From Guest Blogger Carlos: Arizona Aims to Be the Solar Panel Capital
Scientists, investors, students, leaders in the solar industry will have a gathering at the Arizona State University’s SkySong this October 10th for the third annual Arizona Solar Summit.
The former Corporation Commissioner of Arizona Kris Mayes agrees with ASU that there needs to be more investment in solar energy since it greatly represents the destiny of the economy specially in Arizona that has long exposure to sunlight.
“We have more sun here than any other state in the country and probably any other place on the planet. Arizona trails only California when it comes to solar development and the top spot is in reach. In the past decade we’ve developed great policies like the renewable energy standard to have utilities produce more energy from solar. More people and businesses have put solar panels on the rooftops. ” Mayes added.
By the year 2010 Arizona was still dependant on importing energy some of its energy and Mayes suggested that by investing in solar energy within the state, it would create new jobs and projects such as the Solana Project that will reduce the dependency on importing energy to Arizona.
This facility would create 85 permanent jobs and up to 1,700 jobs in the construction of this facility.
Written by Carlos from Energy Informative.
Why not adopt the European habit of presumed consent for small photovoltaic arrays on domestic premises? In the UK arrays up to 3.6 kW can be installed without requiring permission either from the planning department or the grid operator (except on historic listed buildings).
For larger roof mounted arrays, the presumption is that installation will usually be permitted unless there is a strong reason why not, so that planning permission is nearly always given.
This leaves the issue of connection permits which are given wherever the array can be connected to the grid without disrupting power quality or risking overload of electrical hardware – usually this can be allowed provided the connection capacity for electricity import is greater than the capacity of the proposed array. In some cases, there may be a cost for upgrading local connection capacity, or conditions attached such as curtailment rights and reactive power management.
This system results in a very fast turn around and reduced costs for householders and installers alike. (From agreeing to purchase to installation of a PV array can be achieved in around 2 weeks).
With a similar system in place, and a system of accredited installers with spot inspections installed cost can be brought down much nearer to European levels which are generally 40 to 50% less expensive than the USA.
Hey Nisha, take a good read at your current ansrews, and you can easily see why even Google does not have the information you’re after. In my 12 years using solar power, the one thing we have in good supply is misinformation. I’m betting that most of the people answering these questions do not own a solar panel, yet everyone is willing to pontificate on the solution. The short answer is yes, it is possible, there are homes built as models that do just that. Most of them are in ideal climates for solar power, like the Southwest, or along the southeastern coast, like South Carolina. We live in a solar powered home now, but it works because we have a limitless amount of battery storage, the grid. In the summer, our home makes more energy than it uses, and the excess is sold back to the power company, who basically sells it to the house next door to ours. In the winter, we have a shortage, and draw back out of the grid what the solar array can’t produce for us. The questions is, does this support your definition of a completely solar powered home? In most areas, solar and wind are very complimentary, meaning when you have one, you generally don’t have the other, and vice versa. Our home also has a small wind turbine to help out in the winter when the days are short, the weather cloudy, and windy. So the two technologies make sense if you use them together. This would constitute a renewable powered home, but not a solar powered one by definition. So you can build a house on just solar power, and it can survive, but the added expense of the extra panels and storage to get through those few cloudy/rainy weeks would add tremendous cost to the home for solar resources you would only need a few weeks each year. The real goal of using renewable energy is sustainability, not independence. I would rather see each new home with a small solar array connected to the grid to offset some of their loads, rather than a few homes that can make it on their own. Then there are the myths, such as all the toxic chemicals used to manufacture the panels. Panels are made from acrylic, silicone and aluminum. If we can make acrylic paints, aluminum beer cans and silicone breast implants without wrecking the environment, we can make panels too. My favorite one is the myth that a solar panel will never produce enough energy in its lifetime to offset how much was used to produce it. This is false by the way, but consider a coal plant. Once you build one of those things with energy, you now have to continue feeding it coal the rest of its life, so it clealy never gets even environmentally, yet that never bothers anyone. My suggestion is don’t waste your time asking hacks like me online for your information, and reach outside of google and wikipedia when you’re looking for technical data. Most anything being done in this world that is worth the bother will have at least one good non profit group following it. Renewable energy has several, I’ll list a few below. Good luck with your research, and take care, Rudydoo
“Panels are made from acrylic, silicone and aluminum.”
Yes, that is perfectly true, but not complete. They also contain toxic material, such as lead and cadmium. Some contain arsenic. That is not a complete list of the toxic materials in solar panels.
Because of the toxic materials contained in solar panels, they must be recycled properly when their useful life has been reached, probably after 20 or 30 years. Presumably they can be safely recycled, but so far there is not adequate provision to do so.
In addition to the toxic materials contained in solar panels, there are toxic materials used in their manufacture.
The toxic materials are not sufficient reason to eschew solar panels. However, honesty requires that the use of toxic materials be acknowledged rather than denied and that adequate provision be made to deal safely with the toxic materials.
If people want to instal PV panels on their homes to generate their own power, it should be treated as a test to determine the practicality of solar power. If it is truly practical, then they should have no need to connect to the grid. If they insist on connecting to the grid, then that calls into question the practicality of solar electric power.