America's Energy Policy

May 10, 2012
Reality Check to America’s Energy Policy
The invention of electricity, to many, can be considered one of the greatest inventions by humanity, behind writing and the wheel. From its first discovery in the 1600s till present day, electricity has fascinated the minds of scientist everywhere. Over time society has been established with a very high dependency on this commodity. Imagine our world today without electricity or any of the inventions derived from it. Modern societies would have taken a much different path. Last year the International Energy Agency conducted a survey on the energy statistics for over 30 of the more developed countries. Around 62 percent of the energy produced worldwide was created from combustible fuel source (Monthly Electricity Statistics). When combustible fuel is burned, carbon and other harmful byproducts are released into the atmosphere. This brings about environmental injustice since every living organism in contact with the atmosphere now suffers the consequences which the few benefit from. While I believe this is the more grave concern regarding electricity, the majority of the modernized world might not have an equivalent conclusion.
Despite what any individual’s concerns are regarding energy, it has been generally accepted that the finite source generating the majority of our electricity is depleting at alarming rates. We need to find alternative sources for energy production. The most obvious and abundant source available is the sun. Advances in technology have enabled us to harvest the solar radiation which has been conducting the cycle of life for millions of years. There are two main categories when it comes to solar power, passive and active. The passive solar systems integrate the sun’s energy to heat living spaces and/or water in a building. These system are very simple consisting few moving parts, require negligible maintenance and no mechanical components (Passive Solar Design). Passive solar design is practice throughout the world, producing low energy cost buildings with less maintenance and superior comfort. The key components that contribute to lowering energy costs are appropriate solar orientation, the use of thermal mass and appropriate ventilation and window placement (Passive Solar Design). In order to increase the effectiveness of the passive design, one must understand the characteristics of the building site. The important characteristic taken into consideration during the designing process are wind patterns, terrain, vegetation, solar exposure and other factor which require professional architectural services (Passive Solar Design). Wind patterns are utilized in determining the placement of windows and doors to allow maximum ventilation to cool buildings. Buildings elongated on an east to west axis allow sunlight to attain a greater area to heat in cooler times of the year. During the hotter months, the use of shading can prevent solar heat from entering the interior. Constructing the building with brick, concrete or stone helps absorb, store and redistribute heat within a structure (Passive Solar Design). Generally, the concern brought up regarding the incorporation of this system is cost. If the building is designed accurately, the cost of a passive system can run the same or slightly more than conventional buildings.
The more recognized use of solar energy is active solar. Powerful electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun penetrates the atmosphere and absorbed through photovoltaic cells, or PV cells. The state of California defines active solar energy systems as those that "are thermally isolated from living space or any other area where the energy is used, to provide for the collection, storage, or distribution of solar energy" (DSIRE). Photovoltaic systems are usually the conventional panels you might see on a house or building. A single PV cell can generate around one to two watts of power. To boost the output of energy, the PV cells are connected together, forming a module. Many modules can be linked to form an array which the can be interconnected to produce more power, and so on (EERE). The individual PV cell is comprised of semiconductor material, typically silicon because it is abundant and non-toxic. When sunlight hit the solar panel, the light energy is absorbed and transferred to the semiconductor; knocking electrons free. The freed electrons are forced one direction by the electrical fields surrounding the silicon (Toothman and Aldous). This flow of electrons is called a current. Currents are harnessed for external use by placing metal contacts at each end of the PV cell. Every semiconductor material has band gap energy; a range of wavelengths that have enough energy to knock electrons free (Toothman and Aldous). If light photons contain more energy than required, the excess is lost. This band gap energy of the semiconductor accounts for nearly 70 percent of solar cell inefficiency (Toothman and Aldous). The next largest factor affecting the efficiency of PV cells is the amount of solar radiation available. This varies according to geographic location, time of day, local weather and landscape, and the season (EERE).
Photovoltaic panels were first utilized in the 1950’s, when they were used to power satellites. Since their first introduction, there have been numerous advancements in solar technology. But why haven’t they become more popular? The answer is simple, the electricity accessible to purchase from electrical providers is cheaper and more convenient. In order to make solar energy more affordable, the cost must be lowered and/or an increase in power they can generate. University of California, San Diego graduate student Jason Karp, developed a new solar concentrator design that increases efficiency of the PV cell energy production. Jason and his colleagues incorporated optics to focus the light rays hundreds of times which potentially delivers twice the power of rigid solar panels (New Solar Concentrator Design). Previous solar concentrators used single optic lens directly focused on independent PV cells. Karp’s new solar concentrator collects sunlight through thousands of small optic lenses imprinted on a common sheet. The lenses couple collected sunlight into a “waveguide” which directs it to a single PV cell (New Solar Concentrator Design). This design allows solar panels to contain fewer PV cells, lowering the cost, while maintaining efficiency. In January of this year, engineers at the University at Buffalo made another advancement which will hopefully dramatically increase the amount of energy a single PV cells can generate. Researchers embedded charged quantum dots into photovoltaic cells increasing the photoelectron lifetime and enabled the harvesting of a greater range of wavelengths (University at Buffalo). The augment in wavelength absorption resulted in larger energy levels in the band gap. Infrared wavelengths can now be harnessed producing an increase in efficiency from the previous level, around 19 percent, to 45 percent efficient (University at Buffalo). These advances in solar technology are still under testing to acknowledge their increase in efficiency before becoming available for commercial use.
While sunlight is free to everyone, it is generally conjectured that it is too expensive to integrate solar power into the average household. The United States government and many other investors have spent copious amounts of money on renewable energy research which has helped create new jobs and lower costs. Despite their efforts, renewable energy remains a minute component of the global energy use. After the global recession, many solar companies went bankrupted, the government experienced budget cuts and the price for U.S. natural gas plummeted due to newly discovered shale deposits. The renewable energy field turned economically infeasible. The essential factor in making the change energy market to renewable sources requires the rationalizing of energy subsidies. On the federal level, our government offers personal and corporate tax credits as well as grants and loans programs. Starting in 2005, the federal Energy Policy Act established Clean Energy Renewable Bonds, or CREBs, to finance renewable energy projects in the public sector. The Federal Housing Authority program supports the issuing of these loans to allow borrowers, who might be denied loans, to pursue energy efficiency, like passive solar, with security from loan default (DSIRE). Federal tax credits, up to 30 percent, are available for qualified expenditures for a renewable system. If the federal tax credit exceeds tax liability, the excess amount may be carried forward to the succeeding taxable year until 2016 (DSIRE).
The state of California offers higher property tax incentives, crediting almost the entire cost of a solar energy system. The California Solar Incentive offers five different solar rebate programs which are awarded as a one-time, up-front payment based on expected performance. The expected performance is calculated based on the factors affecting efficiency discussed earlier. Because the rebate is offered upfront, the calculations are often conservative to ensure the rebate does not exceed the power efficiency. Residents also have the option to receive rebate, paid monthly, based on actual performance over a five year period. These incentive programs will continue until the megawatt targets have been reached or the allocated incentive budget has been spent, whichever occurs first (Go Solar California).
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the largest electrical provider in the southern California area and offers their customers both expected and actual performance incentives. The average system size for California residents is four-kilowatt (kW) at an average cost of $8.70 per watt (Go Solar California). This includes average installation costs, resulting in a total cost of approximately $34,800. According to the California Solar Incentive, in 2007 the expected performance-based buy-downs began at $2.70 per watt (DSIRE). This saved around $10,800 for the average system for residential and commercial systems under 30 kW. As of April 2012, the state average expected performance-based buy-down rate dropped significantly to $0.35 per watt (Go Solar California). This significantly lowered the incentive savings to a mere $1,400. Actual performance-based incentives have also decreased significantly since they were first offered. When the DC to AC inverter operates at 95 percent efficiency, a four-kW system can generate on average 505 kW-hours every month. The incentive started at 39 cents per kW-hour, saving around $195 every month. The incentives offered when the budget was first created were much larger and decrease with the depleting fund. The most recent performance-based incentive rate is around 4.5 cents per kW-hour, lowering the saving 88 percent. Southern California Edison also offers their customers performance bonus based on the peak kW output of their PV system as well as total efficiency of the building (DSIRE).
The average electricity cost, as of this year, for the Los Angeles area is $0.204 per kW-hour. After deducting rebates, the cost of the average photovoltaic system allocated over its lifespan of 20 years results in a price slightly double the price already provided (BLS). When put into comparable dimensions, solar systems are not economically viable. Many of the local rebate and loan programs have exhausted their resources and no longer accept applications until the renewal of their budget. It is imperative that the government reassess the incentive policies immediately since recent technological advances have greatly increased solar energy production with lower manufacturing costs. Also many of these programs are close to expiring. Regardless whether residents accept the expected performance-based buy-down or actual performance-based incentive; the rate at which the budget is allocated should remain constant. Better management of the budget would allow for the maximum number of individuals to benefit from these programs instead of exhausting resources shortly after their launch.
The Environmental Protection Agency developed a method to provide solar energy to those who believe in the intrinsic benefits but cannot afford it. A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) is a financial agreement allowing a third party to own, operate and maintain photovoltaic systems for a host customer (Simms). The host purchases electricity from the provider for a predetermined period and at similar or lower rates, depending on the factors affecting efficiency. This is most often a win-win situation because the host is able to obtain clean energy while the provider receives tax credits and deductions.
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency launched the RE-Powering America’s Land: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites Initiative (RE-Powering Initiative). This initiative would recognize suspected and identified contaminated sites for the potential use of renewable energy generation (Simms). A site acquired in the 1950’s by Aerojet, was used to develop and test solid and liquid fuel rocket propulsion systems to support national defense, space exploration and satellite deployment. This site was listed on the National Priorities List by the EPA in 1983, which kicked off groundwater extraction and treatment efforts. RE-Powering Initiative, along with the exploitation of a Solar Power Purchase Agreement, dedicated to the installment of a 3.6-megawatt solar farm. This first phase was completed in late 2009, followed by second 2.4-megawatt phase completed in 2010 (Simms).
The EPA has also utilized funds from President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to further accomplish energy conservation and site cleanup. At the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Site in Davis, California, the EPA “infused a ‘green’ foundation into much needed infrastructure improvements at the site while simultaneously speeding the cleanup remedy” (Simms). This solar project has helped speed the cleanup process of one of the nations ' most toxic sites while being complete powered by solar energy. The Frontier Fertilizer Site marks the EPA’s first entirely solar powered groundwater treatment plant. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Jared Blumenfeld, U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson and Linda Adams, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, projected the new timeline for cleanup of the site at 30 years compared to the previous estimation of over 100 years (Simms). To further the conservation of resources, the project team is weighing out options for use of the treated groundwater for things like local irrigation. Since the evolution of Homo sapiens, our world has been altered significantly and it will never be the same. Modern extraction technologies accompanying the industrial revolution gave us the capability of utilizing natural resources found in the Earth’s crust. Since then, society has grown so reliant on these resources for production of energy. Some believe these resources will be depleted in the near future if change does not happen. Others believe future advances in technology will enable us to located additional fossil fuel sources which can be supported by the recent gas shale deposit discovery. I strongly disagree with our increasing dependency on non-renewable energy sources. The first phase to drift our dependency is change within incentive and energy policies. Restructure of the incremental allocation of the solar rebates budget is vital for achieving the maximum rebate to the greatest amount of people. Since California is greatly in debt, increasing spending might not be considered an intelligent route. Following the recent shale discovery, natural gas prices have dropped significantly. The government should implement higher taxes on gas usage, as well as electricity, to further conservation efforts and increase revenue. Taxes on energy usage could increase the price of electricity resulting in renewable sources of production becoming more economically feasible. Every kilowatt generated by solar can offset up to 830 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 1,500 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year polluted from the combustion of fossil fuel (Grayson). These byproducts have been proven to have heat capturing properties which contribute to the increase global climate change. This significant reduction in greenhouse gases could help stabilized the unsteady, erratic environmental conditions. Major government incentive, tax, and social transforms must be put into motion by today’s leaders if we expect to continue our growth and expansion without destroying the environment catalyzed our existence. To learn more about the common knowledge of solar energy around me, I interviewed three California Lutheran University students at the junior and senior academic level. I chose to interview upper class students because of higher educational experience and diversified among three majors; Theater, Communications and Biology. The first questions asked were; In your opinion, should the US government be responsible for providing incentives to encourage renewable energy? Or would it acceptable to implement taxes to drive fossil fuel energy higher? All three of the student answered this similarly. They thought the government should put high taxes for fossil fuel energy because of depleting sources. One thought supporting this answer was the fact our government would lose funds attempting to encourage renewable energy with rebates and incentives. If taxes rose the prices of cheap source of energy close to the price for renewable, they would increase funds, promote renewable energy and increase conservation. Another thought was that taxes should raise the price of non-renewable energy slightly higher to discourage it, in addition provide incentives to encourage renewable energy. The second question I asked was their estimate for the total price of the average (4 kW) solar energy system. The estimates ranged from the actual price around $35,000 to far above it at $80,000. Government incentives and taxes were estimated close to what they are currently. None of the students thought it was a good idea for the government to start with such a high rates.

Work Cited

* BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor, 2012. <www.bls.gov/data/> 29 April 2012. * DSIRE: Databaseof State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. North Carolina University, 2012. <www.dsireusa.org> 30 April 2012. * EERE:Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. U.S. Department of Energy, April 2012. <www.eere.energy.gov> 30 April 2012. * Go Solar California. State of California, California Energy Commission & California Public Utilities Commission 2011. <www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov> 29 April 2012. * Grayson, Jennifer. "Eco Etiquette: How Green Are Solar Panels?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 April 2010 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-how-green-a_b_554717.html> 10 April 2012. * “Monthly Electricity Statistics.” April 2012. International Energy Agency. <http://www.iea.org/publications/index.asp> 01 May 2012. * “New Solar Concentrator Design (w/ Video)." New Solar Concentrator Design (w/ Video). University of California San Diego, 22 April 2010. <http://phys.org/news191159758.html> 10 April 2012. * “Passive Solar Design”. Passive Solar Design, Sustainable Sources: 18 years of online Green Building Information. Sustainable Sources, 2012. <http://passivesolar.sustainableresources.com> 30 April 2012. * Simms, Marry. "Richmond Build E-Media Kit." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/solarpanels/news.html>. * Toothman, Jessika and Aldous, Scott. "How Solar Cells Work". HowStuffWorks.com. 01 April 2000. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/solar-cell.htm> 02 May 2012. * University at Buffalo. "In solar cells, tweaking the tiniest of parts yields big jump in efficiency." ScienceDaily, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 2 May 2012.

Cited: * BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor, 2012. &lt;www.bls.gov/data/&gt; 29 April 2012. * DSIRE: Databaseof State Incentives for Renewables &amp; Efficiency. North Carolina University, 2012. &lt;www.dsireusa.org&gt; 30 April 2012. * “Passive Solar Design”. Passive Solar Design, Sustainable Sources: 18 years of online Green Building Information. Sustainable Sources, 2012. &lt;http://passivesolar.sustainableresources.com&gt; 30 April 2012. * Simms, Marry. "Richmond Build E-Media Kit." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. &lt;http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/solarpanels/news.html&gt;. * University at Buffalo. "In solar cells, tweaking the tiniest of parts yields big jump in efficiency." ScienceDaily, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 2 May 2012.