A Fix for Maximizing Energy from Solar Panels on Slanted Roofs

Researchers have shown a new way to help solar cells track the sun as it moves across the sky, which could boost a panel’s energy generation by 40 percent.

Most of the solar panels in the world sit on rooftops at a fixed angle, so they miss out on capturing energy during parts of every day. Now researchers have shown that by cutting solar cells into specific designs using kirigami, a variation of origami which entails cutting in addition to folding, they can allow the cells to track the sun’s angle without having to tilt the whole panel. This could have a substantial payoff: solar panels with tracking mechanisms can generate 20 to 40 percent more energy per year than those without trackers.

As shown in the video here, applying a specific kirigami cut creates strips in a solar cell. Pulling the two ends in opposite directions causes the strips to tilt and assume a desired angle. Crucially, the structure morphs in such a way that prevents the individual strips from casting shadows on the others, and the “waviness” of the new form does not detract from performance, says Max Shtein, a professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan. Shtein led the research along with Stephen Forrest, also a professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan.

The kirigami-based approach makes it possible to generate more electricity while using the same amount of semiconducting material, and accomplishes this to nearly the same degree that conventional tracking systems do, says Shtein. Today’s tracking systems, featured in only a small portion of the world’s solar power installations, are cumbersome and can be costly. And they function by tilting the whole panel. That doesn’t work on most pitched rooftop systems, which account for more than 80 percent of all installations.

The newly demonstrated device, which features flexible solar cells made of gallium arsenide, is only a proof-of-principle. Developing a technology practical enough for commercial application will take a lot more work. The researchers will likely need to come up with a system for encasing the structures to protect them against the weather and provide mechanical support, and may add electric motors to pull the cells apart at specific times during the day. “It doesn’t take much force at all,” says Shtein. He says that although the approach is best suited for thin, flexible materials, in principle it could work with “almost any kind of solar cell.”

Source by: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541191/a-fix-for-maximizing-energy-from-solar-panels-on-slanted-roofs/

‘Railway Solar’ May Be a Sweet Spot for Green Transportation

With climate considerations becoming more important in infrastructure development, train travel and other alternatives to petroleum-powered cars have a renewed relevance.

Trains are far more efficient and less polluting than most cars. In research for my new company focused on providing solar power to electric trains, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at learning how efficient this transportation mode can really be.

Electric trains are 50 percent to 75 percent less polluting than single-passenger cars and trucks and use comparably less energy per passenger-mile, according to a 2009 detailed analysis by Chester and Horvath.

The emissions profile depends a lot, of course, on the grid mix of electricity. Some grids, like in California, the Pacific Northwest and New England, are fairly clean already due to a mix of hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear and natural gas.

And over time, these grids are becoming cleaner. California, for example, now has a 50 percent mandate for renewable electricity by 2030. Regular cars are also becoming cleaner due to market forces and increasing fuel-efficiency requirements (CAFE) at the federal level, so the ratios may change a bit with time.

FIGURE 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Transportation Modes

Source: Chester and Horvath, 2009
I’ve written previously about the problem posed by China and other developing nations wanting to join the Western model of widespread individual car ownership. Car ownership per capita in China, for example, is one-eighth what it is in the U.S. and far less than that in India.

Even if all of the billions of new cars in the world in the coming decades are electric vehicles and are relatively low-polluting, there will still be many issues relating to resource constraints and congestion, as well as higher-than-necessary emissions from what is inherently a less-efficient transportation mode than mass transit.

One readily available alternative to the private vehicle ownership model is to make public transportation so good that people will choose to take a train rather than drive, or to forgo private car ownership even if they could afford one or more of their own cars. This model is becoming a reality with the rapid growth of electric-train systems around the world, particularly in Asia.

For example, Chinese electric train systems have more than doubled in size over the last decade and are now at almost 70,000 miles of track, by far the biggest in the world. India is in second place, with about 40,000 miles of track and growing.

Electric trains are a type of electric vehicle (EV). This may seem to be an obvious point, but the discussion of EVs here at GTM and elsewhere rarely includes electric trains under this rubric. I’ve been guilty of this omission myself despite my longstanding love of trains, electric or otherwise. As EVs, electric trains can be more or less polluting based on the grid mix from which they draw power, as with EVs more generally.

My recent article rebutting a working paper on the environmental impacts of EVs highlighted the fact that the location of EVs matters a lot. If the EV at issue is powered entirely with local renewable energy, the whole system is almost emissions-free: the true sweet spot for global transportation.

For a personal EV, solar on home rooftops can power most families’ car travel needs. The equivalent for electric trains is what I call “railway solar”: putting solar on train station rooftops, parking lots and on solar canopies over or adjacent to the train tracks themselves.

Electric trains are so efficient that a single 300-watt solar panel (about 4x6 feet) can provide up to 7,000 miles of an individual’s commuting miles per year, or 5 to 20 miles per day. The national average, based on National Transportation Database data on the efficiency of the various U.S. electric train systems, is about 4,000 miles per year for each 300-watt solar panel. One mile of train tracks can support 1 megawatts to 3 megawatts of solar panels, which can provide 2 million and 6 million passenger-miles of train travel. Yes, million.

The passenger-miles provided by solar or other renewables is practically emissions-free, even if we include the energy costs required to manufacture and ship the panels.

FIGURE 2: Miles of Daily Train Travel per 300-Watt Solar Panel

Source: NTD data and NREL insolation data

These numbers highlight just how efficient electric trains can be. The equivalent miles from one 300-watt solar panel for a regular electric car -- my tiny Fiat 500e, for example -- would be just 1,600 miles per year, or about 40 percent of the national average for U.S. electric trains. So electric trains are about 2.5 times more efficient than most personal EVs, which are in turn about 2.5 to 3 times more efficient than a highly efficient internal-combustion engine.

Here's another way of looking at it: my Fiat could carry the equivalent of about one 300-watt panel on its upper surface, which would provide just 4.5 miles per day of driving, or 1,643 miles per year. That same panel would provide on average 4,000 passenger-miles per year. There is enough space in the existing rail infrastructure -- on train stations and near train tracks -- for enough solar panels to provide all of the electric train’s power demand.

These numbers translate to the ability to supply a majority or even all of U.S. electric train systems from solar power. For example, Chicago’s Metra Electric line (one of the busiest metro systems in the country) is 31 miles in length. If just 18 of those 31 miles were covered in solar at 1 megawatt per mile, these panels, taking into account the solar radiation in the Chicago area, could supply 100 percent of that line’s electric needs each year.

Other renewables

Wind power is another obvious option for powering electric trains with on-site renewables -- where there are strong wind resources. Distributed wind has not taken off in the U.S. anywhere near to the degree that distributed solar has, but it could be a viable option in many circumstances, particularly where there are state rebates to offset the cost of wind turbines. Wind power in desirable locations is still cheaper than power from solar panels, and can also complement solar power by producing power at night.

Biomass power is also somewhat modular, but highly dependent on feedstock. Dairy gas in California’s Central Valley, for example, could supply a significant amount of the electricity demand for the planned high-speed rail project.

Challenges facing electric trains

Nothing is perfect, and electric trains do have some downsides. We’ve seen many of these downsides highlighted in the debate over the California High-Speed Rail project, which is now under construction after years of delays.

High-speed trains are almost always electric because of the power and efficiency that electric trains offer. A notable exception to this rule can be found with the proposed coastal portion of the California HSR. Due to aesthetic concerns over the catenary lines of electric high-speed trains, the current plan is to make this portion, eventually going through my hometown of Santa Barbara, traditional diesel rather than electric.

Train tracks can require a lot of land, and there are certainly areas where people are hostile to giving up land for new trains, even with fair market compensation. This is partly why the costs of California’s high-speed train have ballooned from initial estimates: the cost of acquiring land for new trains, and the legal battles that follow, can be prohibitive. This is not a problem, however, when we’re dealing with existing train systems, since those battles have been fought and resolved. Efforts to solarize train systems should focus on existing rail rather than new rail systems.

Trains can be noisy, particularly high-speed trains, because they are traveling at such high speeds (upward of 200 miles an hour in many cases). One cool feature of solar canopies over train tracks, however, is that they can include noise-reduction features by enclosing one or both sides of the train with transparent glass. Even better, a number of companies are now working on very thin solar films that coat glass and can actually produce power while still allowing all visible light to go through. In such a case, noise-reduction glass could increase solar power production further, but with additional cost.

Speaking of cost, railway solar canopies will require increased costs in terms of additional support structure and engineering that is specific to the electric-train market. Solar carports are pretty comparable, but they are not as tall and don’t need to be as robust as railway solar canopies. We can expect, however, that the larger scales made possible with railway solar canopies (1 megawatts to 3 megawatts per mile of track) could cut back much of the increased cost of structural support and engineering due to economies of scale.

Is the future going to include significant amounts of solarized electric trains? Given current trends for solar panel prices and the dramatic growth of electric trains around the world, it does seem likely, purely from an economic point of view. When we add in the environmental and other benefits from solarizing electric trains, it becomes even more likely.

My last column looked at the potential for the hyperloop concept championed by Elon Musk and others inspired by his vision. I concluded that the concept has tremendous promise but that the cost of actual projects is a challenging factor. We’ll have to wait and see how real-world costs pan out as actual hyperloop projects start to get built.

Railway solar has very wide applicability even if hyperloops catch on. This is the case because hyperloops are by their nature appropriate for longer distance travel rather than commuter or light rail lines, which are the sweet spot for solar trains. Long-distance high-speed rail can and should be solarized, but if hyperloops end up displacing planned and/or actual high-speed trains, then solarized hyperloops ensure that renewables still power our transportation future.

My preferred future looks something like this: a network of solar-powered hyperloops connecting cities around the world; solar-powered commuter and light rail in each of those cities; and self-driving electric cars, ferrying people to and from train stations and hyperloop stops.

And, of course, those electric cars will also be powered primarily from solar and other renewables, either on peoples’ homes or from the ultra-clean power grid of the future.

Source by: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/railway-solar-may-be-a-sweet-spot-for-green-transportation

Solar cell

A solar cell (or a "photovoltaic" cell) is a device that converts photons from the sun (solar light) into electricity.

In general, a solar cell that includes both solar and nonsolar sources of light (such as photons from incandescent bulbs) is termed a photovoltaic cell.

Fundamentally, the device needs to fulfill only two functions: photogeneration of charge carriers (electrons and holes) in a light-absorbing material, and separation of the charge carriers to a conductive contact that will transmit the electricity.

This conversion is called the photovoltaic effect, and the field of research related to solar cells is known as photovoltaics.

Solar cells have many applications.

Historically solar cells have been used in situations where electrical power from the grid is unavailable, such as in remote area power systems, Earth orbiting satellites, consumer systems, e.g. handheld calculators or wrist watches, remote radio-telephones and water pumping applications.

Solar cells are regarded as one of the key technologies towards a sustainable energy supply.


Source by:http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/solar_cell.htm

Solar Energy

With the price of non-renewable energy sources soaring, Kidzworld takes a look at the environmentally friendly energy source we all know and love - our sun! Get the goods on solar energy right here!

How It Works

Solar energy is the energy we acquire from the sun. Millions of years before humans realized the sun's potential as a renewable energy source, plants were using the sun's energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars to eat. This process is called photosynthesis. Today, we have tried to copy plants by creating something called photovoltaic (PV) cells. These man-made cells are comprised of semiconductors, which are materials that are able to absorb light energy. The most commonly used semiconductor today is silicon because it is, so far, the most cost-effective material. The silicon absorbs a portion of the energy from the light that shines down on it, electrons are suddenly knocked free and are channeled to flow in the same direction by electric fields within the PV cell. On both the top and bottom of the silicon, metal contacts are placed and, through these contacts, the solar energy is extracted and stored.

Practical Uses

Solar energy is used for a variety of different things but the ones that you are most familiar with are solar-powered calculators, solar-heated swimming pools and maybe even the hot water in your house is heated by solar panels. Because solar energy is clean and renewable, it would be ideal to make a move from non-renewable heating sources like gas to solar on a grander scale, so research is ongoing to make solar energy a more cost-effective alternative for people around the world.

Did U Know?

*Solar energy is measured in kilowatt-hours. One kilowatt hour (kWh) is the amount of energy              needed to burn a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours.

*Enough sunlight falls to Earth every hour to meet the world's energy demands for an entire year -        the trick is learning how to extract that energy in a cost-effective way.

*Approximately 10,000 homes in the United States are run entirely on solar power.
*Solar energy can even be used to cook food!

Source by: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/1288-solar-energy

Apple Reveals Solar Energy Programs To Clean Up Its Manufacturing Partners In China

Apple has plunged billions of dollars into making its global operations more efficient with renewable energy. The bulk of that push, which has won praise from Greenpeace, has come in the U.S. and Europe, but today Apple unveiled a suite of initiatives designed to make its business in China — the country where its revenue is positively booming — greener, too.

Timed in conjunction with CEO Tim Cook’s visit to the country, the U.S. company revealed that it will work with its manufacturing partners in China to help them “become more energy efficient and to use clean energy for their manufacturing operations.” Apple further explained that it is working with said suppliers, which include Foxconn, to add more than two gigawatts of ‘clean’ energy to those operations in the next few years.

That move alone is notable, since Apple’s China-based manufacturers have long been accused of polluting the environment. Back in 2011, iPhone supplier Pegatron was reprimanded over environmental concerns, while Apple reportedly clamped down on Foxconn and UniMicron in 2013 following accusations that they released water tainted by toxic metals into rivers.

One company’s initiatives won’t elicit a full clean up of China’s manufacturing industry, but Apple putting pressure on its partners to be more environmental friendly is a major development. Indeed, Foxconn’s own pledge today to create 400 megawatts of solar power by 2018 — the equivalent, it said, of the energy it uses for “final production” of the iPhone — is proof of the potential for change.

Apple also revealed today that its operations in China are now carbon neutral. That’s because — thanks to the completion of a 40 megawatts solar power system in the Sichuan Province — the company now produces more electricity in China than it uses in its offices and retail stores in the country.

The U.S. giant said it isn’t done there, and it plans to extend its solar projects with an additional 200 megawatts through projects in the north, east and south of China. It claimed that, once these additional facilities come online, its green energy production “will produce the equivalent of the energy used by more by than 265,000 Chinese homes in a year and will begin to offset the energy used in Apple’s supply chain.”

“Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time, and the time for action is now,” Cook said in a statement. “The transition to a new green economy requires innovation, ambition and purpose. We believe passionately in leaving the world better than we found it and hope that many other suppliers, partners and other companies join us in this important effort.”

Apple is certainly setting the bar for others to follow. The company is carbon neutral in the U.S. and China, while it claimed that renewable energy powers 87 percent of its international operations.

Source by: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/apple-reveals-solar-energy-programs-to-clean-up-its-manufacturing-partners-in-china/

Solar power subsidies cut might save just 50p on average electricity bill

Industry executives say latest government attack on renewable energy will take UK ‘back to the dark ages’, hitting jobs and investment

The government has unveiled plans to slash subsidies to solar power projects in an attempt to drive down annual household electricity bills, but later admitted it might save customers just 50p a year.

Industry executives warned the latest attack on renewables would take Britain “back to the dark ages”, hitting jobs and investment while damaging David Cameron’s credibility on tackling climate change.

Ministers have targeted larger solar installations of less than 5 megawatts – enough to power 2,500 homes – in a consultation on the early closure of the renewable obligation (RO) subsidy in April 2016.

The government also announced a review of another subsidy, the feed-in tariff, to make further significant savings in a move that could threaten state support for solar panels on roof tops.

In addition, ministers are to remove the guaranteed level of subsidy for coal or other fossil fuel power plants that switch to greener fuels such as biomass – generated by burning plants or wood pellets. The government says the move could save £500m a year from 2020 onwards.

Amber Rudd, the energy and climate change secretary, said the aim overall was to bring costs under control and she denied it would chase away investment.

She added: “My priorities are clear. We need to keep bills as low as possible for hardworking families and businesses while reducing our emissions in the most cost-effective way.

“Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly. As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies. We’re taking action to protect consumers, whilst protecting existing investment.”

The government said its initial objective was to reduce a £1.5bn cost overrun in the amount of subsidies being paid to the renewable energy sector by 2020/21 but indicated that more measures would follow to slash costs.

The cost overrun, it admitted, had been caused by a variety of factors including low power prices and larger than expected investment in solar and other “green energy” projects. But the planned cuts to subsidies for solar would only net between £40m and £100m by 2020, the equivalent of 50p to £1.20 a year off the average electricity bill, according to government background documents.

The attack on solar follows government attempts to end onshore wind subsidies and speculation that widespread cuts of energy efficiency subsidies will come later this year.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change policy at University College London, said the announcement was a pivotal moment in UK energy policy that gave the impression of two different governments running the country’s energy policy.

“One is ... pressing for strong international action on climate change, which signed an unambiguous cross-party pledge to phase out unabated coal, reiterated its carbon targets and which committed in its manifesto to deliver clean renewable energy as cost-effectively as possible.

“The other is a government which has moved to prematurely end supports for the cheapest of the UK’s main renewable resources, which has injected fear and uncertainty into renewable energy investors and which seems set to also scrap energy efficiency programmes which have helped to cut consumer bills and avoided the need for billions of pounds of new fossil fuel investments.”

Richard Kirkman, technical director of environmental services group Veolia UK expressed grave concern about the government plans, saying: “We appear to be entering another dark age where we will return to total fossil fuel reliance, power cuts, low confidence in UK investment, opening the door for fracking activities to maintain energy security.”

Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of the Shell, said ministers should remember the example of the North Sea oil industry, which took consistent Treasury aid to get off the ground.

“If we’re serious about building a new, clean energy industry in the UK, including our unique offshore wind resource in the North Sea, that also needs stable, long-term support from government,” he said.

Angus MacNeil MP, the SNP chair of the energy and climate change committee, said the proposals would evade scrutiny because they had been unveiled during the parliamentary recess.

Rudd had hinted at her stance on renewable energy subsidies at a meeting of MacNeil’s committee on Tuesday. She argued onshore wind farms could be built in Britain without any kind of financial aid.

Source by: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/22/solar-power-subsidies-to-be-cut-under-plans-to-reduce-green-energy-costs

Solar power in crisis: 'My panels generate enough power for two loads of washing'

Endless energy from the sun looked like a long-term solution for running our homes. But now the state has pulled the plug on the subsidies that made panels affordable for many. What happens now?

Sit back, relax, and read this story with an untroubled conscience: it has been created on a laptop and mobile phone powered entirely by the rays of the sun. This feat would surely astound the most idealistic Greek philosopher or Victorian entrepreneur. It would confirm their wildest hopes for humanity’s progress. Perhaps they would be even more amazed that it was possible via a coalition of Chinese companies, British roofers and local councils. Oh, and government support, which is set to be abruptly withdrawn.

The power comes from 16 black Ja solar panels that were fitted to the roof of my home in August. Together, these panels, each the size of a coffee tabletop, have a capacity of 4kW, enough to meet the energy needs of an average family home. Today, a gloomy autumnal moment, they have generated 4.403kWh. It hardly sounds impressive – it’s enough power for a couple of loads of washing – but collectively it represents a revolution. Solar hasn’t changed my life, but it has shifted my perceptions. A little monitor on my desk tells me how much electricity I am generating. I’m acutely aware of the scarcity of energy, the rarity of unbroken sunshine and changing path of the sun. In August, rays hit my panels at 8.30am and an image of a green finger materialised on my monitor, urging me to switch on appliances. Now it doesn’t appear until 10.30am and so we delay putting on the washing machine. We have toddlers around the house all day, so solar suits us: we time the dishwasher for daylight hours and the TV tends to be on more during the day than at night. If I’m working from home, I charge laptops and phones around midday, too. Solar’s drawback is that most power is generated in daylight hours, when people tend to be at work, and there’s currently no affordable battery technology to store the energy you generate. But that energy is not wasted: it goes into the national grid, and solar owners are paid for what they produce.

A million British homes now have rooftop solar panels. The thicker panels are solar thermal and heat water. Most, some 750,000 solar PV installations, convert the sun into electricity. Solar produces 1.5% of total UK electricity, up from virtually nothing in 2010. It has proved so popular that the government wants to cut the feed-in tariff, the solar subsidy, by 87%. Since 2010, domestic and commercial solar systems have been paid by the government for every kWh they generate. I receive quarterly payments for the electricity I generate at 12.96p per kWh with another smaller payment for what the authorities estimate I return to the grid. These payments are guaranteed for 20 years. Such has been the popularity of solar that the government says it is spending too much money supporting it: from January, it is proposing to dramatically slash this subsidy for new solar installations. The Solar Trade Association has warned this could cost up to 27,000 jobs; 1,000 are already disappearing with the recent closure of four big renewable companies. Will this solar miracle be shattered? Will rooftop panels soon resemble the relics of a bygone energy age, like the enormous cooling towers of coal-fired power stations?

Like many people, I was persuaded to put up solar PV not by promises of a fat cheque from the government but by meeting someone who’d had panels fitted and sung their praises. In 2014, I was researching a story about REPOWERBalcombe, a community energy group created by members of the Sussex village best known for its anti-fracking protests. Tom Parker, a gardener, had panels fitted on his roof five years earlier and then volunteered to help 15 renewable projects in the neighbourhood, including his children’s school. He had watched solar systems over 20 years’ worth of running time – and none had lost a single hour of power generation. “It’s fantastically reliable, much more reliable than the National Grid,” he enthused. “It’s just churning out energy, year after year.”

Last year, I moved to a south-facing house and this summer found a good deal for solar PV: my standard 16 panels cost £4,630 to supply and install, which was done in a day in August by an electrician and two roofers who were recent converts to solar employment. Business was brisk: they were supposed to fit two roofs each day. Business is even brisker now. Britain’s solar providers are swamped with work as people rush to get panels installed before the government introduces its planned subsidy cut. After that, with solar still a few years off “grid parity” – where a unit of solar power is as cheap as electricity produced via gas, coal or other fossil fuels – the industry will rapidly burn out. According to the Solar Trade Association, the proposed cuts will leave Britain with an annual solar spend of less than what Buckinghamshire county council is devoting to potholes this year.

I claim I would have fitted the panels without a subsidy because I want to reduce my dependence on fossil fuels; for others, solar PV is a pragmatic investment: at current prices, government subsidies and reduced electricity bills return your £5,000 in about eight years; then the subsidy – and lower bills – keep coming for the 20-year lifespan of the panels. Most experts say the panels will last longer. I have not yet noticed a rapid drop in my electricity bill, but reductions in southern England are estimated at £135 a year. If I was truly principled, perhaps I wouldn’t pocket the subsidy, but a solar meter was installed next to my electricity meter and I registered for the feed-in tariff through my energy provider. When the feed-in tariff began, in 2010, domestic early adopters were paid a whopping 43p per kWh. But they also forked out almost three times as much for their panels. My magic monitor informs me of the sun’s riches each day. My worst day so far – torrential rain – provided just 7p; the last £2 day was a month ago; will I see its like again before spring? Nevertheless, my solar is on track to generate the fitters’ predicted 3,485kW each year, which is more than my household’s annual electricity consumption. If so, the feed-in tariff will pay me £534.77 tax-free, each year.

The solar subsidy currently costs every energy billpayer £9 each year. This is the nub of the case against solar: why should poor billpayers pay for relatively affluent people like me to indulge our “green crap”? The government’s motives for cutting the subsidy were explained more pragmatically by the contractor who measured up for my panels, an old-school property surveyor who had moved into PV. The government looks like it is struggling to meet its legally binding target of renewables providing 15% of UK energy (including heating) by 2020 but such is the dramatic expansion of solar that it doesn’t want to pay millions in subsidies that cause it to exceed this target. So it is sensible to gradually reduce solar subsidy as panel costs fall: people will continue to fit solar and the industry will prosper and eventually be weaned off government support: the Solar Trade Association is begging the government to adopt an “emergency” plan to do just this. It claims it will add just £1 to annual energy bills.

When I call Leo Murray, he’s standing by a fake sun – a 10ft helium balloon filled with LED lights in Ravenscourt Park, London. The campaigns director for 10:10, a charity encouraging positive action on climate change, Murray’s lightbulb-like brightness is dimmed by the government’s desire to slash solar support. Who wouldn’t want to exceed our renewables targets, he wonders, when surveys show that solar is the most popular form of energy, with 80% support: “We explain to the public how we all contribute towards solar – it adds a couple of quid on our bills each year – and we can’t find anyone who is anti-renewable energy.”

Murray believes the government is tackling the success of solar the wrong way round. It allocated a finite sum of money and now that is almost spent, after the quicker-than-forecast uptake of solar panels, it is pulling the plug. “It’s ideologically driven. It’s coming from the Treasury. You see the looks on DECC [Department of Energy & Climate Change] officials’ faces – they don’t want to be doing this. It’s the most successful and popular climate-change policy ever implemented by the UK government – a demand-led energy policy engaging consumers in the transition to a low-energy economy.”

But why should hard-pressed billpayers subsidise expensive solar? “What really gives the lie to that argument is Hinkley [the proposed new nuclear power station]. Even staunch supporters of nuclear don’t think that is a good deal. At £24.5bn, it could be the most expensive object on earth. If you want to keep bills down, don’t do that – it’s definitely going to push bills up.” For Murray, there’s a simple way to ensure wealthy solar investors aren’t subsidised by less affluent billpayers: a solar levy could be progressively applied to bigger electricity bills. (There is a strong correlation between higher bills and higher household wealth, and there could be specific support for exceptions, such as low-income residents of energy-inefficient private rentals.)

Murray and 10:10 will continue to support volunteers in community energy. While media coverage has focused on commercial job losses, the solar cuts will also decimate community energy. Since I met Tom Parker in 2014, REPOWERBalcombe has gone from strength to strength. Funded by local people, Parker and his fellow volunteers have opened an 18kW array on a local farm and two smaller rooftop solar systems for schools. The Conservative-dominated local council this month approved their plans for a 4.8MW array which will meet all the power needs for Balcombe and neighbouring West Hoathly. But Parker is despairing at the government’s punitive approach to solar. “We demonstrated that the community hated the idea of fracking and loved the idea of solar and they are trying to prevent other communities from taking the same approach. It’s almost like we’ve been too successful.”

It’s not simply the subsidy cut: Parker lists eight major regulatory changes that have made it more difficult for community energy groups. These include making it harder for investors to obtain tax relief, changing the rules over the creation of energy co-ops and making renewable projects such as theirs pay a “climate change levy” – even though they are part of the solution, not the problem. “If someone had set out a year ago to say, ‘How can we most damage co-ops?’, I don’t think they could’ve done any more,” says Parker. As Murray puts it: “These people are volunteers, doing their best to get things off the ground and the ground keeps moving underneath them.”

REPOWERBalcombe won’t be able to grow any more, but it’s lucky to have established as many projects as it has, says Parker. Elsewhere, “it’s looking pretty dire for community energy,” admits Murray. “It won’t kill the sector dead but we won’t see any new projects coming forward.” The volunteers running community energy groups normally aspire to expand to a point where they can employ one person to run their project over its 20-year lifespan. The cuts create the prospect of volunteers being forced to manage their groups (committed to paying a return to local people who have invested in them) for 20 years themselves, unable to expand to hand over to a modestly paid professional. “That’s vindictive,” says Murray. “Presumably, it’s not meant to be.”

A botched cut in solar support may damage UK PLC, with investors fleeing such an unstable regulatory environment, as the CBI has argued, but it won’t trouble global trends. Solar currently produces 200 gigawatts around the world. Forecasts suggest this will be 1,000 in 10 years’ time but predictions, admits Ajay Gambhir, senior research fellow at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, have been far too pessimistic. Early 21st-century forecasts of a “US$1 per watt” price for solar panels by 2030 were reached in 2011/12. “That is a rapid cost reduction,” says Gambhir. Solar is a modular technology, so manufacturers quickly learn how to refine it when repeatedly making the same component. Chinese manufacturers will reduce costs to 35/40 cents per watt by the decade’s end, predicts Gambhir, confidently. And solar will probably be adopted in developing nations as quickly as the mobile phone in Africa: its modular character is ideal for remote countries with a limited electricity grid.

More exciting than ever-cheaper panels is affordable battery technology, which will solve my problem of generating lots of power at midday when I don’t really need it. Elon Musk of Tesla unveiled its Powerwall domestic battery to great fanfare this spring. In Britain, Powervault is selling dishwasher-sized rechargeable battery units for domestic solar for £2,800. “There’s been a lot of interest from early adopters who’d like to use more of the solar energy they generate,” says Joe Warren, managing director of Powervault. He predicts that prices could fall to £1,000 by 2020 with 50,000 UK households buying batteries.

It is not just makers who are talking up batteries. As Gambhir explains, increasing the amount of electricity storage has huge value to the National Grid because it helps balance variable supply and erratic demand (we all switch on the kettles during the World Cup final half-time). It also reduces the requirement to have big gas or coal power plants standing by to backup renewables. (Incredibly, the British government recently approved the creation of backup power stations run by diesel generators.) Batteries will also help the grid adjust to the big new challenge posed by the need to charge electric vehicles. Given these services, shouldn’t solar batteries be subsidised? “I don’t know if it’s being considered politically but from an economics of innovation perspective it makes inherent sense,” says Gambhir.

Grid parity – when solar is as cheap as gas or coal – is coming. Parity between solar and the retail price for grid electricity has already been reached in Mexico and even Germany. It will arrive in Britain in about four years, but most analysts believe that British solar won’t reach genuine parity with gas or coal (being as cheap to set up a big power station) for a decade. This will be too late to save Britain’s solar industry, if the cuts come. “Solar will get there and private money will eventually fill the gap, but it may not get there nearly as fast [without government support] and there will be more bankruptcies on the way,” says Gambhir. Murray is close to despair. To abandon solar at this moment “doesn’t make business sense and it’s terrible for the environment. The whole thing is a mess. The rest of the world is looking at us and thinking: ‘What are they doing?’”

Source by: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/20/solar-power-in-crisis-panels-generate-power-government-subsidy