Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Solar panels have been the topic of thousands of articles over the past couple of years. It seems like everyone is going pro-solar, but there is one thing that few people have addressed: Dirt. Solar panels glisten in the sun after first being installed, and make any building look modern, shiny and new when viewed from above. But after a little while, these panels reflect a little less and don’t function as well. Tree branches hanging overhead drop sap onto anything below, flocks of birds leave behind a mess after spending the night overhead while dust, grime and mold adds to the layers of dirt already coloring the solar panels a splotchy brown.

Dirt is a major problem with solar panels, and letting it accumulate over a few months may reduce a solar panel’s efficacy by almost 25%. It is suggested that solar panels are cleaned on a regular basis, but this can be time consuming and even dangerous.

OCS Energy has developed a practical solution with the use of an automated cleaning system. In a recent press release, the company explains why they came up with the novel idea:

“After receiving numerous maintenance inquiries from clients over the years, and seeing no practical cleaning solutions, Rich O’Connell, CEO of OCS Energy, developed the SolarWash system. The patent pending SolarWash system provides a complete solar cleaning solution including maintenance free nozzles, a web?based interface, and a programmable logic controller (PLC). The end?to?end solution allows operators of large PV systems to effectively manage their resources, initiating the washing of panels without the need to schedule a maintenance crew.”

Panel performance declines without regular cleaning – OCS Energy has an automated solution. (Source: OCS Energy, Inc.)

Buyers of solar panels often assume that the work is over after the panels are installed.

Obviously this isn’t the case when cleaning crews need to be hired on a regular basis in order to keep the panels functioning properly.

SolarWash isn’t exactly cheap, but it will pay for itself in under five years by eliminating cleaning costs and increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the panels.

Solar panels will now really be maintenance-free with SolarWash’s fully automated fanning nozzles spraying the panels down whenever they get too dirty.

Global warming is seen everywhere as one of the most important issues. From the EU to the G8, leaders trip over one another to affirm their commitment to cutting CO2 to heal the world. What they do not often acknowledge – in part because it would lose them support – is that the solutions proffered are incredibly costly and will end up doing amazingly little good, even in a century’s time. This is the truly inconvenient truth of the politics of global warming.

Let’s be clear. I’m not contesting the existence of global warming. Doing so is silly, given the clear and strong results from the UN climate panel. Global warming will most probably warm the planet by between 1.6 and 3.8C above current temperatures by the end of the century. The total cost of the consequences of this warming is estimated by William Nordhaus, of Yale University, to be $15 trillion.

However, we need to keep our cool: global warming’s total cost will be only about one half of 1 per cent of the net worth of the 21st century; that is the current worth of all the wealth projected to be generated in this century. Panicking is unlikely to lead to sensible policies. It could lead to exorbitantly expensive policies, which will do great harm.

Delivering better nutrition, education, and fighting disease all yield far better returns.

Many of the proffered global warming policies are designed to help politicians bathe in the warm glow of good intentions, with little or no regard to the mounting costs and infinitesimal benefits.

It is a well-rehearsed point that the Kyoto Protocol was a terribly inefficient, hugely costly way to do virtually no good. Even if every industrialised country, including the United States, had accepted the protocol, and everyone had lived up to its requirements for the entire century, it would have had virtually no impact, even a hundred years from now. It would reduce the global temperature increase by an immeasurable 0.15C by the year 2100. The cost of implementing Kyoto, taking the average figure from the various top macroeconomic models, would have been almost £100 billion annually for the rest of the century.

The US declined to sign up to Kyoto and many countries, including Spain, Japan, Canada, and Greece, have had a hard time living up to their pledges. It is likely that the total reduction in carbon emissions will be less than 5 per cent of what Kyoto promised.

Yet the EU and others advocate that Kyoto-style policies are still right, only that much more than Kyoto is needed. The EU has promised to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, through a 20 per cent increase in renewables. There seems to be no better reason for this decision than that 20 and 20 in 2020 sounds good. Gordon Brown has wholeheartedly backed the plan, which includes making a dramatic increase in renewables – mainly 3,500 wind turbines in the North Sea.

The British Government estimates the cumulative carbon saving from all its plans at somewhere between 950 and 1,100 million tonnes of CO2 by 2030. The Department for Business will not give a figure beyond that timeframe but, given that wind turbines have a lifetime of about two decades, this seems the relevant cumulative reduction given the investment. The department confirms that the total investment from public and private sources into renewables will be about £100 billion.

Computer modelling – using DICE (dynamic integrated model of climate and the economy) – shows that the net effect of the UK renewables effort is impossibly tiny. The temperature increase by 2100 without Mr Brown’s plan would have been 2.4536181C. With the best-case scenario the huge UK effort means that the temperature at the end of the century would be 2.4532342C. The effect is a difference of about 0.00038C – or about one three-thousandth of a degree in a hundred years. This is the equivalent of delaying the temperature increase by the end of the century by a little less than a week.

Of course, these numbers are way too precise: different models and assumptions would give somewhat different results. Yet because we are talking about relative change, the absolute climate sensitivity of the particular model matters very little. Thus the order of magnitude is robust and indicates an astonishingly small effect for a very large cost.

If one imagines that the reductions could be sustained across the century (which presumably would also call for five repeated investments of hundreds of billions of pounds), the effect is still very small – a temperature reduction of about one six-hundredth of a degree.

Using the latest academic meta-study by Professor Richard Tol we can calculate that cutting 1,100 million tonnes of CO2 would create benefits worth £4 billion in terms of the impact on agriculture, forestry, preventing deaths from heat and cold, disease and unmanaged eco-systems. At a cost of £100 billion, the investment involves paying £1 to do less than 4p worth of good.

The UK emits about 2 per cent of global CO2. Thus we could imagine the world as composed of 50 UKs, each emitting one fiftieth of the carbon. If all 50 of our “UKs” paid a £100 billion to reduce temperatures by one three-thousandth of a degree in 100 years, the result would be still be trivial: one sixtieth of a degree by the end of the century. Costs would most probably increase similarly, fiftyfold to £5,000 billion. This amazing sum would simply postpone global warming and its problems by a mere 11 months by the end of the century.

The cost of £5,000 billion is equivalent to a hundredfold increase in global donations to developing countries. To make a simple comparison, the UN estimates that for about £40 billion annually, we could solve all major basic problems in the world – we could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic education and healthcare to every person in the world. But instead we are spending a fortune achieving almost nothing.

Of course, we shouldn’t ignore global warming. But instead of trying to cut CO2 emissions, we should focus on dramatically increasing the funding into energy research and development. What matters is getting low-cost low-carbon technology available faster. If the price of renewable energy dropped below the cost of fossil fuels by mid-century, everyone – including China and India – would switch to the greener alternatives. Work done by the Copenhagen Consensus suggests that such a policy could be 300 times better for the world than the UK approach. We could end up doing more than £11 worth of good for each £1 invested. While we would do much more good in total terms, the cost would also be much lower, and hence much more likely to be implemented.

When it comes to climate, we have to come to our senses. Yes, global warming is real and caused by human beings, but it doesn’t mean we should panic in our policy decisions. We need to do the right thing – and invest in discovering and developing new low-carbon technology.

Bjørn Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of Cool It: The Sceptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and serves as director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. This essay recently appeared in the New York Times and is republished here with permission from the author.

With many millions – if not billions – around the world believing today’s U.S. Presidential election could be the dawn of a new age of peace and prosperity and international cooperation – with even this skeptic among them fervently hoping they’re right – where are we with the dawning of the age of solar energy? How much solar power do we harvest from dawn to dusk, the world over?

Having spoken or corresponded with more than a few experts on this topic over the past few days, here is the status of global solar energy right now: The total installed base of photovoltaic capacity in the world as of 12-31-08 is estimated to be about 12.5 gigawatts. This is including both “inside the meter” (decentralized rooftop arrays) and utility scale “grid connected” arrays. Adding solar thermal is tricky, because technically speaking solar thermal also includes water heating for – you guessed it – hot water, but notwithstanding that version of solar thermal, the utility scale, electricity generating solar thermal installations worldwide by the end of 2008 will add not quite another gigawatt of output to solar’s contribution to worldwide energy production. The potential of solar thermal electricity however should be carefully weighed, given it has the potential to meet and even exceed the output of photovoltaic electricity in the coming years.

Much of the data to follow comes from a presentation by Paula Mints, a solar energy expert with Navigant Consulting, delivered late last month at the 3rd Annual “Investing in Solar conference held in Phoenix, Arizona. Her findings, corroborated by other analysts, put the price of large solar panels, sold in wholesale quantities, at $3.50 per watt – or $3.5 million per megawatt. The installed cost of these panels would be, at the utility scale, at most twice that amount, and possibly considerably less.

Photovoltaic electricity production is still primarily driven by crystalline technology, despite promising advances in a variety of thin film technologies. Shipments worldwide of photovoltaic panels totaled 3.1 gigawatts in 2007, and over 2.7 gigawatts of that total, 89%, were crystalline. It is interesting to note the total capacity in place as of 12-31-07 was a whopping 5.4 gigawatts, indicating just how much growth occurred in that year. Similar growth is occurring in 2008, with single plants under construction in several sites around the world capable of each producing 400+ megawatts per year of output.

For example, in a recent report issued by SolarPlaza.com covering solar development in China, there are dozens of heavily funded companies pursuing both thin film and crystalline technologies that are “aiming for growth rates of 100% to 400% per year.” China already has four solar companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, JA Solar, Suntech, Trina Solar, and Solarfun. China’s solar production capacity will exceed 1.0 gigawatt in 2008 and there is no end in sight.

An interesting note made by Mints in her presentation at the Phoenix Investing in Solar conference was that her findings indicate there is “no demand pull” in the solar industry. That is to say, without robust incentives on the part of nations from Japan to Germany to the United States – and elsewhere – to subsidize solar power, there would not be a natural market demand sufficient to sustain this level of growth. Such a reality should give anyone pause, in an environment of economic retrenchment and falling prices for conventional energy. Until the price of solar electricity falls well below $.10 per kilowatt-hour, which would equate to about $1.00 per watt installed, it will depend on political will instead of market pull to maintain its current rate of growth. Solar thermal energy purveyors already claim they can achieve these prices, as do some vertically integrated photovoltaic manufacturers – the next few years will see if their claims come to fruition.

Current estimates put that achievement, an installed cost of $1.00 per watt or less, still about 5-10 years away, although some of the thin film manufacturers are reporting cell costs already falling close to the $1.00 per watt level. The problem with extrapolating reports like this are twofold – these manufacturers still have to realize some markup to remain in business, and thin film, unlike the more expensive crystalline technologies, still has a lower estimated service life, which negatively skews the relationship between installed cost per watt and lifetime cost per kilowatt-hour.

Ultimately the potential of solar energy rests on two factors – the speed at which the cost for solar panels will drop, and the rate at which conventional forms of energy increase in price. If you believe that the most significant renewable resource in the world is and always will be human innovation, then you will understand that solar power has a real fight on its hands – since innovation leads to more efficient use of energy as well as myriad alternative sources of energy.

Two additional factors work in solar’s favor in the battle royale to become the world’s primary new source of energy. First, solar is simple – it can be deployed at the utility scale, or it can be deployed on the rooftops of the world. It can exist inside or outside the meter, it is solid state and requires almost no maintenance, and within the diversity of crystalline and thin film solar technologies there are solutions that are unlikely to create resource scarcity at scale. Secondly, the percentage of global power currently supplied by solar energy, based on 13.5 gigawatts with a yield of 20%, is hardly worth calculating. It amounts to about 2.5 gigawatt years, which if you rounded up to 3.4 gigawatt-years (the likely total by the end of 2008) would constitute one-tenth of one quadrillion BTUs. Given worldwide energy production in 2008 will total about 500 quadrillion BTUs, solar energy is still providing only 1/5,000th of global energy production. If solar energy can become commercially competitive, it has a huge future.

UTILITY SCALE PHOTOVOLTAICS

How energy cost competitive can these solar fields get? (Photo: NREL)

Imagine trekking through the snow in one of the most remote places in the world. Wind whips around your whole body. Your fingers and toes are numb from the cold. A thick fur lined hood obstructs your peripheral vision, but there is nowhere to walk but straight ahead, anyway. When it comes time to call in for help, the satellite phone fails to pick up a signal. Then the unthinkable happens…the battery dies.

A dying cell phone in the remote wilderness is a disaster. A dead mp3 player, camera or GPS system is not as serious, but also an incredible annoyance.

Solio, the world’s most advanced hybrid solar charger, has ensured that no one has to ever be without power. The lightweight design of the oval shaped device makes it perfect for travel, and when unfolded, the fan-like solar panels provide the Solio with an impressive charge: just one hour of sunshine will provide about 20 minutes of cell phone time. This is especially important for travelers or adventurers in the middle of an emergency.

The Solio Hybrid 1000 charger - 198 x 68 x 18mm, .6 watt output (Photo: Solio)

A fully charged Solio Classic model, has enough energy to charge an ipod for 20 hours. It is definitely worth it to bring a Solio on camping trips if you enjoy listening to music while sitting under the stars or on a secluded beach in the middle of nowhere.

If an outlet is available, the Solio will easily plug into a wall. The gadget comes with a variety of adapters which work for most devices. This eliminates the need to pack all the charging cables for the psp, Nintendo, camera or iphone that we can’t live without.

There is no need to worry about needing to replace your Solio any time soon, since its lithium ion battery lasts for 350-500 charges. The ‘internal fuel gauge’ indicates its current charge and figuring out the charge is pretty straightforward: Once the start button is pressed, a green light flashes 4 times verifying that the Solio is fully charged. A full charge takes about 8 hours to achieve with the help of direct sunlight.

Solio has given many individuals a chance to be less dependant on electricity. In Kenya, for example, the local Masai use a donated Solio to charge a cell phone used for medical emergencies.

This little device really is a lifesaver.

As the winds of change blow through America on this historic election day, here’s an update on wind energy. The last two years have seen an astonishing growth in wind capacity worldwide, particularly since the installed base of wind generating capacity now constitutes a substantial denominator over which to calculate percentage growth. Sometime this year, the installed base of wind generating capacity worldwide crossed 100 gigawatts. By comparison, the estimated total installed base of photovoltaic capacity worldwide at the end of 2007 was only about 10 gigawatts – and the yields from wind energy are now reliably over 25% – in some cases much higher – whereas the yields from solar average well under 20%.

If you want to learn everything there is to know about wind, the first place to go is read “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power, Installation, Cost & Performance Trends,” issued every spring by the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This report provides comprehensive information on the U.S. wind energy industry and includes a lot of useful information on worldwide wind energy. Today I had the opportunity to talk with one of the principle authors of this report, Ryan Wiser, who was able to shed some light on what is happening with wind in 2008.

As of 12-31-07, the total installed base of wind energy in the world was 94 gigawatts, and total new installations in the world probably will exceed 2007′s 20 gigawatts, meaning as of 12-31-08, the total installed base of wind energy in the world will be about 120 gigawatts. In the U.S., in terms of percentage growth, the story is even more dramatic. During both 2005 and 2006, not quite 2.5 gigawatts of wind capacity was installed in the U.S. Then in 2007 another 5.0 gigawatts of wind capacity was added. Estimated total installations for 2008 are at least another 7.0 gigawatts, putting total estimated U.S. wind capacity as of 12-31-08 at around 22 gigawatts; 77% of that in just the last four years; 55% of that in just the last two years!

The installed cost for wind energy has been in flux – but increased demand combined with increases in commodity prices led to cost increases in the past few years, something that will continue into 2009 since most of the turbines that will be installed in 2009 have already been ordered. The U.S. average in 2008 was about $2.0 million per megawatt ($2.0 billion per gigawatt). In 2007 the average was $1.7 million per megawatt, and in 2006 it was $1.5 million per megawatt.

INSTALLED WIND PROJECT COSTS OVER TIME

Since 1982 the cost for wind energy has dropped about 50%. (Source: NREL)

Getting from cost per installed capacity to cost per kilowatt-hour is a subjective exercise, but the variables requiring assumptions are relatively finite: installation cost (including land), operating & maintenance costs, transmission costs, the yield, the life, and the cost of financing and return to investors. In the U.S. in 2006/2007 the costs per kilowatt-hour for wind energy installations came in between $.045 and $.05 per kilowatt-hour; the 2008/2009 installations may come in about two cents higher than that, between $.065 and $.07 per kilowatt-hour.

An interesting fact regarding wind power is the question of costs for onshore vs. offshore. There aren’t any offshore windfarms yet in the U.S., but there are plenty of them in Europe, and basically the installation cost for an offshore windfarm is about twice what it would cost onshore. This disparity is mitigated however by higher yields offshore, as well as zero costs for acquiring the land. Also helping the economics of offshore wind is the presumably lower cost to market. A windfarm can be just offshore from a major metropolitan area, with a transmission distance of 50 miles, for example, whereas land-based wind is sited in areas where land is cheap and wind is plentiful, and these areas may be hundreds or even thousands of miles removed from major population centers.

As with solar, the installed base of wind energy, despite impressive percentage gains in recent years, is still minute compared to total energy demand in the world. At a yield of 25%, as of 12-31-08 wind energy will deliver 30 gigawatt-years of electricity. If we round this total up to 33.4 gigawatt-years, which is the energy equivalent of 1.0 quadrillion BTUs (known as “quads” by energy economists), then by early 2009, wind energy will constitute 1.0 quad of annual energy production, which is probably going to exceed 500 quads next year. Wind energy is up to one-fifth of one percent of global energy production.

When comparing solar energy to wind energy, the most interesting fact is that solar energy’s percentage growth is even more dramatic than wind. As wind turbine production grows by 20% or more annually, production of photovoltaics is growing at 50% or more annually. A very interesting bet would be when total solar output, currently only about 15% that of wind, will surpass wind. Prices for solar energy also are becoming competitive with wind – the prices to install utility scale solar are highly proprietary, but some credible estimates go as low as $3.0 million per megawatt, which is getting within striking distance of the installed prices for wind turbines. While solar still has a somewhat lower yield than wind, it has far more potential to deliver energy in decentralized applications, in addition to utility scale applications. And both thin film and solar thermal technologies are just beginning to take off. Nonetheless wind electricity is still demonstrably cheaper than solar electricity and, at least in absolute terms, is still extending its lead.

For more information on wind energy read our recent report “Multi-megawatt Wind Turbines.”