10comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Millie Begovic Radojevic Jun 12, 2012 04:22  |
I think the problem addressed by the post is very relevant... there have been a number of initiatives i have come across that are looking to tackle the high upfront costs of setting up solar systems (paying in increments through top up system, pulling demands from many different sources/people/households in order to leverage the numbers for a better price etc). My only worry with the proposed solution is that it requires coordination and alignment of incentives of various actors.. and that's difficult, with high transaction costs. Actually we at UNDP are about to start the problem definition for a global challenge on designing a technical solution for a low cost (estimate to about $1,000), hybrid passive and PV solar system that has low maintenance- targeting the 1.3 billion people off the grid. We are just completing the tender procedure so i hoppe to be able to announce who we will partner with (it is down to two partners, both of which are very well known internationally and very exciting to work with). It would be wonderful to leverage Climate Co Lab's collective intelligence for this purpose as well, so ill come back in 1-2 weeks with some news on this!
Best
Millie
|
 Brian Chow Jul 1, 2012 03:23 | Proposal contributor
That is a good point. The whole thing is about politics, and the three main actors are the utilities (usually nonprofits, but a beast of its own), the government, and the residents.
Generally, there will be a lot of politics to push this through.
I've identified what could be another potential problem is the individual trouble that might come about through freedom of choice of the different PV technologies - which inevitably leads to varying rates of depreciation, which impacts the entire cash flow dynamic (being a non-cash charge). However, I'm sure there is a way to fix and standardize that. I suppose that a certain well-defined technology could have a minimum assumed absolute value depreciation rate, much like a mandatory Kelly blue book if it's not illegal. I suppose the market would try to compete above those levels, but I'm not quite sure as to what incentive they may have to do this.
|
David Haaren Sep 7, 2012 11:03 |
The cost of an off-the-grid electric system, as I have at my home, is now more about the batteries (or energy storage) than the PV panels (and additional sources). I suggest we pause to reconsider our assumptions about energy, utilities (in the broadest sense), and government (or Authority in general).
For instance, to characterize public utilities as non-profit is wrong. Our electric utilities are a huge source of government-subsidized profit. They are granted a monopoly and royal patent (I can not "legally" sell my excess power through wires to my neighbors). The rates they charge are "regulated" to actually "guarantee" a profit for investors. The authority of this guarantee is now being challenged by the realization that utility coal-fired generators are not actually serving the public good. But we saw this coming many decades ago. Who is to blame, the investors, the customers, the government? Does the blame matter? Can the new EPA CO2 regulations start changing the reliance on coal "in time" in any sense?
Maybe the very concept of "energy" has devolved just so it can continue to serve as a source of profit for centralized systems where the regulators (government) and a semi-free-market (utilities) have regretfully intermingled. This should be re-examined. Regulators should provide a level playing field for businesses to compete and not be involved in trying to guarantee profits. Technology has evolved so that electricity systems may no longer always require large-scale, government-sponsored investment to provide for the public good.
"New" technologies like PV panels and energy storage (e.g. compressed air?) may offer us a chance to start redefining our "energy" systems. Once you look at what we can do with solar, wind, hydro etc. it appears that supply is not really the problem as much as storage. Demand can also be "translated" to minimize burning of fossil fuels.
A Retroactive Carbon Tax might be just the thing to wake us up and get us busy as individuals who take some responsibility for the infrastructures that sustain us. All our purchases can be tracked fairly easily (if we can "capture" cash sales of fuel). The estimated "cost" of climate change can then be "billed out" retroactively according to who burned how much fossil fuel in a given time period, starting asap. This rough idea obviously needs work, but the principle does seem fair, based on the present science of GHGs and ecology in general. (Of course, I would advocate refunding most or all these tax proceeds as a Carbon dividend.)
The global scale of this problem should not overwhelm us. Your proposal is about these types of ideas, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
|
Brian Chow Sep 24, 2012 08:24 | Proposal contributor
Hi Dave1,
Your comments show a great deal of understanding. Speculatively I would think that you have some personal experience in this; I myself have undergone great disappointment with my electric utility, because of their policy against selling electricity and their monopolistic for-profit behavior.
Although this might be an optimistic stretch, even the same for-profit entities can change over time to see the light with green technologies, particularly suburban photovoltaics. I am assuming the lifetime return of a PV panel is 3-5 times its cost of manufacture to give such optimistic predictions; there are panels from the 1950's still operating today close to their original specifications. This figure can only increase over time as the technology improves.
The carbon tax is of course the most straightforward way to do things. However, I'm not sure how the profit-driven entities and public would buy it off. It somehow needs to be massaged in, so to speak.
|
 Icarus Icarus Nov 5, 2012 05:23 |
Interesting article about community owned solar plant:
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/worlds-largest-community-owned-solar-project-launches-england.html
Maybe this is the long run answer, with no need for utilities or tax supports...
|
Brian Chow Jun 16, 2013 12:23 | Proposal contributor
Thanks icarus. I have included this in the "Related Proposals" section.
Regards,
Brian
|
 Pia Jensen Jul 15, 2013 04:33 |
Did you come across this very popular project in your research?
Gainesville Regional Utilities - Solar Feed-In Tariff www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=FL77F
Gainesville, Florida, Becomes a World Leader in Solar cleantechnica.com/2012/01/06/gainesville-florida-becomes-a-world-leader-in-solar/
The project took off quickly and the host city became a world leader in solar
|
2013electricpowerjudges 2013electricpowerjudges Jul 17, 2013 05:21  |
Well presented, but lots of details and consequences need to be better explored, particularly recovery of fixed distribution costs once large scale deployment of solar is achieved.
Also, the proposal doesn’t show sufficient understanding of current policy: utilities in many locations are already required to buy back the power, and there are already federal tax credits that reimburse 30 percent of solar’s cost. So there in fact participation by utilities and the federal government today.
Given that, the authors should articulate more clearly what they propose that is new and original. What is the suggested improvement over existing policy?
|
Brian Chow Jul 23, 2013 08:16 | Proposal contributor
Dear Judges,
Thank you for the feedback. The proposal has been edited. I am hoping that the price point for solar is near the tipping point where a large-scale uptake happens, like the Toyota Prius. I suggested two ways to further reduce price from a consumer perspective: community-scale wholesale pricing, and multiparty cost-sharing.
-Brian
|
2013electricpowerjudges 2013electricpowerjudges Jul 29, 2013 02:24 |
Does not make a strong case that the outline approach has major benefits that cannot be realized by current programs, e.g., feed-in tariffs. Also, the discussion on the role of trade associations seems misinformed; their primary role is to advocate on an industry’s behalf in legislatures, not to undertake bulk purchasing. We chose not to advance to the final round this year.
|
