New Solar Panels for the White House

Last Friday, the Obama Administration finally installed the long promised solar panels on the roof of the residential section of the White House timed to correspond with the President’s Climate Action push. At the time of the installation the President was in California laying out a list of clean energy objectives he can accomplish without congress. The White House has not specified how many panels they installed or how much they cost, but reportedly, the solar installations on the White House is the size of the “typical” residential installation and will pay for itself in energy savings and Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, SRECs, in eight years. I do not know if the White House installation qualified for a federal tax credit.

At today’s costs solar panels can have a payback of eight years only with the “help” of tax rebates and Solar Renewable Energy Certificates, SRECs, which are available to residents of Washington DC and a few other states. Currently, SRECs in Washington DC are the most valuable in the nation, but it is an artificial market that will fall as more solar systems are installed and the price supports are decreased in the next few years. If you live in the District you can see what the cost and return of a solar system on your building’s roof top would be using the Mapdwell Project mapper. This assumes the SREC market remains viable. The solar system size used is based on the size of the roof and is effectively the maximum size solar array you could install. You of course could install a smaller array. To those of you not old enough to remember, this is the second time that solar panels have been installed on the White House. President Jimmy Carter spent $30,000 on a solar water-heating system for West Wing offices in the late 1970's that were subsequently removed by President Ronald Reagan.

As I watched the U-tube video of the White House installation I was a little envious of how smoothly it all seemed to go. This was not the case with my installation. On the back of my house is a roof mounted 7.36 KW solar array consisting of 32 Sharp 230 watt solar photovoltaic panels and 32 Enphase micro-inverters, somewhat larger than the “typical” home installation, but not much larger than what I imagine the White House installed. When I purchased my solar panels I choose the Enphase micro inverter system so the power cables running down the side of my house, albeit inside a pipe, are 120 current instead of 240 and the energy production of each individual panel can be checked on the internet. The solar array consists of panels the racks that hold them, micro inverters and wiring and plugs. My installation did not go smoothly, and surprisingly to me, maintenance has turned out to be an issue.

I check my solar panels production numbers every month when I get my power bill. I am on net metering with my power cooperative to sell my SRECs into the Washington DC SREC market where my system was grandfathered when it was closed to out of city systems. My installation web page allows me to see the current energy produced by each of my 32 panels every minute, every hour, daily, weekly, monthly and the cumulative total power output. I only spot check the solar panel midday on the day when my power bill arrives or after storms to make sure all the panels are performing optimally. The reason I chose Enphase was to be able to easily identify a problem with the system. Little did I know that barely three years after the installation I would be facing repair issues.

my solar array with the failed panels

About 14 months ago, less than three years into their expected 25-year life span, one of my solar panels appeared to fail. My first attempt to have my system repaired was emails, letters and phone calls to the company that installed my system. The company I hired to install the system was no longer in the solar business- without renewable energy rebates and a viable solar renewable energy certificate market; there was not enough business to sustain a solar installation operation in Virginia. They were focusing instead on energy audits, but they finally referred me to a Maryland and Washington DC based installer, Lighthouse Solar.

It took a while for them to come out. They looked into my system and spoke to Enphase and determined that the problem was probably the micro inverter so they ordered a new inverter from Enphase. By the time they had scheduled my repair a second inverter had failed. I was delighted when they were able to replace both inverters on the same day. According to Lighthouse Solar, they have replaced many Enphase inverters. The good news is that the inverters had a 10 year warrantee and it cost me nothing. The bad news is that the new inverters did not fix the problem, though for a brief period of time it appeared to fix one of the two panels. After some back and forth between Enphase, Lighthouse Solar and me, I appeared to have a solar panel failure. Sharp was not as cooperative as Enphase with replacing the panels which were guaranteed for 25 years.

Ultimately, I think that the original installer paid for a new panel and when this spring arrived, Lighthouse Solar made a second attempt at repairing the system and replaced a solar panel. Once more Lighthouse Solar came through for me and got the repair done at no cost to me. Unfortunately, after replacing the solar panel I now have one failed panel and one panel working at partial capacity. After speaking once more to Enphase Energy, Lighthouse Solar now says that they will try new inverters. There are a limited number of components that could have failed, but unfortunately since Lighthouse Solar has to fight to obtain each component for me under warrantee, they have been unable to simply replace everything at once and get the problem solved. The actual cost of buying and replacing all the potentially failed portions of the system would cost more than a year’s worth of power production of the entire system.

All solar PV panels degrade and slowly over time produce less power, however based on news report there appears to be a cluster of failures after a couple three years. Solar photovoltaic panels have no moving parts so that the operating life of the solar panels is largely determined by the stability of the coating film, the quality of finish and fit of the panels and the proper sealing of the edging and connectors. Quality control in manufacturing is essential to have a solar panel that wills last 25 years in sun, rain, sleet and snow. The quality and life span of these rapidly produced solar panels is about to be tested in the next few years.

Without micro inverters a failure of one panel in an array like mine is a 3% reduction in power production and might not be noticed, it could be attributed to decreasing efficiency of the panels or weather variations. In Ed Begley, Jr.’s “Guide to Sustainable Living,” he said that over the years he had four solar panels fail, his storage batteries were replaced after 15 years and the wiring for the panels were damaged and needed to be replaced at 18 years. So, these systems are not trouble free even in sunny warm California, you cannot just install them and forget it. The President is only going to be living with the White House solar array for less than three years so he will not have to worry about maintenance, but as a nation we need to maintain our clean energy infrastructure. In my calculations of cost and return I was conservative on SREC value, but I did not consider maintenance costs or loss of power production due to equipment failure. I am on net metering and still connected to the grid so I continue to get all the power I need from the grid. I have spent a lot of time and effort on trying to get my solar panel array repaired without yet succeeding. Nothing magically maintains itself, consider maintenance and repairs whenever buying equipment.

map dwell example of cost and return

Preparing for Climate Change- First Save Some Money

Total National Debt US

On Friday, November 1, 2013 to little notice the White House released an executive order for preparing the nation for climate change. The new executive order establishes an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience replacing the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force established by executive order in 2009. That task force created a framework for coordinated Federal action and planning on climate change. The new Council will move forward continuing and building upon the Adaptation Task Force's work.

The executive order states that “the impacts of climate change -- including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise -- are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation.” Though, that change has not been particularly noticeable around here.

The President states that the impacts of climate change “are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures.” “Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, ...”to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity ...of agency operations, services, and programs.”

“The Federal Government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience.” The executive order requires that within 9 months the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies... shall complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation's watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate.”

Each Agency is ordered to develop an “Adaptation Plan” that will include: identification and assessment of climate change related impacts on the agency's ability to accomplish its missions, operations, and programs and evaluate the most significant climate change risks and vulnerabilities in agency operations and missions for both the short and long term. Finally, each agency is to outline actions it will take to manage these risks and vulnerabilities. Each agency shall develop, implement, and update comprehensive plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations and overall mission objectives.

If you recall when the President spoke at the Copenhagen climate meeting in 2010 he promised that the United States will reduce their CO2 emissions to 17% below the 2005 levels by 2020. In addition, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is winding up a series of “public listening sessions” across the country to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants allowing the agency to develop new rules that would tighten regulations on coal-burning power plants and possibly phase out coal burning power plants completely.

 

Annual US Budget Deficit

 Five years into the economic recovery of the recession of 2008 our federal government is running an annual deficit that is over $900 billion and our total national debt continues to grow. As a nation we need financial resources and resilience to address whatever the impacts of a changing climate may bring. In 2012 there was more than $110 billion in damages from natural disasters according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) which has been keeping records since 1980. The 2012 total damages rank only behind 2005, which incurred $160 billion in damages due in part to four devastating land-falling hurricanes including Katrina

Keystone XL, Fracking, and the Price of Natural Gas

Last year, New York placed a moratorium on hydro fracturing in the New York portion of the Marcellus Shale while it assessed the effects of fracking. New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling was released almost four months ago and recommended that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period was scheduled to end on December 12, 2011, but was extended to January 11, 2012 and closed after having received more than 20,000 comments. In their press release at the close of the comment period the New York Department of Environmental Conservation stated: “Public input is an important part of establishing responsible conditions for high-volume hydraulic fracturing as well as determining whether it can be done safely. Many significant improvements were made to the 2009 draft based on comments DEC received. We expect additional improvements will be made to the 2011 draft based on the comments submitted during this comment period." The pressure is off on immediately ending the ban on hydro fracking in New York because the price of natural gas has hit a two year low, but the ban will be lifted. There is really no way to permanently prevent drilling to access the shale gas. Sooner or later it will be done, hopefully in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.

The race to lock up leases on shale gas and a mild winter (so far) in significant parts of the United States has resulted in an oversupply of natural gas. Despite the fall in natural gas prices fracking will continue, not because it is profitable at this price, but because drilling leases and agreements made when gas prices were higher required drilling within a certain period of time. If a company fails to drill they will lose the lease and the money paid for those leases. So, for the next two years or so, no matter the price of natural gas, they will drill where permits are available. In addition, natural gas is often a by-product of much more profitable oil drilling. With oil prices topping $100 a barrel, oil companies in Texas continue to produce natural gas. In Texas where gas is often a by-product of oil production about 40 billion cubic feet of natural gas is flared off each year for the past several years as drilling has expanded. Texas requires oil wells to hook up to gas pipelines eventually which will increase the supply of available natural gas as the hookups catch up with production.

The high oil prices driving the Texas tight oil boom are also making the crude bitumen contained in the Canadian oil sands highly profitable. The current price of oil combined with threats from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz and block oil shipments from the Middle East have made the oil sands even more attractive. A provision that was attached to the recent payroll tax bill signed by President Obama requires a decision by February 21st 2012 on the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. The proposed Keystone XL, is an approximate 1,660 mile, 36 inch crude oil pipeline that would begin in Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska continuing through Oklahoma to an existing terminal not far from Port Arthur, Texas. The oil would arrive at the Texas refineries and ports for American market and export. The U.S. State Department is the lead handling the issue because the pipeline crosses national boundaries, but President Obama has made it clear would make the final decision on whether to approve the pipeline, and the recent tax bill has forced a decision the issue that had been delayed until 2013.

As expected the State Department declined the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have provided a guaranteed oil supply from Canada. The project's critics argue that the mining and refining of oil sands would increase greenhouse gas emissions, pollute water and destroy the Canadian forests. Many Nebraska residents also opposed the Keystone XL pipeline because it originally would have crossed the Ogallala aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the upper Midwest. The administration decided in November to require bypassing the aquifer, but the increased carbon dioxide load associated with tapping the oil sands is a problem to the administration. Proponents of the project worry about lost jobs and energy security and that rejecting the Keystone XL project will push the Canadians to build the 730 mile Enbridge pipeline to a new port in British Columbia and ship the oil to China. However, building a pipeline through British Columbia's northern wilderness faces British Columbia environmental regulations, the stronghold of Canadian environmental regulations, and that project is also experiencing resistance from an existing decades-old moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The rejection is about the carbon content of the fuel.

Like all petroleum production, oil sands operations can adversely impact the environment. In the past open pit mining of oil sands projects have impacted the land when trees, brush and overburden have been removed for the mining site. As a condition of licensing, projects are required to implement a reclamation plan, but reclamation is a slow process. In addition, large amounts of water are used for oil sands operations for the steam in the current method of extraction. Despite recycling, most of the water ends up in tailings ponds, but newer treatment methods have reduced the treatment and recovery time for tailing ponds as environmental regulations evolve with advances in technology in both oil sand extraction and refining techniques that have allowed the profitable extraction of this oil. These advances and rising oil prices have altered the economics and have made the extraction of oil sand possible and inevitable. Still the energy required to heat the oil sands so that they will flow results in increase the carbon footprint for each barrel of oil. The politics of energy security are not consistent with the overall goal of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions since the extraction and refining of oil sands reportedly produce more greenhouse gases than the extraction and refining of Iranian oil. The President has pledged to reduce U.S greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below the 2005 levels by 2020 and all regulatory and policy decisions have been consistent with that goal. The United States thirst for oil is not going to abate and the Middle East is becoming increasingly unstable. Given his consistent record in reducing greenhouse gas, it is likely the administration will choose the geopolitical risk over the environmental risk of oil with a higher carbon footprint.