable and solar applications. SKC, Inc. is based in the U.S., near Atlanta, Georgia and their state-of-the-art facility is situated on 389 acres.
Local Solar Company Joins Pres. Obama, India For Solar Talks
From: Solar Energy News
NORCROSS, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Suniva, Inc., a U.S. manufacturer of high-efficiency monocrystalline silicon solar cells and modules, today announced that it was a participant in the U.S. – India Innovation Roundtable led by President Obama. The roundtable, held in Mumbai, was part of the President’s first official visit to India. Suniva was the only solar company invited to participate in the roundtable discussion.
Supporting the Obama administration’s key goal of boosting U.S. exports, the roundtable discussion focused on growing trade and investment between the U.S. and India. Suniva’s chief marketing officer Bryan Ashley was one of seven business representatives, four from India and three from the U.S., to participate in the roundtable discussion with the President. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak and U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer were also in attendance at the panel session.
“It’s an honor to be recognized as one of the premier examples of collaboration between India and U.S. business, as well as to have the opportunity to discuss with the President recommendations for continuing to develop business relationships with India,” said Bryan Ashley, chief marketing officer for Suniva. “Exports are key to the growth of the U.S. economy. Strengthening the economic and innovation bonds with India will result in greater export opportunities for businesses, which in turn will create new jobs in both countries.”
In a speech at the US-India Business Council summit after the panel, President Obama heralded Suniva as an example of U.S. businesses that are deepening trade relations through its work with Indian customers. Suniva’s high-efficiency solar cells and modules have been used in some of the most pioneering projects in India. The company recently announced that its solar cells power a 3 MW solar farm in Karnataka, one of the largest grid-connected solar fields in India. Suniva solar cells are also used in the first 1 MW rooftop solar array in India, built on the roof of the new Thyagaraj Stadium in New Delhi. In addition, multi-megawatts of cellular phone towers in India are now Powered by Suniva™ and leading Indian solar module manufacturers use Suniva’s high efficiency cells to make their panels more efficient and competitive in other world markets, including Europe, Asia, and the U.S.
NORCROSS, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Suniva, Inc., a U.S. manufacturer of high-efficiency monocrystalline silicon solar cells and modules, today announced that it was a participant in the U.S. – India Innovation Roundtable led by President Obama. The roundtable, held in Mumbai, was part of the President’s first official visit to India. Suniva was the only solar company invited to participate in the roundtable discussion.
Supporting the Obama administration’s key goal of boosting U.S. exports, the roundtable discussion focused on growing trade and investment between the U.S. and India. Suniva’s chief marketing officer Bryan Ashley was one of seven business representatives, four from India and three from the U.S., to participate in the roundtable discussion with the President. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak and U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer were also in attendance at the panel session.
“It’s an honor to be recognized as one of the premier examples of collaboration between India and U.S. business, as well as to have the opportunity to discuss with the President recommendations for continuing to develop business relationships with India,” said Bryan Ashley, chief marketing officer for Suniva. “Exports are key to the growth of the U.S. economy. Strengthening the economic and innovation bonds with India will result in greater export opportunities for businesses, which in turn will create new jobs in both countries.”
In a speech at the US-India Business Council summit after the panel, President Obama heralded Suniva as an example of U.S. businesses that are deepening trade relations through its work with Indian customers. Suniva’s high-efficiency solar cells and modules have been used in some of the most pioneering projects in India. The company recently announced that its solar cells power a 3 MW solar farm in Karnataka, one of the largest grid-connected solar fields in India. Suniva solar cells are also used in the first 1 MW rooftop solar array in India, built on the roof of the new Thyagaraj Stadium in New Delhi. In addition, multi-megawatts of cellular phone towers in India are now Powered by Suniva™ and leading Indian solar module manufacturers use Suniva’s high efficiency cells to make their panels more efficient and competitive in other world markets, including Europe, Asia, and the U.S.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Local Inventor Pledges To Cut Solar Costs
From: Popular Mechanics
Solar energy technology is enjoying its day in the sun with the advent of innovations from flexible photovoltaic (PV) materials to thermal power plants that concentrate the sun's heat to drive turbines. But even the best system converts only about 30 percent of received solar energy into electricity—making solar more expensive than burning coal or oil. That will change if Lonnie Johnson's invention works. The Atlanta-based independent inventor of the Super Soaker squirt gun (a true technological milestone) says he can achieve a conversion efficiency rate that tops 60 percent with a new solid-state heat engine. It represents a breakthrough new way to turn heat into power.
Johnson, a nuclear engineer who holds more than 100 patents, calls his invention the Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion System, or JTEC for short. This is not PV technology, in which semiconducting silicon converts light into electricity. And unlike a Stirling engine, in which pistons are powered by the expansion and compression of a contained gas, there are no moving parts in the JTEC. It's sort of like a fuel cell: JTEC circulates hydrogen between two membrane-electrode assemblies (MEA). Unlike a fuel cell, however, JTEC is a closed system. No external hydrogen source. No oxygen input. No wastewater output. Other than a jolt of electricity that acts like the ignition spark in an internal-combustion engine, the only input is heat.
Here's how it works: One MEA stack is coupled to a high- temperature heat source (such as solar heat concentrated by mirrors), and the other to a low-temperature heat sink (ambient air). The low-temperature stack acts as the compressor stage while the high-temperature stack functions as the power stage. Once the cycle is started by the electrical jolt, the resulting pressure differential produces voltage across each of the MEA stacks. The higher voltage at the high-temperature stack forces the low-temperature stack to pump hydrogen from low pressure to high pressure, maintaining the pressure differential. Meanwhile hydrogen passing through the high-temperature stack generates power.
"It's like a conventional heat engine," explains Paul Werbos, program director at the National Science Foundation, which has provided funding for JTEC. "It still uses temperature differences to create pressure gradients. Only instead of using those pressure gradients to move an axle or wheel, he's using them to force ions through a membrane. It's a totally new way of generating electricity from heat."
The bigger the temperature differential, the higher the efficiency. With the help of Heshmat Aglan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Alabama's Tuskegee University, Johnson hopes to have a low-temperature prototype (200-degree centigrade) completed within a year's time. The pair is experimenting with high-temperature membranes made of a novel ceramic material of micron-scale thickness. Johnson envisions a first-generation system capable of handling temperatures up to 600 degrees. (Currently, solar concentration using parabolic mirrors tops 800 degrees centigrade.) Based on the theoretical Carnot thermodynamic cycle, at 600 degrees efficiency rates approach 60 percent, twice those of today's solar Stirling engines.
This engine, Johnson says, can operate on tiny scales, or generate megawatts of power. If it proves feasible, drastically reducing the cost of solar power would only be a start. JTEC could potentially harvest waste heat from internal combustion engines and combustion turbines, perhaps even the human body. And no moving parts means no friction and fewer mechanical failures.
As an engineer, Johnson says he has always been interested in energy conversion. In fact, it was while working on an idea for an environmentally friendly heat pump (one that would not require Freon) that he came up with the Super Soaker, which earned him millions of dollars in royalties. That money allowed Johnson to quit NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (where he worked on the Galileo Mission, among other projects) and go independent. His toy profits have funded his research in advanced battery technology, specifically thin-film lithium-ion conductive membranes. And that work sparked the idea for JTEC. Besides, he jokes, "All inventors have to have an engine. It's like a rite of passage."
Solar energy technology is enjoying its day in the sun with the advent of innovations from flexible photovoltaic (PV) materials to thermal power plants that concentrate the sun's heat to drive turbines. But even the best system converts only about 30 percent of received solar energy into electricity—making solar more expensive than burning coal or oil. That will change if Lonnie Johnson's invention works. The Atlanta-based independent inventor of the Super Soaker squirt gun (a true technological milestone) says he can achieve a conversion efficiency rate that tops 60 percent with a new solid-state heat engine. It represents a breakthrough new way to turn heat into power.
Johnson, a nuclear engineer who holds more than 100 patents, calls his invention the Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion System, or JTEC for short. This is not PV technology, in which semiconducting silicon converts light into electricity. And unlike a Stirling engine, in which pistons are powered by the expansion and compression of a contained gas, there are no moving parts in the JTEC. It's sort of like a fuel cell: JTEC circulates hydrogen between two membrane-electrode assemblies (MEA). Unlike a fuel cell, however, JTEC is a closed system. No external hydrogen source. No oxygen input. No wastewater output. Other than a jolt of electricity that acts like the ignition spark in an internal-combustion engine, the only input is heat.
Here's how it works: One MEA stack is coupled to a high- temperature heat source (such as solar heat concentrated by mirrors), and the other to a low-temperature heat sink (ambient air). The low-temperature stack acts as the compressor stage while the high-temperature stack functions as the power stage. Once the cycle is started by the electrical jolt, the resulting pressure differential produces voltage across each of the MEA stacks. The higher voltage at the high-temperature stack forces the low-temperature stack to pump hydrogen from low pressure to high pressure, maintaining the pressure differential. Meanwhile hydrogen passing through the high-temperature stack generates power.
"It's like a conventional heat engine," explains Paul Werbos, program director at the National Science Foundation, which has provided funding for JTEC. "It still uses temperature differences to create pressure gradients. Only instead of using those pressure gradients to move an axle or wheel, he's using them to force ions through a membrane. It's a totally new way of generating electricity from heat."
The bigger the temperature differential, the higher the efficiency. With the help of Heshmat Aglan, a professor of mechanical engineering at Alabama's Tuskegee University, Johnson hopes to have a low-temperature prototype (200-degree centigrade) completed within a year's time. The pair is experimenting with high-temperature membranes made of a novel ceramic material of micron-scale thickness. Johnson envisions a first-generation system capable of handling temperatures up to 600 degrees. (Currently, solar concentration using parabolic mirrors tops 800 degrees centigrade.) Based on the theoretical Carnot thermodynamic cycle, at 600 degrees efficiency rates approach 60 percent, twice those of today's solar Stirling engines.
This engine, Johnson says, can operate on tiny scales, or generate megawatts of power. If it proves feasible, drastically reducing the cost of solar power would only be a start. JTEC could potentially harvest waste heat from internal combustion engines and combustion turbines, perhaps even the human body. And no moving parts means no friction and fewer mechanical failures.
As an engineer, Johnson says he has always been interested in energy conversion. In fact, it was while working on an idea for an environmentally friendly heat pump (one that would not require Freon) that he came up with the Super Soaker, which earned him millions of dollars in royalties. That money allowed Johnson to quit NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (where he worked on the Galileo Mission, among other projects) and go independent. His toy profits have funded his research in advanced battery technology, specifically thin-film lithium-ion conductive membranes. And that work sparked the idea for JTEC. Besides, he jokes, "All inventors have to have an engine. It's like a rite of passage."
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Sandy Springs Church Goes Solar
Source: AtlProgressiveNews
SANDY SPRINGS -- The Northwest Unitarian Universalist Congregation (NWUUC) in Sandy Springs recently held an open house on Sunday, October 10, 2010, for Metro Atlanta residents to come and learn about how the church is transitioning to one hundred percent solar power and is reducing its carbon footprint.
In January 2009, the church installed 20 solar panels on the south roof of its sanctuary, in its effort to completely remove itself from the coal power grid. According to Georgia Interfaith Power and Light (GIPL), the congregation is the first in Georgia to have installed solar panels on its roof.
The Sandy Springs UUC is part of an international grassroots campaign, www.350.org, to mobilize a worldwide social movement to create clean, renewable, and moral solutions to the global warming crisis.
One of the main barriers to switching more buildings to solar power is the cost of obtaining and installing solar panels, the up-front costs of which are prohibitive.
However, the NWUUC raised the money for the solar panels--at a cost of 1,500 dollars per panel, or 30,000 dollars total--from its own congregation. They estimate a 18 percent saving on their energy bills with the solar panels so far. They plan to eventually install 80 more solar panels which will meet most of their energy needs.
"All the money to purchase the 20 solar panels came from the congregation," David Zenner, Congregational President said. "We asked for donations of as little as one-fourth of a panel, up to a full panel. Some were only able to contribute a few hundred [dollars] while others gave as many as three full panels or 4,500 dollars."
The solar panels did lead to some controversy, when the church discovered that some old pine trees on the property were blocking the sun and needed to be cut down.
One member of the congregation for over 50 years, Hugh Fordyce, 82, threatened at one point to chain himself to one of the trees.
In order to allow enough sunshine on the new solar panels, four large pines and two hardwood trees needed to be cut down, but Fordyce was opposed.
"From my perspective, to destroy the trees in order to provide more sunlight for solar panels seemed a poor trade-off," Fordyce told Atlanta Progressive News. "The trees provide cooling; they take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen."
Fordyce left the congregation for three months but then returned. "One of our Unitarian principles emphasizes the need to live in harmony with the Earth. I felt as though we would be destroying something sacred by cutting down the trees."
"One of the other principles of my Unitarian Universalist faith is to respect the worth and dignity of every person. I guess that means that I should love them, even though I think they may be short-sighted," he said, adding that he had not changed his mind about the trees.
Although the trees were cut down, the congregation made a donation to an arborists organization in Sandy Springs to plant more, new trees elsewhere.
Meanwhile, NWUUC received a power audit from GIPL, which helps all communities of faith save precious energy through energy efficiency and energy conservation. Since 2003, GIPL's interfaith ministry has been developing the connection between ecology and faith. Their goal is to help people of faith recognize and fulfill their responsibility for the stewardship of creation.
If everybody in the US was as aware of their energy usage as the folks at the NWUUC, the nation's carbon footprint would be much lower than the current 390 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide. Leading scientists say 350 PPM is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and is the number humanity needs to return to avoid a runaway climate change.
Fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas emit carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas causing global warming. We rely on the combustion of these fossil fuels, when we turn on the lights, cook food, heat and cool our homes, use appliances, and drive our cars.
Getting back to 350 PPM means changing the way many people live and taking on the powerful fossil fuel industry. It means building solar stations instead of coal plants, wind turbines instead of nuclear plants, planting trees instead of clear-cutting rainforests, increasing efficiency, and decreasing waste.
Some of the NWUUC's other projects include installing energy efficient compact florescent lights; placing cards above all light switches to remind people to turn off lights when leaving; replacing old appliances with energy efficient appliances; sealing air leaks on the windows; recycling paper, glass, aluminum, and plastic products; and installing rain barrels at the down spouts to water the recently planted hemlock trees on the property.
Bob Fletcher supervises selling Compact Florescent Light (CFL) bulbs to the congregation and has replaced all the 60-watt incandescent bulb at NWUCC with 13 watt CFL. Each CFL, over the expected 10,000 hour life of the bulbs, will save 470 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Bulbs with the Energy Star label have been certified for efficiency.
The typical American household generates 55,000 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, the typical German household contributes 27,000, and the average Swedish household contribution is only 15,000, according to David Gershon in his book, Low Carbon Diet.
The bigger picture to reducing carbon dioxide pollution is to shift from using fossil fuels to using renewable energy like solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass. Currently the lobbying power of the big fossil fuel corporations has significant influence over the decision making of elected officials in state legislatures and US Congress.
Again, one of the biggest obstacles for businesses and organizations to switch to solar energy is the initial cost of obtaining and installing the panels. A power purchase agreement (PPA) allows a business to obtain the panels for no up-front cost from a solar installation company which finances the panels, as previously reported by Atlanta Progressive News; but PPAs are not currently legal in the State of Georgia.
Moreover, the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act of 1973 states that individuals, organizations, and businesses with solar panels can only sell their energy to Georgia Power. This Act gives Georgia Power a monopoly over the purchase of energy.
Georgia Power has lobbied for favorable public policies at the Public Service Commission (PSC) and State Legislature. Their successful lobbying has made it difficult for the state's residents to transition to solar power. On the national level, Georgia Power's parent company, Southern Company, employed 63 lobbyists to fight the federal clean energy bill, APN previously reported.
Another obstacle to meaningful change may also be the cross-pollination between polluters and environmental organizations in Georgia.
That is, corporate polluters' financial influence extends not only to PSC and State Legislature but also to the boards of environmental groups.
The Georgia Conservancy, for example, has AGL Resources and Southern Company on their Board of Trustees.
SANDY SPRINGS -- The Northwest Unitarian Universalist Congregation (NWUUC) in Sandy Springs recently held an open house on Sunday, October 10, 2010, for Metro Atlanta residents to come and learn about how the church is transitioning to one hundred percent solar power and is reducing its carbon footprint.
In January 2009, the church installed 20 solar panels on the south roof of its sanctuary, in its effort to completely remove itself from the coal power grid. According to Georgia Interfaith Power and Light (GIPL), the congregation is the first in Georgia to have installed solar panels on its roof.
The Sandy Springs UUC is part of an international grassroots campaign, www.350.org, to mobilize a worldwide social movement to create clean, renewable, and moral solutions to the global warming crisis.
One of the main barriers to switching more buildings to solar power is the cost of obtaining and installing solar panels, the up-front costs of which are prohibitive.
However, the NWUUC raised the money for the solar panels--at a cost of 1,500 dollars per panel, or 30,000 dollars total--from its own congregation. They estimate a 18 percent saving on their energy bills with the solar panels so far. They plan to eventually install 80 more solar panels which will meet most of their energy needs.
"All the money to purchase the 20 solar panels came from the congregation," David Zenner, Congregational President said. "We asked for donations of as little as one-fourth of a panel, up to a full panel. Some were only able to contribute a few hundred [dollars] while others gave as many as three full panels or 4,500 dollars."
The solar panels did lead to some controversy, when the church discovered that some old pine trees on the property were blocking the sun and needed to be cut down.
One member of the congregation for over 50 years, Hugh Fordyce, 82, threatened at one point to chain himself to one of the trees.
In order to allow enough sunshine on the new solar panels, four large pines and two hardwood trees needed to be cut down, but Fordyce was opposed.
"From my perspective, to destroy the trees in order to provide more sunlight for solar panels seemed a poor trade-off," Fordyce told Atlanta Progressive News. "The trees provide cooling; they take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen."
Fordyce left the congregation for three months but then returned. "One of our Unitarian principles emphasizes the need to live in harmony with the Earth. I felt as though we would be destroying something sacred by cutting down the trees."
"One of the other principles of my Unitarian Universalist faith is to respect the worth and dignity of every person. I guess that means that I should love them, even though I think they may be short-sighted," he said, adding that he had not changed his mind about the trees.
Although the trees were cut down, the congregation made a donation to an arborists organization in Sandy Springs to plant more, new trees elsewhere.
Meanwhile, NWUUC received a power audit from GIPL, which helps all communities of faith save precious energy through energy efficiency and energy conservation. Since 2003, GIPL's interfaith ministry has been developing the connection between ecology and faith. Their goal is to help people of faith recognize and fulfill their responsibility for the stewardship of creation.
If everybody in the US was as aware of their energy usage as the folks at the NWUUC, the nation's carbon footprint would be much lower than the current 390 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide. Leading scientists say 350 PPM is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and is the number humanity needs to return to avoid a runaway climate change.
Fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas emit carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas causing global warming. We rely on the combustion of these fossil fuels, when we turn on the lights, cook food, heat and cool our homes, use appliances, and drive our cars.
Getting back to 350 PPM means changing the way many people live and taking on the powerful fossil fuel industry. It means building solar stations instead of coal plants, wind turbines instead of nuclear plants, planting trees instead of clear-cutting rainforests, increasing efficiency, and decreasing waste.
Some of the NWUUC's other projects include installing energy efficient compact florescent lights; placing cards above all light switches to remind people to turn off lights when leaving; replacing old appliances with energy efficient appliances; sealing air leaks on the windows; recycling paper, glass, aluminum, and plastic products; and installing rain barrels at the down spouts to water the recently planted hemlock trees on the property.
Bob Fletcher supervises selling Compact Florescent Light (CFL) bulbs to the congregation and has replaced all the 60-watt incandescent bulb at NWUCC with 13 watt CFL. Each CFL, over the expected 10,000 hour life of the bulbs, will save 470 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Bulbs with the Energy Star label have been certified for efficiency.
The typical American household generates 55,000 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, the typical German household contributes 27,000, and the average Swedish household contribution is only 15,000, according to David Gershon in his book, Low Carbon Diet.
The bigger picture to reducing carbon dioxide pollution is to shift from using fossil fuels to using renewable energy like solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass. Currently the lobbying power of the big fossil fuel corporations has significant influence over the decision making of elected officials in state legislatures and US Congress.
Again, one of the biggest obstacles for businesses and organizations to switch to solar energy is the initial cost of obtaining and installing the panels. A power purchase agreement (PPA) allows a business to obtain the panels for no up-front cost from a solar installation company which finances the panels, as previously reported by Atlanta Progressive News; but PPAs are not currently legal in the State of Georgia.
Moreover, the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act of 1973 states that individuals, organizations, and businesses with solar panels can only sell their energy to Georgia Power. This Act gives Georgia Power a monopoly over the purchase of energy.
Georgia Power has lobbied for favorable public policies at the Public Service Commission (PSC) and State Legislature. Their successful lobbying has made it difficult for the state's residents to transition to solar power. On the national level, Georgia Power's parent company, Southern Company, employed 63 lobbyists to fight the federal clean energy bill, APN previously reported.
Another obstacle to meaningful change may also be the cross-pollination between polluters and environmental organizations in Georgia.
That is, corporate polluters' financial influence extends not only to PSC and State Legislature but also to the boards of environmental groups.
The Georgia Conservancy, for example, has AGL Resources and Southern Company on their Board of Trustees.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
GA Amendment 4 Passes
According to Ballotpedia.org, GA Amendment 4 has been voted for with a 61% favorable vote.
The amendment authorizes state multiyear contracts for energy efficiency and energy conservation projects.
Taxpayers for Energy Efficiency, in support of Amendment 4, launched their media campaign in mid-September 2010. The measure is supported by a group pf clean-energy businesses and environmental advocates, according to reports. "Amendment 4 is a win-win proposal that will...create more than 11,000 jobs and make Georgia a more energy efficient state," said Jason Rooks, the group’s director and president of Clean Energy Strategies LLC.
“According to the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, the state currently spends about $225 million each year on energy and water for its building facilities,” state Rep. Penny Houston, R-Nashville, said in an op-ed.
“Although retrofitting the state facilities with modern, energy efficient technology would save millions of dollars each year, this option is not currently available because the state constitution bans multi-year contracts,” Houston added. “This amendment would allow the state to fund the retrofitting on a pay-as-you-go annual basis for up to ten years.”
The amendment authorizes state multiyear contracts for energy efficiency and energy conservation projects.
Taxpayers for Energy Efficiency, in support of Amendment 4, launched their media campaign in mid-September 2010. The measure is supported by a group pf clean-energy businesses and environmental advocates, according to reports. "Amendment 4 is a win-win proposal that will...create more than 11,000 jobs and make Georgia a more energy efficient state," said Jason Rooks, the group’s director and president of Clean Energy Strategies LLC.
“According to the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, the state currently spends about $225 million each year on energy and water for its building facilities,” state Rep. Penny Houston, R-Nashville, said in an op-ed.
“Although retrofitting the state facilities with modern, energy efficient technology would save millions of dollars each year, this option is not currently available because the state constitution bans multi-year contracts,” Houston added. “This amendment would allow the state to fund the retrofitting on a pay-as-you-go annual basis for up to ten years.”
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Lifetime Cost Of Solar
From: Grist
The point we at Energy Roofing Systems are trying to make is that it simply doesn't make sense to install solar panels on top of a shingle/asphalt roof. As this report shows, it may cost anywhere from 25-35% of the initial cost to have the system de-installed when the time comes to replace a shingle roof.
Don't throw away your hard earned money. If you are seriously considering going solar, think it through, do your research, and understand that it makes more sense in the long term to replace your roof in the short term.
The lifetime cost issue of solar -- and one that many people never consider -- is that rooftop PV systems may have to be removed and reinstalled if the roof needs replacement or repairs, which is almost a certainty with asphalt/shingle roofs. While PV systems typically lose a small portion of their potential output (less than 1 percent each year), the systems can operate for decades longer than the typical residential or commercial roof (10-12 years in Georgia). In other words, roofs are likely to be replaced atleast once during the typical life of a PV system.
Reinstalling a residential rooftop PV system could cost $6,250 or 25 percent of the installed cost of the system. In our investigation, we found that moving residential PV systems to accommodate a roof replacement could cost as much as 25 percent of the initial system cost (and over 35 percent of the net cost after the application of the 30 percent federal tax credit). Moving systems on a commercial roof was less expensive, on the order of 15 percent of initial installed cost (around 25 percent of the system cost after the tax credit).
The point we at Energy Roofing Systems are trying to make is that it simply doesn't make sense to install solar panels on top of a shingle/asphalt roof. As this report shows, it may cost anywhere from 25-35% of the initial cost to have the system de-installed when the time comes to replace a shingle roof.
Don't throw away your hard earned money. If you are seriously considering going solar, think it through, do your research, and understand that it makes more sense in the long term to replace your roof in the short term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)