CO-EXECUTIVE director of The Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), Dr Christopher Tufton, will this week travel to Barbados to chair a workshop on Barbados’ country report on renewable energy options at the Caribbean Development Bank Conference Centre in St Michael.

With funding from the European Union (EU) under its Energy Facility II programme, CaPRI has been implementing the ‘Frameworks, Policies and Instruments for Mobilising Renewable Energy in the Caribbean’ project over the past two and a half years.

The overall objective of the project is to empower both the public and private sectors and other energy consumers in the Caribbean to make informed decisions on renewable energy investments, and to provide input to policymaking in order to create an enabling environment to accelerate such investment.

The workshop will present the country report which included analyses of renewable energy technology options as well as a number of tools aimed at the public and private sector, including:

*Technology assessment tool — an online calculator which will enable Caribbean businesses and energy consumers to size and cost renewable energy systems to meet their energy needs;

* Renewable energy financing database — a searchable database of local and international financing schemes to allow energy consumers, businesses and project developers to identify appropriate financing for their renewable energy projects, large and small;

* Policies and incentives database — a complete database of incentives available for renewable energy investments in the Caribbean;

*Cost benefit analysis tool.

According to Tufton, the workshop will also include a practical session using the cost benefit tool, and an opportunity for participants to provide feedback on its usefulness. So far CaPRI has presented country reports in Haiti, St Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, and Jamaica with Barbados and Guyana left.

This CaPRI EU programme is valued at approximately 500,000 Euros over four years and represents the most in-depth database on renewable energy in the Caribbean.

CaPRI is hopeful that this database will be used by policymakers, the private sector and the general public to increase the use of renewables in the region, Tufton said.

The Observer

A new law recently passed in France mandates that all new buildings that are built in commercial zones in France must be partially covered in either plants or solar panels.

Green roofs, as they are called, have an isolating effect which helps to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat a building during the winter or cool it in the summer. They are capable of retaining rainwater and reducing problems with runoff, and also offer birds a place to call home in the urban jungle.

French environmental activists originally wanted to pass a law that would make the green roofs cover the entire surface of all new roofs.

However, partially covered roofs make for a great start, and are still a huge step in the right direction.

Some say the law that was passed is actually better, as it gives the business owners a chance to install solar panels to help provide the buildings with renewable energy, thereby leaving even less of a footprint.

Green roofs are already very popular in Germany and Australia, as well as Canada’s city of Toronto! This  by-law was adopted in 2009, by the city of Toronto which mandated green roofs on all new industrial and residential buildings.

Benefits of Green Roofs

There are so many benefits to green roofs. Here are just a few:

  • Adding natural beauty and major aesthetic improvement to buildings, which in turn increases the investment opportunity.
  • Helping contribute to landfill diversion by prolonging the life of waterproofing membranes, using recycled materials, and prolonging the service of heating, ventilation, and HVAC systems through decreased use.
  • Green roofs assist with storm water management because water is stored by the substrate, then taken up by plants, and thus returned to the atmosphere through transpiration and evaporation. They also retain rainwater and moderate the temperature of the water and act as natural filters for the water that does run off. They delay the time at which runoff occurs, which results in decreased stress on sewer systems during peak periods.
  • The plants on green roofs do a great job of capturing airborne pollutants and other atmospheric deposition. They can also filter noxious gasses.
  • They open up new areas for community gardens, commercial and recreational space in busy cities where this space is generally quite limited.

France is definitely on the right track, but it should be a mandate that all new buildings being built in North America, and even worldwide, adopt this amazing idea to reap all of the potential benefits.

 

CS Globe

Wisynco Group is to commission its one-megawatt solar energy system on Thursday.

The facility was developed on five acres of land adjoining the company’s warehouse and distribution outlet in Spanish Town, St Catherine, said chairman William Mahfood.

A quarter of the solar panels are mounted on the roof of the distribution building, while some are deployed on the ground,” said Mahfood.

The $200 million project is to be done in two phases, he said, the second of which will quadruple the capacity of the current system.

“It will basically allow us to supplement the energy that we now get from Jamaica Public Service, to lower our energy cost, as well as become more environmentally friendly using a sustainable type of energy,” the beverage maker said.

The company touts the facility as the first solar to high-voltage application and the largest solar farm in Jamaica.

 

The Gleaner

Hundreds of businesses including eBay, Nestlé and General Mills have issued their support for Barack Obama’s clean power plan, billed as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president.

The rules, announced on Monday, are designed to cut emissions from power plants and have been strengthened in terms of the long-term ambition as originally proposed by the president last year, but slightly weakened in the short-term in a concession to states reliant on highly-polluting coal.

White House adviser Brian Deese said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules represented the “biggest step that any single president has made to curb the carbon pollution that is fuelling climate change”. The US is the world’s second biggest carbon emitter after China.

The rules are expected to trigger a “tsunami” of legal opposition from states and utilities who oppose the plans, which will significantly boost wind and solar power generation and force a switch away from coal power. Republican presidential hopefuls moved quickly to voice their opposition, saying they would be economically damaging.

But 365 businesses and investors wrote to 29 state governors to strongly support the rules, which they said would benefit the economy and create jobs.

Mindy Lubber, who is attending the launch ceremony of the rules on Monday and is the president of Ceres, a network of investors that organised the letter, said: “The clean power plan is the right measure at the right time. It’s a flexible, practical and economically sound blueprint to transition America toward a low-carbon future.”

Other signatories included Unilever, L’Oréal, Levi Strauss, Staples, renewable energy company SunEdison and Trillium Asset Management, which manages $2.2bn in assets. It is the largest group of businesses to support the rules so far.

The final rules propose a 32% cut in carbon emissions from power plants by 2030 on 2005 levels, up from the initial proposal of 30%. However states will only have to comply by 2022 rather than 2020 as originally proposed, and will be able submit their plans on meeting the targets by 2018 instead of 2017.

CO2 emissions from power plants fell 15% between 2005 and 2013, meaning the country is halfway to the target.

Monday’s version of the rules also gives an explicit boost to wind and solar power, angering the natural gas industry which will still be a large beneficiary of the switch from coal to gas-fired power plants, which produce much lower emissions.

America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a trade body, said it was “disappointed and discouraged” by the rules. The World Coal Association claimed the plan “will significantly increase the cost of electricity to American consumers.” The Solar Energy Industries Association, on the other hand, said the rules were “historic” and “critically needed”.

The new rules will give a “give a head start to wind and solar deployment”, according to a White House fact sheet. “Drive more aggressive investment in clean energy technologies than the proposed rule, resulting in 30% more renewable energy generation in 2030 and continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy,” it said.

Barack Obama, in a video address, emphasised the health benefits of reduced air pollution from coal plants, and a duty to future generations as reasons for the clean power rules.

“Power plants are the single biggest source of the harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. But until now there have been no federal limits on the amount of that pollution those plants can dump into the air. Think about that,” he said.

Obama’s plan to bring in the rules to cut emissions from power plants – which account for a third of the US’s greenhouse gas emissions – date back to 2009 when the EPA declared carbon emissions a public danger, the first step towards regulating them.

The final rules are likely to be welcomed by the United Nations, which is hosting a climate summit in Paris at the end of the year to agree on a deal on post-2020 curbs on emissions, as well as financing to help poorer countries manage global warming. Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, issued a statement welcoming the regulations.

Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the Washington DC-based thinktank the World Resources Institute, said: “The clean power plan should reassure international partners that the US administration is determined to deliver the 26-28% emissions reductions promised for 2025.

“Our analysis suggests that this rule can be implemented without technical or financial impediment, and in a manner that is likely to promote more, not less, economic prosperity.”

Describing the rules as very important, Lord Stern, the author of an influential review of the economics of climate change, said: “It shows the determination of the world’s richest country to maintain better economic growth while also cutting greenhouse gas pollution. President Obama has recognised in particular the enormous damage caused by pollution from the burning of coal in power stations.”

Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s administrator, said she believed the agency was on strong legal grounds for defending the rules from the legal challenges they are almost certain to face.

“Over the next few days we will hear the same tired old plays from the old special interests playbook,” said McCarthy.

The Guardian

Hillary Clinton’s newest campaign promise to install half a billion solar panels across the country has been praised by liberal media outlets and environmentalists, but could this pledge end up benefiting China?

On Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to install half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term and get the U.S. to a point where it can generate enough green energy to power every home in the country.

“Through these goals, we will increase the amount of installed solar capacity by 700% by 2020, expand renewable energy to at least a third of all electricity generation, prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of asthma attacks each year, and put our country on a path to achieve deep emission reductions by 2050,” Clinton’s website boasts.

While there’s no doubt U.S. companies and green energy interests would benefit from the “competitive grants and other market-based incentives” Hillary promises to implement under her plan, the deal will also be a boost to the oppressive Chinese government.

“Mrs. Clinton’s plan would be a huge boost to China and Taiwan, where over 70 percent of solar photovoltaics are made,” Daniel Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“It’s also a huge boon to Japan and Malaysia, who make the lion’s share of the remaining world production,” Kish said. “I’m not sure Americans are going to be comfortable with Chinese solar panels covering their houses, plugging into their electricity systems and taking their jobs as official government policy.”

Thanks to government subsidies, China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels, and could see huge benefits from increasing solar energy incentives in the U.S. A 2014 report by the European Commission found that “China and Taiwan together now account for more than 70% of worldwide production.”

“The majority of panels [in the U.S.] are manufactured abroad, with the plurality coming from China and many from other Southeast Asian countries and Korea,” a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association told TheDCNF. “The imposition of tariffs on Chinese panels is beginning to have an effect on Chinese imports, however, and we’ve seen domestic production increase over the past six months as Chinese imports decline.”
China’s government heavily backed solar panel companies in the past few years to build solar panels for export to the U.S. and Europe. Chinese solar production boomed in response to increasing attempts by the Obama administration and European countries to increase solar energy use. Now seven in 10 solar panels in the world are made in China.

“U.S.-based module production is currently limited to about 1 GW in practice,” Finlay Colville, vice president at the solar research firm NPD Solarbuzz, told Salon in 2014. “This represented just 2.5 percent of global demand in 2013.”

About “half of the panels used in the U.S. last year came from China,” Salon reported, adding that “U.S. module production fell from 1,200 megawatts in 2011 to 541 megawatts in 2012 and bounced back up to 988 megawatts in 2013.” Chinese imports are projected to continue their decline due to steep tariffs the Obama administration put on Chinese solar panels.

It’s not just Chinese companies that would benefit, as Kish noted: Japanese and Malaysian companies are also manufacturing lots of panels. In fact, the increase in Malaysian solar panel production could largely be from Chinese companies building factories there to get around U.S. tariffs.

Chinese companies are finding ways around the U.S. tariffs, mainly by producing panels in other countries. Bloomberg News reports that “more than half the panel capacity Chinese producers plan to add overseas is in Southeast Asia.”

Solar energy giant JinkoSolar opened a massive solar panel factory with the capacity to make “500 megawatts of solar cells and 450 megawatts of panels a year.”

“Products from our Malaysian plant will be mainly exported to the U.S., but we’re eyeing global demand,” Sebastian Liu, JinkoSolar’s director of investor relations, told Bloomberg. “This isn’t temporary. JinkoSolar wants global manufacturing to avoid the risks posed by a single production location.”

Going forward, U.S. officials could expand tariffs against Chinese companies using other countries as launching points for solar panel exports. This would force solar installation companies to rely more on U.S. panel makers, but would also likely raise solar energy costs.

Clinton would have to increase subsidies for solar energy to get the 700 percent increase she promises, which will be made more difficult if tariffs make solar panels more expensive. The U.S. solar industry could still benefit from Clinton’s plan, but solar panel installers have complained that tariffs are already making panels more expensive and, therefore, less attractive to consumers.

“Keeping these stiff tariffs in place makes solar power less affordable, slows job growth and prevents more American homes, businesses and utilities from switching to clean solar energy,” Jigar Shah, president of the anti-tariff Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, said in a statement on the Obama administration’s refusal to lower tariffs on Chinese panels.

“Despite booming solar employment, economically counterproductive tariffs have artificially made solar panels prices in the United States the most expensive in the world,” Shah said.

 

The Daily Caller

With reference to your headline article, ‘Solar power risk’ in The Gleaner Tuesday, June 3, I think that our policy decisions in relation to electricity should be based on long-term considerations, such as the amount of foreign exchange spent on fossil fuels, and the threat of global warming, rather than on return on investments.

My initial observation is that we have failed to capitalise on the opportunities provided by solar energy. Neither Jamaica Public Service (JPS) nor the Office of Utilities Regulation has educated the public on the win-win situation, which is possible with net-billing. More people might be interested in applying for net-billing if the application process were quicker, and the steps involved, detailed instructions for which are given on JPS website, were less onerous. Most people are unaware that you do not need batteries to run a solar system if you have a grid-tie with JPS. In fact, going that route is more environmentally friendly and less expensive, as shown by the calculation below.

BUYING BATTERIES

On the whole, companies selling solar systems encourage purchasers to buy batteries. Their pitch is that you can cut your electricity bills and even get off the grid entirely. They also tell you that JPS pays you only half of what you pay JPS per kWh, which is true, but they don’t tell you that batteries would cost more. Also, most people use more electricity in the summer than in the winter. To get off the grid entirely, one would have to install sufficient panels to supply one’s summer needs, and then one would have excess in the winter. It would be better to be able to send the excess to the grid in the winter and draw from JPS if necessary in the summer.

My calculation is based on a monthly average of 200 kWh being sent to JPS in the day, and drawn from JPS at night. (It does not include the excess amounts being sent or drawn). Nor does it take into account escalating costs. I make the optimistic assumption that a battery bank will last for 10 years.

WITHOUT SOLAR PANELS

200 kWh x J$40 = $8,000 monthly x 12 = $96,000 annually x10 years = $960,000.00

With solar panels and net billing (cost corresponding to half of $40.00)

200 kWh x $20 = $4,000 monthly x 12 = 48,000 annually x 10 years = $480,000.00

Savings: $480,000.00

With batteries, no net-billing, cost would be $0, but cost of 16 batteries at $40,000.00 each with life expectancy 10 years max = $640,000.

In contrast, as Mr John Kistle states, JPS would be faced with the challenge of providing everybody with electricity at peak hours after sunset, or on overcast days. Some of that generating capacity would have to be turned off at peak sunshine hours, thus reducing the return on whatever investment was made in a new power plant. However, solar power would cut down on the amount of fuel needed to run the plant.

Given the importance of the cost of electricity to all of us in Jamaica, perhaps there are some other things we can do. Could there be a consensus, for example, on turning off our fridges during peak hours? Or JPS charging different rates at peak hours?

I think that all stakeholders need to be involved in making these hard decisions.

Jamaica Gleaner;

Global production of photovoltaic (PV) cells grew by 10% in 2012 in comparison to 2011 despite a 9% decline in solar energy investments according to the annual “PV Status Report” released by the European Commission‘s Joint Research Centre. Europe remained a leader in newly installed capacities accounting for 51.7% (16.8 GW) of the 30 GW installed worldwide.

Abundant solar resources in combination with zero emissions from solar installations have attributed to PV energy systems a key role in the transition to a low carbon energy supply. This potential has driven development of more efficient PV modules and transformed the sector into one of the fastest growing industries. Production of PV cells and modules has gone from 46 MW in 1990 to 38.5 GW in 2012. Statistically documented cumulative installations worldwide accounted for almost 100 GW in 2012 placing the EU in the lead position with its share of over 69 GW.

Within the EU, Germany has kept its leading position in PV installation with an additional 7.6 GW in 2012, while Italy‘s newly installed 3.5 GW have allowed it to reach an electricity production covering 7.3% of the total electricity demand during the first seven months of 2013.

A steep, 80% drop of solar modules prices between 2008 and 2012, triggered by an overcapacity of production, created serious financial problems for manufacturers, but led to a consolidation of the industry and fuelled an extensive growth for the PV market in Asia: 60% in 2012 and a projected 100% in 2013. The rise in annual production has resulted in China and Taiwan to accounting for 70% of the global production.

Even with the on-going difficult economic conditions, the number of the new PV markets is increasing. This, along with rising energy prices and the pressure to stabilise the climate will maintain a high demand for solar power systems. Electricity production from PV modules has already proved that it can be cheaper than current conventional consumer electricity prices in many countries. In addition, renewable energies which are not fuel-dependent, are, in contrast to conventional energy sources, among the technologies to offer the prospect of a reduction in prices.

Science Daily;

Screen-Shot-2013-07-11-at-5.47.53-AM

A new Silicon Valley developer of thin film solar PV modules, backed by an Australian venture capitalist, has claimed an engineering breakthrough that could cut the manufacturing costs of PV modules by one third.

RSI has broken cover after five years of development to announce it has created a 1.5 square metre cadmium telluride PV (CdTe) module, twice the size of conventional modules.

It says this will enable solar PV modules to be manufactured at a cost of less than 40c/Watt, around one third cheaper than current mass-produced thin film and silicon based modules