T. Boone Pickens! …Respect-ah!

Did you see the T. Boone Pickens commercial after the debates? He’s got a plan, a hell of a lot of money, and a masterful Social Media PR company (judging from the email auto-responder when I signed up at his site). Now he’s dumping millions of dollars into commercials after presidential debates. Whether it’s the best plan or not, he’s got enough money and charisma to actually make something happen! I wish more wealthy people would make big leaps on things they cared about.

So I went to his site and after watching his videos I want to cheer out the window. Finally, someone with some power and money has generated a megaphone to tell everybody that we got a problem.

I remember liking Pickens when I saw an interview with him after he donated $165M to the Oklahoma State football program.  Teachers were pissed and thought he should have donated to academics. Pickens basically said, “It’s my damn money and I’ll do whatever the hell I want with it.  And I want to see my team win!” I’m paraphrasing, but I thought it was awesome because he was so real about it.  He said what he wanted and what he was going to do and he did it.

Now that he IS spending that kind of crazy money for good, I feel like it’s going to make a difference, since he was so real and simple about the big football donation, I feel like he can speak an honest and simple language that people will listen to.  I mean hell, I dare you to watch until the end of this video and not feel moved. When you get to the end when he starts talking about cooperation, you might go ahead and do so based on his earnestness alone.

Anyway, I’m not 100% sure on all this re-routing natural gas to automobiles stuff, and Dan and I are going to dig into this over a few posts.  Stay tuned.  In the meantime check out Pickens and tell us what’s on your mind.

Securing our energy independence by drilling for oil?

Republicans won’t cooperate with democrats to get any innovative energy legislation or programs passed unless they are able to drill the hell out of our coastline. Which, really when you have contemplated the graphs below is insanely stupid. Look at these for a second:

From Architecture2030.org:

The US peaked in oil production in the 1970’s.

We have since exhausted 75% of all the known oil reserves in the US, and we are now on our way to consuming the remaining 25%.

The US peaked in natural gas production in 1973, and in order to keep gas production steady in the US, we have had to drill thousands more wells every year.

The heart of the matter: We have very little remaining oil and gas reserves. Next graph:

Again from Architecture2030:

“According to the US Energy Information Administration, oil production from drilling offshore in the outer continental shelf wouldn’t begin until around the year 2017. Once begun, it wouldn’t reach peak production until about 2030 when it would produce only 200,000 barrels of oil per day (in yellow above). This would supply a meager 1.2% of total US annual oil consumption (just 0.6% of total US energy consumption). And, the offshore oil would be sold back to the US at the international rate, which today is $106 a barrel. So, the oil produced by offshore drilling would not only be a “drop in the bucket”, it would be expensive, which translates to “no relief at the pump”.

All those Republicans, John McCain included are beefing up their political slogans, “Drill, Baby, Drill!” They shout. So, really? You’re gonna block passing renewable energy legislation so your money-lined backers can have a small chunk more of a non-renewable resource to sell into our energy infrastructure? And, a woefully inexperienced woman on the ticket (a simple heartbeat from the presidency who believes Jesus was walking around with dinosaurs) wants to drill even more in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?

How lovely.

Now, what we really should be doing is taxing the hell out of gasoline like the Danes did in response to the last world oil shock.

Back in 1974, when OPEC decided it would be beneficial to place an embargo on all the countries of the world who recognized Israel, the price of oil quadrupled. The price of oil jettisoned from $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel in one year, creating huge fuel shortages. The Nixon administration even coined a campy slogan to urge more conservation: “Don’t be Fuelish”. Speed limits were reduced to 55 mph across the country. The problem was even serious enough to curb the long heralded: “24 hours of NASCAR”.

Carter drafted some groundbreaking renewable energy legislation and set goals to ensure our independence from foreign oil. Hell, he even installed solar panels on top of the White House.

But alas, Reagan, in addition to tearing down walls separating Germans from each other, also tore down Carter’s solar panels and strident goals from the White House. He ensured oil prices stabilized by exchanging weapons for more oil from countries which continue to hate us (By the way, Germany now has the most solar installed per capita in the world.)

Back to those Danish. What did they do? That’s right, they taxed the hell out of gasoline after the OPEC embargo. “That’s crazy talk!”, you might think. They used proceeds from the additional fuel surcharges to spur on innovation and development of their clean, renewable energy technology. Danish legislators were able to do this because they were not beholden to wealthy oil companies and their lobbyist’s vice grip on their capitol. That was over 25 years ago. Now, they are 100% energy self-reliant and do not need to import any oil or gas from anywhere. Denmark gets over 20% of its energy from wind. The United States, 1%. Oh, and they’re unemployment rate there? Yeah, 1.6%. They are the leading exporter of clean energy technology in the world.

Please wake up from your slumber America. I’m doing all I can do give you a big nudge.

Dan and Dave are feuding, please help.

We have differing opinions about our t-shirts.  We will not say who is for what side, though would like to pose this question to the public as we cannot come to any resolution.

Parameters:  

• 150 shirts will be distributed to avid readers of our site as part of a challange.  They are plain white shirts with printing on one side ONLY (front).

Questions:  

Which of these two options for the front of the shirt will:1) generate more conversation?2) be worn more in public?3) ultimately be responsible for more traffic on our website?

Please comment below the post, and include any applicable expertise (for example, if you design t-shirts or are an online marketing executive, that information would be helpful)   

  

Update 9/20/08:Thank you for all of your comments! We decided to compromise with this option:

While there are still words below the logo, they aren’t as “in your face”. We were surprised we differed so much in opinion about this. At times we were bantering like husband and wife.Dan favored going without the website words because he thought: “T-shirts don’t motivate people to go to websites. People do. We need an army of people selling our ideas. The logo is interesting and cool enough that people would want to wear it more and that t-shirt will generate more conversation about the website.”Dave couldn’t comprehend going without the URL because people wouldn’t know where to go on the web without it.

How Oil and Coal Contributions Affect the Way Our Senators Vote on Renewable Energy

On July 30th, 2008, for the eighth time, legislators failed to extend renewable energy federal investment tax credits. Senate bill S. 3335 would extend the 30% business tax credit for installing solar energy systems through 2017. The bill also raises the homeowner tax credit cap from $2,000 to $4,000. You’d really think this would be a slam dunk, right? Wrong. I wanted to know why this didn’t pass, so I did a little more digging.

Above, you can see that a slim majority of senators voted to send the bill to the floor for debate and a vote. However, in order for the debate to commence, 60 senators need to vote ‘aye’. Clearly, 51 was not enough. Why didn’t more senators vote for this? What is going on here. Well, let’s take a closer look at who voted to bring the issue to debate by party this time:

Wow, huge split down the middle on party lines. As it turns out, the sole democrat who voted against the bill was Harry Reid. However, he voted nay when he saw the bill was not going to make it to debate as a procedural gesture so that he could bring it back after revisions on a later date.

Naturally, since my livelihood and the livelihood of the solar industry is linked to the fate of this bill, I wanted to see who those 5 Republicans were, and learn a little more about why they may have felt safe crossing party lines to vote ‘aye’.

Vote Solar has made a call to phone and email your state senators or chiefs of staff to get this bill moving forward. Though, part of me has felt that many Republicans are too tied to the oil, gas, and coal industries to even bother with them. As OpenSecrets.org reports, since 1990, oil companies have given 75% of their funds to Republicans (over $220,000,000).

Take a close look at the spreadsheet below. Listed here are all the Republican senators, the amount and percentage of total campaign contributions they received from the non-renewable energy industry in 2008, and their votes to debate this bill (source):

[iframe: width="700" height="975" frameborder="1" scrolling="yes" src="http://sheet.zoho.com/publish/danyull99/senate-republican-voting-on-solar-itc-renewal"]

Now, you can clearly see that the 5 Republican senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina, Norm Coleman from Minnesota, and Gordon Smith from Oregon) approving the procession of the bill had a relatively small percentage of their campaign contributions coming from the non-renewable energy industry – confirming some of my suspicions.

Since we have 52 votes in tow at this point (including Harry Reid), 8 more Republicans need to cross party lines for anything to happen here. Instead of wasting our time with the senators that are near the bottom of the list, we should really be focusing on the senators near the top in more progressive areas of the country. These are the people we need to be hammering away at on the phones and emails. Senators near the bottom of this list most assuredly will not be voting for anything green unless they can drill for oil next in your back yard.

It looks like the oil and gas companies are siding with the McCain-Palin horse, but look at how they are hedging some of their bets with Obama-Biden too (Open Secrets):

Now, notice below both candidates abstained from this vote, but take a look at these 3 different funding sources for each of the following senators and their votes on this bill:

Look at the effect those Coal dollars had on Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia for example. Wow. He must have had a tough time getting up in the morning to look at himself having to abstain on this vote. Understandably, West Virginia is a heavy coal state and even though he’s a Democrat, he has to tread lightly. Even though clean coal is complete and utter BS, Jay has got some constituents to look after and some lobbyist money to honor. Hopefully, you find these contributions as enlightening as I did.

DRILL NOW DRILL NOW AAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

Solar Power Rocks is on Twitter

http://twitter.com/solarpowerrocks

Follow us!

A peek inside Solar Today magazine

Check out the latest issue of Solar Today. Inside are lots of great articles and materials. You can even flip through all the pages online for free.

Battle of the Bay – The Clean Tech Initiatives of San Francisco Vs. San Jose

San Francisco and San Jose are setting examples for other cities in our nation by being renewable energy hotbeds. However, the cities are taking very different approaches. San Francisco is more focused on putting cash incentives and city-based financing into the hands of the consumer to make renewable energy installations more feasible. On the other hand, San Jose is skipping consumer subsidies and focusing on developing the local renewable energy industry, reducing the product innovation cycle and time-to-market.

San Jose

I spoke with Collin O’Mara, San Jose’s Clean Tech Strategist (How many cities have this dedicated job position do you think?).  There are many clean tech initiatives going on in San Jose, so much so that it sounded like his head was spinning. He spewed forth about 20 different plans in about 30 minutes. I won’t outline all their goals here (go here to see them), but I will tell you they are ambitious, to say the least. They want to be the clean tech center of the world, and I hope they pull that off. I read their “green vision” and I like where they’re focusing.
An important question that Collin wants San Jose to answer is: “How do we get your new products to market as quick as possible?”  A big solution to the problem was building a San Jose UL testing lab. If you want your products on the market, they need to be UL tested. Before that facility opened, the nearest solar testing labs were in Arizona (saddled with up to year-long backlogs). Now San Jose has the largest working photovoltaic testing facility in the world.

Another example of SJ banking on industry instead of broad subsidies was the San Jose Solar Challange. Mayor Reed implored solar companies to develop a way for San Jose’ers to install solar energy with no up front costs by creative financing structures.  They got some good results from this that will definitely scale to other cities.  Hey, if you want something, you gotta ask for it.

The bottom line is that if you are a budding clean tech company trying to bring some products from design to market, San Jose’s gonna try to make that as easy as possible for you. They’ll help you in many ways, so it’s a good place to be.  Collin then mentioned about four zillion clean tech companies focused in San Jose that I won’t list here.

As a side note: I’ve noted before that my biggest hopes for market-changing solar tech in the very near term come from two product ideas:  the integrated PV+Hot Water panels and Micro-Inverters.  Collin agreed that these are exciting technologies.

San Francisco

While San Jose might be a great place to call home if you’re a clean tech startup, San Francisco has some VERY strong initiatives focusing on the consumer, including the San Francisco Solar Incentive Program that gives up to $6000 per residential meter and even more for businesses.  San Francisco is also working with the city of Berkeley to create a low interest loan program to make the solar out-of-pocket expense more bearable for its citizens.  Smaller power bills and increased cost of doing business in San Francisco make some of the zero-financing programs no dice here. The above measures are going to help fix that and then some.

Both SF and SJ are winners of the 2008 Solar cities grants. SF is using some of this partnership money to run train the trainers meetings. The city trains proactive citizens to explain the fundamentals of solar energy to their neighbors, tennis clubs, bridge groups, whatever. I know that when citizens organize group purchases of solar energy they are much more effective in making a difference, because everyone feels like the right questions are being asked to the installer and everyone feels more comfortable. I have high hopes for this plan.  Finally, although I am biased obviously, I hope we can get some aid from the city to get the word out about One Block Off the Grid’s second run in here in SF, and hopefully triple the success of the first round.

Micro Inverters (My Turn)- the boring technical stuff

A few weeks ago, Dan wrote a post about micro-inverters for beginners, comparing them to the inner-workings of a Peruvian diamond mine.   This article is more technical and boring, because that’s who I am, Mr. Technical and Boring.  (Remember the Mr. Men books? OK, never mind)…

I believe micro inverters will be a major new part of the residential solar energy market (the other being photovoltaic and hot water integrated into one panel, but that’s a post for another time).  There are definitely competitors getting in the microinverter game, but for now, Enphase microinverters are the only game in town. Much of this article is based on their product.

I’m going to go over all the advantages and disadvantages of micro-inverters as I see them.   The big picture that needs to be understood is that, with microinverters, we’re talking about one inverter PER SOLAR PANEL all linked in parallel, whereas a traditional string inverter configuration links several panels together in SERIES.  This allows microinverters to maximize the energy harvest of each panel.

First, let’s go over what max power is.  Well, Power (with electricity) is voltage * current, or P=V*I.  Solar panels change their voltage output based on a number of factors, the most dominant of which is how hot they are (up to 50%! that’s why some neighborhoods can get more out of Solar in San Francisco than in some places in Arizona!).  The panel current also changes based on how much light is hitting them (irradiance).  The maximum power of a panel is just the highest number you can get by multiplying it’s voltage and current.

Take a look at this graph courtesy of the NABCEP study guide for PV Installers:

You can see that light hitting panels changes their max current, and heat changes their max voltage.  The Max Power Point moves accordingly (Imp and Vmp).

With a string inverter configuration, the inverter is getting several of these panels linked in series.  In series, their voltages of the panels add together but the current does not.  It’s the inverter’s job to try and track the maximum power point, but it can only “see” a string 0f panels, it doesn’t know which panels are doing what.

The big benefits of micro-inverters come from the fact that they can maximize this power point for EACH PANEL. So that if one panel is say dusty, faulty, aligned differently, a different type of panel, etc., it does not drag down the whole string. Additionally, conventional string inverters are limited in the configurations they can accept, and disregarding those limitations can sometimes result in zero system output at times.  micro-inverters, on the other hand, are free of most of those limitations.

Due to this individualized “panel harvest,” Enphase claims you will see anywhere from a 5%-25% gain in power output when compared to a string inverter configuration.  The low end of that range would assume a well engineered string configuration with panels on the same orientation and tilt, without shading.  You would need some heavy shading or panel orientation differences to achieve the upper end.

 /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable  {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;  mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;  mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;  mso-style-noshow:yes;  mso-style-priority:99;  mso-style-qformat:yes;  mso-style-parent:”";  mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;  mso-para-margin-top:0in;  mso-para-margin-right:0in;  mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;  mso-para-margin-left:0in;  line-height:115%;  mso-pagination:widow-orphan;  font-size:11.0pt;  font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;  mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;  mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;  mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;  mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

ADVANTAGES

Modularity – Scalability

Let’s say you want to add an electric car in two years, but you don’t want to oversize your system now because you won’t get a check from the utility for excess production (or even a thank you.) Due to the nature of microinverters, you can almost always just slap on another panel/micro-inverter.

• Ideally you’d want to get it sized right the first time to avoid having to increase the racking system and number of roof penetrations, but this is still more scalable than a string inverter.
• With string inverters you have to adhere to a regimented string design, and an upgrade would require a number of things from a different inverter to a large wing of panels to fit the string configurations. For example, a 3000 watt string inverter may be limited to five specific configurations: 2-strings of 7-panels, 2-strings of 8-panels, or 1-string of 9-panels. That means you are limited to 14, 16, or 9 panels. Not a lot of scalability there.
• Up to 16 micro-inverters can be linked in parallel per AC branch. That does not mean you can only have 16 max panels, you can have literally any number of them from one to whatever your electrical service will accommodate. It is just good because you can fit more per branch than most string inverters which may cap out at 11 or 12 per string. This isn’t a giant advantage but it’s nice for the installers wiring small systems.
• No clunky box downstairs. These inverters go on the back of each panel, on the roof, so there’s no need for a big string inverter downstairs by your meter. That eliminates concerns about string inverter placement and clearance issues, conduit run eyesores, keeping the inverter out of the sun, etc. Also no need for DC switching points.

Shading

This is the big one. If you shade enough panels in a row, you can bring the voltage of the entire string low enough so that the inverter just stops, creating zero power output. However, if you have say, 5 panels shaded on an 8-panel array, those 3 panels just keep kicking with micro inverters, each one creating maximum power.

Furthermore, if dust, grime, or bird poop are getting on panels disproportionately, they can drag down the power of the whole string, much like stepping only a small portion of a water hose. Remember: the string inverter maximizes power output for the whole string, not each panel, so if some panels are suboptimal, so is the whole string.

Differences in Panels

Enphase conducted a beta test by creating massive solar installs in a checkerboard pattern. Meaning, every other panel on the roof was connected to a micro-inverter or a conventional string inverter. Over time, panels got more and more mismatched because of dust and de-rating differences. As a result, the power output of the micro inverters increased comparatively to the string configured system.

• Production methods for panels have gotten better and will get even better, but still, panel to panel mismatch is exploited best by microinverters, maximizing each panel’s max power point
• If you live in a home where certain parts of the roof are sprayed with road dust, the impact could be particularly significant
• This would be uncommon, but if you have a bunch of different panels lying around, or you have a system installed but your buddy gave you a bunch of different type of panels that fell off a truck, you can mix and match them with micro-inverters since each are independent to their own panel. As string inverters require that all panels on a string be the same orientation, they must also be the same type.

No Single Point of Failure

This is really up for debate. Some would argue that no single point of failure is better because if one inverter goes out you still have power production while you’re waiting to get fixed up. Others would argue that you have simply multiplied the possibility of failure dozens of times. Currently, I believe what I hear about their design practices and think these things, although not proven, will last considerably longer than string inverters. I hope I don’t have to eat my hat.

Burst Mode

In the early morning and early evening there may not be enough current to drive a string inverter. It will “flip on” when it gets enough light. Micro-inverters (at least Enphase models) have a “burst mode” which stores up energy until they can release it in these low light conditions. This allows for SOME power output in times when you may have none with a string inverter. I don’t have numbers on how much, but I don’t think it’s a ton or they’d be making a bigger deal out of it.

Cheaper Labor Costs

Electricians do not need to be there all day wiring, they simply perform the connection at the main panel. Installers are doing most of the connections up on the roof. The installation is also quicker with less conduit bending and what not, so some money can be saved here.

Monitoring

Another huge one. Because it’s panel by panel, monitoring system sophistication is really powerful. Not only does the software know your system as a whole is underperforming, but which panels are the culprits. The monitoring system is smart enough to know that power depression on all panels is probably a cloud, whereas if one panel is blinking on and off you’ve got an issue. You currently can’t get this type of information with string inverter monitoring. There also is some other cool whizbang stuff like getting text messages if a panel is out. Your installer gets this info too, so as soon as you know there is a problem, so does the installer. The “EMU” is smart as hell and just plugs into the wall, grabbing RF signals that the Enphase modules throw out. No need to connect it directly to the system!

How much is the monitoring price? I think they have different programs but from what I understood, they recommend salespeople offer 1 year free and $10/month for the whole system after that (with lump packages that make it slightly cheaper than $10/month).

Orientation

Let’s say you have a small roof with a west and south face. You can fit 10 panels on the south face and 5 panels on the west face. String inverters require all panels on a string to be the same orientation and tilt, so a string of 5 and a string of 10 is probably not a possible configuration, and splitting them up 8 and 7 won’t work because of this requirement. Even if you were allowed to perform these two string configurations, different string orientations need to be carefully designed and can lead to disastrous situations if not carefully looked at, something which even seasoned solar salespeople may not be able to do correctly. This allows for roof area maximization.

DISADVANTAGES

Field testing data is relatively early

By relatively I mean that they have thousands of these things operating in the field, it’s just that they’re supposed to last for decades so it’s early until we’ve reached decades. This is a big issue for most people considering micro-inverter systems. As you may know I have a big beef with this sort of thing. “We are waiting for new technology! We are waiting for new technology!” Then you bring new technology and everyone is like “It’s untested! We don’t want it!” So here are some reasons why it’s not a big deal:

• Their MTBF is calculated for 119 years. They’ve got some people on their design team that would design stuff to be put on power poles in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they understand very clearly that if these have a high fail rate, they’re screwed as a company, so they put a whole ton of effort into nailing that beforehand.
• There are lots of micro-inverters in the field and according to Enphase, none have ever failed. There are more being installed every day.
• They have no moving parts and soft switching, unlike some fan cooled string inverters. That should aid in lengthening their lifespan.
• In California, inverters are all warranted for 10 years anyway, and the lifespan of a string inverter isn’t much longer than that. I could see being concerned in say, year 5, if tons of them started failing all at once and the company goes belly up. This is a legit concern, but I think it’s worth the small gamble based on what I’ve seen, plus they just got $15M in more in funding.

Exposed to the elements

So yah, they’re up there on the roof. They are shielded by the panels, but they are outside none the less. (However, I’ve already gone over how these are designed to be rugged as hell because the company’s future depends on it)

Limited in some applications

• No off grid situations, not overseas yet (50Hz), and haven’t been tested or designed for other forms of renewable energy other than solar
• They DO have a 3-phase version for commercial applications but that is outside the scope of this article

Are they cheaper or more expensive?

The answer is that it depends. I didn’t put this as and advantage or a disadvantage because it’s complicated. Currently Enphase is $200 MSRP last I checked. Let’s call a 3000 Watt string inverter $1600 for simplicity’s sake. So once you go over 8 panels you’re looking are more money on the product side, but you’re weighing that against some other things like, well, the advantages listed above.

The extra power output is worth money, and so is the decreased labor costs, so you have to do that calculation. On a tiny system, micro-inverters are a slam dunk in my mind.

What’s Next, who’s entering this market?

There are other micro inverters that will be manufactured, as well as some string inverter technology that attempts DC based max power point tracking like National Semiconductor’s Solar Magic technology, which as far as I’ve heard, isn’t in the field yet.  There’s something called “solar bridge” but there’s virtually nothing on the internet about it and I haven’t seen it in the field yet.

So that’s probably more than you ever wanted to know. My take is that for residential, you can’t beat these things, they rock. In some large, perfectly unshaded, same orientation, residential applications you could still make a case for string inverters I think.

If you’re actually still reading, here’s a good video:

What do your U.S. Senate candidates really think about renewables?

Solar Nation’s resource page for candidate positions on renewable energy has just been expanded to include all thirty-five 2008 Senate races. You can check on incumbents’ and challengers’ positions, both from their official campaign literature and from independent third-party sources.

If government support of sustainable energy is important to you, click here to learn where your state’s candidates stand on the issue. I was surprised to see that some candidates haven’t even officially addressed renewable energy! Have yours?