|
OPTIMIZING FLORIDA’S SOLAR ENERGY DOLLARS WHILE REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE
A POSITION PAPER
Prepared by a concerned citizen, LARRY L. OLSON
INTRODUCTION:
According to a 1999 study by the Department of Energy(reference: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States, October 15, 1999), the amount of carbon dioxide produced per kilowatt-hour of electrical energy is 1.37 for Florida and 5 other states, 0.38 for California, Oregon, and Washington and 1.54 for the eight state area including Colorado. These numbers are somewhat out of date.
From the 1999 report, the amount of carbon dioxide produced from these fuels is:
Table 1. Carbon Dioxide Production Per KwH of Energy Produced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Carbon Dioxide Production (lbs/KwH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal 2.123
Oil 1.943
Gas 1.255
Nuclear 0
Hydroelectric 0
Solar 0
Renewables highly variable, but usually high
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using another report by the Department of Energy (reference: US Dept of Energy, EERE State Activities, 2007), we see that in 2007, Florida and three other selected states produced their power from the following energy sources:
Table 2. Fuels Used For Power Production and Calculated Carbon Dioxide Production Per KwH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Power Production for Each Fuel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Florida Colorado California Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal 26 76 1 11
Petroleum 31 0 3 0
Gas 27 19 36 7
Hydro 0 3 20 72
Nuclear 12 0 19 9
Renewables 3 2 20 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Av.* 1.51 1.85 0.72 0.32
Ave. + Losses** 1.70 2.09 0.82 0.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Weighted average pounds of carbon dioxide per KwH at the power plant.
**Weighted average pounds of carbon dioxide per KwH + 13% losses.
Using a weighted average for the power production in Florida, I calculated an average carbon dioxide production of 1.508 pounds per kilowatt-hour. Keep in mind that the 1.508 pounds of carbon dioxide per KwH does not take into account line losses, start up and shut down losses, transformer losses, etc. I do not know that figure, but based on a lot of reading, I will increase this number to 1.7 pounds of carbon dioxide per KwH. This is a 13% increase, which in my mind is not nearly enough, but it is the figure I use for all of my further calculations.
Looking again at the Table 2, above, we see that Florida produces 3% of its power from renewables. As near as I can determine, we produce less than half of one percent of our power from solar. We, THE SUNSHINE STATE, waste the one energy source that is so abundant to us. And, of course, solar has no carbon dioxide production.
Because I find this situation with respect to solar energy production in Florid ABHORRANT, and because I have some hands-on experience with solar and energy use, I am writing this paper. It is my hope that this paper will get our elected representatives thinking more about Solar energy and the resource that we are wasting. In addition, I have put forth some suggestions as to how to alter this problem. Admittedly I do not have the same overview of the state and how we produce energy as some of you who will read this, but that is why it is called a Position Paper. This is my position.
CURRENT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA:
According to the 2005 Department of Energy report on Florida, we consumed 224,977,000,000 KwH of power in 2005 and an anticipated growth rate or demand rate is 0.8% per year. This growth rate corresponds to producing 1,799,816,000 KwH more each year. The 2009 energy production rate would then be 232,176,000,000 KwH. If you use historical data, the annual growth rate in electrical consumption is 3.6% for Florida, these figures would be much higher. This would correspond to 8,099,172,000 KwH per year growth rate and a 2009 usage rate of 257,373,688,000 KwH. Based on the economic recession that we have been in for the last 3 years, the lower numbers might be closer to correct.
From the same study, we see that Florida’s consumption was 40% by commercial, 9% by industrial and 51% by residential. The portion consumed by transportation was so small as to be listed at zero. If the electric auto catches on, particularly if General Motors ever gets the “VOLT” into production, that number for transportation could rise significantly.
Using the population figure of 18.3 million for Florida(reference: US Census Bureau), and the 51% figure for residential consumption in Florida, we get a figure of 12,687 KwH used by every man woman and child per year in Florida. If we consider that the average family consists of 4 members, than the monthly utility usage would be 4,229 KwH and the bill, assuming 12 cents per KwH, would be $507.50. I usually use a bill for a family of three of $200.00 with a corresponding usage of 1667 KwH. This $200 assumption is biased by my family of 2 having an average electric bill of $125. I have since found out that we are exceptionally low. No matter, the objective of this calculational exercise is to show that the electrical consumption numbers are in the correct ball-park.
SOLAR ENERGY ALTERNATIVES:
Only three solar energy alternatives will be addressed in this paper. Other alternatives, such as biomass production will not be considered. The first alternative is the heating of water to produce steam. FPL currently is designing and preparing to implement that alternative in Miami. This is a “Big Boys” alternative. It is a good alternative, and in conjunction with gas for use when the sun is not shining is a good way to provide some solar use. The average person cannot fully grasp the enormity of the technology involved. This plant will be designed to provide 75 megawatts of power. It will have 180,000 mirrors and occupy over 500 acres of land. Considering that the sun will provide only about 5 hours of energy to obtain the rated capacity, the plant has only a limited operational period of carbon dioxide-less operation.
Actually, ALL solar energy alternatives have this disadvantage----no production when the sun is not shinning. Consequently, solar energy must be considered in conjunction with either storage or other energy sources. The use of other energy sources is the reason for the term “Riding The Grid”. Solar energy generators input power when the sun is shinning and do nothing when it is not. Power from all across the US interacts with this solar energy. The advantage of solar energy is that peak power production occurs when peak demand in Florida occurs---during the heat of the day. This means that the more solar power we have, the smaller other energy power plants have to be, because those plants do not have to be sized to accommodate the peaks. In addition, the more scattered the solar power plants are, the smaller the distribution systems have to be.
SO---the “Big Boys” alternative, heating water for steam turbine-generator operation, combined with gas energy attempts to provide both the solar energy when available and other energy when not, is only for the large power companies. It solves some of the problems by providing an extremely large power plant at an isolated location, but does nothing to address the idea of multiple remote locations, which diminishes the need for large distribution systems.
The second alternative is the use of solar water heaters. It is one that is almost always PO-HOOED by everyone, but it is the one that will yield the most energy reduction in the shortest time and provide for a significant reduction in carbon dioxide. Most people only consider it in terms of residential, but it’s impact on commercial establishments such as Laundromats, businesses that use hot water and even as pre-heaters for power generation stations should not be discounted. We just do not use this alternative enough and, as I will show, the amount of power and carbon dioxide reduction that we can get from this is almost unbelievable. This alternative is limited to 15 to 25% (the 15% comes from 30% of our electric used for water heating and 51% of energy consumption being residential---the 25% comes from adding in the amount of water heated by commercial and industrial consumers) of our power, primarily because we only use so much hot water.
The third alternative is the direct generation of power from sunlight using photo voltaic systems. The technology is mature and there is not a better way to provide 25 to 50% of our power in Florida. It is interesting to note that 37.8 square miles of solar panels would provide 25% of the 2009 power demand for Florida. At first glance that sounds like a lot, but if you consider these 37.8 square miles located at several hundred sites, it is not so daunting. Incidentally, if we put that 37.8 square miles of PV panels on roofs, we would need 1.23 million homes(assuming 800 square feet of panels per home)----which we have and then some. Our population is 18.3 million divided by 4 people per family is 4.57 million homes.
Before you ridicule the idea of Florida producing 25% to 50% of it’s power from solar energy, consider the example that Iowa has put forward in the last 15 years. About 15 years ago, a company came into Iowa and constructed a wind farm just South of the little town of Clear Lake, Iowa. There had never been this kind of power generation from wind in Iowa, except for some very small isolated wind generators. This company constructed 52 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of 1.0 megawatts giving a total capacity for this farm of 52 megawatts of power. This little known company placed stickers on the top of these turbines that read FPL. This was Florida Power and Electric.
A wind farm in Iowa.
The idea caught on, and at the end of 2008, Iowa had installed and operational 2,791 megawatts of wind generation capacity, making them the number two state in the nation, only behind Texas. As of April 2009, Iowa was producing 15% of its total power demand from wind and based on what I observed in Iowa this summer, you isn’t seen nothing yet The latest figures show than that production rate was more than 22% by the end of 2009. That number will rise steadily thereafter because of the infrastructure that is already in place for the manufacturing and deployment of these wind turbines. Even president Obama has taken note of this phenomenon and held a news conference in the manufacturing facility in Newton, Iowa in a plant that once was the manufacturing site for Maytag, the appliance manufacturer.
If Iowa can make this kind of bold step forward to get us off our dependence on foreign oil and domestic coal, then so can Florida. By the way, we do not have enough sustained wind in Florida to make wind power feasible, but we have lots of sunshine. It is time we get our state in gear, but lets not take 15 years to do it. The time to start is NOW.
POWER COMPANIES COMMITMENT TO SOLAR:
I would like to be able to report on the existing solar energy systems in Florida, but I cannot find any definitive numbers. I guess we ain’t braggin about what we ain’t got!!! A more sophisticated way to say the same thing comes from a report by Helen J_H Whiffen of the University of Florida, Florida Cooperataive Extension Service in which she stated :“The number of solar photovoltaic systems used in Florida is currently too small to be detected in statewide statistics on energy usage.”
However, the future looks a lot greener. Florida Light and Power is currently constructing three solar generating facilities. The first is a 75 Mw solar-gas facility. This facility near Martin, Florida will have 180,000 mirrors occupying 500 acres which will heat water to produce steam. The second facility is a 25 Mw photovoltaic plant occupying 180 acres, in Desoto county. The third facility is at the Kennedy Space Center with a capacity of 10 Mw using PV panel and occupying 60 acres.
Tampa Electric has contracted with a company named Energy 5.0 to purchase the energy from a 25 Mw PV system that is to be built in the near future. This plant will occupy 200 to 400 acres somewhere in Polk County. Florida Gulf Coast University in Ft. Meyers is constructing a PV system rated at 2 Mw. A private company in Miami, called Electron Solar Energy, has reported that it has 10.5 million dollars of solar systems “in the pipe”. Using PV system costs of $6.00 per watt, this equates to about 1.7 Mw.
Adding these solar facilities under construction or in the planning stage total 138.7 Mw of capacity. This represents a little less than half the capacity of a major coal generating plant. Assuming 5 hours per day for production and 365 days per year yields 253.12 million KwH per year. Using the above figure for our 2009 annual consumption, this represents 0.109% of our annual consumption. However, it also represents 430 million pounds of carbon dioxide that will not be going into the air. If we get a chance, we should stop and give these people a great big pat on the back.
However, let us keep this in perspective. We could have generated the same impact if we installed 72,000 home solar hot water heaters, at an estimated 1/3 the cost. I wonder how the cost of one of the 180,000 mirrors in the Martin plant compares to the cost of one solar hot water heater.
CONSUMER SOLAR PROGRAMS:
Under the topic of consumer programs, I will discuss solar hot water and photo voltaic systems only. I will look at the cost for each alternative as well as look at the impact that each alternative will have on the overall electrical power picture for Florida.
SOLAR HOT WATER:
I do not have the data necessary to discuss solar hot water for commercial and industrial applications, so I will only look at residential hot water. A good rule of thumb is that 30% of our domestic electrical usage is to heat water, assuming that you have an electrical hot water heater. For a family of 3 with a monthly electric bill of $200.00/month, the cost of hot water is $60.00 per month. At a rate of 12 cents per KwH, this amounts to 500 KwH per month or 6,000 KwH per year. The Florida Solar Energy Center estimates that Florida already has 200,000 domestic solar hot water heaters. This leaves 4.37 million domiciles that do not have these devices. If we could somehow install a solar hot water heater in each of these, we would reduce the demand for energy by 4.37 million times 6,000 KwH which is equal to
26,200,000,000 KwH per year. We would reduce the carbon dioxide load on the atmosphere by an astonishing 44.57 billion pounds per year. The cost of this program would be 19.6 billion dollars.
Each solar hot water heater, installed, costs an estimated $4,500.00 (mine was slightly less than that in the Spring of 2009). These 500 KwH of energy saved per month, divided by 30 days per month, and then divided by 5 hours per day, gives a production rate of 3.3 Kw. That means that each Kw of energy not needed to be produced would cost $4,500/3.3 = $1,364.00 per Kw. Compare this to the normally accepted cost of building a 300 megawatt coal plant of $3,500.00 per Kw. Some estimates that I have seen place this building cost at more than 60% higher in the last 2 years.
My solar hot water heater roof panel
The growth rate for power consumption in Florida, shown above, is 1.799 billion KwH per year for a low and 8.099 billion KwH per year for a high. Comparing this to the 22.6 billion KwH per year saved by the installation of solar hot water heaters in all homes, we see that it would not be necessary to build any more power generation for the next 22.6/1.799 = 12.5 years at the most and 22.6/8.09 = 2.8 years at the worst. So, it is logical to assume that we could install solar water heaters in all of the rest of the homes in Florida, making it unnecessary to build new power plants for the next 3 to 12 years, and at a cost of much less than 40% of the cost of building new power plants. In addition, it would not be necessary to build any more power distribution lines, because the power relief would be at the consumer. We would also remove 44.57 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the air, whereas the construction of power plants to generate this energy would add an estimated 44.57 billion pounds of carbon dioxide to the air. It is amazing what you can do with a lot of a little, rather than a little of a lot.
Theses few calculations give the reader a glimpse at the huge potential of installing solar hot water heaters rather than building new power plants. As far as I know, almost every utility in Florida is anticipating, and in some cases even currently charging for the future construction of new power plants.
Before we leave the solar hot water discussion, let’s look at an individual installation. There is a 4 foot by 10 foot solar panel on the roof, piping from the roof to the tank, which is an 80 gallon tank (100 gallons for 4 or 5 person homes), a small DC pump, powered by a 5 watt photo voltaic panel attached to the 4 by 10 solar panel (the pump only runs when the sun shines), and some miscellaneous valves and piping. Installation time is one man-day. Cost is $4,500.00. Cost per Kw is $1,364.00. Energy savings is 6,000 KwH per year and carbon dioxide not released into the air is 10,200 pounds per year or 5 tons per year.
My solar hot water heater tank. Notice the circulation pump on the left pipe stack. The inverter
For my solar cells is to the right of the picture.
The other cost that we should calculate is the capital cost of the solar hot water heat per kilowatt hour per year. This number is important when comparing the cost of solar hot water with photo voltaic panels. Using $4,500.00 per installation and a savings of 6,000 KwH per year, we get a cost of $0.75 per kilowatt-hour per year. I will refer to this cost later.
PHOTO VOLTAIC (PV) SYSTEMS:
It was calculated above that we could provide 25% of the power requirements for the state of Florida by placing 800 square feet of PV panels on only 1.23 million of the 4.57 million home available. It is obvious that we have plenty of homes to provide 50% of the power required by all of Florida. Because of the limitation on the PV systems of only being able to provide power when the sun shines, it is not feasible to expect to provide more than 50 % of our power from PV systems. It would be necessary to consult someone who knows more about the production of power than I do before you could have a definitive answer on how much of our power supply could be produced by PV systems. However, 50% is an easily attainable percentage if we only put the PV systems on some of the domiciles and not on any commercial or industrial buildings. If we could supply 50% of our electrical needs from PV systems, it would not be necessary to build any new power plants for the next 14 to 62 years, not considering the effect of solar hot water installations.
The cost of the PV systems is considerably more than for solar hot water. At the present time, the cost of a PV system, installed, is between $7.00 and $9.00 per watt of installed power production rate. This equates to $7,000.00 to $9,000.00 per Kw of installed rate. Compare this to the $3,500.00 per Kw for the coal plant, even adding 60% to that figure, it becomes $5,600.00 per Kw. So we see that individual PV systems are the most expensive of the three options. However, I have spoken with an architect in Mason City, Iowa, and he has been able to get figures as low as $5,000.00 per Kw for small city sized installations.
A PV system produces 1 watt x 5 hours per day x 365 days per year/1000 watts per kilowatt= 1.825 KwH per year per watt of production. This means that the PV system has an initial cost of $8.00/1.825 = $4.38/KwH per year. This compares to the solar hot water heater of $0.75/ KwH per year.
My Photo Voltaic (PV) system.
The installation of the PV system is more complex than the solar hot water heater. I will summarize the installation of my 7 Kw PV system. The system encompassed installing 690 square feet of panels on the roof, an inverter on the laundry room wall, wiring from the panels to the inverter and then from the inverter to my AC panel. The installation required 10 man-days. The cost was $50,000.00, or $7,140.00 per Kw. My system is producing 41.85 Kw-H per day or 15,275.00 KwH per year. Carbon dioxide not released into the air is 24,868 pounds per year or 12.4 tons per year.
The costs and characteristics for the two solar systems(hot water and PV) are shown below in Table 4.
Table 4. Comparing Solar Hot Water Heat and Photo Voltaic Systems
Characteristic Solar Hot Water Photo Voltaic Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size 40 690 Square Feet
Capacity (Rate) 3.3 7.0 Kw
Capacity (Quantity) 6,000 15,275 KwH per Year
Installation Time 1 10 Man-Days
Capital Cost (Total) $4,500.00 $50,000.00 Dollars
Capital Cost (Per Kw) $1,364.00 $7,140.00 $ per Kw
Capital Cost ($/KwH/Year) $0.75 $4.38 $ per KwH per Year
Carbon Dioxide Not Released 5.0 12.4 Tons per Year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS:
There are two incentive programs currently in effect in Florida. The first is for solar hot water heat and is $500.00. The second is for photo voltaic and is $4.00 per watt of installed power up to $20,000.00. Both solar hot water heat and photo voltaic systems come under the Federal program which lets you deduct 30% of the cost of the system from the income taxes that you owe for that year.
There are several things wrong with our incentive program. First and foremost is the lack of funding. Funding for fiscal 08-09 was 5 million dollars. Apparently some of the Federal stimulus money came to Florida and will be used to fund the incentive programs, but I do not know that amount.
The second thing that is wrong with the program is that the respondents must wait so long for their payments. I paid our solar contractor for our two systems in April of 2009. I received the payment for the water heater in December 2009 and the payment for the PV system in January of 2010. The third thing that is wrong with the system is the puny amount of the incentive for solar hot water. Solar hot water cost only $1,364 per Kw whereas PV costs $7,140.00 (see Table 4 above ). Solar hot water has a much smaller cost per kilowatt hour per year of initial investment ($0.75 versus $4.38) than PV. This means that we get more bang for the buck with solar hot water than we do with PV, yet the incentive is almost non existent for hot water.
When I installed my two systems, I calculated a rate of return on my money for both solar hot water and PV, deducting the incentives and tax programs. I calculated a 13.8% return for the solar hot water and 5.7% return for the PV system, ignoring maintenance and replacement for both systems. If I had only constructed a 5 Kw PV system rather than the 7 Kw system that I installed, my return would have been even higher. Which brings us to the fourth fault of our present system. In all of my calculations, it is obvious that we need to install PV systems that are between 7 Kw and 10 Kw in size. However, our incentive program encourages the installation of only 5 Kw systems. The reason for the larger systems is that the larger systems are what is required to make most homes energy zero homes---they produce all of their electricity. If we are going to install PV systems, it makes sense to make the installations the largest that are practical. For a 3 or 4 member family, the larger systems are required.
The thing that is right about our incentive programs is that they are better than almost any other state. If you want to compare programs go to www.dsire.org. DSIRE stands for Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. I have been informed that Texas has a better program for hot water than we do--someone mentioned that they pay 100% of the installation, but when I checked into it, I found that the incentive programs in Texas are administered by their various utilities and they are almost all different. I like the uniformity of Florida’s incentives.
Some other states fund their incentive programs by adding a fixed amount to everyone’s electric bill. This is a form of tax but it has the advantage of raising funds specifically ear marked for incentives and does not depend on the current fiscal crisis that the state is undergoing.
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS:
The following suggestions are based solely on getting the most solar energy production in place as fast as possible.
1. Because you get the most bang for our buck from solar water heating---something that no one else has had the figures to justify-- it is important to get this program on the fast track. The way to do that is not to throw a little more money at it, but to throw a whole lot more money at it.
If you double the incentive to $1,000.00, the installed price of solar hot water heaters will magically go up by $500.00 and you will have gained very little, other than making the contractors richer. If you increase the incentive to $2,000.00, the price of the systems will again magically rise, but probably not by the entire $2,000.00.
So, in my mind, the incentive should go up to 100%. That sounds radical at first, but for $4,500.00 you get a solar system that has an equivalent energy production rate of 3.3 Kw. This is $1,364.00 per Kw. Compare this to the PV program where you currently pay $4.00 per watt or $4,000.00 per Kw. We still get almost three times the bang for the buck than we do for PV systems. In addition, the $20,000.00 incentive for PV will buy only 5 Kw whereas the same $20,000.00 for hot water will buy $20,000.00/$4,500.00 = 4.44 hot water systems. This would yield an installed production rate of 4.4 x 3.3 = 14.52 Kw or almost three times the installed production rate of a PV system.
No matter how you look at it, the incentive dollars for solar hot water get you a lot more energy production than any other system. I do not want to sell PV short, but it has the highest cost and the lowest return, so to get results fast, the emphasis should be on solar hot water. Keep in mind that when I say that the solar hot water has an energy production rate, I am speaking about the energy production rate that you do not have to provide rather than a rate that you get.
Once you put a 100% incentive on the solar hot water heat, you generate lots of problems. How do you keep the price from becoming a “rip-off” of the government and yet still get lots of folks interested in getting into the business---and still keep the quality of installation up? Don’t forget, that we are talking about an industry that is worth 19.6 billion dollars at today’s installed cost. I do not have answers for these type of problems---talk with the people who run these or similar programs.
You must also address the problem of how to get the moneys out sooner. If you make this a large scale program, you will have participants who cannot spend $4,500.00 in the first place, and others who will not participate in the program if they have to carry this debt for a year or longer. I do not have any suggestions for this problem---it just a matter of commitment to the program.
The incentive program is the carrot---you still need a stick. My suggestion is that you have a two part solar program or tax if you want to call it that. For example, everyone’s electric bill would have two charges. The first is for solar hot water and is, for example, $2.50 per month. The second is for photo voltaic and is, for example, $2.50 per month. When your solar hot water heater has been installed and approved, the first charge will be removed from your bill. When you have installed at least 5 Kw of photo voltaic panels on your roof and are in the net metering program, the second charge will be removed from your electric bill. You might also want to make this charge progressive---$2.50 the first year, $3.00 the second year, etc. I caution you not to rely on this as a significant funding method for the program, because it will be decreasing.
2. The solar hot water program MUST have enough teeth in it to say that ALL new residential construction will have solar hot water heating(the size keyed to the number of bedrooms of the new home), or the building permit will not be approved. Israel already does this. I leave it up to someone else to decide whether the new home owner should get any incentive payment.
3. The commercial, industrial and manufacturing segments must be included in this program. One Laundromat probably has the same hot water requirements as 10 homes (I do not have any data on this). They must also have a stick and carrot program, but I have not done the numbers. Proper implementation of this portion of the electrical users could have as much effect as the residential program. In addition, if the stick and carrot are large enough, you will get implementation much faster than you would for the residential area. Businesses pay much more attention to these costs than residential customers do.
4. Implementation of the solar hot water program can only achieve, at most a 25% reduction in our electrical generation requirements, because that is all of the power that we use for hot water heating. To get our use of solar energy higher, we must rely on photo voltaic power. The goal here should be to get as much PV power generation as possible in the fewest number of installations. I believe that the 10 Kw limit to be classified as domestic is still a good idea, but my suggestion is to lower the participation to $3.00 per watt and place no limit on the amount, other than the $30,000.00 that comes from $3.00 times 10,000. This will make the home owner more apt to opt for the larger system.
5. PV systems suffer from heat or temperature fade. This loss of production may be as much as 40% on the days in which the temperature is 95 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures under the panels get as high as 155 degrees. This high temperature causes shortened life of the systems. If a PV system is installed with temperature amelioration systems, which have been proven to be effective, these systems should qualify for an additional $1.00 per watt of incentive. This will make the installed systems last longer and the dollars for the incentive program will be well spent.
SUMMARY:
I will summarize with a listing of salient points.
1. Florida has a huge energy source that we are not using--SOLAR.
2. We would not have to build new power plants for between 2 and 12 years if we fully implemented solar hot water heaters in all of the residential homes.
3. We could provide 25% of our energy needs by installing 37.8 square miles of photo voltaic panels. This could also be accomplished by installing 800 square feet of these panels on only 1.23 million of our 4.57 million homes.
4. Solar energy has a zero carbon foot print. Installation of solar hot water heaters on all of the homes in Florida would remove 44.57 billion pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
5. By installing photo voltaic systems to provide 25% of our energy needs, we would not have to construct a new power plant for the next 12 to 62 years.
6. We should follow Iowa’s lead. They have installed 22% of their power needs using wind generation in less than 15 years. They will install much more than that in the next 15 years.
7. Solar hot water costs $1,364.00 per Kw. Photo voltaic costs $7,000.00 per Kw. Coal plants cost $5,600.00 or more per Kw. Solar hot water is by far the cheapest.
Suggested modifications are:
1. Push solar hot water aggressively.
2. Increases the incentive for solar hot water to 100%.
3. Provide adequate controls to keep the cost of solar hot water the same.
4. Get the solar incentive pay out to the consumer much faster.
5. Add penalty charges to the electric bill that will go away when the consumer installs solar hot water heaters and photo voltaic systems.
6. Require all new construction to have solar hot water heaters.
7. Provide similar programs for commercial and industrial solar hot water heaters.
8. Diminish the incentive program for photo voltaic systems From $4.00 per watt to $3.00 per watt and raise the limit to $30,000.00 to encourage larger systems.
9. Add a $1.00 per watt incentive if the photo voltaic system is equipped with a proven system that diminishes temperature or heat fade, which will extend its life.
That is all of the suggestions that I have. As you can see, they all revolve around acceleration of the solar programs to get us more independent of foreign oil and lower our carbon foot print. Most of my suggestions also have a higher price tag. It has been my goal to bring the importance of solar programs to the forefront. I hope that I have been of some service. Thank you.
Type Content Here
|
