SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE

Where there is reference to several kinds of renewable energy types in a document, it is best to refer to photovoltaics as PV or photovoltaics in lieu of saying solar energy because PV is a unique form of solar energy. Further, it would be helpful if there could be a differentiation between remote-site or field photovoltaics and building-integrated photovoltaics (BI-PV). There are several reasons for this request to differentiate:

Building-integrated photovoltaics (BI-PV) is an entirely different industry than remote-site photovoltaics. Here is a summary of the Solar Development Cooperative’s BI-PV business plan. Compare this with remote-site PV business:

1. Remote-site photovoltaics (PV) is a fuel-driven energy industry focus while BI-PV is a demand-site product-driven construction and solar electric building materials industry focus. Energy production through building materials is achieved through a dual-purpose technology. BI-PV is certainly the most cost-effective and efficient form of PV electricity because of the dual-use savings, demand-site location reducing the need to transmit energy over power lines, it enhances building development financing requirements of highest and best use of land, and it exploits existing energy infrastructure through net metering, peak-shaving and distribution feeder support.

2. When we separate these two kinds of photovoltaic power generation, it becomes easier to find financing for projects because they are well defined. An urban land developer will doubtfully fund a remote site PV system, however they may be very interested in pursuing large-scale BI-PV projects in their building developments.

3. The deployment of the BI-PV industry has entirely different needs than those of the remote site PV industry. To serve our industry and our clients and produce sustainable electricity effectively, we need solar electric building materials that are aesthetic, integrate completely into the building envelope, and manufactured in standardized construction industry sizes. To be most cost-effective and actually serve the end-user; it would be ideal to manufacture solar electric building materials in an entirely different location than remote site PV modules.

   We greatly appreciate the wonderful incentives Program the California Energy Commission and the One Million Solar Rooftops In the US 1997-2010 Program have established through many hours of hard work. We believe that to make the most of these incentives, we must consider the cost-effectiveness of utilizing the existing building industry to supply sustainable electricity through technology that now exists. One of the benefits of the consumer laboratory over the science laboratory is the fact that the projects are at least partially paid for and used in a practical application where their effectiveness may be monitored. We strongly believe a good warranty system as well as strong insurance incentives and certified training for architects and installers will drive the market to assure consumers are protected as BI-PV technology evolves into the mainstream. We are competing against fifty year limited roofing warranties. The most important benefit of the consumer laboratory is the momentum to build an industry in lieu of products on a shelf. When one consumer gets a new product others will demand access to these new products. We must be mindful of the need to be able to expand rapidly. This can only be achieved if we establish industry deployment strategies within incentive programs:

   1. There is a need to provide funding incentives to develop a manufacturing focus for BI-PV from silica mining to PV-grade silicon refinement to the production of standardized aesthetic solar electric building materials.

   2. Small business will play an important role in assuring a competitive and innovative BI-PV industry evolves.

   3. An awareness of abusive business practices by large oil cartels is important if this industry is to timely and competitively evolve.

   4. Small business must be provided a level playing field without the constant threat of being usurped by large oil cartels who though they pursue the PV industry to some degree; BI-PV is really not their primary industry or income producer. They have not proven the commitment or flexibility to evolve the industry development focus needed to mainstream BI-PV even though they have plenty of financial resources to do so.

   5. There are numerous entrepreneurs willing to risk their nest egg to invest in a BI-PV manufacturing business, however their primary concern is not whether the market is there, the expense of developing new mining and manufacturing systems; but it is the threat of large cartels abusively suing them or otherwise forcing them out of business without any protection from existing unfair business practice laws. Abusive and controlling behavior from large oil cartels is irrational. We are not in competition. Such behavior needs to be discouraged through existing commerce laws to assure the USA develops a needed foundation for competitive, innovative and healthy sustainable energy industries as we evolve our newly developed luxuries of electricity and mobility.

   6. Government renewables funding incentives are limited. They should fund only those businesses and projects that demonstrate they do not have existing resources to pursue their projects. President Clinton emphasized that government programs are only an enhancement to private investment in renewables. Historically, new technologies have broken away from old systems of commerce to grow the roots of entirely new industries. This must be the emphasis and goal of government incentives if we are to timely succeed in mainstream deployment of sustainable electricity. I have a concern with the intentions of oil cartels and auto producers buying up all of the photovoltaic businesses when they show no hint of responsible and ethical behavior in their own income-producing arena beyond what they are forced to do by law; and at times hardly that. Fossil, nuclear and hydro energy deployment in this nation provided 99.5% of our electricity in 1972. Twenty years later, this figure has only reduced 0.1% according to the 1995 US Energy Policy Plan. Renewable and sustainable electricity accounts for a small portion of the "other" category that grew only 0.1% to 0.6% in 1994. During that same twenty years, despite numerous environmental warnings, consumption of coal-produced electricity in the United States nearly doubled.

   References:

   1. SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE

      http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905 /ADVHS-VDPS95.html

      http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/page2.html

      http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/MISSION.html

      http://www.oocities.org/Eureka/1905/BIPVFUNFACTS.html

   2. USA DOE Energy Policy Plan 1995 http://www.hr.doe.gov/nepp/titlepg.html

   3. Truth and Labeling for Electric Power http://www.crest.org/renewables/repp/holt.pdf

      http://www.crest.org/clients/ef/essay/ar96/ar96.htm

   4. Charging Ahead; Business of Renewable Energy & What It Means For America; John J. Berger 1997 http://www.charging-ahead.com/

      http://www.charging-ahead.com/intro.html

   5. Photovoltaics- Power Of Choice: National PV Program Plan 1996-2000 http://www.nrel.gov/research/pv/progplan.html
   Eileen M. Smith, M.Arch. © Copyright 1997 All Rights Reserved
   
   YAHOO! options
   
   
   Solar-Voltaic Dome(TM)