How Does Government Invest In Renewable Energy ?

Renewable Energy is quickly becoming a hot topic on the world stage. In yesterday's State of the Union address, President Obama called for a clean energy mandate - “We need to get behind this innovation [in renewables]. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies,” Obama said. “I don’t know if — I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. “. This backstops his campaign promises to spend $150 Billion USD over the next ten years.


That's a significant investment. But simply doling out money is not the answer, so how could a government spur investment in renewable energy ? Consider one option: the Feed in Tariff (FiT). The idea is that those generating electricity from sustainable, renewable sources (like solar, wind or hydro-electric) are able to sell their excess energy back to the grid at a higher rate. As an example, in Ontario, consumers purchase electricity at a rate of $0.42 per kWh. By comparison, energy generated by solar sources (PV cells, etc.) can be sold to the utility company at a rate of $0.80 per kWh.


This gives solar-PV generation an advantage in the energy market. Some would say that it could be an unfair advantage, as other renewable energy schemes (wind, hydro-electric or geothermal) may not receive the same economic advantage. This would form a bias towards photo-voltaic systems. Admittedly this could be the case, and it is up to the Government which mandates this policy to allow for a mix of schemes.


So rather than talk about what governments SHOULD do, lets look at what governments ARE doing.  


"The Alberta Micro-Generation Regulation forms part of the Government of Alberta's Provincial Energy Strategy and allows Albertans to generate renewable electricity for their own use and to receive credit for any excess power they send into the grid. Small wind, solar PV panels, small-scale hydro, biomass and micro-cogeneration systems under 1 MW in size qualify under the regulation."
Source: http://www.albertaacts.ca/node/270

"Ontario introduced a feed-in tariff in 2006, and revised it in 2009,^[53] which in a draft proposal increases from 42¢/kWh to 80.2¢/kWh for micro-scale (≤10 kW) grid-tied photovoltaic projects.^[54][55] Ontario's FIT program also includes a tariff schedule for larger projects up to and including 10MW solar farms at a reduced rate. As of April 2010, several hundred projects have been approved, including 184 large scale projects, worth $8 billion all together.^[56] "
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff#Canada


Others, like the United States, implement what are called Net Metering Programs, which simply means that the small power generator receives a credit for a portion of any excesses which flow back into the system. Typically, these are considered more of an accounting process, rather than a policy. It is up to the individual consumer (as opposed to a larger entity) to recover their credits or rebates. 


Unfortunately, these same utility companies will differentiate between wholesale power price and retail power price, offering to "buy" the electrical credits at wholesale rates, while charging any deficits at Retail rates, imposing a further disadvantage to the consumer. Further, the transmission companies will often impose strict regulations about how a consumer-generation system can be tied to "their" grid, which can be onerous and often expensive to the consumer, thus negating any economic benefits.


So it falls back to the Government to describe their policies for incenting the creation and use of more renewable energy sources. I was personally very pleased when I read that the up & coming Alberta Party has already created specific policy around Renewable Energy (second bullet point). 


President Obama has been promising to invest heavily into Renewable Energy, and it is a key platform strategy for him. Let's hope he's as good as his word. His leadership will dictate how quickly other countries will develop their strategies for investing in Renewable Energy.


The opinions expressed are purely those of the author. Opinions are like noses - everyone has one, and they are entitled to it !

CFLs vs LEDs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about LED lighting technology. Many people will tell you that Compact Flourescent Light (CFL) bulbs do more harm that good. So I guess it's truly a matter of opinion.


Standard incandescent bulbs provide a high rate of resistance across the filament, which glows brightly. Typically, they are bought in terms of the watts of electricity consumed - in 25W, 40W, 60W and 100W varieties. This represents a fixed number of lumens.

But they are actually remarkably inefficient. Incandescent light bulbs waste up to 90% of the electricity they consume, by converting the watts of electricity into heat, rather than light. If you don't believe me, use your bare hands to unscrew a lit 100W bulb !

A colleague of mine argues that these bulbs are only inefficient IF you consider the heat by-product as a waste. I'm here to tell you that anyone depending on 100W bulbs to heat their home during the Canadian winter had best invest in heavy sweaters ! Sorry, Jon...

CFLs run much more efficiently, consuming significantly less electricity for

the same number of lumens. The common varieties are 13W and 25W bulbs, indicating they are approximately four times as efficient. While they are still warm to the touch, you can handle them with your bare hands. Further, they are reported to last seven times as long as incandescent bulbs. But they cost around $3 CDN a bulb.

In fact, the major concern about the CFLs is the fact that they contain mercury. So you can't just toss one in the garbage if & when it goes. well, I suppose you COULD, but it would be very irresponsible. So far, there have been no plans put forth to recycle them, although I am told that Home Depot & Ikea will take them.

Light Emitting Diodes, on the other hand, are very efficient. They are reportedly six times as efficient as incandescent light bulbs, and are reported NOT to burn out. Further, they contain no mercury ! But they are also wildly expensive by comparison. They cost about $28 CDN per bulb. This may be a red herring - if they never burn out, you never need to replace them, right ? But it the Return on Investment (RoI) is measured in decades, does it really matter ?

In my humble opinion, the big show-stopper is the fact that they are only really good for task-oriented lighting. They don't cast a glow, rather than a directed field of light.

So while CFLs represent a "band-aid" solution, according to my pal Dan, they are still more usable than LEDs. And they represent the mid-point for price, which should help with mass-adoption of energy conserving technologies - not the best, but certainly better than nothing at all.

The opinions expressed in this post are purely those of the author. Opinions are like noses; everyone has one and they are entitled to it !