[TEMPLATE]Renewable Energy[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]Equipment & Tools[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]home improvement store[/TEMPLATE]
Free Solar Energy For AZ Schools
Author: Elysia Niemi
Typically, solar energy firms install solar panels, or arrays, on a given facility and the proprietor (business or homeowner) buys or leases the setup, uses the electricity, and sells any excess back to the local or regional utility which supplies power to the facility.
In Scottsdale, Foster City, a California-based SolarCity Corp. wants to install solar panels on two school roofs, essentially for free, and allow the school district would buy the electricity generated.
This has regional utility Salt River Project (SRP) up in arms. Arizona Public Service Company, the other regional utility (and the larger by 3,998 megawatts and 600,000 customers), has posed no objections, even though both will be required to testify before the Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona's equivalent of a public utilities commission.
The schools in question are Coronado and Desert Mountain high schools. The issue in question is: can a solar manufacturer operate as a utility? Backers of the proposal see it as a huge incentive to solar power, because it frees proprietors from the sometimes huge upfront costs of installing solar arrays. Opponents argue that it would let solar panel manufacturers sell electricity without the oversight of state utility regulators, leading to electric-pricing disputes and abuse.
Returning to the issue of upfront costs in solar power, some have noted that, while individuals and even corporations can offset these with any number of federal, regional and local incentives, government buildings and schools aren't eligible for many of them, largely because such properties are financed with tax-exempt private activity bonds or other federal, state, or local subsidized financing (Section 48 of the Investment Tax Credit).
SolarCity argues that those limitations are slowing the growth of solar power, and many educators and public officials agree. Equally as important, SolarCity, as the installer and owner of record, can take advantage of those incentives, meaning they aren't lost and are reflected down the road in cheaper installation costs across the board as profits drive down the cost of solar panels.
That benefit alone, in a time of continuing recession, is tempting. According to SolarCity, schools could save .7 million on energy over the next 15 years by adopting the process.
SolarCity is not the first to make the suggestion, either. In October of 2008, Solar Alliance, a state-based advocacy group for solar designers, manufacturers, installers and financiers, asked the Corporation Commission to approve similar proposals. In fact, third party ownership using power purchase agreements (PPAs) was discussed as an option on Eshone Energy's blog.
The Arizona Corporation Commission has yet to get back to them, because the decision-making process challenges so many utility paradigms that there are no parallels, or precedents, to draw upon.
This is especially true as customers would still be connected to their local utility for electrical needs beyond the capacity of the individual solar systems. Also weighing heavily on the equation are Arizona's renewable energy mandates, which requires utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025.
SolarCity has so far rebutted SRP's challenge by saying that, since it is not a monopoly, it doesn't need Corporation Commission regulation.
As Corporation Commission Chairwoman Kris Mayes points out, the entire solar community (and the nation) is waiting for a resolution of these difficult issues. Tom Alston, the head of Solar Alliance in Arizona, confirms that, and notes that more than half the recent applications for solar installations in the state have been coordinated through a solar-service agreement like the one SolarCity offers.
Clearly, if the proposal is rejected, solar will suffer a huge defeat in sunny Arizona.
Cooler Planet is a leading solar resource for connecting consumers and commercial entities with local solar Installers. Cooler Planet's solar energy resource page contains articles and tools about solar panels to help with your solar project.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/free-solar-energy-for-az-schools-1402640.html
About the Author
Cooler Planet is a leading solar resource for connecting consumers and commercial entities with local solar Installers. Cooler Planet's solar energy resource page contains articles and tools about solar panels to help with your solar project.
[TEMPLATE]amazon search[/TEMPLATE]
What should congress do to cut energy usuage?
Suggestions:
1. Fast track all energy related patents
2. Under power of Patriot Act, search all patents for 50 years looking for the 60 mpg carburator, or alternative energy devices. Issue a “use or lose” option to all patent holders and corporations that control them.
3. Do not consider energy savings from non-sustainable resouces. Use solar, atomic, hydro, or geothermal power.
4. Issue major tax credits to corps who make and persons who buy vehicles and devices that conserve energy.
Why do we use solar energy on Mars but can’t get leadership to support it on Earth?
The polar lander just landed and one of the first items on it’s agenda was to deploy it’s solar panels. The lander probably consumes more energy than your pc. Now there are 3 spacecraft on the ground and 3 orbiting mars that use solar. The amount of solar energy received that far away is less than received at earth. Even the two rovers that have been on the surface for about 4 years now continue to work even though they have endured martian dust. Isn’t the real reason solar isn’t used more on earth because it would take revenues away from big oil and power corporations? Considering a significant number of people live in the sunbelt, why don’t we have solar on the roofs of every home? Couldn’t we use both photovoltaecs and solar water heating? Will Americans be leaders in this technology or do we have wait till Japan or China starts to manufactures them? I realize solar has limitations but it will be there forever.
Why do Republicans support subsidies for oil corporations, but oppose them for solar & wind energy?
Could someone please explain the logic here. I could understand if conservatives opposed ALL taxpayer subsidies, but they don’t. Instead, they want to subsidize only oil and gas and oppose identical subsidies for clean power like wind and solar?
Why?
Source:
http://tailrank.com/4260590/
Why doesn’t Bush ask the energy corporations to to boost their wind and solar energy production?
Once those power grids are installed,
the only cost is maintenance.
The state of Maryland has it.
Why is solar energy so ovverrated?
Can you counter these comments below for replacing Air conditioners with solar air conditioners
A/C is everywhere.”
Wrong! Lots of people have no A/C.
“They attach themselves…”
No, people attach them.
“They heat up the outside.”
The heat emitted from A/C units is negligible compared with the presence of the building itself.
“Primitive technology in A/C units causes electric utility companies to tremble every summer.”
Companies cannot tremble, nor is A/C primitive.
“A/C causes inevitable brownouts and blackouts.”
Brownouts and blackouts are caused by improper operation of the power system, not by A/C, which is always there and is included as part of the calculated and forecast load 10 years or more from now.
“Corporations are greedy.”
Corporations are made up of people, including everyone who owns an investment portfolio. This likely includes Greens like this idiot. If you use electricity from the grid, you benefit from these corporations
“Coal and nuclear power plants threaten everyone with disaster.”
No, they do not! Nuclear plants especially, since they emit no pollutants whatsoever, not even CO2. Modern coal plants are very clean, and CO2 is not dangerous. The effects on the atmosphere are negligible.
“This technology removes heat from both inside and outside.”
False! This technology still requires a condenser, which has to get rid of all the heat from the system somewhere, likely using it to… heat the outside.
“Conventional A/C uses CFCs which destroy the ozone layer.”
False! Modern refrigerant does not destroy ozone, and CFCs are not responsible for ozone depletion. Ozone is continually destroyed and replaced by natural processes, and the ozone thinning over Antarctica is normal.
“Lithium bromide is a safe food additive.”
Lithium bromide is a type of salt. Even table salt is not safe, nor is LiBr. It is psychoactive, and can kill you if you eat too much of it.
“Solar cooling has no negative impact on the environment.”
Someone has to build the system and produce the raw materials it is made of, and they do it in factories that pollute.
“I’m a Japanese guy who likes to ramble on about unrelated or irrelevant technology.”
Yes, indeed you are!
“With this system you no longer need electricity.”
As if air conditioning was the only use for electricity! I don’t know about you, but I sure do like my electric lights and appliances and computers and..
actually i am gay.I have a boyfriend
I couldn’t agree with you more. But then (liberal) states like New Jersey do stuff like this:
Ocean County could lose nearly $400 million in tourism revenues if a pilot project with wind turbines is placed 3 nautical miles off its coast, a new state-funded study says.
Let’s not forget that people in Ted Kennedy’s district (Cape Cod), consider them as being eyesores and therefore have nixed them.
First, I support solar energy resources. And it isn’t just photovoltaic, but wind and hydro, also. The problem is the return of the investment within the time frame of owning the property. See pv panels work best as decentralized power source. So they have to be used on a building, not a massive array. They generate a low voltage that isn’t very efficient for transmission over long lines. But because people don’t hold on to their individual properties for them recoup to the investment, they choice makes little sense. Until traditional electricity becomes so expense, that the investment will pay for itself within the time frame of ownership or they become an added value on resell, let’s admit it most people consider them ugly, people aren’t going to make the change. Also PV panels deliver a low voltage, so many of the household appliances would need to be changed or other modifications to the electrical systems to accommodate the low voltage.
The other thing is we could use is passive and active solar heating. Solar water heating if used to heat the home is an example of active solar heating, while trombe walls, thermal mass are methods of passive solar heating. The problem in this area is the cookie cutter method of construction in residential construction. Most homes change little from region to region. A $400K will have similar plans from region to region, as a $150K will have similar plans. Construction methods will change determined by the most efficient methods for the region. For example, in Florida a $200K home will likely be build on slab, CMU walls, stucco exterior, while a homes in the Midwest will likely be build on a crawlspace, stick framed, brick and siding exterior. These are regional response to the construction, but the plans will be similar. But a solar home needs to be specifically designed for the region, even the site conditions. Point is with most solar homes you need a specific design. That is another increase in the investment. And trust me, builders don’t like to shell extra’s for upfront design.
Image this a builder is putting in a subdivision, is he going to have plans for the south side of the streets, plans for the north side of the streets, mixed used communities, etc? Or is he going to maximize the land use, have a few plans for the size of lots, and maximize profits?
As for remodel, similar issues. The house was not likely designed to maximize solar power to begin with, and the owners aren’t likely to make the initial investment, if they can’t recoup the cost in energy savings or resell. These are why many people remodel, for short term enjoyment, and resell.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of potential within the coming years for these technologies, but it won’t make a major change, until there is watershed moment, in the form of the technology drastically becoming more affordable, traditional energy becoming so expensive it makes financial sense, or a collective mindset to make the change.
Of course, the main reason they landing craft use solar panels, there are not robotic fueling stations on Mars or the moon. HaHa.
Go out and get yourself a girlfriend
If congress wanted to cut energy usage they should start a war on energy conservation. It will be as successful as the other government wars: the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, the war in Serbia on the side of Osama bin Laden, Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan where the US govt supported the Taliban, WW1 which led to the rise of Hitler in Germany, WW2 which gave rise to USSR as a superpower and gave half of Europe to the communists, prohibition (aka the war on alcohol), etc.
The govt fails at everything it does, so going to war against energy conservation should drastically cut energy consumption.