Solar’s future is not blue

Solar energy is approaching “grid parity”, which is the point where the cost of solar energy will be equal or less than the cost of electricity from the grid.  We could expect it to happen, at least for the sunnier areas, in about 3 to 5 years. But this does not mean that, all of a sudden, every house will have blue solar panels on their roofs.  It will most probably happen quite “invisibly”, in that it won’t be that obvious. What will solar electricity post “grid parity” look like?

Deserts first
The first places which will generate solar electricity will naturally be in open spaces with lots of sun. Deserts are ideal, since it has lots of sun, and is usually not used for much else.  Grid parity will arrive first for these areas, since it would produce much more electricity (and thus making it relative cheap) than in urban areas, for example.

While many areas that use electricity may be far away from deserts, there are enough places where the desert is near population centers.  In Egypt, for example, the desert is literally next to the cities. This is also the case in more places in the middle east.  Some countries are already starting to set up solar facilities: the UAE’s Masdar city project is one example (it is a city designed to run on solar and wind energy).

While Arabian countries export oil, which (theoretically) competes with solar energy; they are also conscious that the oil will not last forever – they will go solar to prepare for the post-oil future. Also, it is also a big waste of the desert if they don’t do this.

Industrial and Commercial Roofs Next
The cost for solar energy go down as the area covered gets bigger. Thus, bigger buildings will be cost-effective for solar energy earlier than for houses.  In the US, the price of electricity from the grid averages 9 cents per KwH, and solar PV averages about 21 cents/KwH for commercial and industrial roofs.  With the coming of the new generation of PV Laminates,which are less efficient than the present “blue” panels but much cheaper, the price of solar electricity will be about 10cents/KwH.  With constant improvement of technology, and lowering of costs,   the price of solar electricity will be equal or even less than grid electricity in a couple of years, for bigger buildings.
For houses, however, it will probably be 5 years or more before grid parity will be achieved, even using PV laminates. (Another thing about PV laminates, is that it will be marketed mainly to the large-scale market, at least in the first few years)

Not “blue”
Solar energy technological developments make it more likely that the face of solar energy will not be the familiar blue solar panels. As mentioned above, PV laminates will be used more often for buildings (these would be either brown or gray). Then there are other technologies that would likely be used for generating electricity in open spaces. Concentrating solar towers use a whole field of mirrors to concentrate sunlight which is used to heat a liquid which runs a turbine. The project in Sevilla, Spain uses this technology.
Another technique is the solar-thermal tower.  With this, a big area is covered with a transparent plastic, and there is a horizontal tube in the middle. The sun heats the ground under the plastic, causing the air to rise out the tower. The rising air, as well as the air rushing to replace it, could then be used to run fans which generate electricity. This technique is less efficient in terms of electricity per area of ground used. However, it is relatively cheap to build; and if the ground price is cheap, the area that will be used will not be an issue.

Building materials
Various techniques are also being developed to integrate solar cells with building materials. The PV laminates could be made integral in the roofing material. Thus, the PV capacity comes together with the roof; rather than the present practice of placing the “blue” solar panels on the roof. This would make the whole operation cheaper.

Then there are various “printed PV” technologies which could integrate PV capacity on glass and walls of buildings.

All in all, PV grid parity will mean that solar electricity will be generated in relatively “invisible” ways or out-of-the-way places. In comparison, the present system of blue panels on roofs will look like hobbyist’s projects.

See also: Solar energy links

One State Solution?

There is supposedly a world-wide consensus on the need to have a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem. Lately, even Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has grudgingly accepted a two-state solution – although this is with “killer” conditions that the Palestinians will probably not accept.  The prospect of working to establish two separate states – one for the Israelis, and another for the Palestinians, seeems like a logical aim. But is this the only good solution to the problem?

I think that the two-state solution may not be achieved, especially as the result of the work of radicals in both sides. At a certain point of the stalemate, perhaps people will start to realize that the more workable solution is to have just one state to include both Israelis and Palestinians. This could be a federal state, with two entitites.  Or it could be a unitary state.

The biggest problems with the two-state solution are: the Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees (to Israel proper i.e.).  With a one-state solution, both issues are easily resolved – since both the West Bank and Israel proper will belong to one state, Israeli settlers could settle anywhere in the new state, and Palestinian refugees could return (with some help with resettlement costs) anywhere in the new state also.

The present stalemate in the peace process (which is supposed to lead to a two-state solution) is breeding the conditions for the birth of the one-state idea. Obviously, it will not be initiated from the Israeli side. But the Palestinians, being denied of their own state for so long, will sooner or later realize that they are de-facto second-class citizens in a big Israel-dominated state.  Their situation is similar to the Bantustans under the Apartheid regime of South Africa. And apartheid was resolved eventually when the blacks demanded “one person, one vote” – full democratic rights in the single state of South Africa.  What is to keep the Palestinians from similarly demanding “one person, one vote” in the de-facto state of Israel and the West Bank?

Mall?

In the Philippines, with its many malls scattered all throughout the country, the construction of a mall is almost routine. It is uncontroversial. But, in city where I live (Tilburg, the Netherlands), the plan to build a mall is so controversial that the city council has put the question to a vote. This coming Thursday, 4 June, we will be having a referendum on whether or not to put up a mall in the city.

Why all the fuss? Well, for one thing, malls are not common in the Netherlands. Actually, we do have a couple of shopping centers here that Filipinos could call malls, but the people here don’t call them that.

Issues
The opposition to the mall centers on two issues. The first issue is the competition that the mall will pose to existing shops. The shop owners in the central shopping district of Tilburg fear that their sales will suffer as a result of the mall. Then, the shop-owners in neighboring cities – through their elected officials, are also objecting quite vigorously. They fear that shoppers will be attracted to Tilburg, and shun their shops.

And then comes the issue of the environment. The mall is supposed to attract people from outside the city in order to be profitable. While the government will be setting up bus service from the train station to the mall, the bulk of the shoppers is expected to come by car. The mall will thus mean a lot of car trips, and thus increase pollution.
The construction and operation of the mall is claimed to harm the environment. The trees in the designated area will be cut down, and the mall itself will use up electricity, etc.  In response to these kinds of criticism, the mall builders say that they are going to use environment-friendly techniques in the construction and operation of the mall.  The parking area will even have recharging sites for electric cars.

Those in favor of the mall say that it will create jobs and increase the overall economic activity of the city.  Tilburg, with its history as a working-class textile city, has left it with a drab image. With the mall and other developments, the city hopes to “brighten” Tilburg’s image.  And many people, especially the younger generation, want the mall since it would be a nice place to go to.

Thoughts for the Philippines
Initially, I did not think much of the mall debate or referendum. But in the course of all the discussions, I think that I am getting the sense of why this is such a heated issue. And with this realization, I would like to reflect on the situation with malls in the Philippines.

Yes, malls are a nice place to go to, especially for the youth who want to have a place to hang out with friends. But what about the issues of the environment and the competition with other shops.  In terms of competition with shops, I think the Philippine malls have learned to coopt the shopkeepers. There are even places provided for really small shops. It has become a complete experience, with shops, food, public shows, even religious services.

But the environmental impact of Philippine malls is much more destructive that that of the prospective mall in Tilburg. In the Philippines, the main environmental damage is in the operation of the mall itself – as a whole big enclosed air-conditioned space. This uses enormous amounts of electricity. And to think that this is not really necessary.  It is possible for a mall to be designed in such a way as to use much less electricity. Think of heat exchangers which would recirculate the coolness, while using fresh air. Or, more plants and fountains. Or even lowering the cooling temperature a bit, so that it is merely comfortable and not cold.

With all these in mind, perhaps it would not be a bad idea to discuss the economic, environmental and social issues before a mall is set up anywhere in the Philippines. Perhaps even a local referendum would then make sense.

On OFs building houses in the Philippines

Some weeks ago,  I read a news item about a Filipino from Canada who was killed because he wanted to sell the house he built in the Philippines.  A relative was staying in the house, but did not take good care of it.  When he tried to dispose of it, he got killed.
This may be an extreme case that illustrate a problem facing many Overseas Filipinos (OFs). They build  a house in the Philippines, and then have relatives live in it.  I believe that this is a bad idea, unless of course the house is given to the relative – e.g. their parents.  If the idea behind the building of the house is to have a place to stay in when they eventually return for good, then it is a bad idea. Let me go through some reasons why:

Cost of Maintenance
If a house is built years before an OF plans to live in it; then there are inevitably maintenance costs.  House maintenance is doubly difficult and expensive because it will be done at a distance.  If a relative is allowed to live there with the understanding that he/she would maintain the house; there would inevitably be a gap between how you believe the house should be maintained and how he/she thinks. Most probably,  the relative will not spend that much of their own money maintaining the house. This means that the house will deteriorate, and when the OF owner eventually transfers to the Philippines, he/she will have to spend a whole lot of money for repairs.

There is also the matter of real estate taxes etc. which need to be paid. Very often, the occupant does not take care of these kind of payments.

Inertia of Staying
When a relative is allowed to live in the house ” for the meantime”,  that relative gets attached to the house, sometimes even to the point of believing that he has some right to it, and would not leave. This is what happened in the fatal incident mentioned above: the Canada-based owner wanted to sell the house, but the one living in the house resisted.
Complicating matters is that often the OF built or repaired the house originally for his/her parents. When the parents die, one or another of the siblings takes over the house. And the sibling may consider the house to be inherited from the dead parents, and not as the property of the OF.

There are also problems that arise when the house occupant has other ideas re the use of the house.  He may decide to rent out the rooms – this may lead to the converting of open spaces to rooms to maximize rental income. Or, he may decide to set up a  sari-sari store, bakeshop, or office.  Not only will this hinder the OF’s “enjoyment” of the house when in the Philippines, but also makes the occupant’s claim to the property stronger. After all, he spent for the “improvements”.

Natural Disasters
Then there is the matter of natural disasters e.g. earthquakes, floods, etc. which damage the house. There were indeed many OF-built houses damaged or destroyed by lahar around Pinatubo some years ago. Floods and landslides happen regularly enough.  There are all kinds of disasters that can befall houses that are built. Thus, we go back to the question: why build a house in the first place?

I believe that the only good reason for an OF to build a house in the Philippines is if it is for his/her parents. But even if this is so, it would still be best that the title for the house be in the OF’s name, with the provision that the parents can live in it.  And that when the parents die,  the house is immediately sold.

The money that otherwise would go into building a house could better be put in a time deposit or something similar in the OF’s country of residence. Or it could be put into buying a house in the host country; which upon the OF’s transfer to the Philippines could be sold or rented out.

Electric Cars – coming soon to the Philippines

Electric cars, mostly of the hybrid type (i.e. they have both gasoline and electric engines) is on the verge of entering the mass market. Many car producers have unveiled plans to produce a hybrid electric car by as early as 2010.  Recently, electricity distributors in the Netherlands have set up a project to install 10,000 recharging stations (for electric cars) throughout the country. This trend is driven by the many factors: the drive to lower carbon emissions, high oil prices (or the threat that oil prices will rise again), technological breakthroughs in electric engine and battery design…

This trend will most certainly affect the Philippines too – in as soon as a year or two from now. Perhaps it then not too early to look into how electric cars could impact the country.

Relatively Fast Adoption
People who have cars in the Philippines mainly use them for short distances, usually within the city or metropolitan area. The first wave of hybrid electric cars will have a range of 200 kilometers on a full charge. Already, this would be more than enough for most cars. In addition, the electric car is quite suited to the stop-go traffic in the city, being a lot more economical than oil-based cars.

Already, Filipinos are starting to get used to having electric vehicles. The solar jeepney in Makati and the E3 tricycles in Taguig show that public transportation operators are open to having electric vehicles.

An important factor that would affect the rate of adoption of hybrid electric cars would be its cost.  The cost of the electricity needed to charge the cars would be much less than that of the gasoline or diesel needed by ordinary cars.  But the price of the car itself should not be too high as to negate the advantage of the cheaper fuel. Hopefully, if Chinese companies are able to produce hybrid electric cars that are cheap – or at least not much more expensive than ordinary cars -Philippine auto buyers will buy a lot of them.

Effect on Electricity Supply
The adoption of electric cars, if massive enough, would have an effect on the overall supply of electricity.  There would be a need to rapidly build more capacity in the electric grid, to be able to cope with the increased demand. If the cars are recharged mainly overnight, the effect would be somewhat lesser, since it would not burden the electricity grid during the daytime peak hours. However, if cars are recharged mainly during the day – while being parked near workplaces – then it would really increase the burden on the grid.

The price of electricity will increase in response to the increased demand. This in turn will help to bring alternative sources of energy nearer the break-even point, where it would be competitive with fossil-fuel sources of electricity. And the increased price will also force consumers to conserve electricity.

There is a danger that the rapid adoption of electric cars will result in electricity outages. And that new fossil-fuel electricity generating plants may have to be built to cope with the increased demand. But since electric cars are more efficient than traditional cars, the net effect will be to reduce overall fossil-fuel consumption.

Less Pollution
Electric cars do not pollute during operation. The pollution is made in the electricity generating plant instead. And the pollution will depend on how the electricity is generated – naturally, a fuel-oil  generator will still emit pollution, while wind or hydro generators will not.
But since electric cars operate cleanly, it means that the pollution in the streets and the cities will be less. There would be less fumes from traffic, our clothes will get less dirty, noise levels will be less, etc.  And since the pollution is generated in the electricity generating plants, anti-pollution measures could be more easily put into place.

See also:   Electric Cars