Off Grid Home Blog

Community gardening is taking up a new energetic form across the country. Rather than rows of corn, leaf lettuce and heirloom tomatoes, friends and neighbors are planting solar gardens. The power of the collective solar will is already evidenced by the successes of organizations like One Block Off The Grid (1BOG) and companies like SolarCity that offer group buying discounts. But those installations still involve individual homes with individual solar arrays. Increasingly, homeowners are taking advantage of net metering and feed-in tariff (FIT) laws to communally install solar “gardens” in one location off-site from their homes.

Solar gardens present an alternative for renters, condominium residents and homeowners with shaded or otherwise obstructed rooftops. These solar outcasts represent the latest in creative solar power adoption. Solar gardens are groups of solar panels creating solar energy together but owned by a group of people.

To facilitate this new solar movement, one innovator, Joy Hughes, started the Solar Panel Hosting Company and SolarGardens.org (as explained in a recent ecopolitology blog). The concept involves homeowners installing solar panels on a rooftop nearby. You, the individual, monitor and record the energy production from your specific panels, subtract your home usage and collect a check. It’s the same as if the panels were on your own roof, only with benefit of group buying and cheaper, bulk installation. The ultimate goal is that anyone, no matter their financial status or credit score, can own their own solar panels.

But the community solar garden concept is a bit ahead of its time in many states, most notably those without feed-in tariffs, adequate net metering rules or tax incentives that provide equal opportunity to community solar power. According to Hughes, states like Washington, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts have laws enabling group solar, and Oregon, Indiana, Florida and Ontario, Canada have feed-in tariffs that allow for some monetary reward — even profit.

Yet for community solar gardening to really take off, there is a need for sweeping change at the federal level or for a larger number of states to recognize and promote the concept. Right now there is a bill proposed by Colorado Senator Mark Udall – the SUN Act – that will give equal federal tax breaks to solar panels hosted off-site. SolarGardens.org has organized a campaign in support of the bill.

Similarly, also in the state of Colorado, the Community Solar Gardens Bill is currently making its way through the legislature. It would give homeowners the right to collectively install solar gardens within their own community. And such legislation is key, because even if the feds grant equal tax credits to community solar gardens, if states have rules preventing them from being built in the first place, then the federal law is essentially useless in that state.

The solar garden movement is young but, given the still high (although falling) up-front costs for home solar power, is blossoming fast. Details like business models and legislative hurdles are being created and overcome. As Hughes put it:

“The Solar Gardens movement is a community of communities, sharing knowledge and expertise. Working together, we can bring our power back home, and truly make energy a community decision.” If she and environmentally driven communities get their way, look for more community solar power plants to sprout up. They shouldn’t be hard to spot. Hughes wants them in high-profile locations within communities, thus creating awareness and a real sense of local pride.

Via ecopolitology
Photo Credit: Brewster Solar Garden & Green Technology

More »

Does “traveling” through time save energy? Is that lost hour of spring sleep really worth it? Where are the savings in Daylight Saving Time and would the Western world be better off dropping the whole thing and moving on with its life?

A (Very) Brief History of DST

In 1784, after noticing how many residents slept through sunny summer mornings, Benjamin Franklin published an anonymous, satirical letter to Parisians suggesting they get up two hours earlier to conserve candles. Franklin did not suggest they adopt Daylight Saving Time (DST), although often mistakenly credited as doing so, but he did foreshadow a primary controversy that has followed DST around since its 1895  conception by New Zealand entomologist George Vernon Hudson (who enjoyed the extra daylight to scour for insects) – does DST actually save energy?

Even after Hudson and then Brit William Willet fought for DST, it took until World War I for Europe and the United States to temporarily adopt the shift. Then it went in and out of favor – slowly gaining widespread usage in Europe and North America (most of Asia and Africa still do not observe it) – throughout the 20th Century, usually finding its way onto legislative arenas during wartime or energy crises.

Except for a handful of adjustments, DST as we know it in America has been around since the 1960s, when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, which did not force all states to adopt DST, but merely said that if adopted it must be done uniformly. At that time, it was thought DST would save energy on incandescent lighting, then the primary use of electricity, although now things are more complicated due to widespread heating and cooling.

How DST Works

Daylight Saving Time makes summer days longer, as well as a portion of spring and fall days. As it stands right now, Standard Time “springs forward” at 2:00am on the second Sunday of March, creating darker mornings and brighter evenings until, on the first Sunday in November, it “falls back” into Standard Time. The idea is that people will be happier and more active thanks to more after-work daylight hours to spend outdoors. It’s also believed to conserve energy because the sun is out later and homes are naturally warmer and well-lit until closer to the average person’s bedtime. Obviously, darker, potentially colder mornings would increase the need for light and heat before work, but the belief is that lower energy usage at night outweighs increased usage in the morning. Thus, energy and money is saved.

Well, the thing about that is…who the hell knows? No one can seem to agree whether DST saves or costs both energy and money, or whether it is simply obsolete.

Most of the world’s population does not adhere to DST. According to the California Energy Commission, some 70 countries worldwide embrace it and, while that may seem like a lot, note that most of Africa and Asia do not. So DST is definitely in the minority in terms of global population. In the United States, most of Arizona and all of Hawaii do not oblige the time change. Much of Indiana did not until the latest DST adjustment by the Bush administration, but more on that in a moment.

The recreation, retail, sports and tourism industries have historically supported DST because more time for consumers to be out and about means more money for these sectors. Farmers and the entertainment industry tend to oppose it because a farmer’s schedule is dependent on sunlight, and longer days cut into prime-time revenues for entertainment outlets. But none of that is here or there in terms of energy.

The Energy Crisis

Since the 60s, many studies have been conducted to determine if DST actually saves energy. These studies are in a perpetual state of conflict. For example, during the energy crisis of the 1970s, a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which holds jurisdiction over DST, found in 1975 that longer evening daylight hours might reduce electricity consumption in the country by one percent in March and April. Yet a review of that study in 1976 by the National Bureau of Standards found no significant savings.

That trend repeats throughout recent history, all the way up to our most recent decade. In yet another effort to conserve energy, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by George W. Bush included another extension of DST. It moved the time change to three weeks earlier in the spring  and one week later in the fall. The change went into effect in March of 2007.

It was then that the entire state of Indiana decided to adopt DST. Because several counties had already been observing DST, it gave Matthew Kotchen and Laura Grant of the University of Santa Barbara a unique opportunity to study firsthand the effects of DST on energy consumption. Their study, released in 2008, found that electricity usage actually increased in Indiana following the switch, a fact primarily contributed to an increased need for air conditioning on hot summer days and an increase in heating on darker mornings in the spring and fall.

At that point, it seemed like the jury might be in on DST — that contrary to popular belief, it actually hurt energy efficiency and cost homeowners and the state more money than sticking to standard time year-round. But of course, the Indiana case study is not without criticism, which boils down to the assertion that Indiana cannot represent the entirety of the USA. A handful of studies in California have found either that DST saves a small amount of energy or has little or no effect on energy at all, but certainly doesn’t cost the state energy.

And that tends to be how the debate over DST goes. The US has so many different climates that the effect of changing time to suit schedules in summer time (what DST is called in Europe) varies. Up to this point, no comprehensive nationwide study is complete, although apparently the federal government is in the process of doing just that.

So is DST Worth it or Not?

My extremely strong opinion on the matter? It depends. The fact is that percentage-wise, there seems to be little effect, although a difference of one percent in any state, especially energy-hungry California, can equal a heck of a lot of saved GHG emissions and cost savings. Of course, nobody can say for sure if any energy is actually saved.

Here’s the conundrum. Yes, in a state like Indiana, DST might actually cost energy, but in another state or region it might have a significant impact. The problem is that we live in an interconnected world, so it does nobody any good to have everybody running on a different clock. Time zones alone present enough problems in that respect.

So energy-wise, I opine that DST is essentially pointless, an opinion I’ll stick to until I see the results of a broader study (which will no doubt have to be inordinately complex and probably befuddling to most of us). Most of the world’s population does not observe it in any way and we live in an ever more globalized society.

Now there are other effects of DST beyond energy — traffic accidents, crime, health, economy, et al. — each as contentious as the rest. Wikipedia has a good survey of information on those factors, their own respective controversies and plenty of links to other resources if you’re interested.

But for now, the only reason I can see to hold on to the DST model is convenience and luxury. Even in standard time, few of us actually rise with the sun in summertime. Most peoples’ routines have been structured around the nine-to-five workday, so even if the sun rose at 5 a.m., the majority would probably sleep until it’s time to get ready for work. So, just as Benjamin Franklin, George Vernon Hudson and William Willet suggested at least a century ago, having that extra hour of daylight to frolic, relax, take a walk or just get outside under the bright summer sun…well…who, if it’s not costing us valuable energy, is going to complain about that? Not me.

And hey, maybe someday over the rainbow, solar power and renewable energy will provide the majority of our electricity and all this will be a moot point. Unless you’re a farmer or a major media outlet.

Links:

Wikipedia: Daylight Saving Time

Wikipedia: Time in the United States

California Energy Commission

Wall Street Journal

More »

Representative Matt Pierce (D-61st, Bloomington) introduced AB 1190 into the Indiana General Assembly January 7, 2010. The bill is the first comprehensive proposal for a system of feed-in tariffs in the current legislative sessions that have begun in states across the US.

Think is a Oslo-based car company that makes electric-cars. Last month, It rolled out its first electric car for European market from its plant in Finland. Think chief executive announced that they will be building their first car in December, 2011 at the newly constructed plant in Indiana.

The new subcompact electric car is currently being called “Think City”. Company is planning to sell the first car in U.S. as early as October, 2010. These early models will be imported from Finland. These cars will be followed by production of U.S. produced cars in January, 2011. Mr. Richard Canny, CEO of Think has been quoted as a source of above information.

Think is likely to make an investment of around $50 million at its assembly plant in Elkhart County, Indiana. The auto manufacturer is expecting to get around $20 million in subsidy from U. S. Government in shape of tax incentives and human resource development funds.

Think City electric car will be able to drive more than 100 miles on a single charge. Top speed is around 73 miles per hour which is pretty decent for an urban car. It is a good compact design and is enough for a small family of two with children. The car has two front seats for adults and two relatively small seats for children in rear.

Car is expected to come with a hefty price tag of $30,000 after a tax credit of $7500.

Think City will have Lithium-ion batteries installed made by Ener1 Inc.

Technorati Tags: Think,Electric,Oslo,Last,European,Finland,December,Indiana,Company,October,

production,January,Richard,Canny,investment,Elkhart,auto,manufacturer,subsidy,

Government,human,resource,development,children,seats,

Lithium,batteries,cars,million,miles

People who liked this Post also read

• New Financing Schemes To Make Solar More Affordable
• Solar Power Goes Underground
• World Energy To Receive Up To $2.5M From Stock Sale
• Emissions Bill Protested
• Solving Solar Power Issues
• Types of Wind Turbines
• Obama Stresses On Action Rather Than Talks
• Will 2012 Be The End Of The World?
• Biogas as a Form of Renewable Energy
• What Is A Solar Water Heater?

Norddeutsche Landesbank (NORD/LB) announced last week that it has closed on financing for the Benton County Wind Farm project located in Benton County, Indiana.

Next week, on December 1, there will be a celebration near Muncie, Indiana, to mark the “topping off” of construction of a new gearbox manufacturing facility that eventually will employ 450 workers. It is one more sign of how the wind industry is transforming Indiana and the rest of the America, not just by building wind farms, but by manufacturing the components that go into them, and generating skilled manufacturing jobs.

Though not visible like the towers or blades, the gearbox is a critical component of a wind turbine, helping to link the spinning blades with the generator that converts the energy into electricity. Until now, most of the gearboxes installed on U.S. turbines have been manufactured overseas. But Brevini USA is investing in Indiana, based on the prospects that increased use of wind energy in the United states will create a domestic market for the gearboxes. They hope to begin production in 2011, and also hope the U.S. economy has recovered by then.

The wind industry is pressing state legislatures and Congress to adopt pro-wind policies, especially a renewable electricity standard, that will create the demand for wind, and the jobs that go with the new industry.

Brevini said that one of the reasons it came to the Muncie area is the large base of workers possessing mechanical skills. As recently as two or three years ago, workers built transmissions for General Motors and Ford at plants in the city.

Construction of the Brevini building is all but complete. Next month, the company will start hiring staff for the Muncie plant, and sending key personnel for training in Germany. Next year they will begin installing the large, complex machinery used to produce and test the gear boxes, which weigh 43 tons. Next week, though, is the time for celebration. The Brevini facility is located in Park One, Delaware County, Indiana, just off Exit 41 on I-69, 41 miles north of Indianapolis.