PDA

View Full Version : German example shows that solar will do to utilities what internet did to big media



vacuum
2nd May 2013, 12:05 PM
Can You Have Too Much Solar Energy?

Germany’s little-guy suppliers are destabilizing big power companies.

By Andrew Curry (http://www.slate.com/authors.andrew_curry.html)|Posted Friday, March 29, 2013, at 9:48 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/alternative_energy/2013/03/solar_power_in_germany_how_a_cloudy_country_became _the_world_leader_in_solar.html

It’s been a long, dark winter in Germany. In fact, there hasn’t been this little sun since people started tracking such things (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-weathers-darkest-winter-in-43-years-a-885608.html) back in the early 1950s. Easter is around the corner, and the streets of Berlin are still covered in ice and snow. But spring will come, and when the snow finally melts, it will reveal the glossy black sheen of photovoltaic solar panels glinting from the North Sea to the Bavarian Alps.

Solar panels line Germany’s residential rooftops and top its low-slung barns. They sprout in orderly rows along train tracks and cover hills of coal mine tailings in what used to be East Germany. Old Soviet military bases, too polluted to use for anything else, have been turned into solar installations.

Twenty-two percent of Germany’s power is generated with renewables. Solar provides close to a quarter of that. The southern German state of Bavaria, population 12.5 million, has three photovoltaic panels per resident, which adds up to more installed solar capacity than in the entire United States (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-losing-its-share-of-1tn-global-solar-revenues_100009902/#axzz2ONfiHPGp).

With a long history of coal mining and heavy industry and the aforementioned winter gloom, Germany is not the country you’d naturally think of as a solar power. And yet a combination of canny regulation and widespread public support for renewables have made Germany an unlikely leader in the global green-power movement—and created a groundswell of small-scale power generation that could upend the dominance of traditional power companies.

Twenty years ago, it was clear solar power wasn’t going to get anywhere by itself. Photovoltaic panels were expensive and inefficient. Even solar systems designed to heat water, a far less technologically tricky task, were bad buys on the open market. Producing electricity from sunlight costs 10 times more than generating power using coal or nuclear energy. “The early systems might as well have been made out of gold,” says David Wedepohl, a spokesman for Germany’s Solar Industry Association.

In 1991, German politicians from across the political spectrum quietly passed the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (renewable energy law), or EEG. It was a little-heralded measure with long-lasting consequences.

The law guaranteed small hydroelectric power generators—mostly in Bavaria, a politically conservative area I like to think of as the Texas of Germany—a market for their electricity. The EEG required utility companies to plug all renewable power producers, down to the smallest rooftop solar panel, into the national grid and buy their power at a fixed, slightly above-market rate that guaranteed a modest return over the long term. The prices were supposed to balance out the hidden costs of conventional power, from pollution to decades of coal subsidies.

Investors began to approach solar and wind power as long-term investments, knowing there was a guaranteed future for renewable energy and a commitment to connecting it to the grid. Paperwork for renewables was streamlined—a big move in bureaucracy-loving Germany. The country invested billions in renewables research in the 1990s, and German reunification meant lots of money for energy development projects in the former East.


Now German companies lead the world in solar research and technology. The handful of companies that make inverters, the devices that reverse the flow of electricity and feed power from rooftop solar panels back into national grids, are almost all German. On a sunny day last May, Germany produced (http://www.sma.de/unternehmen/pv-leistung-in-deutschland.html) 22 gigawatts of energy from the sun—half of the world’s total and the equivalent of 20 nuclear power plants.

The “feed-in” laws and subsidies pushed innovation to the point where solar panels are cheap enough to compete on the open market in Germany and elsewhere. The price for solar panels has fallen 66 percent since 2006, and the cost of solar-generated power may be competitive with coal (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/ubs-boom-in-unsubsidised-solar-pv-flags-energy-revolution-60218) in a few years, according to a study by UBS. Already, solar projects are thriving in places like India and Italy despite a lack of government subsidies or support, and a recent Deutsche Bank report predicted “grid parity” in Bavaria by next year.

You might think Germany would be smug about all its solar success. But, as usual, folks here are full of doubts (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html). Part of the reason solar panels are getting cheaper is competition from China, which is threatening to push (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-utilities-threat-idUSBRE92709E20130308) more expensive German producers out of business. Last year, German conservatives tried to end solar subsidies entirely, arguing that plummeting prices were encouraging too many people to install solar panels. They said that the subsidies come at the expense of city dwellers without solar-ready roofs, low-income electricity consumers, and investments in other forms of renewable energy. Even environmentalists have begun to grumble about the solar boom, which sucks up half of Germany’s funding for renewables but provides just 20 percent of green power.

The proliferation of privately owned solar has large power companies in Germany worried. For two decades, they’ve been forced to facilitate and finance their competition, helping turn customers into producers. Soon, rooftop solar and other small-scale, locally owned renewables could upset the market for coal and nuclear power.

Here’s why that’s a problem: Renewable energy sources like wind and solar generate power intermittently, dependent on the sun or fickle breezes. Until researchers can find a way to store energy at a large scale (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/alternative_energy/2013/03/energy_storage_technology_batteries_flywheels_comp ressed_air_rail_storage.html), coal and nuclear plants—which can’t simply be switched on and off at will—must be kept running to guarantee a steady stream of electricity when the sun isn’t shining.

That means overproduction of power during daylight hours, as the country’s ample solar energy floods onto the grid along with electricity produced by power plants. Power companies traditionally charge more during the day, when offices are full and manufacturing plants are in full swing, so the glut of daytime solar power reduces their profit. The proliferation of solar panels on homes also takes high-margin residential customers off the grid at peak hours. And the energy surplus has driven prices for traditional coal and nuclear power down, even as renewables are still guaranteed more-than-competitive rates. As power companies try to pass the costs to consumers in the form of higher bills, that just encourages more people to put solar panels on their roofs.

Already, Germany’s power companies are closing power plants and scrapping plans for new ones. Germany had a national freak-out after the Fukushima disaster and decided to abolish nuclear power by 2023. Meanwhile, energy prices continue to sink, and solar installation continues to grow. By decentralizing power generation, the renewables boom could do to the power industry what the Internet did to the media: Put power in the hands of the little guy, and force power companies to rethink how they do business. As soon as the sun comes out, that is.

read more:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/alternative_energy/2013/03/solar_power_in_germany_how_a_cloudy_country_became _the_world_leader_in_solar.html

vacuum
2nd May 2013, 12:08 PM
You can see the solar power here in yellow:
http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/

ximmy
2nd May 2013, 12:12 PM
US companies saying same thing...

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?68735-Solar-panels-could-destroy-U-S-utilities-according-to-U-S-utilities-v

Ponce
2nd May 2013, 01:28 PM
And long before they start placing a tax on our solar power?.....my yearly average for my power is around $36,00 per month.

V

vacuum
3rd May 2013, 10:06 PM
The Middle East’s new energy export: sunshine


http://qz.com/81156/the-middle-easts-new-energy-export-sunshine/

By Todd Woody (http://qz.com/author/twoodyqz/) @greenwombat (http://twitter.com/greenwombat) May 3, 2013

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/mauritania-2.jpg?w=880There's no such thing as peak sunshine. Masdar


Last month, Mauritania flipped the switch on a 15-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic power plant. As solar power stations go, that’s small stuff. But for the west African nation of 3.4 million people, the project built by Abu Dhabi renewable energy company Masdar (http://www.masdar.ae/en/#masdar) will supply 10% of its entire electricity demand, which is mostly served by diesel generators.
The Sheikh Zayed Solar Power Plant is the latest renewable energy export from the Middle East. Masdar has built a 6 MW wind farm in the Seychelles, owns a 20% stake in a 630 MW offshore wind project in the United Kingdom, and is building solar thermal power plants in Spain through a joint venture with Spanish engineer company Sener.
With the shale gas boom dominating energy exploration in the US, the sun-soaked petro kingdoms of the Middle East are looking to solar to ease their own oil addiction and develop a new export business. Masdar subsidiary Masdar PV (http://www.masdarpv.com), for instance, made the thin-film solar panels installed in the Mauritania project at the company’s German manufacturing plant.
“We have resources underground but above ground solar is one of key resources we have,” Bader Al Lamki, Masdar’s director of clean energy, tells Quartz.
For now, Masdar doesn’t have to go far to find potentially lucrative markets. In March, the company’s 100 MW solar power plant went online in Abu Dhabi (http://qz.com/64142/why-middle-eastern-petro-states-are-the-new-solar-energy-hotspots/). Developed as part of a joint venture with French energy giant Total and Spain’s Abengoa, the Shams 1 is currently the world’s largest solar thermal power plant. (Solar thermal projects deploy huge arrays mirrors to focus the sun on liquid filled boilers to create steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine.)
Al Lamki says Masdar is now considering building a 100 MW photovoltaic power plant in Abu Dhabi as well as other solar projects that could power the United Arab Emirates’ energy-intensive desalinization plants that supply the country’s water.
But perhaps the biggest renewable energy opportunity lies just next door in the richest of the petro kingdoms. Saudi Arabia late last year said it is seeking $100 billion in investment to build enough solar power capacity to supply a third of its electricity demand.
There is no peak sunshine, but Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves are finite and the kingdom and other Middle East nations would rather sell their petroleum overseas rather than burn it at home.
Al Lamki said Masdar has been in discussions with Saudi officials and is also looking to Jordan and Morocco as potential markets for solar thermal and photovoltaic projects. While US developers such as NRG and BrightSource Energy are also targeting the Middle East as the next hot solar market, Masdar is counting on a hometown advantage.
“The awareness of the importance of renewables and how they can contribute is growing very fast,” says Al Lamki. “We have the credibility of being one of the only companies in this part of the world where we have commissioned, developed and operated renewable energy plants.”

read more:
http://qz.com/81156/the-middle-easts-new-energy-export-sunshine/

Horn
3rd May 2013, 11:03 PM
Guess you Bitcoiner fellas saw these gadgets already?

Window Solar Charger For the sun-bound, environmentally conscious hipster
http://www.boiseweekly.com/imager/b/magnum/2834378/eb75/find_SolarPhoneCharger.jpg

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/window-solar-charger/Content?oid=2834377

vacuum
6th May 2013, 09:47 AM
Solar discovery sets new record for low-grade silicon

06 May 2013

Solar engineers from UNSW have developed an innovative method to dramatically improve the quality of low-grade silicon, promising to significantly improve electrical efficiency and reduce the cost of solar panels.

The UNSW team has discovered a mechanism to control hydrogen atoms so they can better correct deficiencies in silicon – by far the most expensive component used in the making of solar cells.

“This process will allow lower-quality silicon to outperform solar cells made from better-quality materials,” says Scientia Professor Stuart Wenham from the School of Photovoltaics and Renewable Energy Engineering at UNSW.

Standard commercial silicon cells currently have a maximum efficiency of around 19%. The new technique, patented by UNSW researchers earlier this year, is expected to produce efficiencies between 21% and 23%, says Wenham.

“By using lower-quality silicon to achieve higher efficiencies, we can enable significant cost reductions,” he says.

The solar industry has long been focused on bringing down the cost of silicon. However, cheaper silicon also means lower-quality silicon, with more defects and contaminants that reduce efficiency.

It’s been known for several decades that hydrogen atoms can be introduced into the atomic structure of silicon to help correct these defects, but until now, researchers have had limited success in controlling the hydrogen to maximise its benefits or even understanding why this happens.

“Our research team at UNSW has worked out how to control the charge state of hydrogen atoms in silicon – something that other people haven’t previously been able to do,” says Wenham.

Hydrogen atoms can exist in three ‘charge’ states – positive, neutral and negative. The charge state determines how well the hydrogen can move around the silicon and its reactivity, which is important to help correct the defects.

“We have seen a 10,000 times improvement in the mobility of the hydrogen and we can control the hydrogen so it chemically bonds to things like defects and contaminants, making these inactive,” says Wenham.

The UNSW team currently has eight industry partners interested in commercialising the technology, and is also working with manufacturing equipment companies to implement the new capabilities.

The project, which has been generously supported by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, is expected to be completed in 2016.

UNSW still holds the world-record for silicon cell efficiency at 25%, and last week, Scientia Professor and solar pioneer Martin Green, was elected into the Fellowship of the United Kingdom’s prestigious Royal Society (http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/%E2%80%98father-photovoltaics%E2%80%99-elected-royal-society).

Media Contact: Myles Gough (myles.gough@unsw.edu.au), UNSW Media Office, 0420 652 825/ +61 4 2065 2825

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/technology/solar-discovery-sets-new-record-low-grade-silicon

vacuum
6th May 2013, 09:50 AM
Breakthrough in solar efficiency by UNSW team ahead of its time Date May 6, 2013

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/breakthrough-in-solar-efficiency-by-unsw-team-ahead-of-its-time-20130505-2j117.html#ixzz2SWo8ooFz

vacuum
6th May 2013, 10:03 AM
Solar Scores a Big Win Over Nuclear By Glenn Williams (http://www.thestreet.com/author/1173016/GlennWilliams/all.html) 05/04/13 - 06:15 AM EDT


TheStreet Premium Services
A complimentary preview
of Real Money


This article originally appeared on April 29, 2013, on Real Money. To read more content like this + see inside Jim Cramer's multi-million dollar portfolio for FREE. Click Here (http://secure2.thestreet.com/cap/prm.do?OID=022404) NOW.


The debate over costs is over. Solar power won. Nuclear power lost. If your utility wants to own a new power plant, a utility-grade solar farm is a better deal than a new nuclear power plant. Perhaps that's why Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/BRK.A.html)) is building the world's largest solar farm and not a new nuclear power plant.
Berkshire is building a massive utility-grade solar power facility, using off-the-shelf photovoltaic (PV) technology. Berkshire subsidiary MidAmerican Solar will own the facility, which is called the Antelope Valley Solar Projects. SunPower (SPWR (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/SPWR.html)) designed and developed the project and will provide operations and maintenance services for the plants via a multiyear services agreement. Antelope Valley will provide renewable energy to Edison International's (EIX (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/EIX.html)) Southern California Edison under two long-term power purchase contracts.
To put Berkshire's newest investment in perspective, Antelope Valley is bigger than some nuclear power plants. With a nameplate rating of 579-megawatts, Antelope Valley is larger than Omaha Public Power's Fort Calhoun Station, NextEra Energy's (NEE (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/NEE.html)) Point Beach Nuclear Plant (unit 1), Xcel Energy's (XEL (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/XEL.html)) Prairie Island Nuclear Generating units, Xcel's Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and Dominion Resources' (D (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/D.html)) defunct Kewaunee Power Station. Antelope Valley is about the same size as NextEra's Point Beach (unit 2), Exelon's (EXC (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/EXC.html)) Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station and Entergy's (ETR (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/ETR.html)) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Berkshire's costs are striking. Compared with a new nuclear power plant, Antelope Valley is a bargain. On capital expense, operating costs and levelized costs, solar is a better investment. Here are the numbers:


Nuclear: capex, $6 million per megawatt; production costs, $22 per megawatt-hour.
Solar: capex, $4 million per megawatt; production costs, $0 per megawatt-hour.

There is growing evidence that new nuclear power's "all-in" costs will be greater than $6 million per megawatt. There is also evidence their production costs are lower than the Nuclear Energy Institute's $22 per megawatt-hour.
Others argue that solar's capex has fallen below $4 million per megawatt. They also may want to add a dollar or two for production costs.

read more:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11911544/1/solar-scores-a-big-win-over-nuclear.html

vacuum
7th May 2013, 02:11 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2yl30p1.png

Armchair Economics (https://medium.com/armchair-economics) · 4 min read

Solar Energy: This Is What a Disruptive Technology Looks Like

A picture is worth a thousand words. The graph above compares the price history of solar energy to conventional energy sources. This is what a disruptive technology looks like. While conventional energy prices remained pretty flat in inflation adjusted terms, the cost of solar is dropping,fast, and is likely to continue doing so as technology and manufacturing processes improve.

First, about the graph. I recently published an article, Bitcoin, Energy and the Future of Money (https://medium.com/armchair-economics/183c2ad47b50), which explores the idea of using energy as the basis for money. One of the key concepts in this is to standardize the way energy commodities are measured, to measure them in terms of energy content rather than parochial units of measure (e.g. therms or cubic feet of natural gas, gallons of diesel, kilowatt hours of electricity, and so on). See also www.joulestandard.com (https://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joulestandard.com%2F) for more information about this idea.

The graph above charts the inflation adjusted price of different types of energy, not in terms of gallons, but in terms of gigajoules of energy (a gigajoule is one billion Joules, the standard metric unit for energy). Pricing energy commodities in terms of their energy content makes it easier to compare the relative cost of different sources of energy.

Using data from the Energy Information Agency (https://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov), I pulled together a history of retail prices for natural gas, crude oil, gasoline and residential electricity, all adjusted for inflation. For each energy source, I converted the prices to $/gigajoule, using conversion factors from engineering tables. (For example, a million cubic feet of natural gas contains 1.083 gigajoules of energy content).

Next, using data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (https://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrel.gov) and other sources, I looked up the price history for solar power, in terms of dollar per Watt of system capacity (a standard unit of measure for solar). With this data, I built a cost model to translate the cost of a solar cell into $/gigajoule. The basic idea is to amortize the system cost over its useful life, and divide this by the average amount of power it generates per month. This allows the cost of solar to be compared directly to other sources.

The comparison shows quite clearly that the cost effectiveness of solar power is increasing exponentially. In 1977, solar cells cost upwards of $70 per Watt of capacity. In 2013, that cost has dropped to $0.74 per Watt, a 100:1 improvement (source: The Economist (https://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2F21566 414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands)). On average, solar power improves 14% per year in terms of energy production per dollar invested. Technological improvements are the primary driver of this trend, as manufacturers learn to produce panels using less energy and raw materials (the basic physics of solar panels are a century old), and to make systems easier to install.

While solar currently accounts for less than 1% of the energy supply, it is an exponentially improving technology, both in terms of price (14%/year) and pace of construction (60%/year). Already it is approaching parity with other energy sources in the Western US. Assuming this trend continues for another 10 to 20 years, and there’s no reason not to, solar power will become 5 to 10 times more cost effective than it is today. This raises an interesting question. What happens if solar becomes an order of magnitude cheaper than other sources of power?
This is the nature of disruptive technology. It represents such an improvement that it renders existing industries obsolete. We saw waves of disruption take place as the Internet upended entire industries. Expect to see a lot of this in the coming years.

UPDATE: a follower pointed out that not all Joules are equal, for example electrical energy versus thermal energy. Since the majority of electricity in the US is generated from carbon based fuels, we should expect it to cost roughly three to four times their amount. Why is this? The process of converting heat to electricity (by driving a steam turbine) is relatively inefficient. Most of the energy is lost as waste heat (this can be reclaimed in cogeneration, for example to use steam to heat buildings but this is not reflected in electricity prices).
UPDATE: several readers ask how I calculated solar prices. I did this by calculating how much power a 1 watt cell would generate per year, using average insolation of 4.5 hours/day (southern US), divided this by 12 for a monthly average. I calculated the system cost as three times the solar panel cost (installation and other components account for 2/3s of typical system cost). I then calculated the amortized monthly cost, assuming a 360 month term with a 5% cost of capital. Then divided this by monthly power output in gigajoules to get $/GJ. If the system is located in a less sunny area, or the cost of capital is higher, that will increase the cost per gigajoule. That said, the point of the article is the exponential decrease in unit costs, which trump everything over the next 10-20 years.

UPDATE: I am looking for inflation adjusted historical data for oil, natural gas and coal going back to the 1800s, so I’ll be updating the price history as I collect new data.

read more: https://medium.com/armchair-economics/cbc9fdd91209

vacuum
10th May 2013, 09:59 AM
The world has deployed wind and solar ~10x faster than the IEA and the World Bank estimated a decade ago (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-clean-energy-is-way-out-of-date#comment-891381525)

The World Bank's 1996 estimate for China was 9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV by 2020, but by 2011 the country had already achieved 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-clean-energy-is-way-out-of-date



oops...

vacuum
10th May 2013, 10:11 AM
Check out these charts guys. Crazy...especially the 2nd one.




Four Must-See Charts Show Why Renewable Energy Is Disruptive – In A Good Way

by Ryan Koronowski (http://www.resilience.org/author-detail/1643969-ryan-koronowski), originally published by Climate Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/06/1966071/four-must-see-charts-show-why-renewable-energy-is-disruptive-in-a-good-way/) | TODAY
A common refrain, from skeptics to allies alike, is that renewable energy is a great idea, but not feasible because oil, gas, and coal will always be cheaper. Leaving aside the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and are the primary driver (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/13/1179251/iea-report-fossil-fuel-boom-is-a-climate-disaster-in-the-making/) behind a warming planet, is it really true that renewable energy is more expensive?
Brian McConnell made a graph (https://medium.com/armchair-economics/cbc9fdd91209) that shows what has happened to the price of energy (in gigajoules) since 1980 for solar power, natural gas, crude oil, and then residential electricity.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/disruptive-solar-e1367857283648.png
In his words:
The graph above compares the price history of solar energy to conventional energy sources. This is what a disruptive technology looks like. While conventional energy prices remained pretty flat in inflation adjusted terms, the cost of solar is dropping,fast, and is likely to continue doing so as technology and manufacturing processes improve.

That green line drops steadily. Though it represents a very tiny proportion of the total energy mix, as it gets cheaper and cheaper we can expect that to change. Disruptively. One thing McConnell said he would like to update is prices for coal, which would be interesting.
In an update, he noted that while joules are a good leveling metric, one thing they do not capture is the fact that many of those joules of fossil fuel energy are burned as waste heat, increasing the price. Solar placed in less sunny places than the American South would also increase the price.
His graph is backed up by the pros. In Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s presentation (pdf (http://bnef.com/Presentations/download/132)) to the Clean Energy Ministerial last month, this slide shows that solar panel prices fell 80 percent in the last 5 years:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFsolar-e1367856087416.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFsolar.jpg)
It’s not just solar. This one shows the steady decline in wind turbine prices – 29 percent since 2008:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFwindprices-e1367856338814.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFwindprices.jpg)
The skeptic might say “that’s all well and good, but storage technology is not feasible and what exists today is far too expensive — some cars will always need gasoline.” Not so: lithium-ion battery costs dropped 40 percent in the last three years:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFbatteryprices-e1367857044765.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BNEFbatteryprices.jpg)
(HT CleanTechnica (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/06/solar-pv-module-prices-have-fallen-80-since-2008-wind-turbines-29/))
Again: there is one kind of energy that gets more expensive the more it is used, and one kind that gets less expensive the more it is used.

vacuum
16th May 2013, 11:39 AM
Power companies are officially terrified of people going off grid


It is a dangerous game. Leading electricity executives and market analysts suggest the rollout of rooftop solar is inevitable and “unstoppable” – unless, of course, by regulation and changing tariffs.

Little wonder then, that solar consumers and rooftop solar providers are starting to organise themselves to protect the interests of individual consumers, and the industry as a whole.

In Australia, a new solar campaign initiative known as “Solar Citizens” is being launched this week to ensure the interests of solar owners are protected from changes to laws and policies by power companies and governments.

Solar Citizens sees its mandate as helping existing and would-be solar owners to advocate for their rights as energy investors and aims to push for panels on every Australian rooftop.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/14/rooftop-solar-owners-vs-utilities-the-battle-begins/#rMlB4yLDpd6OhigO.99