Feds backtrack on solar energy moratorium

    

Solar companies went ballistic last month when the federal Bureau of Land Management slapped a moratorium on new applications to build solar energy plants on the 258 million acres that the bureau manages, mostly in California and 11 other Western states.

Wednesday, the bureau reversed itself -- lifting the moratorium."We heard the concerns," said BLM director James Caswell. "We will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections."

Already, the BLM has 125 applications in hand to build solar plants, mostly in isolated desert areas. But those deserts can host fragile wildlife and transmission lines must cross vast acreage to reach power-hungry cities. The BLM has been hearing public comments on a draft Environmental Impact Statement for large solar plants. Three public hearings remain, including July 8 in Tucson, July 9 in San Luis Obispo, and July 10 in El Centro, Calif.

California's investor-owned utilities are moving rapidly into solar and wind energy, driven by a state regulation requiring that 20% of their electricity be generated by renewable sources by 2010. Last week, the California Air Resources Board issued a draft plan to require all the state's utilities to rely on renewables for a third of their power by 2020.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo: Solar plant in the Mojave Desert. Credit: PBS

Comments

[Frank]

The moratorium was an outrage, and was likely an order from on high. In $5 gallons-of-gas days? Just how little does this administration care about the American people, to say nothing of the future of everyone, for example, our children.
I can't wait until they're gone. Don't let the barrels of oil crush you on the way out.

[papudo]

WE NEED SOLAR MORE NOW THAN EVER.. THANK GOODNESS THEY CAME TO THEIR SENSES.

[Kathleen O'Brien]

Yes, we need solar--but I hope we've realized that the Earth itself is a sensible system, and humans also need everything else the desert has to offer. Can we harvest the sun without damaging the ecosystem? It's the critical question.

[Tracy MArtin]

Think of all the roofs of all the buildings in big cities. Flat open expanse of sun catchers! Where is our creativity?

[Jude Francis]

While I agree that we need solar as one of a mix of renewables, I dont think even by 2020 that we can generate any where close to 20% of our energy needs from solar. There are significant problems such as: low solar cell efficiency, sunlight availability only during the day, electric line losses, etc. that to power city of LA, DWP would need millions of acres of solar cells to meet the 20% requirement. This would be prohibitively expensive and would be difficult to permit due to the impacts it would cause to the millions of acres of land (endangered species issues, etc). I have read several experts who think the most we can achieve with solar (even after assuming significant breakthroughs in the technology) is about 1 to 5% of our total energy requirement.

[Fran Potaski]

Living in the sunshine state with pending power outages, I would love to go solar. Generating enough for my home and extra to give back but the upfront cost is still to high at this time even with the rebates.

[sheila]

Margot, you got it right - the moratorium was reversed because of BIG ENERGY outrage, and NOT because of public outrage as was widely reported. The BLM wisely decided that, after they hit - in only 18 months - a million plus acres of Mojave wilderness on track for permanent and total destruction by Big Solar (not to mention Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Mining and Big Wind, and the huge pipelines, powerlines, roads, wells and other ancillary destruction), they needed to look at the cumulative impacts of this development, not just take the environmental review process one project at a time, as though each project were being built in a vacuum. it is pretty impossible to get a cumulative impact report if the number, size and scope of the project permits is changing every single day, which is the only reason they stopped taking apps temporarily.

My colleagues who attended the hearings on the cumulative Preliminary Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) were mortified to hear Big Solar ranting against doing Environmental Impact Reviews (EIR) at all, much less a cumulative one, and in fact, they were demanding full access to National Parks, National forests, ACECs, DWMAs and all kinds of other nature preserves and sensitive/critical habitats for these incredibly wasteful and destructive projects. EVERY non - Big Energy attendee was in favor of the cumulative impact study and moratorium. Every one.

There is a serious PR / media / propaganda problem with so-called "renewable power" that we need to reverse. When people are busy, stressed and pressed for time, they want one-word soundbytes to decide "good" or "bad," but the world is rarely that simple. For example, the word "renewable" has a halo effect, but just because the actual fuel is renewable, that doesn't mean that the project is, or the ecosystem it obliterates can ever be "renewed," because it can't.

Consider the hundreds of BILLIONS of gallons of scarce desert groundwater EACH CSP plant uses EACH year, and the natural gas most of them require for their "baseload" generation, the 10,000 acres apiece of destroyed wilderness habitat and the 45-story tall, mile-wide cone of blinding, scorching heat that each fires into the air, and you have an environmental meltdown.

Every rendering of "Big Solar" sites i have seen so far tries to make the region look like a flat, dead, blighted wasteland, but i have been to many of these sites and they are gorgeous, rocky, lush, vibrant living ecosystems - having the same planetary value as oceans, mangrove swamps, rainforests, kelp beds, etc. Haven't we learned anything from the enormous price we are paying for destruction of other ecosystems? If so, then why is "Destroy our Deserts to Increase Energy Monopolies" the hue and cry of citizens, government and even Big Enviros like Sierra Club and NRDC?

Because people aren't aware of how much these projects will hurt them, their neighborhoods, their open spaces, their opportunities to get wind and solar on their own properties, their wallets, and their planet. Do you think that Big Energy has suddenly grown a conscience and they are not going to abuse the monopolies they are building on our land and on our dime by manipulating supply and pricing? One poster talks about high gas prices, but their solution is to re-entrench Big Energy in an era when we could have very widespread energy independence!!! huh?

Finally, despite the amount of Big Wind and Big Solar already built, you would be hard-pressed to show me an equal number of dirty coal plants that had closed. Because this power is all about increasing consumption, rather than encouraging conservation. Meanwhile, residential solar and wind are languishing for lack of policy support and funding.

One example - LADWP has installed fewer than 5% of rooftop PV systems installed in Germany on a per-capita basis in the past 5 years, even though LA has much, much more rooftop space per capita and a much higher solar return. You have to ask yourself why that is, when they are gagging to destroy the entire Joshua Tree area with their giant wind and solar (ahem) "farms' and massive power lines. One would think they might look at themselves and try to benefit their own ratepayers before destroying outlying areas, but of course, that would end their long proud legacy of destroying other regions' lives and ecosystems from the Owens Valley to Green Path North, while ripping off their own constituency...

There are easy soundbytes here, to determine "good" and "bad," but the media needs to stop transcribing Big Energy press releases, and start investigating. Local, point of use renewable power that is compensated fairly (Germany pays over 60 cents/watt) is the best solution for ALL ratepayers, homeowners,and the environment. Ratepayers are gonna pay for renewable infrastructure either way, since Big Utilities get to amortize all their capital costs across the grid, so they can support local solutions for themselves and their neighbors, or they can support the new ExxonMobils destroying our wilderness - what's it gonna be?

[DerekLazo]

hey i agree with everyone here, YES there is an extremely urgent need to switch to renewable energy sources such as solar. BUT there is a double standard. While solar may work for mostly sunny areas such as CALI, other states may not be as fortunate. moreover, the production of solar panels requires the ionization of silicon, which creates extremely toxic waste water.

all in all i say yes to the renewable power movement, but first lets make sure we know all the consequences, so we dont end up in the same predicament were in with oil.

[Jim Harvey]

The BLM did not change its position on holding applications because of public outcry. They chose to cater to the Big Energy scream for profit and more control. We are about to experience the largest public lands grab in the history of our country if we do not wake up and see this for what it is.

Big Solar is desperate to get as many of their killing fields up as possible, as fast as possible, before the new energy paradigm of locally generated, decentralized electricity begins to sweep the nation. The fact that countries like Germany are proving the successes of distributed generation scares them to death.

We can allow them to destroy millions of acres of our precious valuable wilderness, deplete our already strained underground water resources, and continue the stranglehold Big Energy has enjoyed over us for a century, or we can become responsible for our planet and demand legislation that instead allows us to become part of the solution and use our rooftops and back yards to generate all the safe, clean, and non-wilderness killing/transmission line requiring renewable energy we need.

Big Energy lobby has thwarted effective legislation and policy leading to the incentives we need, like feed in tariffs, and the same tax breaks and subsidies the large investor owned corporations enjoy. Leveling the playing field will lead to an enormous revolution in locally owned, locally used energy - and Big Energy knows this!

[sheila]

hey Derek, at most firms, that silicon wastewater is cleaned and recycled in the US and Japan, btw, although not as consistently in china, unfortunately. one more reason to Buy Local!

also, if germany can go solar, even though it is heavily forested and it's latitude is north of the US, all of the US can, especially if we start investing more in "negawatts," aka comfortable conservation. our buildings, cities and equipment are built around having unlimited cheap power. in europe (and japan), power has always been expensive, so they have fantastic quality of life but use much, much less power to do it... why can't we?

also, thousands of micro-wind systems are currently being installed and grid tied (see SkyStream as one example), so if you want wind instead of (or in addition to) solar at your home or business, the tech is ready, and getting better all the time. we just need the policy to make it more affordable for the average person.

for those who really can't do it, there will be numerous oversized residential and commercial systems in Prime Solar and Wind Resource Areas (like the Mojave) that will feed excess to the grid - once policy changes to make it worth our while... it's not a 100% of everything immediately solution, but it is certainly a "before you kill any wilderness" solution which will evolve in efficacy in the next few years, if policy heads that direction and venture capital flows into it (which happens, say it with me, when policy changes).

for anyone who was able to wade through my lengthy previous post, an "ACEC" is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and a "DWMA" is a Desert Wildlife Management Area. These are BLM designations signifying additional fragility and importance of ecosystems that Big Solar want to run roughshod over. No doubt Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas want to as well, but some of us expected Big Solar and Big Wind to be different - more eco-friendly. They're not.

[Ed]

We're entering a new era and we must Get It Right or our future generations will be bent over a solar trough and 19th century transmission technology the way we're bent over a barrel of oil.
BigSolar wildcating has attracted say anything do anything global investors to the southwest and our cheap lease public lands. Their only interest is the profit they can secure from our hurried attempt to do the wrong thing.

[John]

Margot -- You hit the nail on the head. Big Solar Companies, who stand to make millions went ballistic. They saw an opportunity slipping away. Unfortunately, big money speaks louder than plain old folk in this country. BLM "said" they were listening but they reversed the moratorium based on "who" they listened to. The moratorium may have given time for roof top solar and back yard wind to show itself as an effective alternative for California. The Big Solar Companies certainly do not want that. People who are screaming that "WE NEED" solar in order to save our planet need to look comparatively at all of the options. Huge Centralized Generation Plants coupled to Long Distance Transmissions Lines have been around for more than a hundred years and have not solved our energy crises. It is time to look at new ideas and new ways. If Germany and Spain can add 2000 mw per year into their grids from roof top PV, and both have smaller GDP that California, and both are at higher latitudes with less solar potential than California, it certainly appears that California can do it also. With the right emphasis on Energy Policy our state government could help reduce global warming AND help our citizens through dire economic times. Rather than destruction of more ecosystems we could develop and install thin film photovoltaic on roof tops and over parking lots.

Think about this for a few minutes. What If the same incentives where offered to Big Solar Companies for developing and installing photovoltaic over all of Southern California's parking areas, as are being asked for in the Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008. Thin Film photovoltaic is becoming more effective and less costly monthly. Rather than erect mirrors on stands one or two feet off the ground they could be placed on stands seven or eight feet up. Rather than clear grading about a million acres of desert plant life, they could provide a million acres of covered parking. Rather than losses of 2% to 20% (during peak periods) while delivering electricity over Long Distance Transmission Lines, they could experience zero loss by point of use distribution. By developing this effective system they could begin to install PV on your rooftop and you could sell electricity rather than buy it.

It will probably remain a pipe dream of mine, and of my fellow members of The Alliance for Responsibile Enregy Policy. Afterall, this plan would be good for individual homeowners and mean less earnings for the Big Solar Companies. It probably will not happen, but I still like to dream.

[Austin]

Solar energy is a great idea -- if done right. By that I mean generating the power close to the consumer. The sun shines in Los Angeles and San Diego, right? Even San Fransisco has started a "rooftop solar" initiative. By generating electricity close to the consumer, we reduce destruction to the environment. We reduce the need to take private property by eminent domain for transmission lines. We reduce the risk of wildfire from downed trransmission lines in remote area. We reduce vulnerablity to terrorist acts by having a decentralized grid and by having fewer remote, unpoliced transmission lines. Unfortunately, we also reduce the profit to be made by large energy companies. So the Federal Government will not encourage local power generation.

Anyone old enough to remember when nuclear power was going to give us polution-free electricity "too cheap to meter"? The current solar land -grab on public lands is the same stuff, different year.

[Ents of Fangorn]

1.4 million acres of pristine, diverse, wild and scenic desert, out last wild places... to be bulldozed? Why not use the vacant lots, ruined ag lands? One reason, the Bush Admin is giving your public lands, these last wild lands, to corporate development, because it's free to them. Centralized and profiteering. While solar and other green energies are the way to go, it should not go to Exxon at the expense of our last vast wild heritage. This is insane.

[Ents of Fangorn]

Why obliterate the last vast wildlands? 1.4 million acres of biologically diverse, rich, scenic and wild heritage - bulldozed. The sun also shines on rooftops, vacant lots, over-abused ag lands that lie fallow and sterile. BLM desert lands are being used not because they are ideal, it's because they are FREE. This is centralized corporate greed, working with the Bush Admin, in the worst way. And the public is blind to what is really happening here and what they are about to lose. It's not green if it's gone.

[Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.]

Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives was founded in 2005 by Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. and incorporated April 2008. The K-SEC Model is a non-profit renewable energy cooperative with the goal to faciltate the production, installation, monitoring, maintenance and management of 1,000 MWp Building-Integrated Photovoltaic [BI-PV] Solar Architecture in Kansas by 2020. That will provide 10% of the electricity presently consumed in Kansas for fifty years. Consumers will not purchase the solar system, but will allow local K-SEC renewable cooperatives to lease their rooftop for fifty years. K-SEC will provide an equity exchange of a battery back-up system for fifty years. Consumers will have to pay for any structural modifications needed for the home to accommodate a solar system and they will need to pay their electric bill.

K-SEC's Phase I Demonstration is a $45 Million program to install 10,000 SF BI-PV Solar in each of the 105 counties of Kansas by 2010. It is structured around Kansas House Bill 2018 passed in 2003 by Kansas Representative Tom Sloan and adopted as K.S.A. Chapter 17-4651 to 4681 Renewable Cooperatives. It takes five people to incorporate under these statutes with a commitment to install 100 kWp renewable energy within two years. The Phase I Demonstration will provide 0.1% of the electricity consumed in Kansas by 2010. When I intervened before the California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] 1997 to 2004, consumer Net Metering was limited to 0.1% of the aggregate output of any utility. The K-SEC Model will lift the burden of fragmented consumer investments and place them upon the broader community to increase Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Integrity and BI-PV Solar Architecture expertise.

I spent most of the 4th of July holidays, I was building a small BI-PV Solar model 2' x 4' to show people the difference between a solar panel racked upon a pipe on a roof or in a field solar system and BI-PV Solar Architecture which provides the highest and best use of land. K-SEC has a commitment to design the BI-PV Solar Architecture we install so that at least 70% of the electricity generated by the solar systems is consumed at the demand-site [where it is generated]. 35% of electricity generated in a remote-site is lost in distribution right off the top.

I welcome the opportunity to share The K-SEC Model with any state or nation that is interested in assuring 10% of the electricity they consume is generated by demand-site fuel-free non-polluting BI-PV Solar Architecture by 2020. There is no reason to destroy pristine wilderness when we have millions of SF of building rooftops that will more economically and efficiently provide solar electricity.

Let me hear from you. Contributors are welcome.

Best regards,

Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder and Director
Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives
Post Office Box 2
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

www.geocities.com/EthosOfCommerce
KS_SEC@yahoo.com

[sheila]

and now GM is installing a 12 MW rooftop system in spain. because spain also pays over 60 cents/watt for clean renewable energy that doesn't kill the wilderness:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/business/08solar.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

HOW CAN CALIFORNIA, ESPECIALLY LOS ANGELES CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN THEY ARE DOING LESS THAN 5% OF WHAT SPAIN AND GERMANY ARE DOING???

We need the press to pick this up and push our publicity-obsessed Governor and Mayor to start walking the walk. Shaming them is apparently the only technique that works, since appeals to good stewardship, constituent benefits and affordable, environmentally safe solutions seem to be non-existent with them.

We can all start by writing letters to our local state reps and copying Schwarzenegger and Jared Huffman, insisting that they pass AB 1920 with 2 modifications:

1. remove the "caps" on CSI-eligible rooftop systems so that those of us willing to install oversized systems aren't denied that opportunity; and

2. insist that feed-in tariff rates match or exceed those in Germany and Spain, rather than allowing the CPUC "discretion" to set rates. we have seen what the CPUC does when it sets tariff rates - makes it impossible to break even on a system in the first 20 years - even before factoring in power usage by the ratepayer!!! essentially, anyone who installs a PV system under their pilot tariff program will end up in a WORSE position that someone who does nothing. and that's their idea of an incentive...

we gotta get heard, we gotta get results and we gotta do it now, before these guys completely crush us (again) and this opportunity is past...

[Total Solar Energy]

i'm a staunch advocate of solar energy but i think more could be done about placing panels on existing rooftops, especially large factories. i'd rather that happen than ruin the countryside

[Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. Founder & Director KS Solar Electric Co~operatives, Inc.]

You are absolutely right about building-integrated photovoltaic [BI-PV] solar architecture being the highest and best use of land. Remote-site power plants lose 35% of the electricity they generate in distribution. Why would anyone want to waste substantial energy by placing solar systems in the desert? Let the buildings that consume electricity help supply renewable electricity at the demand-site.

Demand-site fuel-free non-polluting BI-PV Solar building generators with battery back-up supported by a reliable service industry that monitors and maintains the solar generators for fifty years will naturally increase Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Integrity and local BI-PV Solar Technology expertise. The K-SEC Model proposes to install 1,000 MWp BI-PV Solar in Kansas by 2020 starting with K-SEC's Phase I Demonstration of 10,000 SF BI-PV in each county of KS by 2010.

I think one has to look at the global power structure in terms of control of energy resources to figure out how the K-SEC plan will make BI-PV Solar deployment really happen. Remember the first week of April 1999 when British Petroleum made a sudden $26 B takeover of the Arco Corporation. The US Federal Trade Commission attempted to block the takeover because it provided and provides BP an illegal majority ownership of Alaskan oil resources. Gas went from $1.08 gallon that week to $1.56 gallon. While many claim we need to drill in Alaska for oil, US citizens must closely scrutinize who owns the oil being procured and if there is any possibility that the oil could instead be sold to other nations or be used for leverage against the US. An article in Sun and Wind Energy Magazine regarding industry forecasting clearly shows the lack of rationale for relying on demand & supply data.

"PV expert Paula Mints is principal of the PV Service Programmes with the U.S. American market research firm Navigant Consulting, and executive editor of the Solar Outlook Newsletter," according to an article in Jan 2008's Sun & Wind Energy Magazine. On page 120 an article entitled "It is not easy to be a manufacturer" explores the reason for the shape of the PV industry.

America has learned the fallacy of demand and supply economics again and again since Japan and China became the primary manufacturing centers of the world. The US continues to learn the lesson that it is a lot harder to not be a manufacturer than to be a manufacturer. BP Solar presently owns or controls about 70% of the PV manufacturing, globally via illegal takeovers. The US must assure that American companies own US oil supplies via Homeland Security mandates to ensure that US citizens have the right, the experience and the expertise to manufacture, install, monitor and maintain BI-PV solar systems. We can't do that with trickle-down deployment fed by imported over-priced PV modules made in other nations and owned by multinational conglomerates.

A young Enron engineer stated the case succinctly at the 60th American Power Conference in Chicago, Illinois in 1998 when I asked him why Enron did not use more solar energy. He said quite simply, "It must be oversight or mismanagement." Appearing to have heard himself make a strong statement, he reiterated. "Yes, it is oversight and mismanagement!" as he pounded the podium. 500 energy industry affiliates roared with laughter. Why were they laughing? The truth of the matter is that the trillion-dollar momentum of commerce has been out of control for years. Stating that it is oversight or mismanagement is just the tip of the missing iceberg.

62% of the photovoltaic or solar electricity presently being consumed in the world is generated and consumed on home and building rooftops in Europe. Europe however accounts for a very small portion of the land mass and building infrastructure in the world. 85% of the solar energy being consumed in Europe is generated in Germany that lies above the 49 degree parallel north of the US Canadian border. That tells us two things: (1) There is very little BI-PV Solar energy being deployed today in the world compared to the global potential and (2) the BI-PV Solar systems installed in Germany provide only about 2/3 of the output that could be realized from the solar technology installed there.

Germany is importing 70% of the PV grade silicon being produced in Michigan at this time. Germany manufacturers BI-PV Solar building materials from that raw material which is then underutilized while there is a dramatic shortage in PV grade silicon around the world. This makes no sense unless one wants to reserve the many benefits of BI-PV Solar for political or military reasons. Certainly, the German states and Michigan refineries are not making the most of their investment in terms of energy generation capabilities. It is true that some of the PV is being installed in 3rd World Nations that have a higher solar radiance, but that represents a small amount of the total production in German factories. We do not want to limit German production; we want to dramatically increase American production of PV, locally.

To gain a more balanced perspective of the suppression of BI-PV solar in the world, let's take our focus off of the US for a moment and look at Egypt. When I spoke at the 2nd Egyptian Solar Energy Society Conference in 1996, there was one photovoltaic manufacturing facility in the entire nation. The Egycel factory, which we toured, is about 2,500 SF and it was sponsored in part by the Siemen's Corporation. PV modules are silicon semiconductors like computer electronic boards. PV grade silicon is made from sand. Of course Egypt has plenty of sand to supply a thousand PV manufacturers. When an elder Egyptian in the back of the room asked where he could purchase a solar system, Paul Maycock, Secretary of Energy for President Carter who was a speaker with Larry Slemenski from United Solar told the gentleman he could order solar modules via Real Goods 1-800 number in Ukiah, California. What is wrong with that picture . . . ? Why not order from Egycel?

Another alarming thing about Paula Mints article is her insistence that her industry analysis is strictly based on existing data. The industry data they compile is as important as the alphabet of energy commerce, but it cannot in any case be used to represent or replace rational communications evolving transformational industry forecasts. One analyst says 'what will be is what we see in the data' and the living forecast uses the data to mandate laws to create the industry condition that is needed. While it is important to follow PV manufacturing and shipping data; industry analysis may take a bit more thinking than simply stating PV is not a major market player because there are only so many PV modules produced, installed and shipped every year.

"'So you do not rely on data of industry associations or other researchers?'
Mints: Typically, we email, telephone or fax each demand and supply participant for their information. We make responding to our surveys as easy as possible for our survey partners, and also promise the demand site survey participants complete confidentiality. The demand survey backs up the supply survey. I work very hard to factor out double shipments - modules and cells move around a lot in this industry - so that I can accurately characterize the SIZE of the market. . . . I actually have to stay away from looking at other reports, so that nothing confuses my perspective and takes me out of being objective. The "PV Services Programmes" started in 1974, so I have price, cost, and shipment data from the beginning of the program [industry] to the current day. As you can imagine this is a detailed and valuable database."

George Soros in his book The Reflexivity Theory revealed that supply and demand data is not adequate to predict or actively transform markets in today's world of commerce. First we have a trillion dollar vacuum of energy commerce that suppresses any technology that attempts to come in to the market via traditional methods. There is no justified evaluation of supply and demand available to lead the market transformation. Ms. Mints provides data on where and how the limited supply is being provided, and that may provide a clue as to the companies and nations controlling not only demand, but supply in suppressing production and raw materials. The industry data as described by Ms. Mints cannot in any logical sense be used to determine demand or the viability of PV as a technology in today's marketplace. BI-PV Solar Architecture is one of the most suppressed technologies in global commerce, today. I do not necessarily blame anyone or even the idioms of greed or irrational fears. In my estimation the status of less than 1% BI-PV Solar in the world is simply the result of the tremendous momentum or vacuum of coal-fired electricity that has grown far beyond the control of any human or man-made efforts. In Kansas consumers depend upon coal-fired power for 80% of the electricity they consume. While the Legislative Utilities Committee attempted to roast Dept of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby for denying a permit to increase coal generation 2,100 MWp on October 18, 2007 claiming it was the only rational avenue to economic energy deployment in KS to supply Colorado electricity. The clue as to the interests making those decisions lies in the fact that 50% of the electricity generated via burning coal in Kansas would have been lost in distribution to Colorado.

The only way the industry can be timely transformed toward more use of BI-PV solar electricity is by evolving paradigms of deployment based on strict minimal use mandates of 10% globally, local technology expertise and regional manufacturing of every component of a solar roofing system including all balance of system components. Then, we may begin to build a foundation strong enough to catalyze real transformation of the electric industry. Otherwise, the industry is like a runaway truck and we are the irrational drivers pumping air brakes with no air pressure in them.

The most poignant truth in any analysis of the energy industry is how the world has changed in size since 1850. Even since my first visit to Europe in 1976 for the American Bi-Centennial the world has evolved from a seemingly invincible entity to a very finite element that supports human existence within Earth's 21 MILES OF PARADISE that is oddly enough being continually challenged by human activity justified by economics? How can anyone place a value on the Earth’s atmosphere at this point? Today, there is no entity with a strong enough alternative in place to put any price on the Earth's atmosphere and what it means to civilization.

The Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives, Inc. has a small role to play in this important passion play ---however it is an important step on the road to energy industry transformation.
http://www.geocities.com/Solar_Electric_Cooperatives

We greatly appreciate your immediate assistance by sending $10 to help us defray the costs of organizing the database of solar roofing potential in Kansas that will provide a solid foundation for requesting ratepayer revenue backing for the $50 Million in bond financing we need to accomplish K-SEC's Phase I Demonstration of 10,000 SF BI-PV Solar in each county of Kansas. 10,000 SF BI-PV solar could be installed on one building or 250 SF BI-PV installed on 40 homes.

In 2009, K-SEC is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the 30,000 SF BI-PV Solar Rooftop installed on the Intercultural Center at Georgetown University in Washington, DC in 1984. We are also celebrating the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Solarex Corporation by the fathers of the terrestrial PV industry Dr. Joseph Lindmayer and Dr. Peter Varadi. Actively celebrate with us by assuring K-SEC has the minimal resources needed to move forward with The K-SEC Model, today!

$10 from 10,000 people will provide K-SEC $100,000 in seed funding that just does not seem to be available from most traditional routes that naturally avoid supporting meaningful industry transformation due to investments in the trillion dollar momentum of commerce. Surely if President Elect Obama can raise over $600 million to campaign for President, then K-SEC's transformational efforts deserve the minimal resources needed to evolve our Phase I Demonstration. $10 is less than most people pay for a six-pack of beer or lunch. Play along! Kansas’s government is using the lottery to pay for our children's education, put your gaming instincts to work by risking $10 on a solar energy deployment scheme. It is part of today's culture, right? If you do not have $10 to risk, then God Bless You! You can still submit rooftops with BI-PV Solar Potential. Send them to KS_SEC@yahoo.com Read more about the requirements in our Feb 2007 BI-PV Newsletter.

For more information about my work as an Intervener in the California energy agency proceedings into the role of the utility distribution company [UDC]in distributed generation [DG] in my book "ElectriCity BEYOND THE CURVE OF DEREGULATION" that was released April 2005. The 875-page PDF on CD is available on E-bay for $21. It includes excerpts from 300 original documents and the first ten chapters in audio as a bonus. My next book "A CONVENIENT TRUTH BI-PV Solar Architecture to Protect EARTH's 21 MILES OF PARADISE" has been delayed due to the US Supreme Court Decision April 2, 2007 which requires the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act that was first passed in 1963. And, the subsequent Bremby Decision October 18, 2007 denying permits for 2,100 MWp coal plants in Kansas.
http://www.geocities.com/EthosOfCommerce

As founder and Director of the Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives, Inc. I will personally report the success of our fundraising efforts on the K-SEC website and I will further share with the public what we accomplish with this needed seed funding. Please make a real difference in 2009!

The K-SEC Model is the safest experiment in the energy industry, today!

Send your checks and money orders to:

Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch.
Founder and Director Since 2005
Kansas Solar Electric Co~operatives, Inc.
Post Office Box 2
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

E-mail Questions and Comments not posted herein to: KS_SEC@yahoo.com

[Solar Power Installation]

Thanks for given this nice post...