In 2001, approximately 86 percent of the world's energy was obtained from fossil fuels. While fuel reserves are sufficient to support an energy demand expected to triple by 2100, the more immediate problem lies in stabilizing excess atmospheric carbon dioxide -a key contributor to global warming -by adopting and developing more carbon neutral power sources. Our sun's vast energy is the ultimate and ideal power source.
I remember a prominent politician comment to me last summer when I asked him about the future of solar energy in Estonia.
“…All the lights will go out when the sun goes down if Estonia starts relying on solar energy”. A noted scientist at the same event commented, albeit under her breath, “Estonia doesn’t have sun”. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than is consumed by the planet in one year. Yet in 2001 solar energy accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total electricity. It is obvious even super intelligent people don’t understand the significance of what we intend to prove with our 100 kW solar park on Klõbi Talu, Keema küla, Sõmerpalu vald, Võru maakond, southern Estonia.
Instead of Estonia concentrating on oil shale interests and lobbying to extend or expand our current CO2 EU allowance, we should be developing better ways to meet the Kyoto protocols we have already agreed to. We should be looking to exploit alternative resources wherever and however we can and not seek ways to burn more oil shale, -the most polluting carbon energy resource after Polish coal. This is not progressive Estonia thinking but Estonia thinking in the past.
First, we have never advocated anyone going off the local energy grid. Estonia will still be connected to the local energy grid, but we could also be supplying energy as well. What we advocate is, Estonia take advantage of the global, desperate need for clean energy. We could be producing it and selling it into the European grid. Estonia has the advantage of being flat, virtually empty with long summer days and often snow covered winters.
I hear people dismissing solar energy development for Estonia because we only have sun in the summer; therefore solar energy is financially unsound. Yet, farmers spend all year preparing for a harvest that takes place during one season; potatoes in the fall, strawberries in the beginning of summer etc. The fact you cannot harvest a product year round has never stopped farmers from planting. Nor should this stop our farmers from gaining additional income for their farms farming the sun's energy year round.
Solar will yield results even during the coldest, darkest days of winter -albeit not as much. NASA and EMHI have proven with over 60 years of collected weather data, Estonia has more solar resources than either Poland or East Germany. We have calculated that during a normal January month in Estonia, utilizing the benefits of trackers, our 100 kW solar park will still produce (at today’s prices) 3000 Euros. How easy to harvest a crop in January and still be able to snowplough the country roads. Once the solar park is up, it is virtually maintenance free for the next 40 years or possibly even more.
The major hurdle to overcome in solar development is a cost-effective method of energy storage. Estonian scientists have already been working on this but could use much more support. "We need energy when the sun doesn't shine," to answer the above mentioned politician, Nathan S. Lewis of Caltech suggests we borrow from nature and store solar energy in the form of chemical bonds, as plants do in photosynthesis. The mechanism would involve splitting water to generate oxygen and storable fuels such as methane or other hydrocarbons. We should be encouraging our graduate students in developing this type of catalysts for water-splitting, crucial for solar energy to reach its full potential.
There are so many new directions for development and growth in renewables, from research and development to production, storage and shipping. Our harbours are empty compared to other European harbours. We could both become producers and shippers of our own wind turbines, solar panels, tracker towers and hot water systems sent out from our ports. Estonia needs to get back on the initiative and innovation band wagon.
We need our local authorities to develop leadership roles. Our architects should be designing new homes and non-domestic buildings avoiding situations where builders, in order to cut immediate costs, pursue lower standards of energy conservation -particularly in advance of the more demanding energy efficiency standards steadily coming into effect.
I am not just talking about generating electricity from the sun. This applies to solar heating and hot water development as well. We need to encourage our developers and entrepreneurs and even home buyers to think green. The way to do this is to encourage investments in this field. Estonia should apply a realistic feed in tarif (FIT- as they recently started in Great Britain last April ) to individuals, households, communities and businesses who generate electricity from eligible small scale low carbon energy sources, including solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro, anaerobic digestion and domestic-scale microCHP. We have a compensation plan for renewable energy already in effect in Estonia. We pay less than 2 kroons a kilowatt hour (as opposed to 6 to 8 kroons elsewhere in Europe). Estonia’s FIT is more window dressing than a realistic effort. To argue Estonia can not afford a realistic FIT, in Spain today, even with all their economic difficulties –is producing more than a third of it’s electricity through FIT subsidized alternative energy sources. This will go a long way in helping Spain get passed their current financial slump. New analysis suggests that the surging PV market will withstand public budget restraints and the weakening of the euro in currency markets to continue its expansion into 2011, with over 19 GW of installations, before softening only slightly in 2012.
Payments of FIT compensations in Great Britain is made by the local electricity suppliers with the cost shared amongst other suppliers by a process called „levelization“ Each supplier pays an amount proportional to their share in the electricity market, ultimately across the entire European grid I should expect.
A proportion of electricity generated in large power stations (such as coal, gas or nuclear) is lost when it is transmitted from the power stations to the centers of demand; around 2% of electricity is lost in transmission and around 5% in distribution. Small-scale distributed energy generation is most efficient when utilized at the point where that electricity is produced. Based on this concept, small-scale generators must be incentivized wherever possible. The producer needs to use the electricity he has generated in his immediate community, home or local business. This is by far the most efficient use of that electricity.
It has been established elsewhere that individuals or companies who have purchased and installed alternative energy generation equipment are allowed to use that electricity at no further cost. Such a policy would give farmers, apartment complexes, factory owners, and everywhere where electricity costs are a factor, an incentive to develop their solar resources locally. A more realistic feed in tariff would defenitly encourage investments in small scale low-carbon generation which would also help Estonia meet our challenging renewable and carbon efficiency targets. One goal of FIT is to drive behavorial change. There is a lot of evidence that people who install small-scale renewable generation develop a greater understanding and appreciation of energy -thereby becoming more efficient energy consumers.
Tariff levels are normally set to provide an expected rate of return, in real terms, of approximately 5-8% for well sited installations, taking into account the risks associated with deploying the different technologies and the likely effect these risks would have on investors’ willingness to invest. As the tariffs are linked to inflation, in nominal terms this rate of return could then be considered to be approximately 7-10%. Feed inTariffs are usually paid for 25 years for photovoltaic generators, and for 20 years for anaerobic digestion, hydro and wind generators.
If we look at everything soberly, we must admit Estonia should be moving in this direction instead of still contemplating the merits of oil shale. A healthy Estonia is a FIT Estonia!
Viido Polikarpus
www.energysmart.ee
