Thoughts on Solar by Run on Sun's Founder & CEO, Jim Jenal

UPDATE: The bill was indeed introduced as planned, it is H.R. 2599.  You can follow its progress via OpenCongress here.

After having been left for dead by federal regulators, PACE - Property Assessed Clean Energy funding for solar power and energy efficiency projects - is making a comeback thanks to bipartisan (Yes!) legislation gaining momentum in the House.  You can help get this important legislation passed by contacting your representative - details after the jump.

Full story »

We have previously lamented solar’s PR problem - but here is one approach to changing that with some really good press.  A group of volunteers is looking to use a portable solar power system to light the famous Hollywood Sign the night of the Academy Awards.  Now how cool is that?

We became aware of this project through fellow solar fan, Deep Patel, who is one of the advisors to the project.  The plan is simple and designed to minimize the impact on the environment - and the residents near the Sign who are understandably anxious over anything that might increase the traffic in their community.  Here’s how they describe it:

Our plan to light the Hollywood Sign will have no adverse affect on the natural habitat in Griffith Park, where the Sign is situated, or the surrounding neighborhoods. Because LED lights create a directional, focused light and not a spherical light field, they will cause no light pollution, nor will they ‘bounce’ into nearby homes.

The lightweight system we have designed consists of:

#1- One mobile solar array parked on the road above the Sign

#2 - One extension cord

#3 - Eighteen lightweight ground-mounted LED lights

The set-up and the removal of the solar equipment will take a matter of hours. The system and the production will be completely noise-free.

Residents in the vicinity of the Hollywood Sign are, understandably, sensitive to tourist and sightseeing traffic on their streets. This is the primary reason the Hollywood Sign is not currently lit at night, and it is why our plan calls for lighting it, as a symbolic act, only one night a year.

A traffic abatement plan will be worked out with the LAPD and the neighborhoods closest to the Sign. Our plan includes a PR campaign to let people know the best view of the lighted Sign will be from the commercial areas of Hollywood, not from the residential areas in the Hills.

Because Solar The Sign is funded by sponsorships and private donations, we can do this at no cost to taxpayers.

As symbolic gestures go, this one seems quite appealing.  A chance to showcase solar power as part of one of the most publicized events in the year (at least here in SoCal) can only help raise public awareness of solar’s potential.

The group is trying to get the word out and - more importantly - get folks to sign on to their petition.  If you agree, please sign up at: Light the Hollywood Sign with Solar Power the Night of the Academy Awards - and let us know that you did in the comments.

A recent article in USA Today/CNBC online asks the question, “Does the solar industry have a PR problem?"  Yes, concludes the article, and that bad press is well justified because “solar technology is not quite ready for prime time".  Well, if the USA Today article is any indication, the solar industry clearly does have a PR problem, but it is not because of any failure in existing technology.  The failure, rather, is in media reporting that allows interested parties to speak as experts who denigrate existing solutions, without ever bothering to disclose the expert’s inherent conflict of interest, or even to report on the facts as they pertain to actual solar clients.

There can be little doubt that those of us who believe in the benefits of solar power systems have done a poor job of informing the public about the value of solar today.  (This blog, and the writings of folks like Tor “SolarFred” Valenza notwithstanding, there is a great deal of work to be done on this front.)  So it is hard to argue with the general proposition that solar has a PR problem - as in not nearly enough PR to counter the spin coming from the naysayers and the apologists for the status quo.

But the article takes a different tack.  It quotes at length from someone named Jim Nelson, the CEO of solar start-up Solar3D, to explain why solar has earned its bad rap:

The problem, says Nelson, is that solar is generally still not price competitive with fossil fuels for energy generation, says Nelson [sic]. Paradoxically, government efforts to subsidize the purchase of solar panels actually slow down the adoption of innovation that should ultimately make renewable energy more affordable.

By encouraging consumers to buy immature and inferior solar technology right now, government subsidies risk locking people into solar systems that are inefficient, expensive, and may or may not ultimately pay off to the consumer. “They’re encouraging people to use things that don’t work,” he says.

At current kilowatt-per-hour rates, solar energy costs about 4 times more than power drawn from the grid, says Nelson.

Wow.  Lots of troublesome statements in that blockquote.  Let’s break this down and see what’s what.

First off - what do people actually pay for electricity from their utility versus from a solar power system?  In Run on Sun’s southern California service area, the actual loaded cost of electricity ranges from $0.15 to $0.29/kWh.  For a commercial solar client, the cost per kWh - after allowing for rebates, tax incentives and O&M costs - is around $0.11/kWh.  These are the real world costs and benefits for clients adding solar right now.  For a 50 kW commercial installation, that translates into payback occurring between years 4 and 5 with an internal rate of return over the 25 year lifetime of the system of 17% or more.  Moreover, every year the client’s savings will grow as the cost of electricity from the utility continues to rise while the cost for electricity from their solar power system remains constant.

Second - solar today is far from something that doesn’t work.  To the contrary, solar power systems work day in and day out with minimal maintenance beyond occasionally directing a hose at the panels to clean them off.  True, inverters will likely need to be replaced about halfway into the 25 year lifetime of the system (although newer designs like the Enphase M215 micro-inverter are now pushing inverter lifetime far beyond older products) but that cost is part of the O&M cost considered above.  While solar panels will degrade over time, modern panels are warrantied to produce 80% of their rated power after 25 years and even older designs are still operating just fine after 40 years.  What other major asset can a business owner purchase that will pay for itself within five years, require minimal maintenance over its entire lifetime, and still be working well after 25 years?  Oh, and save the business owner many times over the initial investment during those 25 years?

Too bad more things “don’t work” as well as a solar power system.

Finally, what is Mr. Nelson’s perspective on all of this?  The article describes his company as a “solar manufacturer” but manufacturers typically have products for sale.  Touring the Solar3D website reveals lots of PR, but no products.  Rather, Mr. Nelson’s company, “Solar3D, Inc. is developing a breakthrough 3-dimensional solar cell technology to maximize the conversion of sunlight into electricity."  The key phrase being, “is developing".

Now we are all for more efficient solar technologies being developed into real-world products that we can put on roofs. We sincerely wish Mr. Nelson well in his efforts to bring ever better products to market.  But it is just silly to tell the solar-buying public that present technology is “immature” and “doesn’t work” when Gigawatts of installed solar power systems prove just the opposite.  And it is sloppy journalism to quote him without revealing his true position in the industry.

As demonstrated by our previous posts about the misleading Prop 23, we take this ballot measure very seriously as it poses a serious threat to the development of clean energy in California (to say nothing about thwarting our efforts to address Climate Change).  But that doesn’t mean that we cannot appreciate a more humorous approach to the issue.

Toward that end, please check out the following video:

Please pass this on to all of your friends - this deserves to go viral!

We have written about the deceptive Prop 23 campaign before; it is the November ballet initiative that seeks to roll back California’s landmark legislation (AB 32) that is driving the development of the renewable energy industry here in the Golden State.

Those of us old enough to remember Watergate remember the admonition: “Follow the Money!” In keeping with that directive, we thought you would be interested to see the latest campaign spending reports from the pro-Prop 23 campaign. Here are the numbers:

Total Contributions to date: $8,910,308.25
Contributions from oil interests: $8,640,268.20 (97%)
Contributions from out of state: $7,965,268.20 (89%)
Valero, Tesoro & Koch Industries: $6,606,273.20 (74%)
Valero = $4,065,636.60
Tesoro = $1,540,636.60
Koch = $1,000,000.00

Out-of-state oil companies and other polluters have contributed nearly $9 million to increase our dependence on fossil fuels - the path backwards, not the way toward progress.

So don’t be fooled - Prop 23 has nothing to do with preserving jobs, and everything to do with preserving the profits of out-of-state oil interests.

Please, vote No on Prop 23!