Reduced Solar Prices-March Madness Solar Prices!
March 9, 2012 1 Comment
March Madness Solar Prices!
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy <scottscontracting> wrote:
Home Improvement Specialist for St Louis, MO Build a Green St Louis!
March 9, 2012 1 Comment
March Madness Solar Prices!
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy <scottscontracting> wrote:
February 18, 2012 6 Comments
- Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.
- The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.
- Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.
- These effects of climate changeare predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
Missouri‘s Climate: News, Building Codes, Energy Costs, Carbon Data, Energy Sources, and more
02/17/12Scotty-Scotts Contracting, St Louis Renewable Energy
information supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri
Climate Concerns
Regional Issues & State Action:
- According to the United States Global Change Research Program, the
- Midwest has experienced rising average temperatures with the largest warming seen in the winter months.
- The growing season has been extended by one week because of earlier last spring frosts and precipitation has become more frequent including increased instances of heavy downpours.
- Since the 1980s, large heat waves have become more frequent than any time in the last century.
- These effects of climate change are predicted to continue, threatening the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
- Missouri does not have an official climate action plan but the State Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority makes efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, which are administered through the Division of Energy.
BCAP Estimated Energy Savings
- If Missouri began implementing the 2009 IECC and Standard 90.1-2007 statewide in 2011, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $99 million annually by 2020 and $200 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices).
- Additionally, implementing the latest model codes would help avoid about 31 trillion Btu of primary annual energy use by 2030 and annual emissions of more than 2.1 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030.
- A 2010 BCAP analysis indicates that the weightedaverage incremental construction cost of upgrading to the 2009 IECC in Missouri would be $875.28 per home. On average, the annual energy savings per home would be $459.00, meaning the simple payback for homeowners would occur, on average, in 1.91 years.These estimates are conservative and represent the upper bound on incremental cost.
Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency
Standards For State Buildings
Public Buildings
Intro/Brief:
- Since July 1, 2009, all new state-funded buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC.
- During the summer of 2008, the state of Missouri passed a wide-ranging package of energy efficiency initiatives, including homeowner tax incentives and minimum energy standards for state buildings. Passed in the state legislature on May 29 and signed by then-Governor Matt Blunt on July 10, the bill (SB 1181) required the Department of Natural Resources to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for state buildings, based on the 2006 IECC. The Commissioner of the Office of Administration may exempt any state building from meeting the minimum energy efficiency standard requirement for safety reasons or when the cost of compliance is expected to exceed the energy cost savings.
Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction.
- Public Buildings Code: Based on the 2006 IECC.
TEXT: SB 1181 (2008)
Citation: SECTIONS 8.295 – 8.837 – STATE BUILDINGS
Application: Applies to all new and renovated state-owned construction.
Approximate Stringency: As stringent as the 2006 IECC.
Effective Date: July 1, 2009
Approved Compliance Tools: REScheck | COMcheck
Background:
- In response to legislation signed in 1993, for Energy Efficiency in State Facilities, a rule was finalized and published on January 26, 1996, with an effective date 30 days later that established “state building minimum efficiency standards.” The rule covered new state buildings (or portions), additions, substantial renovations, or existing buildings considered for lease (when over 10,000 sq. ft.) or acquisition by the state. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 was adopted by reference for buildings other than single-family and multi-family residential buildings not over three stories high. For single-family and multi-family residential buildings, the latest editions of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code (MEC) or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993 was applicable. New editions/revisions to these adopted standards would automatically be adopted by reference and become effective three months after the date of their publication. (10 CSR 140-7, Department of Natural Resources.) No statewide requirements existed for other buildings; local cities and jurisdictions adopt their own requirements.
Information last updated February 7, 2012
****
Based on:
Mandatory
Date Passed:
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Date Effective:
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
History
- Missouri has no mandatory or voluntary statewide energy code for private residential and commercial construction.
- After the passage of SB 1181 in July 2008, all state-owned buildings must comply with Missouri Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for Public Buildings, which is based on the 2006 IECC, beginning on July 1, 2009. The previous state-owned building code was based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989.
- Due to its history of strong local government, Missouri does not have a mandatory statewide energy code. However, however all local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state. Seethis page or see below for more details on local adoption.
- Regardless of the system in place, the bottom line is that many jurisdictions in Missouri still don’t have an energy code—meaning that many residents do not receive the benefits of energy-efficient construction.
- Missouri has considered adopting a state code previously. For example, SB 745, drafted by BCAP in 2010, would have adopted the 2009 IECC and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 statewide. It also would have directed DNR to establish an automatic review cycle, either every three years or within nine months of the publication of a new model code version. In addition, HB 938 in 2011 would have established most of the 2006 International Code series as minimum statewide construction standards (the 2006 IECC was not specifically cited, but would have been included via its position as an alternative compliance path to Chapter 11 of the 2006 International Residential Code). Both bills, however, failed to move past the committee stage.
- Local Adoption: For more, view the BCAP Missouri Gap Analysis Report, starting with pages 19-22.
- All local jurisdictions except class III counties have the right to adopt an energy code. As expected, this system creates a sometimes confusing patchwork of different codes throughout the state.
- It is typical for Missouri communities to adopt codes on a 6-year cycle rather than the 3-year code development cycle for ICC. It is also typical for communities to follow the code adoption of surrounding communities. These adoption practices have developed two trends in Missouri; eastern Missouri communities are generally on the 2003 I-Codes and are moving/have moved to the 2009 I-Codes and western Missouri communities are generally on the 2006 I-Codes and are moving to the 2012 I-Codes.
Code Change Process:
- Legislative: In Missouri, only the General Assembly is authorized to enact legislation to establish statewide building construction regulations and/or authorize a state agency to do so. However, there currently is no state regulatory agency authorized to promulgate, adopt, or update construction codes on a statewide basis.
Code Change Cycle:
- No set schedule. The most recent update to Missouri’s energy code for state-owned buildings became effective on July 1, 2009.
Next Code Update:
- There is no pending state energy code update.
Basic Facts
Climate Zone:
- 4A, 5A (zones based on DOE’s most recent zoning: zone numbers based on a spectrum, zone 1 represents very hot weather and zone 8 represents subarctic weather. Letters indicate climate type, A-Humid, B-Dry, C-Marine)
Population:
- 5,987,580 (2009, U.S. Census Bureau)
Construction Activity:
- New Housing Units Authorized by Permit:
Total units: 13,273
Number of Housing Units by Structure Type:
1 unit: 7,777
2 units: 654
3 and 4 units: 854
5 or more units: 3,988
(2008, Real Estate Center)Projected Construction Rate:
- 7,782 dwelling units (-48% less than the previous year), maintaining an average value of $187,000 per dwelling unit.
(2008, Real Estate Center)CO2 Emissions:
- 140.04 MMT CO2 (2007)
Energy Data
Primary Energy Source:
- Coal: 41% (2007, EIA)
Energy Consumption:
- Total Annual Energy Consumption of 1,964.1trillion Btu (2007, EIA)
Energy Expenditures:
- 23,341.8 Million Nominal Dollars (2007, EIA)
Energy Snapshot:
- 58% of the state’s natural gas supply is used for heating the home.Natural gas is the largest consumed source of energy for the state’s residential sector
Residential use of natural gas in Missouri costs up to $12.97/thousand cu ft.
Source: EIA
Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri
Materials supplied by: http://bcap-ocean.org/state-country/missouri
It all starts with using your energy efficiently. Scotty
Twitter <—- Find Me —> Facebook
Web Site: http://stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scottscontracting
Job Site Photo Album
Green Blo
g
January 24, 2011 1 Comment
email Scotts Contracting to schedule a Home Weatherization Inspection. Scotty, will Analyze your Buildings Components and Supply a Proposal that will meet or exceed suggested Green Building Code– scottscontracting@gmail.com
Weatherization Doesn’t Cost it Saves |
|||
| Secretary Chu Announces Major New Recovery Act Milestone: 300,000 Homes Weatherized
U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced that states and territories across the country have now weatherized more than 300,000 low-income homes under the Recovery Act, a major milestone in the Department’s efforts to reduce home energy bills for families. This means that states are now more than 50 percent of the way toward meeting President Obama’s goal of weatherizing approximately 600,000 homes under the Recovery Act. The weatherization program is helping families save money on their energy bills by improving home energy efficiency with upgrades like insulation, air-sealing, and more efficient heating and cooling systems. The program has also trained a new generation of clean energy workers and is employing more than 15,000 workers nationwide. “Today marks a major milestone for the weatherization program and shows once again that we are on pace to meet the goals of the Recovery Act. This program has already benefitted 300,000 low-income families and put thousands of people to work,” said Secretary Chu. “Through the weatherization program, we are laying the groundwork for a broader efficiency industry in the U.S. that will help grow our economy while saving money for American families.” Through November, the network of state offices, local agencies, and weatherization providers has completed 300,000 homes. Of the total, more than 100,000 have been completed in just the last four months, showing the dramatically accelerated pace of weatherization under the program. A state-by-state breakdown of the homes weatherized through November is available at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/energyefficiency.htm. Weatherization assistance reduces energy consumption for low-income families on average 35 percent, saving families on average more than $400 on their heating and cool bills in the first year alone. Nationwide, the weatherization of 300,000 homes is estimated to save $161 million in energy costs in just the first year. DOE has worked closely with state and local governments to ensure the program is well-managed, responsive, and flexible. Nearly all of the states and territories involved in the program have met the milestone of weatherizing more than 30 percent of their targeted number of homes and many have completed more than half of their goals to date.
__________ Homes Weatherized by State The Department of Energy is collecting monthly data from the states on the number of homes weatherized under the Recovery Act. The below spreadsheets shows figures for homes weatherized (1) in April 2010, and (2) in the first quarter of 2010 (January-March). In March, the weatherization network nationally reached their target run-rate and weatherized more than 25,000 homes across the country. Since the Recovery Act began, states have used their Recovery Act funding and annual program funds to weatherize more than 193,000 homes.
This is an end-of-the-year report on the number of homes weatherized by state as part of the Weatherization Assistance Program during calendar year 2009. This data was reported by states and may be updated as states finalize figures for homes weatherized through December 31st. By the end of 2009, states weatherized more than 125,000 homes with Recovery Act and non-Recovery Act annual federal funding. Since the Recovery Act funding allowed states to accelerate their existing programs with Fiscal Year 2009 funding, the combined total is the best indicator of progress in the program. Nevertheless, the pace of Recovery Act-funded weatherization tripled in the last three months of the year. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- email Scotts Contracting to schedule a Home Weatherization Inspection. Scotty, will Analyze your Buildings Components and Supply a Proposal that will meet or exceed suggested Green Building Code– scottscontracting@gmail.com
Weatherization Doesn’t Cost it Saves |
|||
January 2, 2011 3 Comments
For the First Quarter of 2011-St Louis Renewable Energy, Green Builder Scotts Contracting will be offering a reduced labor charge for the Installation of Solar Electric Systems on NFP (Not-For-Profit) Organizations.
For Additional Information or to see if you business qualifies for the Solar Electric Special email Scotty, at scottscontracting@gmail.com
Labels: 2011 Solar Electric Special, Reduced Labor Charge for Solar Electric Systems., Solar Special
July 19, 2010 1 Comment
Energy From Cow Manure
Producer of Baby Nutrition Products Saving CO2 Based on Special “Green Tariff” article found at: http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2010/07/16/ukraine-milk-company-powered-by-4000-cows-and-ge-biogas-engine/comment-page-1/#comment-3160
Cow manure is being converted to energy at the first biogas cogeneration plant in the Ukraine. The facility, which is powered by 4,000 cows and a GE (NYSE: GE) Jenbacher gas engine, has recently completed nine months of successful operation at the Ukrainian Milk Company Ltd., located near Kiev.
The excess power produced at the plant is being sold to the grid. The Ukrainian Milk Company, which produces milk for baby nutrition products, received the license for selling power to the grid based on the “green” tariff, which is being approved by Ukraine authorities. According to the law, the “green” tariff is “a special tariff for electricity generated at the power plants with use of alternative energy sources.”
The new combined heat and power (CHP) plant is powered by a GE JMC 312 containerized cogeneration model gas engine and is able to substitute the equivalent of 1.2 million cubic meters of natural gas annually and, therefore, is projected to reduce the equivalent of 18,000 metric tons of CO2. Once converted into biogas, the manure from the cows produces 625 kW of electricity and 686 kW of thermal output.
This is GE’s first order from the biogas plant construction company ZORG. The unit was sold to ZORG through GE’s distributor and service provider in the Ukraine, SINAPSE. “Based on the top service provided by SINAPSE during the commissioning and operation of the new GE CHP plant, we look forward to working with them again and using GE’s Jenbacher products for future projects we have planned,” said Igor Aksyutov, commercial director of ZORG Ukraine.
The first stage of operation for the plant took place during the most severe winter in the last 20 years, with constant minus temperatures reaching -25°C to -30°C. Despite the cold temperatures, the operation of the plant remained at a favorable level.
Biogas offers customers several advantages. It provides an alternative disposal of dung, liquid manure and organic waste, while simultaneously harnessing them as an energy source, a substitute for conventional fuels. It also has the high potential for reduction in greenhouse gases and is highly efficient for combined on-site power and heat generation. In addition, the remaining substrate from the digester can be used as high-quality, agricultural fertilizer, characterized by neutralizing the acid effect with a higher ph-value, keeping nutrients retained and nearly odorless.
“The disposal and treatment of biological waste represents a major challenge for the waste industry. Our Jenbacher biogas-fueled gas engines improve waste management while maximizing the use of cow manure, an economical energy supply,” said Prady Iyyanki, CEO-gas engines for GE Power & Water. “We are pleased that our technology is a part of the first biogas plant in operation in the Ukraine and applaud the region for seeking new renewable and alternative ways to create cleaner energy.”
GE has several biogas projects throughout the world. China has adopted both cow and chicken manure applications. Once completed, the recently announced project at the Liaoning Huishan Cow Farm in China will become the world’s largest biogas project based on cow manure. In addition, GE’s Jenbacher gas engines are using biogas created from chicken manure to generate needed power and heat at the Beijing Deqingyuan Chicken Farm Waste Utilization Plant, a large chicken farm north of Beijing, and in July 2009, GE’s biogas engines began to power China’s largest chicken waste biogas-energy plant at the Minhe Animal Husbandry.
Cow manure also is helping to address northwestern India’s mounting energy environmental needs and is allowing a U.S. dairy farm to support the expansion of renewable energy production. A GE Jenbacher biogas engine is powering a successful demonstration cattle manure-methane cogeneration plant at Haebowal, a large dairy complex in Punjab, India, while GE’s biogas engine technology is generating 633 kilowatts of renewable energy at United States-based Crave Brothers Farm, LLC, in Waterloo, Wisc. Crave Brothers has been able to reduce operational costs and the environmental impacts of its dairy operations, and the surplus power it sells to the regional grid helps support the expansion of renewable energy production.
ZORG is a leading supplier of turn-key biogas solutions in the Ukrainian market. The company offers a full range of engineering services for biogas, as well as designs, builds and produces biogas plants. ZORG works globally and currently has a number of projects in CIS countries.
July 14, 2010 1 Comment
Article by Jon Previtali and Jon Guice, AltaTerra Research
Published: July 8, 2010
On June 25, we joined 500 executives at Stanford University for the 2010 Silicon Valley Energy Summit. The CEO of a large California utility company, Chris Johns of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), was the first keynote speaker. His topic was PG&E’s effort to roll out 10 million smart meters. At an average rate of 15,000 installations each day, the devices are the first and most important pieces of PG&E’s smart grid infrastructure. All PG&E customers will have electric and gas smart meters by the end of 2012.
Johns noted near-term benefits familiar to most of us: no physical meter reading, faster identification of grid faults, and most importantly, lower peak power as residential customers are given the double-edged sword of time-of-use rates and “near-time” energy pricing data for the purpose of managing their power use more cost effectively.
But to those of us who are thinking about the future through the lens of solar power and other distributed generation (DG), PG&E’s venture into the emerging smart grid space could mean much more. Smart meters could become the communications and control gateway to two major areas of progress for the solar power industry:
1) An increase in solar power yield through better system monitoring and remote inverter repair.
2) The deployment of much higher photovoltaic (PV) penetrations than are currently allowed in power distribution networks.
Demand for accurate solar power system monitoring and remote repair has been increasing since the commercial solar market shifted to a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) model in which PV system operators are paid for energy delivered. There is clear incentive to maximize generation and minimize downtime. Solar monitoring companies such as FST, Draker Labs, Energy Recommerce (now National Semiconductor), and Deck stepped up to serve this market, and PPA company SunEdison even introduced its own monitoring system.
This demand has also encouraged module and inverter companies to make customer relationships more “sticky” by bundling monitoring systems that work with portfolios of systems made for their products. Module companies such as SunPower and Suntech offer complete system packages with bundled monitoring systems. Inverter companies, including Satcon, PV Powered (now owned by Advanced Energy), and SMA, are dedicating more development cycles to monitoring, communications, and control features. We also expect utility supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) companies will start to support big new utility projects such as Southern California Edison’s and PG&E’s massively distributed 250 megawatt (MW) PV implementations.
The second initiative—high-penetration PV—has even higher stakes for the solar industry.
Today, grid operators get nervous when as much as a few percent of peak load is met by renewable energy (RE) within a distribution area served by a substation. As a result, we see rules across the country that directly limit the size of solar power systems and the amount of peak load that can be met by RE. Hawaii’s most populous island, Oahu, is a good example. The following rule is taken from the North Carolina Solar Center’s DSIRE Database:
For customers of Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO), the maximum individual system capacity is 100 kW. The aggregate capacity of net-metered systems is limited to 1% of HECO’s peak demand. Of this 1% limit, 40% is reserved for systems 10 kW or smaller.
Rules like this hinder the growth of the solar power industry. Oahu has an estimated 1.2 gigawatts (GW) of peak load. The above rule reduces that 1.2 GW to 7.2 MW of commercial solar power systems allowed on the island. At 40 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), a common revenue target after incentives, the maximum number of commercial solar power systems on Oahu would generate $4.3 million per year. Unfortunately, that’s about what a single supermarket makes each year.
So, what’s the problem? Hawaii’s electricity comes mostly from foreign oil, they’re ranked among the highest in greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting states, and they pay the highest price for electricity. Meanwhile, they have a lot of sun. It seems they would want PV everywhere. The explanation: they don’t think their grid can handle that much solar power.
And they may be right. PV systems produce power at variable rates based on available sunlight. They also automatically disconnect from the grid when they sense poor power quality or no grid power. There is no reason for concern when solar power fluctuation is a small percent of total power on a distribution grid. However, if it becomes too large, grid operators are responsible for compensating for dips and spikes. The problem is they can’t. Conventional power plants don’t ramp quickly enough, and operators don’t control customer demand.
Also, when distributed generation (DG) exceeds load in a substation area, it flows through transformers onto transmission lines—a prospect that makes grid operators shudder. Unless they’ve been upgraded to bidirectional relay equipment, substations are not equipped to handle “reverse flow,” meaning operators cannot measure or throttle power flowing onto transmission lines. And, if a transmission line fails, blackouts can occur.
This happened in Europe in 2006 when one of two redundant German transnational high-voltage lines was “idled” to allow a newly built cruise liner to pass underneath. The ship was late, night came, and two factors arose that resulted in the automatic curtailment of 10 million customers: an unusual rise in demand due to a cold snap in the south, and a common upsurge in wind power from the north. Despite debate over the root cause, the failure spawned Germany’s Medium Voltage Directive, which appears to be the first large-scale mandate of grid operator communications and control over third-party DG.
The directive gives grid operators the ability to remotely disable RE systems connected at 10-110 kilovolts (kV), requires power ramping to prevent harmful surges and dips, enables RE systems to ride through grid faults when linemen are clearly not at risk, and may require that inverters provide reactive power to correct voltage problems. The directive seems chiefly intended to manage wind power. It’s yet to be seen if it will be necessary for solar power management, because PV conveniently generates during times when solar power is most likely to be consumed by adjacent loads.
In the U.S., a similar communications and control requirement is under development by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which proposed its version several months ago for RE systems connected to California’s transmission system. Some industry prognosticators believe the CAISO requirements will also be adopted by utility grid operators to manage single systems and system portfolios in the MW range. Considering the concern among operators, this seems like a reasonable prediction, especially as California approaches its limit for net-metered DG, currently set at 5% of peak demand.
The race is on for communications and control within the RE industry. At AltaTerra, we’ve coined the phrase Distributed Generation Communications and Control (DGC2) to describe this burgeoning area of information technology. With the addition of automated control intelligence to system monitoring, we believe DGC2 will be essential for the coordination of all forms of DG with RE-supply and conventional demand forecasting, dynamic pricing, smart grid transmission and distribution components, SCADA systems, and a wide range of load-shedding smart grid devices yet to come. DGC2 will be the brains that direct these new and not-so-new technologies to work together to reduce peak load, dampen RE variability, and safeguard grid operations as we blow past the current limits to RE DG.
Jon Guice is the co-founder and Managing Director of Research at AltaTerra Research.
Jon Previtali has 13 years experience in product management, specializing in renewable energy and related fields such as energy efficiency, smart grid devices and energy storage. Prior to AltaTerra, at SunEdison, the largest generator of solar power in North America, Mr. Previtali managed the operations service for third-party systems, assisted in the development of the solar power fleet monitoring system and developed a high-penetration PV-grid integration strategy. Jon Previtali also launched SunEdison’s channel partner program, which has resulted in over 100 MW of solar power projects and is today responsible for the majority of SunEdison’s system construction. Earlier, Mr. Previtali was the Director of Product Management for Monitoring and Reporting Services at Digital Island, a leading Internet infrastructure firm. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Stanford (1993) and an M.S. in Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering from the University of Colorado, Boulder (2007).
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
October 15, 2009 Leave a comment
Add your name to those across the world calling on President Obama to lead on climate change
Feel free to comment on the Articles- Spam Comments will not be published