Thursday, June 18, 2009
Solar water heater update
It became apparent that the solar hot water heater I built from recycled materials had a problem. I noticed that there was always moisture on the lower sides of the tank and a small puddle on the bottom. I gave it over a week to dry but it never did. Obviously, it was leaking. All the plumbing joints were tight so there was some sort of problem inside the tank. I decided to remove the tank and replace it with another recycled one that was in better shape. I closed the valves to remove the heater from the system and was quite excited when I broke the connection on the hot water side at the tank. The water that spurted out was hot enough to shower in! I drained the tank and used the water in the garden. Even the water at the bottom of the tank was lukewarm. This was after only a half day of sun. I'm sure that the constant moisture on the outside of the tank was cooling it as well so I have high hopes for the system with the new tank.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Solar Power at Data Center Scale
Solar power has finally reached data center scale. Phoenix IT infrastructure provider i/o Data Centers is installing a huge array of solar panels on the 11-acre roof of its new Phoenix ONE data center. The company says the photovoltaic panels will generate up to 4.5 megawatts of power to supplement the energy needs of the massive facility.
The installation planned for Phoenix ONE will dwarf all previous efforts to integrate solar power into a working data center. Its output will be nearly three times the 1.6 megawatts produced by the solar panels covering the roof of the Googleplex.
The first phase of 5,000 solar panels in Phoenix is scheduled to be operational in January, and will generate 500 kilowatt-peak (kWp), the company says. The array will be expanded in four additional phases during 2010 to reach a total capacity of 4.5 megawatts-peak.
That’s just a fraction of the 80 megawatts of power capacity that the 538,000 square foot Phoenix ONE data center will need upon completion. The solar power is also expensive, costing about 18 cents per kilowatt hour to generate in a market where grid power is 7 cents.
Time-Shifted Cooling
But Phoenix ONE plan capitalizes on another wrinkle in power pricing: the differential between the daytime and overnight rates. The solar plant will be combined with an on-site thermal storage facility to create a time-shifted energy efficiency system.
i/o Data Centers will run its chillers at night when power is cheap, and then tap the thermal storage “battery” to provide much of the facility’s cooling during the day, reducing its power usage when electricity is most expensive. The solar power panels will further rlower Phoenix ONE’s reliance on utility power during peak hours.
“If we can generate 3 megawatts during the day, combined with our thermal storage, we can shave our power costs by about 50 percent,” said George Slessman, the CEO of i/o Data Centers. “Anything I can do to move my power consumption to off-peak hours is going to save a lot of money. Solar is the renewable approach that works best during peak daytime power pricing.”
The Challenges of Solar
Solar power hasn’t been widely used in data centers because of the large amounts of energy required to power the servers and cooling equipment in modern mission-critical facilities. It requires a very large installation of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to produce even a fraction of the energy required by most data centers.
The only data center currently powered entirely by PV solar power is AISO (Affordable Internet Services Online), which operates a 1,500 square foot facility in Romoland, California. Intel and Sun Microsystems have tested solar power systems generating 10 kilowatts to partially power data center containers.
PV solar is also much more expensive than grid power. Microsoft has discussed plans to install solar panels at its San Antonio data center, but said such a system wouldn’t be economically feasible in the near future. “As solar technology advances, we anticipate that solar may become a more viable option within a few years,” the company said.
The installation planned for Phoenix ONE will dwarf all previous efforts to integrate solar power into a working data center. Its output will be nearly three times the 1.6 megawatts produced by the solar panels covering the roof of the Googleplex.
The first phase of 5,000 solar panels in Phoenix is scheduled to be operational in January, and will generate 500 kilowatt-peak (kWp), the company says. The array will be expanded in four additional phases during 2010 to reach a total capacity of 4.5 megawatts-peak.
That’s just a fraction of the 80 megawatts of power capacity that the 538,000 square foot Phoenix ONE data center will need upon completion. The solar power is also expensive, costing about 18 cents per kilowatt hour to generate in a market where grid power is 7 cents.
Time-Shifted Cooling
But Phoenix ONE plan capitalizes on another wrinkle in power pricing: the differential between the daytime and overnight rates. The solar plant will be combined with an on-site thermal storage facility to create a time-shifted energy efficiency system.
i/o Data Centers will run its chillers at night when power is cheap, and then tap the thermal storage “battery” to provide much of the facility’s cooling during the day, reducing its power usage when electricity is most expensive. The solar power panels will further rlower Phoenix ONE’s reliance on utility power during peak hours.
“If we can generate 3 megawatts during the day, combined with our thermal storage, we can shave our power costs by about 50 percent,” said George Slessman, the CEO of i/o Data Centers. “Anything I can do to move my power consumption to off-peak hours is going to save a lot of money. Solar is the renewable approach that works best during peak daytime power pricing.”
The Challenges of Solar
Solar power hasn’t been widely used in data centers because of the large amounts of energy required to power the servers and cooling equipment in modern mission-critical facilities. It requires a very large installation of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels to produce even a fraction of the energy required by most data centers.
The only data center currently powered entirely by PV solar power is AISO (Affordable Internet Services Online), which operates a 1,500 square foot facility in Romoland, California. Intel and Sun Microsystems have tested solar power systems generating 10 kilowatts to partially power data center containers.
PV solar is also much more expensive than grid power. Microsoft has discussed plans to install solar panels at its San Antonio data center, but said such a system wouldn’t be economically feasible in the near future. “As solar technology advances, we anticipate that solar may become a more viable option within a few years,” the company said.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Cost of Solar Panels
You may be wondering, “What is the cost of solar panels?” Can I afford them? How long will it take before I save enough in electrical costs so that they pay for themselves?
Determining the cost of solar panels is a complicated issue. You have to take into consideration facts like where you live, how much sunlight is available, how much power do you use and more. While the size of your house might SEEM like a concern, what really matters more is how efficient is your home. A tiny home with no insulation might generate more electrical costs than a brand new, energy efficient large home.
So, in order to find out the price for solar panels, you will need to determine your energy usage, determine the average amount of sunlight, and use that information to find out how many watts of power you will need. You’ll also want to look into the current tax incentives that are available and subtract that from your cost.
But, really, you’re thinking, “How much does it COST?” It will probably run upwards of $30,000 dollars to install a 5 kw system, which is what most houses would need to cover all of their electrical needs. The amount will vary based on the kind of solar panels you choose, who does the installation, your location and many other variables.
So, the short answer is that if you’re not planning on staying in your house for quite a few years, you probably shouldn’t count on the system paying for itself. Of course, there are many other reasons to have a solar system, and prices do continue to come down as time passes. And the current tax credits available may allow you to cut the cost of installation in half.
If you’re not looking for whole house solar, then there are still ways that you can install solar around your home. If you have a swimming pool, you can install a solar pool heater, and it will probably cost you less than $5,000. Solar water heaters will run you even less than that and provide excellent savings.
So, whether you’re looking for a whole house system or something smaller, the cost of solar energy is a bit steep to begin with, but well worth it in the long run. In the future we’ll address ways you can save money on solar. Is it possible to find used solar cells? How about free solar panels? Check back with us for the answer to those questions and more.
Determining the cost of solar panels is a complicated issue. You have to take into consideration facts like where you live, how much sunlight is available, how much power do you use and more. While the size of your house might SEEM like a concern, what really matters more is how efficient is your home. A tiny home with no insulation might generate more electrical costs than a brand new, energy efficient large home.
So, in order to find out the price for solar panels, you will need to determine your energy usage, determine the average amount of sunlight, and use that information to find out how many watts of power you will need. You’ll also want to look into the current tax incentives that are available and subtract that from your cost.
But, really, you’re thinking, “How much does it COST?” It will probably run upwards of $30,000 dollars to install a 5 kw system, which is what most houses would need to cover all of their electrical needs. The amount will vary based on the kind of solar panels you choose, who does the installation, your location and many other variables.
So, the short answer is that if you’re not planning on staying in your house for quite a few years, you probably shouldn’t count on the system paying for itself. Of course, there are many other reasons to have a solar system, and prices do continue to come down as time passes. And the current tax credits available may allow you to cut the cost of installation in half.
If you’re not looking for whole house solar, then there are still ways that you can install solar around your home. If you have a swimming pool, you can install a solar pool heater, and it will probably cost you less than $5,000. Solar water heaters will run you even less than that and provide excellent savings.
So, whether you’re looking for a whole house system or something smaller, the cost of solar energy is a bit steep to begin with, but well worth it in the long run. In the future we’ll address ways you can save money on solar. Is it possible to find used solar cells? How about free solar panels? Check back with us for the answer to those questions and more.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
STOCK ANALYSIS TAN
n just one day, enough sunlight strikes the earth's surface to power the entire planet's energy needs for about 27 years. However, less than 0.1% of the world's energy needs are being met via solar power. With traditional energy sources like oil and natural gas becoming strained under our current and future use, governments and institutions have been looking towards alternatives to meet energy requirements. Solar energy is quickly filling that niche, currently growing by 50% per year - making the photovoltaic one of the quickest expanding forms of renewable energy. Smart long-term investors, who can stomach the risks involved with an emerging industry, are taking notice.
The International Energy Agency projects that between 2001 and 2030, almost 9,500 new 500 mega-watt power plants need to be constructed in order to help satiate the planet's increasing energy usage. Alternative and renewable energy is "the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century," according to famed technology venture capitalist and Forbes "Midas List" member, John Doerr. Institutional investors have been following Doerr's lead, pouring billions of dollars into renewable energy companies and research since 2007, far exceeding the measly $150 million invested in solar energy in 2005. With the United States currently making up only 26% of the total market for photovoltaic s, there is certainly room for growth. And retail investors have the opportunity to participate in the progress.
Exchange-Traded Funds To The Rescue
With companies such as silicon wafer manufacturer MEMC Electronic Materials (NYSE:WFR) and module producer Canadian Solar (Nasdaq:CSIQ), the sun-power segment of the alternative market is quite diverse. Add this to the rapidly changing nature of the growing industry and you can see how assembling a portfolio of solar stocks can be a daunting task. Most retail investors wanting to participate in this space would be better suited in one of the few exchange-traded products in this area. ETFs allow instant diversification, intra-daily trading and other benefits. There are currently two ETFs on the market specifically dealing with the solar industry - the Market Vectors Solar Energy ETF (NYSE:KWT) from Van Eck Global and the Claymore/MAC Global Solar Energy (NYSE:TAN) from Claymore Securities. Both follow a similar index of global solar companies. However, clever ticker symbol aside, the Claymore fund is my preferred choice in this area due its 10.5 times trading volume versus the Van Eck ETF. In addition, it has hefty assets under management. (To learn more about ETFs, read our Exchange-Traded Funds Special Feature.)
Getting A TAN
The Claymore Solar ETF offers investors a truly global representation of the solar industry, with the United States making up only 23% of the index. The fund, however, is concentrated, with only 26 total holdings, so volatility will occur. The ETF includes positions in low cost leader First Solar (Nasdaq:FSLR) in addition to several corporations not listed on U.S. exchanges, such as Germany's SolarWorld AG and Spain's Solaria Energia. The fund also includes several of the recent U.S.- listed Chinese solar companies such as China Sunergy (Nasdaq:CSUN) and ReneSola (NYSE:SOL). The fund overall has performed poorly, down nearly 73% since its inception. It should be noted, however, that the fund did start trading in April of 2008, right when the current economic downturn kicked into high gear. In addition, the fund has bounced well off of its 52-week low of $4.65. Given the long-term nature of the industry, it should continue to grow for an extended time. The Claymore ETF charges a modest 0.65% in expenses and pays an annual dividend.
The International Energy Agency projects that between 2001 and 2030, almost 9,500 new 500 mega-watt power plants need to be constructed in order to help satiate the planet's increasing energy usage. Alternative and renewable energy is "the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century," according to famed technology venture capitalist and Forbes "Midas List" member, John Doerr. Institutional investors have been following Doerr's lead, pouring billions of dollars into renewable energy companies and research since 2007, far exceeding the measly $150 million invested in solar energy in 2005. With the United States currently making up only 26% of the total market for photovoltaic s, there is certainly room for growth. And retail investors have the opportunity to participate in the progress.
Exchange-Traded Funds To The Rescue
With companies such as silicon wafer manufacturer MEMC Electronic Materials (NYSE:WFR) and module producer Canadian Solar (Nasdaq:CSIQ), the sun-power segment of the alternative market is quite diverse. Add this to the rapidly changing nature of the growing industry and you can see how assembling a portfolio of solar stocks can be a daunting task. Most retail investors wanting to participate in this space would be better suited in one of the few exchange-traded products in this area. ETFs allow instant diversification, intra-daily trading and other benefits. There are currently two ETFs on the market specifically dealing with the solar industry - the Market Vectors Solar Energy ETF (NYSE:KWT) from Van Eck Global and the Claymore/MAC Global Solar Energy (NYSE:TAN) from Claymore Securities. Both follow a similar index of global solar companies. However, clever ticker symbol aside, the Claymore fund is my preferred choice in this area due its 10.5 times trading volume versus the Van Eck ETF. In addition, it has hefty assets under management. (To learn more about ETFs, read our Exchange-Traded Funds Special Feature.)
Getting A TAN
The Claymore Solar ETF offers investors a truly global representation of the solar industry, with the United States making up only 23% of the index. The fund, however, is concentrated, with only 26 total holdings, so volatility will occur. The ETF includes positions in low cost leader First Solar (Nasdaq:FSLR) in addition to several corporations not listed on U.S. exchanges, such as Germany's SolarWorld AG and Spain's Solaria Energia. The fund also includes several of the recent U.S.- listed Chinese solar companies such as China Sunergy (Nasdaq:CSUN) and ReneSola (NYSE:SOL). The fund overall has performed poorly, down nearly 73% since its inception. It should be noted, however, that the fund did start trading in April of 2008, right when the current economic downturn kicked into high gear. In addition, the fund has bounced well off of its 52-week low of $4.65. Given the long-term nature of the industry, it should continue to grow for an extended time. The Claymore ETF charges a modest 0.65% in expenses and pays an annual dividend.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Will people really donate $200 after buying a $300 air conditioner?
Robert Frank defends carbon offsets at the sister blog. I'm sympathetic to much of Frank's argument; in particular, the fact that Al Gore has a big house isn't much of an argument against carbon offsets. (If the crops are failing and the flood waters are rising, it won't be much help to stand on a street corner shouting: But Al Gore had a big house!)
But I'm not happy with the example that Frank chooses to illustrate his point. He writes:
Suppose you live in a northern city with normally mild summers and are considering buying a bedroom air conditioner to ease you through the occasional brutal heat wave. Your choices are between a highly efficient model that sells for $500 and a less efficient one that sells for only $300. Because you're concerned about global warming, you feel obligated to buy the more efficient model. But because you use your air-conditioner so infrequently, buying that model won't actually help much. You'd do much more to curb global warming if you bought the cheaper model and used the money you saved to buy carbon offsets.
My first thought is that you'd be better off buying a couple of high-quality fans for $79 each. Beyond this, I'm troubled by the example because what makes it work is the willingness of somebody to spend $200 extra for the environment. This can't be how large change can come. Usually the argument I hear made to encourage people to buy energy-efficient appliances is that they will save you money in electricity costs after a year or two. It's hard for me to see carbon offsets making a difference if they're being driven by voluntary contributions. Although I guess the idea is that if voluntary contributions become some sort of norm, they can gradually become mandatory contributions. I don't claim to have any handle on the policy issues here; I just thought it was an odd example.
But I'm not happy with the example that Frank chooses to illustrate his point. He writes:
Suppose you live in a northern city with normally mild summers and are considering buying a bedroom air conditioner to ease you through the occasional brutal heat wave. Your choices are between a highly efficient model that sells for $500 and a less efficient one that sells for only $300. Because you're concerned about global warming, you feel obligated to buy the more efficient model. But because you use your air-conditioner so infrequently, buying that model won't actually help much. You'd do much more to curb global warming if you bought the cheaper model and used the money you saved to buy carbon offsets.
My first thought is that you'd be better off buying a couple of high-quality fans for $79 each. Beyond this, I'm troubled by the example because what makes it work is the willingness of somebody to spend $200 extra for the environment. This can't be how large change can come. Usually the argument I hear made to encourage people to buy energy-efficient appliances is that they will save you money in electricity costs after a year or two. It's hard for me to see carbon offsets making a difference if they're being driven by voluntary contributions. Although I guess the idea is that if voluntary contributions become some sort of norm, they can gradually become mandatory contributions. I don't claim to have any handle on the policy issues here; I just thought it was an odd example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)