Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt.

In addition, the IEA has estimated that 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today.

“This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC,” said Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the IEA who oversees the annual World Energy Outlook, the Agency’s flagship publication.

Global leaders agreed a target of limiting temperature increase to 2°C at the UN climate change talks in Cancun in 2010. For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent, only a 5% increase compared to an estimated 430 parts per million in 2000.

The IEA’s 2010 World Energy Outlook set out the 450 Scenario, an energy pathway consistent with achieving this goal, based on the emissions targets countries have agreed to reach by 2020. For this pathway to be achieved, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater than 32 Gt.  This means that over the next ten years, emissions must rise less in total than they did between 2009 and 2010.

“Our latest estimates are another wake-up call,” said Dr Birol. “The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained. Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed in Cancun.”

In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas.

The challenge of improving and maintaining quality of life for people in all countries while limiting CO2 emissions has never been greater. While the IEA estimates that 40% of global emissions came from OECD countries in 2010, these countries only accounted for 25% of emissions growth compared to 2009. Non-OECD countries – led by China and India – saw much stronger increases in emissions as their economic growth accelerated.

However, on a per capita basis, OECD countries collectively emitted 10 tonnes, compared with 5.8 tonnes for China, and 1.5 tonnes in India.

Source: http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959

“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents inWyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.

GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.

The thin-film panels will be manufactured at a plant that GE intends to open in 2013. The company said in April that the factory will have about 400 employees and make enough panels each year to power about 80,000 homes.

Solar-panel makers from Arizona to Shanghai are expanding factories to add more cost savings that analysts say will sustain the industry’s expansion. Installations may increase by as much as 50 percent in 2011, worth about $140 billion, as cheaper panels and thin film make developers less dependent on government subsidies, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast.

Solar Costs Dive

The cost of solar cells, the main component in standard panels, has fallen 21 percent so far this year, and the cost of solar power is now about the same as the rate utilities charge for conventional power in the sunniest parts of California, Italy and Turkey, the London-based research company said.

Most solar panels use silicon-based photovoltaic cells to transform sunlight into electricity. The thin-film versions, made of glass or other material coated with cadmium telluride or copper indium gallium selenide alloys, account for about 15 percent of the $28 billion in worldwide solar-panel sales.

First Solar Inc. (FSLR), based in Tempe, Arizona, is the world’s largest producer of thin-film panels, with $2.6 billion in yearly revenue.

Smart Grid

Little also said the U.S. transition to a full smart grid will take “many, many years” to develop.

A complete smart grid would consist of millions of next- generation meters installed in businesses and homes, appliances that adjust their energy use when prices change, and advanced software to help utilities control electricity flows, he said.

“I think it’s going to be a long time before we can realize the full potential of the smart grid,” he said. “But it is coming.”

GE this year plans to introduce the “Nucleus,” a device that will let consumers track their household electricity use with personal computers and smart phones. The company also is investing in its appliance and lighting unit, including $432 million for U.S. refrigeration and design centers announced in October.

Utilities need to have incentives to put in place devices that save energy, and Congress needs to provide greater certainty on tax policy surrounding renewable energy, Little said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Wingfield in Washington at bwingfield3@bloomberg.net

source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

Large photovoltaic projects will cost $1.45 a watt to build by 2020, half the current price, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated today. The London-based research company says solar is viable against fossil fuels on the electric grid in the most sunny regions such as the Middle East.

“We are already in this phase change and are very close to grid parity,” Shawn Qu, chief executive officer of Canadian Solar Inc. (CSIQ), said in an interview. “In many markets, solar is already competitive with peak electricity prices, such as in California and Japan.”

Chinese companies such as JA Solar Holdings Ltd., Canadian Solar and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. are making panels cheaper, fueled by better cell technology and more streamlined manufacturing processes. That’s making solar economical in more places and will put it in competition with coal, without subsidies, in the coming years, New Energy Finance said.

“The most powerful driver in our industry is the relentless reduction of cost,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of New Energy Finance, said at the company’s annual conference in New York yesterday. “In a decade the cost of solar projects is going to halve again.”

Installation Boom

Installation of solar PV systems will almost double to 32.6 gigawatts by 2013 from 18.6 gigawatts last year, New Energy Finance estimates. Manufacturing capacity worldwide has almost quadrupled since 2008 to 27.5 gigawatts, and 12 gigawatts of production will be added this year. Canadian Solar has about 1.3 gigawatts of capacity and expects to reach 2 gigawatts next year, Qu said.

“You have to get better at it as well,” said Bill Gallo, CEO of Areva SA (CEI)’s solar unit. The French company could shave another 20 percent from the cost of making its concentrating solar thermal technology, and the same proportion from building and deploying plants, he said.

Electricity from coal costs about 7 cents a kilowatt hour compared with 6 cents for natural gas and 22.3 cents for solar photovoltaic energy in the final quarter of last year, according to New Energy Finance estimates.

Comparisons often overstate the costs of solar because they may take into account the prices paid by consumers and small businesses who install roof-top power systems, instead of the rates utilities charge each other, said Qu of Canadian Solar.

“Solar isn’t expensive,” he said “In many areas of the solar industry you’re competing with retail power, not wholesale power.”

Rooftop solar installations also will become cheaper, the executives said.

“System costs have declined 5 percent to 8 percent (a year), and we will continue to see that,” SolarCity Inc. CEO Lyndon Rive said in an interview. The Foster City, California- based company is a closely held installer and owner of rooftop power systems.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ehren Goossens at the BNEF Summit in New York ategoossens1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/solar-energy-costs-may-already-rival-coal-spurring-installation-boom.html

The world changes in a moment, according to Ray Anderson.

A female executive from a large customer once visited Interface, the multibillion dollar carpet manufacturer founded by Anderson, with the express purpose of seeing Interface’s achievements in sustainable manufacturing in action.

Since 1996, Interface has reduced fossil fuel consumption by 60 percent and total energy use by 44 percent, curbed greenhouse gases by 82 percent, reduced water use by 73 percent, and decreased waste going to landfills by 67 percent. Meanwhile, revenue has grown 66 percent and earnings have zoomed. Since 2003, Interface has made 83 million square yards of carpet with zero environmental impact linked to its production.

“I don’t believe this stuff,” she said, so Anderson let her loose. Soon, she began to quiz a fork lift driver.

“’Ma’am, I come here every day to save the Earth,’ the driver said,” Anderson recalled. “She about collapsed.”

The driver then explained how changes on the factory floor that have reduced company costs and cut fuel consumption. Then he cut the conversation short. The emissions from his forklift were creating waste.

“She was a totally changed person,” he said. “It was love on the factory floor.”

Anderson remains perhaps the world’s most persuasive spokesperson when it comes to sustainability. Interface’s accomplishments speak for themselves. Carpet manufacturing traditionally relies heavily on fossil fuels — carpet is made from nylon — and the industry generates vast amounts of waste.

Interface, though, is already 60 percent on its way to achieving a zero footprint by 2020. At the same time, Interface has cut $400 million worth of waste out of its operation.

“Eliminating waste has more than paid for the rest of it,” he said. (You can find an impressive array of facts and figures in his book Confessions of a Radical Industrialist. I recommend it as a gift for the climate-change denier in your family.)

The emphasis on reducing waste and fossil fuels has also spawned new product lines — such as the ReEntry 2.0 carpet produced with recycled materials — that have directly led to large contracts with customers like Disney and the University of Georgia.

A landfill-to-methane plant in LaGrange, Georgia has cut Interface’s costs as well as allowed the city to escape the need to spend $20 million on a new dump.  In fact, the city now gets around $300,000 a year from the sale of gas generated by the landfill.

On top of all this you have the man himself, a polite Southerner who grew up in a small town during the Great Depression. A football scholarship to Georgia Tech and few lessons in perseverance put him on the road to an engineering career and success as an entrepreneur.

There are politicians that would pay good money for that sort of hardscrabble background.

But even more important is the way Anderson believes that the concepts of recyclability, energy efficiency and sustainability can spread.

“People have to accept it for themselves,” he said.

The first person he persuaded was himself. In 2004, someone gave him Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology of Commerce. Hawken, one of the founders of Smith and Hawken, argued that industrial production, as we now practice it, will inexorably lead to disaster: you can increasingly exploit resources at an ever-accelerating rate. On St. Matthew Island in Alaska, a transplanted herd of reindeer grew from 29 animals to 1,350 to 6,000. When the grass disappeared, the population collapsed and St. Matthew Island was turned into a barren rock from overgrazing.

“It hit me like a spear in the chest,” Anderson recalled.  A few weeks later, Anderson — still reeling from his St. Paul moment — unfurled his goal to turn Interface into a zero-impact corporation. Employees were stunned and confused: Interface’s environmental commitment usually revolved around reiterating that it hadn’t violated any laws.

The concept, though, proved catchy and soon employees became motivated by the idea. Engineering manager Graham Scott persuaded nylon supplier DuPont to remove an ounce of nylon in a square yard of carpet. It freed up the same amount of energy that would be needed to run a factory for half of a year. Maria Ceballos, an employee in a southern California, plant came up with a way to save four tons of yarn a year. Job satisfaction, reduced costs and an improved environmental footprint were improved all in one motion.

Progressively, the ethos began to rub off on investors and customers. One customer, for instance, complained about a stack of battered cardboard boxes in one factory. He thought it projected a slothful image. Interface execs then explained how the boxes could be used several times before recycling. The customer admitted that they were the most beautiful cardboard boxes he had ever seen.

In fact, it’s hard to get Anderson to say something bad about anyone. He thinks everyone can ultimately understand the logic of sustainability and when they do, they will become the concept’s best salesperson.  I asked him why some people in the U.S. seem to be becoming increasingly hostile to renewable energy and sustainability.

“I’m not really meeting those people,” he said. “With oil at $100 a barrel, recycling saves us money.”

The only person who he seems to have no hope for is the late Milton Friedman.

“That guy did more harm than you can imagine. Friedman said that businesses exist only to make profit for their shareholders,” Anderson said. “A company surely exists for some higher purpose than that.”

It is the kind of statement you want to believe, I thought to myself after he said it. But history shows that the short-term profit motive invariably undermines long-term plans.

Then I remembered a conversation I had a few weeks earlier with Steve Tobak, a friend, source and chip exec. Tobak, also an author, is slightly to the right of Tom DeLay. He hates Al Gore, sneers at government programs and believes most green technologies are uneconomical gimmicks. On this particular day, he was excited about a recent purchase.

“Best thing I’ve ever done,” he said.

He was raving about his new solar system.

Maybe Anderson is right.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ray-anderson-and-the-power-of-one/

On that day, conditions must have been ideal for renewable energy production, but even on any given day, Spain is cranking out some clean energy.  Spanish power transmission company Red Electrica reports that in 2010, renewable energy sources supplied 35 percent of all of Spain’s electricity, which means the country surpassed its goal of having 30 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2010 and has almost hit its target of 35.5 percent by 2020 way ahead of schedule.

Last year, coal-fired power in Spain dropped 34 percent and gas-fired power dropped 17 percent leading to a 20 percent cut in emissions.

It’s completely inspiring to see a country making such significant progress onupping renewable energy production and slashing fossil fuel use.

http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3435

As part of our ongoing research, ClearSky Advisors has conducted more than 100 interviews with market stakeholders from every corner of the industry and regulatory system.  Through these interviews we have identified 10 key issues and their potential impact in 2011 and beyond.

1. Public Opinion and Awareness: Because the solar market in Ontario is driven by policy, the single greatest predictor of the future growth of the market in Ontario is its acceptance by the general public.  To what extent the public understands and supports the idea of paying a small premium for cleaner energy from Solar and all of the associated economic benefits will determine the fate of this program. Positive public awareness in Ontario must grow considerably over 2011 for the market to maintain its momentum.

2. The 2011 Ontario Provincial Election in October: The impact of the October election on the Solar market in Ontario is largely  – but not only – tied to the issue of public opinion, mentioned above.  The current governing Liberal Party introduced the Green Energy and Economy Act and associated Feed-In-Tariff program in 2009.  The opposition Conservative party, which is polling as the current frontrunner, has made rising electricity bills a major theme of its attack.  Both parties favor nuclear as a cornerstone of their energy policies and both seem willing to blame green energy on rising electricity bills.

In the lead-up to the election Tariff reductions are widely expected, but will those reductions be sustainable or too aggressive?  Would the Conservatives consider killing the program and risk backlash over killing jobs? Only time will tell.  But one thing is clear, in a province where it only takes 35-40% of the popular vote to elect a majority government, support for Solar must be broad-based enough to sway any political party that may come into power.

3. Installed-Cost Reductions: As a very immature and fast growing market, many inefficiencies remain in the Ontario PV industry.  Expect 2011 to be a year of rapid learning for the entire industry, which will eventually bring overall installed costs per Watt peak down closer to world-market levels.

4. Connection and Grid Constraints: 2010 brought significant uncertainty to many projects due to grid connection issues and grid constraints.  On the connection front, small-scale projects that were supposed to be exempt from capacity allocation were being told that they could not connect to they grid.

Proposed changes to the program are likely to put much more power in the hands of local distribution companies and HydroOne (Ontario’s primary grid owner) than was originally intended by the FIT program.  If these connection issues cannot be resolved in 2011 they will significantly constrain the market going forward. For utility scale projects, the processes for approving connection have been delayed significantly.  Both the Economic Connection Test (ECT) and the related TAT/DAT processes have been mired in months of delay and opaque timelines.  By the end of 2011, it is likely that we will know much more about the appetite for future utility scale solar development in the province.

5. Permitting/ REA/ MNR/ ME/OPA/DC Plan/ESA/ etc.: Permitting is always a local issue.  And in Ontario, there is an alphabet soup of organizations, agencies, and permits that determine whether a project moves ahead or not (and how quickly).  In 2010 many projects were caught or delayed somewhere along the way. Many of the organizations responsible for issuing permits were not necessarily a large part of the inception of the FIT program and are still struggling to find the resources to keep up with demand.  2011 will, hopefully, be a year where permitting is streamlined (but not everyone is counting on it).

6. Program Review/Tariff Reduction: The FIT program is scheduled for its first 2-year review in mid-2011.  Because of the provincial election, this review will be highly politicized and is expected to include tariff reductions and program changes.  The governing Liberal party is likely to use the review as a chance to reign in costs to ratepayers – but they can’t afford to put renewable energy jobs at risk in the meantime. If the reductions or program changes are too severe, it will stall industry momentum and predicted jobs won’t materialize.

7. Trade Disputes/ Free Trade Agreements: A key feature of the FIT program is the so-called domestic content requirement that stipulates which activities and equipment must be from Ontario in order to participate in the program.  Japan, and other countries, have been pressuring Canada and Ontario to remove the domestic content requirements because, they claim, it violates the WTO and other trade negotiations.

8. Defining Domestic Content: The Ontario FIT program has stringent stipulations for what development and manufacturing activities must happen in the province in order for projects to qualify for a FIT.  Specifically, module, racking and inverter manufacturers will not have their products used in FIT projects in Ontario without significant assembly occurring in the province.   The rules are clear for straightforward manufacturing processes.  But many participants have asked for rule interpretations for non-standard manufacturing such as blended-silicon or some thin-film technologies.   The overall supply of equipment in Ontario will be dependent upon the interpretation of these rules and 2011 will bring clarity to the market on these issues.

9. Financing: Financing for Solar PV in North America has never been straightforward – and the Ontario FIT is no exception.  The prospect of guaranteed rates for 20 years backed by the ratepayers of Ontario is attractive for lenders but the FIT contracts have unique characteristics that make financing difficult.  Some projects have already found financing and others are well underway.  At this point, it seems unlikely that financing will be a major stumbling block for development but only time will tell.  2011 will either be a year in which financing comes through or falls through.

10. Module Supply and Pricing: Will there or won’t there be enough modules to feed the market?  And what will the price be for that supply?  This will be an ever-changing dynamic in the Ontairo market over 2011.  A great deal of supply is expected to materialize over the coming year.  That, coupled with project delays and connection issues, may lead to sufficient supply and competitive pricing.  On the other hand, if a few suppliers do not materialize, or if a few large projects make significant headway in their permitting, there could be supply issues at various points throughout 2011.

The creation of an entire industry in a province from scratch is no easy task – but the FIT program has been successful in attracting significant investment and employment to the province already.  Whether or not the program continues to be successful depends largely on how these issues play out over the course of 2011.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/01/solar-in-ontario-2011-preview?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-January26-2011

Ontario installed 143 MWAC of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in 2010.

Ontario, like California, reports solar PV capacity in AC ratings. The rest of the worldwide industry, including world leader Germany, reports in DC ratings.

Using industry standard conversion rates, Ontario installed about 168 MWDC last year, bringing total installed solar PV capacity to 215 MWDC.

Of the total solar PV capacity in Ontario, 22 MWDC has been installed under the microFIT program for small rooftop systems less than 10 kW. The remainder of capacity has been installed under the province’s Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program or RESOP, the forerunner of the current Feed-in Tariff and micoFIT programs.

New Jersey installed 132 MWDC through the end of 2010. This brings New Jersey’s total installed capacity to 260 MWDC of solar PV.

The only other competitor for the top slots, Colorado, installed 44 MWDC in 2010, bringing its total installed solar PV capacity to 103 MWDC.

California has no central clearinghouse for data on solar PV installations. Responsibility for data collection is spread across agencies, investor-owned utilities, and municipal utilities. “Official” California Solar Statistics report that the state installed 152 MWAC, in 2010 or 180 MWDC. This is likely to go higher as more data becomes available.

In 2009, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) reported that California installed a total of 212 MWDC, and in 2008 nearly 200 MWDC.

If passed experience is any guide, California may have installed as much 240 to 250 MWDC in 2010. At present, no one knows for sure.

According to IREC, Ontario was third in North American solar PV installations in 2009. Florida and Colorado were fourth and fifth respectively.

In 2008, Ontario’s total installed solar PV capacity was less than 2 MW. Within two years the Canadian province has shot to the top of solar PV markets in North America.

ClearSky Advisors, a Canadian consulting company, estimates that Ontario could install 600 MWDC in 2011 if supply of solar PV systems can keep up with demand.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/01/ontario-leaps-to-second-in-north-american-solar-pv-for-2010

As conventional fuel prices rise and solar power falls, generation costs may reach parity in as little as five years for some fossil energy sources, Vahid Fotuhi, Middle East director of BP Solar, said at a conference in Abu Dhabi yesterday. Solar power costs about 20 cents a kilowatt-hour now, he said.

BP installed about 200 megawatts of solar capacity last year and aims to add 300 megawatts of that generation source this year, Fotuhi said. The company aims to pursue large-scale solar projects in the Middle East, he said.

Persian Gulf states are boosting power supply to meet rising demand from growing populations as they aim to spur economic growth through investment. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are studying nuclear energy and setting targets for generation from renewable resources to diversify supply.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude oil exporter, may start projects to build 200 to 300 megawatts of solar generation capacity within the next few years, Fotuhi said.

The kingdom is one of the main Middle East markets where renewable projects may take off, said Steve Mercieca, associate director for Renewable Energy and Environmental Finance at Standard Chartered Plc in Dubai. Egypt is also set to grow because of its “insatiable appetite for power,” he said.

Improving Technology

Solar power expenses are declining as technology improves, the speakers said. Fossil fuel costs may climb with oil prices that are expected to rise to an average of $94.50 a barrel in 2012 and to $102.13 a barrel in 2013, according to the weighted average of estimates from 35 analysts compiled by Bloomberg.

Several tenders to build plants with capacities of about 10 megawatts each will be announced in the Middle East and North Africa in the next year, said Sami Khoreibi, chief executive officer of Abu Dhabi-based Enviromena Power Systems. Enviromena built a 10 megawatt plant at Masdar, the renewable energy and low-carbon city project being built in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi, the largest emirate in the U.A.E. and holder of most of its oil, is also building a 100-megawatt solar plant in the desert. The emirate has set a target of generating 7 percent of its power from renewable resources by 2020.

Energy subsidies in the Middle East help to increase usage, Khoreibi said. Consumers in the Persian Gulf region pay only about a third of the real cost for power, Fotuhi said.

Abu Dhabi residents are set to see the real price of electricity on their January bills, though they will still only be required to pay the subsidized price, The National reported today. The government, which pays 86 percent of the bill for U.A.E. nationals in Abu Dhabi and 50 percent for foreigners, aims to entice residents to cut usage by showing the real cost of energy, the newspaper reported.

When Shea Homes put solar PV and solar thermal systems on half the homes in a development, all 257 of them sold within a year, two years faster than expected. And while these new houses were priced at $380,000 to $500,000, they sold for as much as $600,000.

This was well before the housing crash, so it represents the buoyant market of that time, in 2003. Still, it found that compared with non-solar homes, the houses that had solar on them sold for more. While the average price increase related was 55% for the solar homes, the non solar homes appreciated only 33% (pg 49.) This represents a 20% higher sales price for solar homes.

The Clarum Homes’ solar homes in the study also sold faster than their “control” homes. The solar homes sold in 23 months, the non-solar, in 28 months. This is a 17% faster home sale for a solar home.

The solar homes appreciated 20% more, and sold 17% faster than the non-solar homes.

After extensive interviews with the home buyers in the development, the(413 page pdf) NREL study made some other interesting findings.

If solar was already on the house, and factored into the price already, buyers were more likely to pick a house with solar. But if it was just one more decision to be made at the point of purchase, the decision got shelved.

This was found to happen because the salespeople were more likely to neglect to bring up the option altogether, for fear of losing a sale to indecisiveness. After all, they can’t even sell the house till the buyer has decided on either the Neon orange Corian or the Tuscan granite for the counter tops. They can sell the house without solar, but not without the counter tops.

Why builders should make solar standard:

By contrast, instead of leaving the decision to the salesperson, simply building the house with the solar system as standard was found to be behind the successful widespread adoption of the solar powered homes. Some of the homes were built with solar on them already, so there was no decision needed. The sales comparison between them and the non-solar homes formed the basis of the discovery of the 20% higher prices, and 17% faster sales.

Solar as the standard was also more profitable for builders themselves, the study found. In one California development, all 306 homes included solar hot water systems and 120 also included PV systems. That builder found that it was more profitable to build in the solar systems as the standard feature rather than wait for homeowners to request an upgrade and to add the solar in those instances later.

Even modest reductions appreciated:

Also, interestingly, the homes are not nearly as solar powered as they could be, with relatively modest reductions in their electricity bill. But the buyers were very satisfied with their energy bill reductions. Homes had small 2.4 KW PV systems (as well as solar hot water systems) that reduced their energy bills by only 54% compared with comparison homes. Of course, it depends on how many plasma TVs are inside, but the average home like this needs about a 6 KW system to supply all of its electricity.

And were these just crunchy granola-chomping lefty hippies buying the solar homes? Absolutely not. The study found no differences between the solar home buyers and the average buyers for these sorts of homes. But the buyers were thrilled with their savings.

As the NREL study concludes, these results suggest:

“…a conceptually fresh alternative paradigm for the building and marketing of new Zero Energy Homes. When this paradigm is used, builders, new home buyers, and utility companies will benefit. When appropriately applied to business practice and public policy, this new paradigm will help builders create the sustainable communities so necessary for our well-being and that of future generations”.

Source:  http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/23/solar-homes-sold-20-faster-and-for-17-more-nrel-study-finds/

Ontario is quickly becoming an internationally recognized renewable energy economy.  The past 12 months have seen unprecedented solar activity in our Province, focused on project development, system design and product manufacturing.  The economic output (JOBS!) that was envisioned in launching the Green Energy and Economy Act is happening.  We estimate that:

• There are 350+ solar developers that have launched in the Province and several more that have come to Ontario from Europe, the United States and Asia.
• Several manufacturing facilities (20+) are online in Ontario today or are slated to open in the coming months in solar module and inverter assembly and solar mounting equipment manufacturing

There is, however, much room to grow and many questions remain over the industry – mostly around product supply in 2011 when “Domestic Content” of systems must achieve 60%.  Is there going to be enough supply to meet project pipelines in 2011?  We are all about to find out!

Meanwhile, the Ontario Power Authority has been overwhelmed with over 30,000 contract applications for the Feed In Tariff and Micro FIT programs – this is great news and you will be seeing these solar systems on buildings and farms across Ontario!  As a result of this response, however, applications for contracts are now taking 3-6 months to process.   This leaves a couple of issues to be concerned with and both are reasons to send in your FIT or microFIT applications in the near future.

• The response in Ontario has been overwhelming, leading some to be concerned that it will reach a saturation point where the government will no longer offer solar contracts
• There is also a concern that the potential defeat of Premier Dalton McGuinty could end the program prematurely.

At a minimum, the FIT rate review is now one year away (October, 2011) and solar FIT and microFIT rates are certain to drop.  Solar contract rates never go up – so now is the time to lock in the highest rate possible.

If you are considering the purchase of a solar system or the leasing of your roof space to a 3^rd party, we recommend that you proceed in a timely fashion.  It is critical to get in the application queue for a Feed In Tariff contract to ensure you are able to participate at the current rates.

This program is a once in a lifetime opportunity to generate significant stable returns from unused roof space while helping to clean the air and our electrical supply!