Tag Archives: solar panels

Obama says “no” to TransCanada’s latest Keystone gambit

Obama says “no” to TransCanada’s latest Keystone gambit

By on 5 Nov 2015 4:28 amcommentsShare

On Monday, TransCanada tried a desperate move to salvage its plan to build the Keystone XL pipeline: It asked the State Department to delay its review of the project, in the hopes that the delay would put the decision in the hands of the next president, and in the hopes that the next president would be a Republican.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration said no dice. From The Washington Post:

The State Department formally rejected a request by TransCanada Corp. for a “pause” in the pipeline’s approval process, a move that would have effectively deferred a decision until after next year’s U.S. presidential elections.

State Department officials said the administration’s review of the project —now in its seventh year — would continue, barring a decision by TransCanada to withdraw its application altogether.

Climate activists and anti-Keystone protestors cheered the decision, of course, and called for Obama to just reject the whole damn pipeline already. “Now that he’s called TransCanada for delay of game, it’s time for President Obama to blow the whistle and end this pipeline once and for all,” said Jamie Henn, communications director for 350.org.

Activists are pushing the president to reject Keystone XL before the big U.N. climate talks that will begin on Nov. 30 in Paris, to show the world that he’s serious about reining in carbon pollution. There’s a good chance he’ll do it. Stay tuned.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Taken from:

Obama says “no” to TransCanada’s latest Keystone gambit

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama says “no” to TransCanada’s latest Keystone gambit

MacArthur winner wants to make clean energy with fake leaves

MacArthur winner wants to make clean energy with fake leaves

By on 2 Oct 2015commentsShare

What’s the difference between an artificial leaf and a solar panel? This isn’t the setup for a joke; it’s an actual question. Although believe me — that’s not for lack of trying.

The difference is that a solar panel turns sunlight into electricity, and an artificial leaf turns sunlight into fuel. (Ba dum tss!) This is an important distinction, because as much as we humans love our electricity, we’re not very good at storing it, and that’s a problem, because electricity can be as ephemeral as your college roommate’s desire to read Infinite Jest. The nice thing about fuel is that it is an energy storage device — that is, it stores the energy from sunlight in the chemical bonds of the fuel itself. This is what plants do when they convert sunlight and CO2 into oxygen and sugar (fuel), hence the term “artificial leaf.”

Another important difference between a solar panel and an artificial leaf is that you can actually buy a solar panel. Artificial leaf technology is still in research mode, but it won’t be for long if Peidong Yang has anything to say about it.

Yang, a professor of energy and chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, is one of this year’s MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant recipients. His lab has developed a “leaf” that uses nanowires between 100 and 1,000 times thinner than a human hair to capture sunlight. Bacteria cultured among the nanowires then use that sunlight to convert CO2 into oxygen and fuels like methane and butanol.

The Los Angeles Times recently caught up with Yang to discuss the technology and his hopes for the future:

How close are you to being able to use artificial photosynthesis on a large scale?

This year, we finally came up with a first-generation, fully-functional system — and that’s after 10 years of research. We demonstrated its feasibility, but in terms of robustness and cost and efficiency, it is not close to being commercially viable.

To do basic research, we have to be patient. I’m a big believer that discovery cannot be planned. It requires support from the government and industry. It will take the work of one or two generations of talented people to solve this problem.

Do you think artificial photosynthesis can ever compete with natural photosynthesis?

We want to learn from nature, but we have to be better than nature.

It took evolution millions of years to get green plants and leaves to their current stage, but their solar-to-chemical-energy efficiency is not that high. All they need to do is make enough energy to survive. To come up with a commercially viable technology, we have to do better than that.

Is that possible?

Theoretically, it is certainly possible. In solar panels the energy conversion efficiency is above 20%, much higher than what is happening in leaves. So in terms of design, we have the advantage — nature doesn’t have silicon to use. We do.

Yang isn’t the only one working on an artificial leaf. Earlier this year, a group at Caltech demonstrated an artificial leaf that could turn sunlight into hydrogen fuel at a relatively high efficiency. Their prototype is still too expensive for the market, but it was a promising proof of concept.

OK, OK — I got it: An internal combustion engine, an artificial leaf, and a solar panel walk into a bar.

The internal combustion engine orders a Sidecar, and the artificial leaf orders a Tequila Sunrise.

The bartender looks at the solar panel. “And another Sunrise for you?”

“No, thanks. It’ll go right through me.”

Source:

Q&A MacArthur ‘genius’ explains why artificial leaves need to work better than real ones

, The Los Angeles Times.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original post: 

MacArthur winner wants to make clean energy with fake leaves

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MacArthur winner wants to make clean energy with fake leaves

We need better home energy storage. These companies are working on it

We need better home energy storage. These companies are working on it

By on 17 Sep 2015commentsShare

Earlier this summer, serial game-changer Elon Musk unveiled the Tesla Powerall, a home energy storage device designed to give people energy independence and thus usher in the solar age. The announcement came only after Musk first revealed his deep distaste for existing batteries — namely that they “suck,” tend to be “stinky,” “ugly,” and are just “bad in every way.”

But Musk isn’t the only one who feels this way. Practical home energy storage, while not the sexiest of technologies, is crucial to the very sexy concept of off-grid living. And with more and more households installing solar panels, the home battery market is only going to get bigger. MIT Technology Review has the scoop on some other companies getting in on the action:

This week at the Solar Power International show, in Anaheim, a company called SimpliPhi Power is unveiling a lightweight battery system for homes and small businesses that offers a longer life span than other lithium-ion batteries and doesn’t require expensive cooling and ventilation systems.

SimpliPhi’s bid comes a few weeks after another energy storage provider, Orison, released its design for a small plug-and-play battery system that, unlike the SimpliPhi and Powerwall options, does not require elaborate installation or permits for a home or small commercial setting.

Orison will be launching a Kickstarter campaign to produce its first batch of batteries, which it plans to start distributing sometime next year, Technology Review reports. The unit will cost about $1,600 and have a 2 kWh capacity, compared to the $3,000, 7 kWh Powerwall (the average household in the U.S. uses about 30 kWh per day). Both of these options are pretty expensive, but the hope is that home storage costs will go down over time. SimpliPhi hasn’t revealed prices yet, but according to its website, it has residential units with 2.6 kWh and 3.4 kWh capacity.

Of course, it’s no good having batteries that solve an environmental problem, if they’re just going to cause another. Back in 2013, the EPA did a life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries — the kinds that all three companies are using — and found that the lithium-ion batteries that contain nickel and cobalt tend to have the most environmental impact:

These impacts include resource depletion, global warming, ecological toxicity, and human health impacts. The largest contributing processes include those associated with the production, processing, and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds, which may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary, and neurological effects in those exposed. There are viable ways to reduce these impacts, including cathode material substitution, solvent-less electrode processing, and recycling of metals from the batteries.

So before any of these emerging companies take over the market, it’s worth asking what kinds of materials they use in their batteries and what impacts those materials might have on the environment. Technology Review gets us part of the way there:

Orison’s products will use a lithium manganese cobalt battery from a supplier that CEO Eric Clifton declines to name. SimpliPhi, on the other hand, is using a relatively new battery chemistry known as lithium iron phosphate. The absence of cobalt in the cathode makes lithium iron phosphate batteries less subject to material shortages (cobalt is scarce and expensive) and, more important, less prone to heating up—a problem with lithium-ion batteries, which have shown an alarming tendency to go into thermal runaway (uncontrolled heating that can destroy the battery) or even catch fire.

In the meantime, we can all fantasize about a day when low-cost clean, efficient batteries are the norm, and living “off-grid” won’t mean having to settle for ugly batteries or life in one of these super low-energy hell-pods.

Source:

Home Energy Storage Enters a New Era

, MIT Technology Review.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article – 

We need better home energy storage. These companies are working on it

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We need better home energy storage. These companies are working on it

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

Climate finance

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

By on 8 Sep 2015commentsShare

In the event those student loans weren’t enough to bring you down, a new study adds a hefty new bill to the ledger — and it’s of atmospheric proportions.

Writing in Nature Climate Change, H. Damon Matthews from Concordia University in Montreal argues that the fairest way to deal with climate finance (that is, of equitably balancing the international books in order to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation) is to label individual countries as debtors and creditors and to calculate relative balances given their historic CO2 emissions. If you’re living in the U.S. or Australia, you’d owe a solid $12,000 under Matthews’ scheme: the atmospheric bill for all of those Furbies and Oreos and SUVs you bought between 1990 and 2013.

Well, you as in the person whose eyes are currently glued to Grist’s effortlessly compelling prose probably don’t owe anyone $12,000 (other than that loan shark), but you as in a representative humanoid slice of your country might. By benchmarking each country against an equal per-capita share of emissions over time, Matthews was able to calculate which countries had, given a 1990 starting point, emitted more than their fair share. New Scientist details his results:

He found that the US, for example, had over-polluted by a massive 100.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1990 and 2013 – amounting to 300 tonnes per person. That’s about as much as is produced by driving a family car from Los Angeles to New York and back about 150 times.

And according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, each tonne of carbon dioxide produced today has a social cost of about $40, so the overall debt per person is US$12,000.

That social cost, however, is a pretty arbitrary number. A social cost captures both private costs and externalities, and environmental economists still have little idea of how to price the latter when it comes to carbon emissions. While the EPA might use that $40 figure, a new study, for example, arrived at a social cost of carbon of $220 per ton, which would place the per-capita U.S. emissions debt from Matthews’ study at $66,000. Just to make sure we’re on the same page of the ol’ checkbook, that’s the difference between $3.87 trillion and $21.3 trillion. It’s this kind of variance that makes rigorously conducting (and defending) carbon pricing studies so difficult.

And while studies like Matthews’ make for clean numbers, it doesn’t mean anyone will actually take his advice. Climate negotiators like those who will be meeting in Paris later this year tend to play by their own political rules. Here’s more from New Scientist:

“Having followed the negotiations for 20 years I can tell you now the parties will not accept a neat allocation of responsibility based on this kind of metric, although I think this is one of the fairest,” says Robyn Eckersley at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Eckersley says each country pushes for a particular metric that downplays their own responsibility. But that doesn’t make the analysis pointless, she adds.

“They help society look more critically at what each country is doing and how they are hiding behind their cherry-picked metrics. That’s a really useful function,” she says. “These kinds of documents make it easier for people to judge contributions and raise these issues at a national level.”

In the meantime, the world’s developed countries still need to figure out how they intend on dumping $100 billion annually into the Green Climate Fund by 2020. As of now, we’ve reached about a tenth of that goal. Color me pessimistic, Jonathan Chait.

And as long as we’re talking debt, let this post serve as a brief reminder that you still owe me that lunch money from ’06. (Not you, Jonathan.)

Source:

Everyone in the US and Australia owes $12,000 in CO2 emissions

, New Scientist.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You owe the world $12,000 for burning all those fossil fuels

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

By on 17 Aug 2015commentsShare

We build with it, eat from it, wear it, let our kids play on it, drive around in it, and decorate our houses with it. It fills our landfills, pollutes our oceans, occasionally leaches toxic chemicals into the environment, and makes your neighbor’s lawn look like toy purgatory. It’s plastic, and like it or not, it’s everywhere. Plastic is as much a part of our identity as humans as that one sweatshirt was a part of your identity as a middle schooler (that sweatshirt, by the way, probably also contained plastic). Unfortunately, a lot of plastic contains ethylene — a chemical made from petroleum and natural gas in a CO2-emitting process.

But fear not! Scientists are working on a greener way to make ethylene using genetically modified algae. Here’s the scoop from Scientific American:

The researchers were able to accomplish this by introducing a gene that coded for an ethylene-producing enzyme—effectively altering the cyanobacteria’s metabolism. This allows the organisms to convert some of the carbon dioxide normally used to make sugars and starches during photosynthesis into ethylene. Because ethylene is a gas, it can easily be collected.

Making ethylene doesn’t require many inputs, either. The basic requirements for cyanobacteria are water, some minerals and light, and a carbon source. In a commercial setting, CO2 could come from a point source like a power plant, Yu said.

But before you go toasting to the wonders of algae with your high fives and your plastic cups (seriously, would it kill you to use a glass?), you should know that taking a something like this from the lab to the market is a long process. And it could very well turn out that using algae to produce plastic will prove untenable on a large scale. Regardless, this is a cool example of scientists trying to use synthetic biology to address environmental concerns.

What’s synthetic biology, you ask? Here — let me explain it to you using legos and skateboards.

Source:
Genetically Modified Algae Could Replace Oil for Plastic

, Scientific American.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

A Grist Special Series

Oceans 15


How much plastic is in our oceans? Ask the woman trying to clean it upCarolynn Box, environmental program director of 5 Gyres, talks about what it’s like to sail across the ocean, pulling up plastic in the middle of nowhere.


How catching big waves helped turn this pro surfer into a conservationistRamon Navarro first came to the sea with his fisherman rather, found his own place on it as a surfer, and now fights to protect the coastline he loves.


What seafood is OK to eat, anyway? Ask an expertWhen it comes to sustainable seafood, you could say director of Seafood Watch Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly is the ultimate arbiter of taste.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Visit site: 

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

Fracking sites might be leakier than we thought

Fracking sites might be leakier than we thought

By on 4 Aug 2015commentsShare

I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is, this story is about a man named Touché. The bad news is, Touché thinks we could be drastically underestimating the amount of methane that leaks out of industrial fracking operations.

Of course, a lot of people think a lot of things. But Touché Howard is different. He’s a semiretired gas industry consultant who also happens to be the patent holder on the very measuring device that he thinks could be malfunctioning. Here’s the gist from The New York Times:

The problem, according to the author of the paper, Touché Howard, is that the backpack-size tool uses two sensors: one for low levels of methane emissions and one for higher levels. As methane levels rise beyond the capacity of the first sensor, the device hands off to the second, high-level sensor.

Mr. Howard found that under some conditions, unless the sampler is carefully and frequently recalibrated, the switchover from the first sampler to the second can fail. When that occurs, the device does not measure the amount of methane that the second sensor would capture, and so it underrecords methane leakage rates.

Howard published his concerns in the journal Energy Science & Engineering. He wrote that unless there’s a backup device operating at the same time, there’s no way to account for the missed methane, which, for especially big leaks, could be ten or a hundred times the amount that gets reported.

If Howard’s claim holds true, it calls into question a major study on methane leakage funded by the Environmental Defense Fund back in 2013. David T. Allen, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Texas and lead author on that study, told The New York Times that he thinks their results are still valid:

“There may be issues with some of these instruments, but we tested our instruments pretty thoroughly and when we went out into the field we had multiple instruments, all of which gave us information,” he said. Alternate measurement methods were used at some sites, he said, and “we didn’t see any evidence that we were missing any large numbers.”

Meanwhile, the company that makes the instrument has already said it will update its user manual to recommend frequent recalibration, The New York Times reports.

Methane is a nasty greenhouse gas. It doesn’t stick around in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, which is good, but it’s 72 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year time period, which is bad. So if the fracking industry doesn’t clean up all these leaks, it’s going to stop looking like such a nice little bridge to the clean energy future.

Source:
Methane Leaks May Greatly Exceed Estimates, Report Says

, The New York Times.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Credit:

Fracking sites might be leakier than we thought

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking sites might be leakier than we thought

It Takes How Much Electricity to Power an NFL Game?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over the last few years, pro sports teams across the United States, often at the urging of environmentalist Allen Hershkowitz, have tried to go green.

Solar panels installed at Seattle’s CenturyLink Field in 2011 generate enough power for 95 homes. The Miami Heat have invested in efforts to reduce energy consumption at American Airlines Arena while cutting costs and combating the blistering heat. This year’s US Open Championship took place at Chambers Bay, a gravel mine turned public park that includes a world-class golf course planted with drought-resistant grass and irrigated with reused wastewater.

But what kind of impact can these efforts actually have? Here’s a look at pro sports’ environmental footprint and some recent attempts to shrink it:

Continued here:  

It Takes How Much Electricity to Power an NFL Game?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It Takes How Much Electricity to Power an NFL Game?

Enviros, Tea Partiers, and the Christian Coalition all agree: Florida needs more rooftop solar

Enviros, Tea Partiers, and the Christian Coalition all agree: Florida needs more rooftop solar

By on 10 Jul 2015 3:26 pmcommentsShare

There’s an increasingly energetic fight brewing in Florida — one that has odd battle lines, bringing Tea Party activists and environmentalists together against monopoly utilities and big-money right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity, and turning city governments against neighboring city governments.

The issue at stake? Whether state law should be amended to allow organizations other than utilities to sell electricity, which would clear the way for more rooftop solar power.

Florida is one of only five states in the country that actively bars third parties from selling electricity. (Another 20-plus states don’t explicitly bar it, but don’t allow it either — what this means for solar companies is unclear, one group that tracks the issue told PolitiFact.) So Floridian homeowners aren’t allowed to buy energy from companies that install solar panels on their roofs.

The state’s utilities, at the moment, only draw 1 percent of their electricity from solar, despite the fact that the state ranks third in the country in terms of potential to generate solar energy, and despite the fact that solar energy has become cost competitive with fossil fuels and is often a safer investment for utilities.

A growing coalition — including environmentalists, the League of Women Voters, the Christian Coalition, and Tea Party activists who see the ban as meddling in the free market — is pushing to get rid of the third-party electricity ban. They’ve been gathering signatures to put an initiative on the 2016 ballot, called the Solar Choice amendment, that would allow businesses and individuals to sell up to two megawatts of solar power.

The utility companies have asked the Florida Supreme Court to throw out the ballot amendment, even before signature gathering is done. They have found allies in shadowy out-of-state, pro-big-business groups, but also recently won the support of the Florida League of Cities, a group of municipal governments. Last month, the league filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the utilities’ position, arguing that member cities would lose tax revenue.

But then a number of members of the league dissented, calling the brief “alarmist, unsupported and speculative” and asking for it be withdrawn. These dissenting city officials wrote:

The substantive arguments in The League’s brief are aggressive, speculative, and some are well outside the League’s scope or expertise. For instance, the brief argues that the amendment might create inequitable rate structures between solar and non-solar customers. When did the League’s interest include utility regulatory ratemaking design and policy?

“There’s a number of city leaders who are pretty disgusted with the league,’’ South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard told The Miami Herald. “It feels like a really parochial organization that’s been co-opted by Florida Power & Light.”

One side effect of all this is that Florida’s utilities, which had seemed content to shrug off the state’s solar potential, are announcing new solar projects. But leaders of the rooftop solar movement told the Tampa Bay Times back in May that this was a cynical move aimed at quieting their rising voices.

The next big development in this saga will come when the state Supreme Court rules on the ballot measure. The court has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Sept. 1.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article: 

Enviros, Tea Partiers, and the Christian Coalition all agree: Florida needs more rooftop solar

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Enviros, Tea Partiers, and the Christian Coalition all agree: Florida needs more rooftop solar

Information On How Solar Panels Are Made And Used

The world has increased environment management awareness by using renewable sources of energy. It’s evident that various government institutions and private bodies have setup the extraction of this non-pollutant sources of energy e. G. Biogas plants, geothermal power and solar panels Massachusetts or projects. This has led not only to efficient production of power, but it’s in line with environment conservation measures.

This panel constitutes of a set of photovoltaic modules which are highly sensitive to the sun’s rays and are mounted on a supporting structure. They can be used to generate and supply energy to residential or commercial entities. They module rate varies, depending on the model of the panel. It can range anywhere from 100 to 300 watts. To complete the system, it needs an inverter or a battery connected to the panel with electricity wires.

These panels are solar energy dependent. This means that their efficiency may vary in different regions of the world due to varying climate conditions. Areas with high cloud cover tend to be less appropriate compared to other sunny areas e. G. In the tropics. The Polar Regions tend to be the least used s since they experience prolonged winter periods plus the low strength of the sun that reaches these area. .

The inside of this products is made of crystalline silicon. This is located on either the anterior or posterior side and well protected with and external structure. The cell method of connection is series which is more efficient for optimal energy output. Copper and silver, being good conductors of electricity, are used in cables connecting the different parts that make up the system.

The panels date back to 1958 but have experienced numerous changes as the technology advanced. The current model uses focus lenses where they are focused in tiny mirror cells . This maximizes the power energy output despite the size of panels decreasing, making them more portable and quick to install.

Intensive research is still in progress. This is with the aim of maximizing the conversion rate of commercial products with currently stands at 21.5%. Aluminum and use of Nano cylinders has seen this technology incorporated in bigger projects such as the make of boeings. This will not only subside the minimum energy used to drive the system but also reduces cost t e. G. The use of aluminium in place of gold and/or silver.

Smart MA solar panels for home increase the power point tracking because it’s helped with the elimination of shadow effect. This limitation used to collapse the whole system when it affected a section of the panel. As a result optimal power harvest is achieved all day long. These kind of products are subject to degeneration. This happens with time but most recent designs has ensure recycling and destroyed portions can be replaced.

The price of this system and installation have continued to reduce. This is as a result of more production companies mushrooming where the current top position is held by the best solar power companies who are leading the revolusun so far as solar panels MA is concerned. There also exist merchant power stations who sell to consumers using connectivity that resemble a normal electricity network.

For installation of solar panels MA residents should only use top-rated companies. We highly recommend this established service provider at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpBhtaOFIRc.

Posted in solar panels | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Information On How Solar Panels Are Made And Used

3 Steps To Adopting Solar Energy

There are many people who are interested in reducing pollution caused by using fossil fuels. So they turn to solar energy systems as an alternative. However, if the right choices are not made when making the switch, one might end up regretting going solar. Here are three mistakes that people make when making this decision and how they can be avoided.

The design of the solar power system is important. Each home is different and needs to be evaluated as a unique unit so that the best service can be provided. There are a number of things that need to be considered such as the size of the home, the type of roofing that one has, and how electricity is used in the home.

These elements include things like a PV or photovoltaic solar panels, a PV array disconnect, and a power meter just to name a few. The solar panel is the first thing people see as a sign that solar power is being used. However, this piece on its own is not worth much if the other components are not put into place.

Financing solar energy Newburyport is easy when you are working with a company that provides you with a number of options. A person can decide to buy or to lease Newburyport solar energy. If the decision is made to buy, there are tax credits available which can help to cut costs. One can also have the money loaned to them from a financial institution.

In order to get the right support, it is important to work with the right company. This mistake can lead to problems with the installation of the panels. A company might decide to have one team that does everything including the electrical aspects and the roofing. This might seem like a good idea and might appear to be cost effective, but could lead to mistakes.

When it is time to install the system, it is important that one works with a company that can be trusted to provide the best service. The best companies will be in service for many years and have a good reputation. They will also honor the design requests that were made by the homeowner and all the financial issues would have been dealt with.

They will also have efficient ways of getting the work done, even if it means having different teams to do different tasks.

When a customer decides to go with solar energy Newburyport MA, it is important to work with a company that has a good reputation. Companies like Revolusun, that have been in business for a long time know how to provide Newburyport solar energy to customers who live in the area. One simply has to decide for themselves if solar is the way for them to go.

To learn about the advantages of solar energy Newburyport locals are strongly recommended to use this website as their main point of reference. To get our contact details, simply check out this page on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJaYk8QQbRU&list=PLLZmhGXTTVAfbygFC8xkQF5EDsTMWDYKQ.

Posted in solar | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Steps To Adopting Solar Energy