|
June 17, 2005 |
"Yes, it requires a long payback, but there's the economic interest
as well. People feel that if they can reduce their energy costs for the next 20
or 30 years, that's a payback; that's an investment they're making."
- PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno
Fresno, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] As a farmer, Pat Ricchuiti already considers himself one of the biggest users of solar energy because of all the crops he grows, but he will now be relying on the sun for more than just photosynthesis. The Fresno County Farm Bureau president is currently finishing one of the largest, privately financed solar-energy systems in the state. He unveiled the $6.4 million project last week to California energy officials, who toured P-R Farms in Clovis to get a closer look at how the most popular renewable energy source will be used to power Ricchuiti's 150,000-square-foot packinghouse.
Standing on the facility's rooftop, where the 7,730 solar panels are laid,
Ricchuiti said using solar energy simply made sense.
"It's the right thing to do for the environment and for controlling my
energy costs in the future," he said. "We have the square footage on
the roof to accommodate it. Other (renewable energy) sources require other kinds
of programs and do not utilize the environmental benefits as well as solar. This
is the cleanest form of energy there is. There are no emissions. We felt it best
suited our needs."
Like many of these large solar projects in California, it wouldn't have happened
without a state rebate administered and disbursed by Ricchuiti's electric
utility. Per the state mandate, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. covered 50
percent of the project's total cost, bringing Ricchuiti's cost down to $3.2
million.
According to PG&E, Ricchuiti's 928 kW system is the largest solar rebate the
utility company will issue.
At full capacity, Ricchuiti's solar system will supply enough electricity to
power 50 percent of his packing facility, which processes about 1.5 million
boxes of peaches, plums, apricots, nectarines, oranges and apples a year. That
amount of electricity will also be enough to power about 216 homes a year, said
PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno.
Only about 25 percent of the system is currently up, said Ricchuiti, but he
expects to be completely on line by early July. The project also included
retrofitting higher energy-efficiency lighting for the plant.
Ricchuiti acknowledged it would take some time for the project to pay for
itself. He was initially told it would take him six years to recoup the cost,
but after some recalculations, he estimated his payback period would be more
like nine to 11 years.
"That was a big concern," he said, adding that without the state
rebate, he would be looking at a payback period of more than 20 years.
The high upfront cost and long-term payoff can be a deterrent for those
considering solar, said Moreno. But so far, there has been no shortage of
applicants for the incentive programs, which are paid for by California
ratepayers. California's four major utility companies have reported long waiting
lists and limited funding, prompting the California Public Utilities Commission
to scale back the incentive level in January to stretch funding dollars.
"Yes, it requires a long payback, but there's the economic interest as
well," Moreno said. "People feel that if they can reduce their energy
costs for the next 20 or 30 years, that's a payback; that's an investment
they're making. It's certainly a long-term investment."
With an average annual energy bill of more than $1 million, Ricchuiti said he
was willing to make that long-term investment because "after the payback
period, I've got a certain amount of free energy." Although he has more
room on his roof for additional solar panels, the incentive program only pays up
to one MW, which is solar PV terms, is quite large.
Projects less than 30 kW are not eligible for CPUC's Self-Generation Incentive
Program, but the California Energy Commission offers a similar program to help
fund projects less than 30 kilowatts in size, known as the emerging renewables
program.
Steve Schafer, a winegrape grower in Madera County, is in his first year of
using a 35 kW solar system to power his 120-acre vineyard and home. He has
situated the 3,000-square-foot solar panels on a pasture next to the vineyard so
that he didn't have to sacrifice any grapevines. His system will produce enough
energy to supply 80 percent of his needs, he said.
What he likes about the system is that PG&E gives him credit for energy he
is generating but not using, which means he's able to bank that power and use it
at a later time without paying for it. Essentially, his meter runs backwards
during off-peak times when his energy consumption is low, he explained. And
because of the wet spring this year, he had been banking plenty of power while
his irrigation pumps sat idle.
He advises growers who are considering using solar energy to carefully analyze
the average amount of power they use in a year because they would not want to
build a system that produces more power than what they need.
"That's the only caveat in the system is PG&E is not going to send you
a check for any extra power you produce," Schafer said.
What he is getting, however, is credit for power at PG&E's retail rate,
which is a pretty good deal, he said.
"What I'm basically doing is I'm reducing the demand that I have on the
grid to where I'm almost negligible," he added. "On an average year,
my system used about $10,000 or $11,000 worth of power. Now I'm probably only
going to be using $2,000 worth of power. So that's a savings to me. It's not in
what I'm being paid; it's what I'm not having to pay."
Carl Hoff, president of Butte County Rice Growers Association, which installed a
200 kW solar system more than a year ago, said he is very pleased with the
performance of the system.
"One of the things I liked about the system is that there is virtually no
maintenance involved, and the only maintenance that we have is to wash the
panels once in a while when they get dusty," said Hoff.
But he recognizes the hurdle that many businesses are facing now as they wait in
line for their projects to be funded.
"I think there's no question that there's a demand for it," he said of
solar technology. "The question is will there be funding available for
these programs."
Although tax incentives help, it is the rebate program that makes solar projects
economically feasible for California businesses, said Hoff. This is where the
governor and other policymakers could step in and help, said Schafer.
With Governor Schwarzenegger expressing strong interest in solar and the recent
approval by the state Senate of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, which aims
to add 1 million solar roofs to California's energy supply by 2018, solar
technology may be on its way to becoming a cost-effective alternative energy
source for more businesses and homeowners.
Article courtesy of the California Farm Bureau Federation
Please visit www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com for great coverage on energy today!!