Powered by Solar, Financed by Third-Party (CA)

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47009

Installed atop a bottling plant at Fetzer Vineyards in California is a shiny new 901-kilowatt photovoltaic solar array. The entire cost of the recent solar project to the Mendocino County-based winery? $0.

MMA Renewable Ventures, a subsidiary of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, coordinated the financial backing to own, operate and maintain the Fetzer Vineyard system, and sell the clean energy to Fetzer under a long-term Solar Services Agreement (SSA) contract that sets the electricity costs at a fixed rate.

"We get clean power from new solar at a cost that is 10% less than conventional power from the utility. It will stay below the cost of grid power for the length of the contract. It also reduces our peak demand power charges by 70%. All this at no capital expense and no increasing in the asset base," said Susanne Zechiel, Fetzer's manager of facility resources for its California wine group.

Developed by 3 Phases Energy and installed by PowerLight, the Fetzer solar energy system was the first project in 2006 to be financed through MMA Renewable Ventures' solar fund, a vehicle for institutional investment in renewable energy projects nationwide. Deploying the proceeds through its proprietary third-party financing model, the venture company works with solar energy developers such as 3 Phases Energy to offer customers predictably priced clean energy while avoiding the costs of installation and ongoing system maintenance.

<more>

How's that end of the equation looking? The manufacture of semiconductors is generally a dirty business. Have the PV companies been cleaning things up? There is not much information on that end, except where a company wants to look green -- and even that's usually limited to a PR effort about controlling mercury emissions or adhering to EEC pollution control requirements.

I expect that manufacturing PV cells will become a big chunk of the semiconductor industry in a few years. It would be a bitter irony indeed if solar power became environmentally ruinous. But this is the ideal time for activism to have a positive impact.

--p!

Where are these dirty deeds???

:evilgrin:

I'm sure I've posted a few. :D

It's a nice surprise to see solar being funded by people who can afford it (rather than the taxpayer) for a change. I can actually support this...

didn't get jack for responses...except for ones like these...

http://www.physorg.com/news8236.html

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45786

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/kids/learning_saving.html

must be doing something wrong...

:evilgrin:

daylight is just too hot and shiney. i suggest we build nuke-plant cities deep underground and escape its evil glare.

or "solar energy evacuation" nope nothing there.

Here: Solar Death Ray!!!


Yep, solar is too dangerous to be used. Nukes for me.

I know you firmly believe the materials for PV panels are make by by pixies using made by magic, but we have actually been through this before. Maybe you've forgotten, so here's some reminders:

The process is very energy intensive requiring about 13 megawatt hours of electricity to produce one tonne of silicon. At the industry standard of A$0.06 per kWh, electricity represents around 40 per cent of the market value of silicon. Silicon production is therefore the most energy-intensive operation in Western Australia comparable to the manufacture of aluminium. The energy cost penalty is offset by access to competitive raw materials (ie. wood and silica). http://www.chemlink.com.au/silicon.htm
You remember where Oz gets those kWh, I hope.

A silicon smelter requires as inputs a carbon source and quartz. The higher the purity of the inputs, the higher the purity of silicon produced. Slow-growing heartwood from trees such as box, ironbark, river red gum and stringybark has low levels of impurities and thus is highly sought after for silicon production. Billets sized about 30 cm long and 10 cm wide are first converted to charcoal. Another 30,000 tonnes per year of “flux wood” is needed to support the silicon smelting process. Fortunately, plantation pine would be suitable for this. The initial proposal required 160,000 tonnes of green wood each year sourced from central-west, north-west and north-east NSW woodlands and forests. About 65,000 tonnes/year would be sourced from the Pilliga and Goonoo woodlands, mainly ironbarks. Pilliga is the largest temperate woodland remnant in Australia.http://www.deh.gov.au/land/publications/firewood-conferences/bendigo/pubs/bendigo.pdf
But they're not Maine forests, so fuck 'em.

Similarly, charcoal production for silicon reduction is very primitive, emitting large quantities of CO (toxic), CO₂
(greenhouse effect), tar components (carcinogenic), acetic and formic acids. Like miners, charcoal makers are also at high risk from hazardous emissions http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/gc/philadelphia/abstract/Adeoti.pdf
I guess it's their own damn fault for not being American. Oh, those wacky foreigners.

Now, as NNadir would point out, the amount of energy produced by PV is approximately fuck all, so loosing the occasional forest (or life) for toys is probably acceptable. But just maybe, when you're spending a few minutes ignoring the cost to the taxpayer of a million solar roofs, you'd like to consider the other costs.