Scott's Comments

I agree with Roberts' article, BUT, he misses the point that the conventional energy industries are spending millions of dollars worth of television and print media advertising right now that -- natural gas is plentiful, clean and job creating (aside from the millions of gallons of dirty water deposited below ground or in holding ponds), epa regulations should be delayed for coal or cost US jobs (aside that COPD is now the 3rd killer of people surpassing cancer), and the Canadian tar sands pipeline needs to go forward to create 2 million new jobs (in contrast to the only independent study that says 1,500 part time jobs). The point being, that just like the disinformation campaign on climate change, these industries want to confuse and misinform the public. We all need to see this now, and act on it locally or this disinformation will fill a vacuum of knowledge with the predictable consequences. Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.

You should be advised on the great work EarthSpark is doing setting up clean energy stores (Pwop) in Haiti, selling solar, efficient cook stoves, and even orchestrating some small community renewable electric grids. Scott Sklar. the Stella group, Ltd.

I would like to thank Dr Deodhar for submitting this article. While I do not necessarily agree that large PV systems need to be limited to 500 kW (likely 10 MW), the idea that distributed PV needs to mimic large inefficient electric grid systems, rather than more distributed agile cellular systems, should be taken seriously. Companies like Nextek are raising valid questions of embracing pure DC use of electricity, and should also be taken seriously. Now that storage companies in advanced batteries, compressed air, flywheels, thermal salts, hydrogen, and pumped storage are coming of age - the idea of providing local dispatchable electricity makes sense. Time for systems engineers and planners to drive this evolution rather than mimicing 19th century electric systems. Scott Sklar, The Stella group, Ltd. solarsklar@aol.com

I think articles like this are misleading. Any new technology has a minascule market share. And new entry technologies that are initially higher cost, have very small high value niche markets and take some time for market penetration and scale. I think Konarka's technology is very promising and is already in some unique niche applications for greenhouses and glass building atria that will be enduring markets.

The 8th comment here is correct. There is no way labor costs account for 50% of an installation over 2 kW. The caps insure more people access public resources, and this is sound public policy. The larger systems are generally by those with more resources to begin with. Public policy should be directed to allowing the broadest segment of the public have access to clean distributed energy technology, similarly to what we're doing with internet access. Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.

My comments are to JN #18 and a few of you commenting on the cost of PV. First, President Carter ddid put solar pool heating system on The White House which worked great. Reagan pulled them off the first six months in office to make a political statement against clean energy and those Carter/Jerry Brown types he despised. The costs arguments on PV are insipid - all new technologies cost more - and PV costs less than electricity from batteries, is cost effective in remote applications, and also cost competitive where electric rates are variable or high. More importantly, this President has made green technology one of his top policy planks, and PV was invented in modern times in the US and his policies are trying to maintain US dominance in this field. We need to laud anyone pushing for PV on The White House. - Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.

Our book was just updated and re-re-released by University of Nebraska Press this month, titled: The Forbidden Fuel: A History of Biofuels, by Hal Bernton, Bill Kovarik, and Scott Sklar. Bill is now a Professor at Radfiord College and has a web site on the history of biofuels as well. Good luck with your new book because the history is fascinating. - Scott Sklar

If I see one more myth about coal being 1.2 cents per kWh, I may regrow my hair on my bald head. In the three States where coal provides over 90% of electricity, delivered kwh costs are: Kentucky 4.63 cents/kwh, West Virginia 5.13 cents per kWh and Wyoming 4.98 cents per kWh. Now if the grandfathered, polluting coal plants still allowed to generate after passage of the Clean Air Act were actually shut down and newer coal plants were built
to generate the same amount of power, add another 1.8 cents per kWh. If the coal industry were no longer allowed to blow up mountain tops and leave their wastes in our rivers, stream, farmland and schools, add another 1.72 cents per kWh. If the coal industry were not allowed to emit mercury, a heavy metal that interferes with human and animal immune systems, add another 1.02 cent per kWh, and if required technology to reduce just the proven carcinogens from entering our air and water, add another 1.23 cents per kWh. When you add this aggregate 5.77 cents per kWh over Kentucky's 4.98 cents per kWh, you result in 10.75 cents per kWh and that's not including carbon sequestration or charging for the real cost of using 40 percent of our nation's surface water for electric power generation..

Hey readers - I did mention solar hot water in the paragragh about my home. The cost of PV i totally related to "scale" of manufacturing and "maturing" the distribution and installation delivery infrastructure.. As these develop, the costs will come down as with other industries.

Congrats. But don't change the the name again to
RenwableEnergyUniverse or a few years after that
to RenewableEnergyCosmos! - Scott Sklar

To Bill Yerkes, In regard to your comment: that "the environmental religion doesn't believe clean energy can replace coal - you couldn't be further from the truth. As Chair of the Sustainable Energy Coalition in Washington, DC composed of the effiency and renewable energy industry associations, and clean energy/environmental analytical and advocacy groups - we believe the US can cut by 40 percent it's energy use through 'high value' energy efficiency and can easily meet another 40% through renewable energy. Bill, you are a giant in the field but keep up to date, please. Warm regards, Scott Sklar

Using a military application to make dye-sensitized photovoltaics more accessible by consumers is absolutely critical to drive this exciting technology to the market. Think of window awnings, building canopies, and window shades that produce clean electric power. Our current photovoltaics came from the space and military programs too, since they can afford higher-cost technologies when they are still new. Konarka deserves a lot of credit in spearheading this new technology and bringing it into practical use.

While I agree with Joel Stronberg, all Coalitions have ebbs and swells during any political time period, and I have sure seen them in my years as Political Director of the Solar Lobby in the early 1980's, the Executive Director of the Export Council for Renewable Energy in the 1990's and as Steering Committee Chair of the Sustainable Energy Coalition today. The political challenges add to the parallel tracks, as do the vast differences in policy needs of the different efficiency and renewable technology sectors as they mature. But I am optimistic that these variations will yield strength, not weakness, even though it all appears messy now.

As usual, David Morris knows these issues well. He is correct that the biomass incentive should be based per ton rather than kWh, and extrapolated the sma eshould be true for geothermal and solar thermal whose heat value may be more value than it's electron value. Another approach would be that added incentives to pull more sustainable co-products or energy from the same resource.