In Solar Power, India Begins Living Up to Its Own Ambitions

The following was gleaned from an article with the above title in the December 29, 2011 New York Times.

I like this article, in part, because it provides cost data which are lacking in so many Renewable Energy articles.  Even though costs are stated in Indian rupees, conversions are provided.

For reference, a good, round, average "rule of thumb" cost for electricity in the United States is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.  In the U.S., we burn a lot of coal and coal is cheap.

In Solar Power, India Begins Living Up to Its Own Ambitions

KHADODA, India — Solar power is a clean energy source. But in this arid part of northwest India it can also be a dusty one.

Every five days or so, field hands with long-handled dust mops wipe down each of the 36,000 solar panels at a 63-acre installation operated by Azure Power.

Two years ago, Indian policy makers said that by the year 2020 they would drastically increase the nation’s use of solar power from virtually nothing to 20,000 megawatts — enough electricity to power the equivalent of up to 15 million modern American homes during daylight hours when the panels are at their most productive.

Dozens of developers like Azure, because of aggressive government subsidies and a large drop in the global price of solar panels, are covering India’s northwestern plains with gleaming solar panels. So far, India uses only about 140 megawatts, including 10 megawatts used by the Azure installation, which can provide enough power to serve a town of 50,000 people, according to the company.

“Prices came down and suddenly things were possible that didn’t seem possible,” said Tobias Engelmeier, managing director of Bridge to India, a research and consulting firm based in New Delhi. Chinese manufacturers like Suntech Power and Yingli Green Energy helped drive the drop in solar panel costs. The firms increased production of the panels and cut costs this year by about 30 percent to 40 percent, to less than $1 a watt.

This month, the government held its second auction to determine the price at which its state-owned power trading company — NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam — would buy solar-generated electricity for the national grid. The average winning bid was 8.77 rupees (16.5 cents) per kilowatt-hour.

That is about twice the price of coal-generated power, but it was about 27 percent lower than the winning bids at the auction held a year ago. Germany, the world’s biggest solar-power user, pays about 17.94 euro cents (23 American cents) per kilowatt-hour.

India still significantly lags behind European countries in the use of solar. Germany, for example, had 17,000 megawatts of solar power capacity at the end of 2010. But India, which gets more than 300 days of sunlight a year, is a more suitable place to generate solar power

Most Indian power plants are fueled by coal and generate electricity at about 4 rupees (7.5 cents) per kilowatt-hour — less than half of solar’s cost now. In this month’s auction, the recent winning bids were comparable to what India’s industrial and commercial users pay for electricity — from 8 to 10 rupees. And solar’s costs are competitive with power plants and back-up generators that burn petroleum-based fuels, whose electricity costs about 10 rupees per kilowatt-hour.

==========

KCP&L Plan Shifts to Efficiency

The following excerpt is from an article in today's Kansas City Star about a local electric utility, Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L), that is making energy efficiency a part of its business model.  Previously, KCP&L's energy efficiency efforts were done primarily for public relations.  But a new Missouri law makes it profitable for KCP&L to pursue energy efficiency seriously.

The following excerpt gives an idea of what the article is about.  More details are available in the complete article.

KCP&L plan shifts to efficiency, seeks payback for saving energy

By STEVE EVERLY

The Kansas City Star

Friday, December 23, 2011

Kansas City Power & Light, in a historic shift for the utility, filed plans Thursday with Missouri regulators to sell less electricity.

The company, like other utilities in the region, has depended on selling electricity to recover its costs and earn a profit. Building more power plants was the gauge for its success. Its conservation efforts, such as rebates to customers for buying energy-efficient air-conditioners, were pilot programs and not part of KCP&L’s long-term plans.

But the company says it’s time for a change, for energy efficiency to take on a more serious role. So its latest plan takes advantage of new Missouri regulations that make it possible for utilities to curb consumption and not be penalized financially.

And customers, though they might pay higher rates initially to help cover the upfront costs of conservation efforts, are expected to eventually see lower rates after the efficiencies start paying off.

The combination, say the utility’s officials, convinced them that for the first time energy efficiency should have an official place in its business plans.

The plan, as conceived, would ensure a sustained program that includes rebates for commercial and residential customers who buy energy-efficient equipment and lighting. There would also be rebates for disposing of inefficient air-conditioners and refrigerators. Other programs include telling residential customers how their electric usage compares with others in similarly sized homes, and what can be specifically done to reduce consumption.

KCP&L would give the program $25 million a year, which would be expected to eventually save the utility much more than that. The rule of thumb is that it costs one-fifth as much, or less, to eliminate the need for a kilowatt of electricity as it does to produce that much electricity. So the savings could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years.

A problem in the past has been figuring out how to encourage utililty convervation efforts, because they reduce electricity sales and thus cut into revenue. In addition, utilities haven’t always been able to build the costs of conservation efforts into their electricity rates.

But in 2009, state legislators passed the Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act, which called for treating investments in curbing consumption in the same way as investments to deliver electricity. It took a couple of years to work out the regulations to put the law into effect, including how to measure energy savings.

(Archive Article) Green Power's High Cost Scuttles Projects

The following was gleaned from a New York Times article with the above title published on or about November 8, 2010.

Electricity generated from wind or sun still generally costs more — and sometimes a lot more — than the power squeezed from coal or natural gas. 

Prices for fossil fuels have dropped in part because the recession has reduced demand. 

In the case of natural gas, newer drilling techniques have opened the possibility of vast new supplies for years to come.

The gap in price can pit regulators, who see their job as protecting consumers from unreasonable rates, against renewable energy developers and utility companies, many of which are willing to pay higher prices now to ensure a broader energy portfolio in the future.

In April, for example, the state public utilities commission in Rhode Island rejected a power-purchase deal for an offshore wind project that would have cost 24.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. The utility now pays about 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from fossil fuels.

The state legislature responded by passing a bill allowing the regulators to consider factors other than price. The commission then approved an agreement to buy electricity from a smaller wind farm, although that decision is being challenged in the courts.

Companies that make solar cells and wind machines argue that a national energy policy is needed to guarantee them a market that will allow their industry to develop.

The United States has relied on a combination of state renewable energy mandates and federal tax credits to encourage greater reliance on energy from renewable sources. Legislation that would have set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions and included a standard for increasing the share of clean energy in the nation’s electricity portfolio failed in Congress this year. 

Ancient Italian Town Now Has Wind at Its Back

The following was gleaned from a September 28, 2010 New York Times article with the above title.  I believe it provides insight into why some European communities have found it economically feasible, even beneficial, to incorporate renewable energy into their energy mix while few American communities have found that to be the case.

Faced with sky-high electricity rates, small communities in Italy have turned to making renewable energy. More than 800 Italian communities now make more energy than they use because of the recent addition of renewable energy plants.

The Italian town of Tocco da Casauria was motivated to adopt renewable energy because Italy already had among the highest electricity rates in Europe, and nearly three times the average in the United States.

 High electricity prices in Italy are a result of various forces: Italy has almost no fossil fuels of its own, and until last year, it banned nuclear power plants.  And, as in much of Europe, the lure of alternative power here was sweetened by feed-in tariffs — government guarantees to buy renewable electricity at an attractive set price from any company, city or household that produces it.

In the United States, where electricity is cheap and government policy has favored setting minimum standards for the percentage of energy produced from renewable sources rather than direct economic incentives like Europe’s feed-in tariffs, stimulating alternative energy has been only mildly successful. But in countries where energy from fossil fuels is naturally expensive — or rendered so because of a carbon tax — and there is money to be made, renewable energy quickly starts to flow.

With its four wind turbines, Tocco is now essentially energy independent from a financial standpoint, generating 30 percent more electricity than it uses. Production of green electricity earned the town 170,000 euros, or more than $200,000, last year.

Impressed with their new turbines, Tocco’s residents have lately turned to renewable resources to resolve other civic problems.  An installation of solar panels now lights walkways, powers the office and generates an income of 1,500 euros a year, or $2,000, to pay for maintenance at the town’s ancient cemetary.

A growing number of wealthier homeowners are paying these experts to install solar panels. The stucco home of Domenico Marini, a dental technician, has roof panels in addition to a koi pond and garden gnomes. His monthly electricity bills have dropped to $0 from as much as $700.