Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Rooftop Solar Could Power 20% of D.C. and Save Ratepayers Money

By John Farrell
August 31, 2011   |   12 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

12 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 12
August 31, 2011
Let me get this straight, you're advocating installation of 1.8 GW of PV in a relatively low DNI area at a gross capital expenditure cost of roughly $6.3 billion? Even w the tax break, $2k fed subsidy, and $16,500 max DC rebates for PV, doesn't sound like great economics to me. Let's keep the discussion to weatherproofing/weatherstripping, rebates for more efficiency ACs/heat pumps, and other low hanging fruit until solar actually becomes more efficient and overall economically viable.
Comment
2 of 12
September 1, 2011
Wouldn't a better solution be to establish a national RES with solar carve-out? Then states could establish their own SREC Trading boards and we all could transition to solar energy with the cost of money included in the coverage if the SACP were high enuf. I realize this is allot to ask from a 'do nothing practical' government, specially where energy policy is concerned.
Comment
3 of 12
September 1, 2011
@grantrallen

If it's cheaper than grid electricity, then that's all that matters.

@phil A solar carve out is great, but I think the preponderance of evidence suggests that a feed-in tariff program would more cost effectively provide a mechanism for bringing solar to market. New Jersey's SREC market just crashed and is hoping for a legislative rescue...
Comment
4 of 12
September 1, 2011
I think the reason the DC program crashed is because of extreme adjustment of the SACP, which serves as a support floor for inputs to the program. The carbon producers were let off the hook on that one. If let alone to babance it may have worked out. Political influence and bargaining may have wrecked an otherwise good program that costs the government little at all. It takes political will to keep a good program intact, not just to get it going. The same thing happens with FIT's, but more often and easier it seems. What could be more ethical than to have carbon producers incentivise solar adoption???
Comment
5 of 12
September 2, 2011
I have an Idea Mr President -- Lets start with putting those panels back on White House. Put proof on your roof and set an example

I like the State SREC concept

Washington has been missing the boat for the last 5 years. More than $2.1 billion dollars have gone to grant loans to prop up US solar panel manufacturers who have recently filed for bankruptcy. Thousands of jobs lost

Meanwhile China is eating our lunch in production and installation
Comment
6 of 12
September 2, 2011
$1.6B isn't chump change. Unfortunately, you're trying to convince a country that believes the best thing to do is to put a 100 W lightbulb into a 75 W fixture because it's 'cheap'. The constant one sided approach is always there - thanks Phil. The counterargument should be, what happens in the alternative. If the government doesn't invest in solar projects like this, instead, in addition to the billions extra spent on electricity, they will spend more billions subsidizing coal and natural gas directly plus all of the environmental and health costs. Utilities will also have to invest in gas and electrical transportation (pipeline and grid) as well as generating capacity. All of this is money spent - let's not pretend that the alternatives do not cost the taxpayer substantial amounts of money. The cost of such a project is less than what DC is spending on restoring historic buildings from the ravages of acid rain.
John's estimator of conventional power cost escalation is very conservative. This is even a bit below EIA's blue sky. Trends show that a significantly higher number is more realisitic. On the other side, the estimator of $6.3B cost is high and completely ignores both economy of scale and price trends. Lets assume that the entire project would take 5 years, then the average installed price would be much lower than the $3.50 per W assumed cost. Also, the total capacity would be higher as average module efficiency will continue to go up as the project rolls out.
And let's not be overly monotheistic - of course you should do energy efficiency, as well, not instead of; in which case, the savings on energy imports would be still greater. If DC reduced its per-capita electricity use to be the same as Copenhagen it could ultimately produce up to 37% of its requirement from solar.
Comment
7 of 12
September 3, 2011
DC should set the model for other cities.
No image available
Comment
8 of 12
Anonymous
September 3, 2011
How could the federal government even contemplate Solar for Washington, D.C,

Take a look at Solyndra

Does stupidity still prevail in the country's Capital.
Comment
9 of 12
September 3, 2011
The Capital has a tremendous amount of non taxed property.It is called the Federal Government.
You would think the Federal rooftops could serve as models for other commercial operations.You need not purchase one system,for it would defeat the experiment.If you bild the systems over a ten year period it could take advantage of the innovations in the various air conditioning units,and the insulation paybacks.
The air conditioning of Federal buildings remains and will remain an serious cost over the next decade.
Find out the rates being paid,and how much the solar panels would cut this one cost factor. Much of the population in the US lives in regions with very high air conditioning costs. Would not this experiment help them develop their own policies?
Comment
10 of 12
September 3, 2011
I like William comment above. Rather then sinking $500M of DoE funds in grants/loans to prop up US Solar manufacturers, most of whom have filed for bankruptcy. I propose the following. The US Congress and DOE should reallocate funding to add solar and renewable energy to all government buildings. The contract bidding process should call for a certain fraction of domestic product. The funds could be distributed and managed by states.
This is a case where the US government creates a market and industry will know what to do. This is far better than the DoE tries to create an industry.
Comment
11 of 12
September 3, 2011
In our current bail out and stimulus economy with trillions in Debt, $1.6B is chump change

CNN recently reported on a Govt commissioned report that details that more than $60B has been wasted or is unaccounted for in DoD contracts in Iraq and Afghan.
$60B is enough to but Solar on the roof of every home in California and Texas. Imagine the the boost in jobs and incentives for our solar industries -- As I said, government should create a market or a need and then let good old capitalism will take over to develop the industy.
Comment
12 of 12
October 25, 2011
This is Vallabh Kapadi from the company Global

Power Developers based in Mumbai(India). We

undertake micro and mega wind turbine projects i.e.

basically windmills. We offer cost effective

wind-solar hybrid solution for customers. We do

help customers with setting up the wind farms from

1MW till 100MW.I do have detailed project report

that contains the details of the returns of the

investment for a wind farm project. I have

calculated in detail for anyone to understand the

basic of the wind farm technology.Kindly call back

at the number 00919821321361/00919920421119 for any

assistance. or email at

vallabhkapadi@gmail.com.kindly visit the site

www.gpowerdevelopers.com. rgds Vallabh Kapadi/ Sr.

Marketing Engineer:)
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

John Farrell

View John Farrell's Profile
About: John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits o... more »

Advertise With Us

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Comment:Visions KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Intertek Stoel Rives LLP Alpha Technologies
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters