Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Distributed Energy First, Wait On New Transmission Lines

By David Morris
April 28, 2008   |   24 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
April 28, 2008
I think David's point is well taken. Another important reason to have on-site or distributed generated power is that the users can more easily see and understand the costs of their energy use habits. In the end we may do much more to prevent planetary meltdown by changing the incredible waste built into our centralized generation paradigm, where users are almost completely disconnected from any meaningful information about the way they use energy - than by the amount of renewables we put in place. If you understand energy use as a kind of currency that you use to purchase certain lifestyle amenities, then you can begin to start seeing exactly how little of this currency is required to actually provide you with what you desire. It is almost always 50% more than what is optimally required to perform the functions and tasks you require.

But you have to have detailed information about energy use of each type of appliance. The simplest and most cost-effective way to accomplish this is with the instrumentation that is a part of distributed renewable energy systems - best if they also incorporate battery storage.

When you have an energy budget, you can size your appliances to your actual needs rather than just buying something because of its superficial design. I have been doing this with solar energy for 20 years and it works great. I use 50% less energy while having the use of all the tools and appliances and more than I always used before. Living lightly on the earth is not an insurmountable task. It takes a modest adjustment in our habits. Not too much to ask to keep our global support system in good health.

http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/
Comment
2 of 24
April 28, 2008
How is it that SCE can install systems at $3/watt when commercial system integrators are doing it at $6-$7/watt?

Is it because they can pass off business losses to ratepayers and thus afford to drastically undercut the market?
Comment
3 of 24
April 28, 2008
The author writes: "Therefore we should impose a moratorium on new lines, unless at least 80 percent of the electricity they carry is renewable or until we have exhausted our ability to tap renewable fuels available at or near our homes and factories."
It seems to me that the "control-freaks" had their chance at centrally planned economies with the Soviet Union and failed miserably. Global bureaucratic fiats such as the one the author suggests are almost always highly inefficient. Why should a locale where population growth increases transmission capacity needs suddenly be saddled with the need to provide 80% of its new energy capacity from renewables irrespective of that locale's ability to generate energy in such a manner? This is a horrible idea!
Comment
4 of 24
April 28, 2008
The author writes: "To address the issue of distributed vs. centralized renewable energy let me begin with a non-controversial proposition. We should first harness renewable resources available to us at or near the point of consumption."
I suggest that this is far from "non-controversial" and that most people would prefer that we harness the most affordable renewable energy resources first regardless of location.
Transmission capacity can take much longer to install than many renewable energy resources, e.g., wind turbines. Additionally, the power grid is overdue for overhaul, and in many locations lack of transmission capacity currently prevents harnessing the most efficient energy resources. Thus, the authors suggestion to delay all new transmission lines strikes me as a very bad idea.
Comment
5 of 24
April 29, 2008
David,
The reasons you cite for not building transmission are laughably slight. You are arguing by way of association that somehow transmission will generate more fossil fuel plants. Actually fossil fuel or nuclear fuel can be transported to the site of a power plant so transmission is not nearly as important to those types of plants as it is to the types of renewable energy that you are trying to push to the sideline. Some of the longest transmission projects in the world have been built to serve renewable energy because siting is so important for renewables (maybe because Minnesota is flat you think siting doesn't matter).

Can you articulate your objections to transmission and why you would condemn new CSP, geothermal, wind, offshore wind and wave power because of it? My article was accepting of all the tools in our toolbox, yours is extreme and exclusionary without really providing us with a rational basis for the extremity of your views.

There is a fundamental confusion in your ethical universe between the great evil of climate change and most effective solutions to that and the petty evil of an alteration to the visual landscape or a playground for recreation (evils which can be mitigated). Why the inflation of the evil of one and diminution of the other? It makes no sense to me unless you are just unaware of how the power grid works and the likely resources available in the critical next few years.

By creating another hoop through which renewables should pass you ignore that there are competing solutions or non-solutions to our energy/climate concerns. Rather than pay for your expensive longer term solution of uncertain effectiveness, energy policymakers will sooner turn to nuclear and coal with CCS or throw their hands up and just commission more conventional fossil plants. Compared with catastrophic climate change or unsustainable energy solutions, well-sited transmission for renewables is clearly preferable. Don't you think?
Comment
6 of 24
April 29, 2008
There is no reason why distributed RE cannot be baseload, dispatchable power. All that is required is cost-effective, no-maintenance, efficient electrical energy storage that can be part of a smart grid intertied system. There already is such storage in the form of economically scalable lithium-titanate battery systems. A recent 2 MW installation was reported at $0.50 per nominal kwHr. But with a reported 15,000 deep cycles for this technology at 90%+ throughput efficiency, this translates to costing about 3-4 cents a kilowatt hour stored, a fraction of the current standard of high-maintenance flooded lead acid batteries which run $0.15+ per kwHr stored. This would indicate that only financing to ramp up production (which would also reduce costs) of these batteries and the development of mass-produced distributed energy appliances that are cheap to install and have no or low maintenance is what stands in the way.

This is not a lifestyle choice it is a rational economic choice. It is also a choice which can maintain our lifestyle without wrecking our habitat. If you simply put in RE and allow the continuing incredible waste of energy, nothing gets solved. This means put the knowledge and control at the point of use.

http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/
Comment
7 of 24
April 29, 2008
Good comments all. My article did not propose shutting down all existing central power plants. It proposed maximizing the use of the existing distribution and transmission system before building new power plants that require high voltage transmission lines. A tip of the hat to Jonathan for noting the connection between efficiency and on-site generation. When one has a piece of supply one becomes much more conscious about reducing demand.

As for the need for baseload, the Minnesota study regarding wind energy and the capacity of existing transmission systems found that the wind energy would back out natural gas power plants. That would save natural gas, but also means that the capacity for making the wind energy firm already exists. Centralized solar with sufficient storage capacity to be close to baseload can connect to existing transmission lines.

And then there is the question of battery storage. At present that is not feasible, but developments have come very rapidly. As plug-in hybrids enter the marketplace(California just mandated about 60,000 by 2014) there will be a great deal of available collective storage capacity. A study of Sacramento concluded that the collective storage capacity of plug-in(and all electric vehicles) would allow for there to be a much higher penetration of wind into the existing grid system.

The point being that if we focus on distributed energy as the goal and centralized power generation(and remote fuels) as an add on we guide our intellectual energies and investment capital along a different dynamic than if we view centralized power as the norm and distributed power as the add on.
Comment
8 of 24
April 29, 2008
Interesting to note that no-one has commented on the ability for us to install distributed generation capacity quite easily, whilst simultaneously mitigating another problem area - municipal waste. An integrated EfW plant, capable of accepting say, 75ktpa gross of "black bin bag" municipal waste, should be able to generate 8-10MWe, dependant upon the proportion of inert material and recyclate content. Such a plant need not have a significant footprint and, assuming advanced technologies (e.g. gasification) are used, will not require major civil works or unsightly chimney stacks. Outputs at this level can be fed into the local distibution grid with the minimum of capital cost, and avoid any material transmission losses, whilst meeting the proximity principle for both power generation and waste management.
Comment
9 of 24
April 29, 2008
Good posts.
DG installed close to the load is highly desirable, but not always feasible. Dense urban centers lack the space for PV and wind. In the wintry Northeast, commercial facilities managers with broad flat roofs are unwilling to compromise their roof integrity (PV penetrations, or ballast) for the sake of one or two cents/kWh under a power purchase agreement. Onshore wind is negligible, and as for offshore, I offer Cape Wind as a reality check
(NIMBY). Conservation and efficiency upgrades are absolutely essential, and price is all the "information" customers require to get on board (it's called demand destruction), and has done more for the environment than all the talk in Washington.
Also vital: new and/or upgraded transmission capability to deliver wind power from remote and heretofore undeveloped regions. The author needs to get over himself. PV & wind turbine manufacturers, along with 92% of our
grid are powered by FF and nuclear (Hydro ~7%).
Nationwide, acreage (playing fields, expansive lawns) around our suburban schools seems ideal for hosting geothermal systems; their rooftops are ideal for large-scale PV. During peak summer months, when school is not in session, the power can be fed into the grid.
Installing PV in this manner is done at wholesale prices, as opposed to generous ratepayer subsidies to a few residential first subscribers, installed at retail prices. By definition, municipal buildings are built, operated and maintained by the taxpayers, that's a more equitable way of growing RE.

All that said, we still need new nuclear plants. It's the cleanest baseload generator available. We're already saddled with a nuclear waste stream for millenia to come. Another 100 years of nuclear generation hardly matters. Ending coal use does.
Comment
10 of 24
April 29, 2008
David's social ideals are laudable but his grasp of the reality of how the electric grid works, how and when people consume electricity, current renewable and clean energy storage technologies and the climate crisis seems to be deficient. If we are to shut down fossil fuel plants, we will have to develop renewable baseload power. I'm wondering what distributed technologies he proposes will enable this. Yes, it is regrettable that some transmission lines can be used for both fossil fuel or renewable power but this is a peculiar and short-sighted reason to dismiss the building of transmission that has the potential to link the current renewable energy sources plus conversion technologies that have a chance to threaten fossil domination of electric supply. I am thinking primarily of CSP with storage and geothermal but also a new technology developing in Germany (renewable combination power plants) which teams up renewable generators using the transmission network to exactly serve the electric load.

David is repeating what I believe to be a common ethical/intellectual mistake in the renewable energy movement: allowing a social ideology, a vision of how people should live together, to dictate EXACTLY how he thinks our technology should develop. Unfortunately technologies and the natural world are not quite so malleable to our social ideals. Ethics is key but cannot dictate exactly the form of the external world...otherwise Dr. Pangloss would not be a foolish character and Communism would have succeeded in creating the New Man. If his advice were followed, so many promising renewable technologies would be left out to dry for even longer than they already have.

David is probably a great guy but in this case, he is way off base and playing a role in hastening the destruction of the climate. We cannot run our power grid or serve power demand purely on his personal preference for a particular type of social arrangement.
Comment
11 of 24
It never ceases to amaze me how the pro-utility scale remote generation / transmission line participants almost always lead their comments with name calling and insults. If you don't agree with them you are naive, misguided, intellectually inferior, etc. These are typical tactics used by those who cannot win the argument with facts.

Those who believe solar, wind, and biomass based distributed generation cannot achieve a significant impact on the RPS goals of states across our nation need only look at the success stories of other nations that, instead of allowing themselves to be bogged down in debate, are actually doing it!

The people in Germany don't love their environment more than we do. They don't have more wind, sun, and other renewable sources of energy than we do. They have lawmakers who refuse to sell out to the enormous energy retail lobby by favoring corporate subsidy and energy policies preventing their constituents from accessing a level playing field.

Here, special interest driven policies both on the state and federal levels are thwarting a long overdue decentralized renewable energy paradigm. This is America! What others can do, we can do even better! Germany's buyback policy is just one of many examples of how their lawmakers get it and ours do not - or do not care to. Any data addressing projections on the total renewable energy potential from distributed sources is completely skewed by this long history of heavily influenced, highly calculated, manipulative, dissuasive policy.

The backyards and rooftops of already developed lands will provide more than enough surface area for effective and efficient renewable energy production. This scares the energy giants and their supporters! Thank you David Morris for being part of a fast growing movement unwilling to accept the unnecessary destruction and sacrifice of our valuable wilderness and open public spaces. It's our land not theirs. Let's keep it that way.
Comment
12 of 24
April 30, 2008
Even if, in the "best of all possible worlds," plug-in electrical cars should become commonplace, I don't think it will be practical to consider them "collective storage capacity." Users might very well be willing to recharge them when rates are lower, which will aid in demand leveling and mitigate SOME of the limitations on intermittent energy sources, but few will find it convenient to allow their cars to be discharged at need by the electric company. No one is going to want to wake up after a cold night to find out they can't drive to work because the power company drained their battery to meet a heating-driven power-demand spike.
Comment
13 of 24
April 30, 2008
One of the most vexing things about the environmentalist community is their preference for insisting on idyllic solutions--even when this means certain failure for their goals and when practical solutions might achieve much of what they want. The author of comment #12 seems to suffer from this type of martyr complex. I suppose this person also suffers from the usually concomitant belief that powerful and nefarious factions (oil cartels, electric power companies, corrupt lobbyists, etc.) are intentionally despoiling the planet for the sake of quick profits and/or sheer malevolence.
Solar PV on everyone's rooftops isn't going to happen in the short term; it is way too expensive at the moment and even if we suddenly discovered a process to drop the price by a factor of ten, it would be a decade before you could scale up the manufacturing needed to meet a significant fraction of anticipated power needs. Wind power is here NOW but will require enhancements to the distribution grid to be feasible. Nuclear power is also needed as a stop-gap measure until more-optimal solutions become practical. The environment will not be saved by trying to convince (or force via legislative edicts) everyone to live the life of an eco-saint.
Comment
14 of 24
David M is EXACTLY right! It is pure insanity to completely and permanently kill off huge sections of our ecosystems with the specious goal of "saving the planet." What is needed is VISION, not GREED, and a price needs to be put on the destruction of our planet from remote, utility-scale "renewable" power plants and lengthy transmission as much as it needs to be put on the destruction from coal/fossil fuels. The habitat and migration pattern destruction, the enormous waste of water, the eminent domain, and the domino effects of destroying the perfect, crucial desert ecosystem cannot be the first option for anyone who cares about the planet at all, it must be the last.

We start by obviating the need for NEW power plants by addressing "peaker" power, which rooftop solar is ideal for offsetting by greatly reducing thermal heat island effects, plus generating maximum power at peaker times. We then use other local, point of use solutions (high-tech conservation, storage, and mini wind/thermal/PV/geothermal) to make a big dent in "baseload." Structures, brownfields and marginal agricultural/industrial land in the southwest can be built out with greatly oversized systems (and buyback programs like Germany's), which can all use existing transmission (the load having been reduced because of ubiquitous point of use systems).

Whatever we do is going to be phased in, and local, point of use, decentralized systems can be up and running MUCH faster, and usually cheaper than remote, wilderness-killing plants and destructive transmission lines. As the buildout progresses, net zero building codes, storage/efficiency/conservation technology and improved local generation technology (including thin film) will also be progressing if GOOD policy gets into place, instead of greedy, destructive Big Energy giveaways.

Thank you, David, for being a voice of sanity in this disastrous policy era - I hope you can make a difference!
Comment
15 of 24
May 1, 2008
Jonathon,
I'd be curious to know what the real-world performance of such a system is....
An upper bound on your system's electricity generation assuming peak performance for a mean of 12 hours of sunlight per day and 365 days a year gives 5256 KWh (every point on the planet averages this, but those of us who don't live in Hawaii, don't get it as evenly distributed throughout the year as you do). I suppose actual generation is significantly below this upper bound but even at this level and a 0.09 KWh electricity rate (a rough ball park for the national average) you generate $473 in electricity a year. On a $12,000 investment this is a 3.9% rate of return (upper bound). This is also completely neglecting your generator bills, which if replaced with grid power would presumably be much lower. $30 a month seems pretty high for those--perhaps this is a typo? It also completely neglects depreciation on your system, which presumably is only good for perhaps 40 years. In short, this does not seem like a cost effective investment. It is nice that you are able to afford to subsidize an environmentally friendly energy scheme, but most of the other 6+ billion residents will need to opt for other methods...
Comment
16 of 24
May 1, 2008
Mr. Cole:

You are correct.

My apology to Mr. Morris. Mr. Harvey, and all others.
Comment
17 of 24
May 1, 2008
I don't think it is useful to turn this conversation into an acrimonious p*ssing contest.

The simple fact is that our society cannot sustain the wasteful energy practices developed in the era of cheap oil. If we combine a dramatic refocusing on efficient, non-wasteful, energy use with renewable energy installations we can have our cake and eat it too. In the end, regardless of the mix of centralized and distributed generation, the large companies will end up being the suppliers in most cases, that is if they are smart. The dumb one's will join the buggy whip manufacturers in business history.

I can state unequivocally from personal experience of 25 years of using solar energy that we can live very comfortably and very affordably if we combine, efficient appliances, non-wasteful practice and distributed solar backed up by the grid.

I am amazed at the installations I see with 10kw and more of PV for a 4 person household. I live in a cloudy area and run 1200 peak PV watts to power my complete assortment of modern appliances. I use propane for cooking and instant hot water (soon to be pre-heated with solar) and otherwise everything is electric. Computers, scanner/printer/fax, large flat-screen TVs, DVD/VCR players, washer and dryer, refrigerator, lighting, cordless phones, stereo system, table saw and all power tools, microwave oven, and more. This is with occasional backup in prolonged dark cloudy weather. All the solar energy and balance-of-system equipment cost less that $12,000 including my $2600 backup generator. I average about 6 hours per month of generator use. which costs me about $30. I have no other electric bill. By the way I bought nearly all of this equipment on Ebay!

Efficiency, no-waste practices, energy use monitors and distributed solar add up to a winning combination. Of course this is not for city dwellers, but that leaves a lot of room for distributed PV.

http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/
Comment
18 of 24
May 1, 2008
JIm Harvey writes:
"The backyards and rooftops of already developed lands will provide more than enough surface area for effective and efficient renewable energy production."
I think you will find that if you put solar photovoltaic (PV) cells on EVERY rooftop in the US (neglecting for the moment the ruinous expense and the inability to produce even a small fraction of the needed cells for many years) this still would not meet all our needs. Any of the surface area estimates I have seen indicate we would need to cover ~2% of the total US land area with PV cells, but total rooftop surface area comes up well short of that amount of space. Additionally, many roofs are not oriented at effective angles, have snow coverings much of the year, are shaded by trees, etc. Very few places are zoned to permit backyard wind turbines, which, in any event would not be cost effective. The Utopian notion that our energy needs can be met largely by distributed generation is inconsistent with basis facts.

Harvey extolls the limited successes of Germany and and a few other nations at developing renewable energy generation. It should be noted that the vast majority of all current renewable electricity generation is due to large hydro projects, large-scale geothermal plants, or wind farms--and each of these generation methods requires transmission capacity to be effective.

Increased transmission capacity would only serve to improve the competitiveness of practical renewable energy strategies, especially those of an intermittent nature. Many locations have no viable renewable generation capability and remote generation or non-renewable schemes are the only current options at such places. Limiting new transmission capacity will not be conducive to environmentalist goals....
Comment
19 of 24
May 1, 2008
Ah yes. It's those pesky "pro-utility scale, remote generation / transmission line participants" again. Let's get security in here, check ID cards, and get them out please...
Meanwhile, Mr. Harvey will lead us in singing "Deutschland Uber Alles".

Germany is to be applauded for it's efforts toward a reduction in CO2 emissions. Thirty-five years after the first oil shocks, it seems the best our presidential aspirants can conjure up is a seasonal relaxation of federal gas taxes. Got to keep the "wheels" turning, even if that means the summer tourist trade.....
By all means let's continue the Washington blame game. Just be sure not to allow any further oil exploration and development in the US. Better we should depend upon OPEC, export our dollars, and ridicule the incumbent when the Saudis chide him for not doing more to tap domestic energy supplies....

If Germany continues on their current path, and we follow suit, it only means they'll suffer brownouts and blackouts before we do.
31% of Germany's grid power is nuclear, which they have vowed to shut down by 2022. (Coal = ~51%) They've also committed to a 40% reduction in emissions. Uhuh...
Fortunately, the US has made no such foolish commitment vis nuclear. (US nuclear = 19% of grid power, operating at a stellar 90% of capacity.)

Close scrutiny strongly suggests Germany will not meet both goals. Owing to rising natural gas prices, either they import energy, build new coal plants (26 undergoing review now, more proposed), and/or revisit their decision on nuclear. Maybe they can purchase some of France's nuclear power, and thus maintain the illusion.....

All that wind potential in the central US is useless unless you can deliver it.
Net metering means you can sell excess power to "The Grid", which moves it merrily on its way to buyers. Ditto for tapping into all those plug-in hybrids that still aren't at my dealer's lot yet.

Good posts Steven.
Comment
20 of 24
May 2, 2008
The only way we wouldn't need new transmission lines would be if most households were able to self-generate most or all of their own energy needs. We aren't anywhere near that yet. Therefore, the debate on whether or not to construct them is moot at best.
Comment
21 of 24
May 8, 2008
I agree in area's where not many people live, in large cities it's the opposite.

Large power stations are in UK, probably US as well and rest of the world, electricity is only about 30 to 35% efficient. Usually see heat rising into the sky, as you pass a power station, from large concrete cooling towers, even nucleur power stations reject heat from process. That I believe is the reason for building the stations near water, to take advantage of a local river or the sea, is so to reject the surplus heat.
Power is moved around the country by large high voltage cables, 550kV pylons carrying the power far above the ground. Even at this high voltage there is still volts drop, that has to be considered, from the producer till finally it arrives at your home.
Rural communities would be better off having a small power station locally, a small village or town would then be able to offer employment to local people. So instead of big pylons bring power in, local power station would supply local need first, then export it out on smaller pylon.
The way it used to be, before the second world war, when everyone wanted more . Every year in winter you either read or see on news or radio, reports about outages, where communities have lost electricity due to the weather. This year its Olympics, which might be the reason, 2010 its football and World Cup. I am told there is a large power surge at half time. Its something like THREE TIMES AMOUNT AS NORMAL, so to make sure to instant power as people make a cup of tea or coffee. More power is produced ready for the moment. There was a famous outage that hit Canada an US at turn of century, most people on east coast and mid west were affected. Cause a fault in Canada I believe, cascaded down till most eastern side of both countries, people had no power. Possible reason there was in following year, a lot of babies born on same.

John Gregson 07796 533 460
Comment
22 of 24
In the mid to late 1800s the power line was the railroad track. Every prospective town was demanding the railroad stop at their town. That was the lifeline of the city. If restrictions on the "lifeline" are imposed then we are strangling our economic growth. The Macah Indian Tribe is experimenting with ocean power. They are located off the Northwest tip of Washington State on the Pacific Ocean. The initial stage is for 1 MW of power. This will be enough to sustain 150 households with power. Further development would be hampered if a powerline is not installed for the grand scheme. The railroad must be built before the train can go on the track.
Comment
23 of 24
May 12, 2008
Americans need to get some backbone, stop letting Politicians and Corporations run US. It is all about money. We need to make it all about US! Today - big energy producers and distributors make billions and spend millions to keep the status quo. They lobby Congress and State Legislatures to continue support of 19th century methods of generation and distribution. They also spend millions on advertising meant to make us believe they are going green, the're the good guys, and we need them. What we really need is National Energy Policy that will make it possible and affordable for each of us to create our own energy. If Americans would raise their voices, loudly, for tax rebates, energy buy back policies, research and development funds for Universities, and government support of REAL Renewables, we could start working toward saving our planet.
Media likes to tell us that France does not support our middle east policies because they don't like us. Truth is -- It really does not matter whether or not they like US -- they deal differently with the middle east because their Strong Renewables Programs means they do not rely on oil. If an economy that is only slightly stronger than California's can do that, why can't America? I can only think of one reason -- Our government does not really care to.
David Morris has pointed out to us it is possible to switch from our current, outdated, outmoded, system of energy production, to more modern, efficient, locally produced Renewables. I only hope that websites like this and like protectourlands.com can bring the issues to enough thinkers that we begin to sway Members of Congress and our State Legislatures to make energy policies more responsible and more responsive to the needs of the American People.
We need to stop destroying land. I think it is deeper than that. Our energy infrastructure is failing & oil will run out. We begin development of new technology NOW, or we may soon be in the Dark.
Comment
24 of 24
September 25, 2008
I agree with the author and applaud his opinion regarding both centralized and distributed means of providing both non-renewables and renewables electrical energy sources via our countries old and outdated electrical grid. My main concern as a consumer and an inventer of "Solar Electric Carport Systems" (www.iportz.com), I truelly recognize that local, at the point of consumption/production of enrrgy (centralized use) truelly needs to become mainstream where less reliance on the traditional electrical grid becomes everyday thinking with consuners.

The average person must research, realize and become contious of the different types of photovoltaic systems, their designs, their efficiencies, the overall cost savings when purchasing sych as system becomes afforadle and worth the investment. Consumers need to become aware that old roof mounted systems are outdated and that newer more innovative photovta canopy systems exist that might appeal the averge consumer for both commerical and redisdential uses. These new types of (canioped) soale electric carport photovotiac systems will incorparte; car charging, vehicle to grid sale or use of energy to offpeak peak energy loads etc..

consumers need to understand that the location and placement can be of prime importance regarding the instllation of a very elegantly desdigned and used carprot photovotac systems that des more than just prduce electricity, it actually helps you to profit during the day whereby your autromobile an pump electrical enegy from its battery banks/Hyurgrogen enegy sotge sstem back into electricla grid. These new cntralized soalr elctric carprot systems will trul uses and the oveeall cost savings when used in both cmmecial and residetial settings placed in resdientasil drvways or on roof tops or parking lots would inessence grant them almost a breakeven on energy consuption and prdcution savings thoudasnes of doaalrs in the long run on utility bills experically in the west California per se.
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

Advertise With Us

Blue Sky Energy, Inc. 2GreenEnergy.com Grundfos Direct Sensors Geothermal Energy Association 3TIER ESI Inc. of Tennessee GoGreenSolar.com
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