Why choose Yingli solar panel?

This is our solar panel!

http://blog.yinglisolar.com/yinglis-guide-solar-zoo/

Which Solar Panel Type is Best? 

Mono- vs. Polycrystalline vs. Thin Film

By: Mathias Aarre Maehlum

Crystalline Silicon (c-Si)

Almost 90% of the World’s photovoltaics today are based on some variation of silicon.[1] In 2011, about 95% of all shipments by U.S. manufacturers to the residential sector were crystalline silicon solar panels.[2]

The silicon used in PV takes many forms. The main difference is the purity of the silicon.

But what does silicon purity really mean? The more perfectly aligned the silicon molecules are, the better the solar cell will be at converting solar energy (sunlight) into electricity (the photoelectric effect).

The efficiency of solar panels goes hand in hand with purity, but the processes used to enhance the purity of silicon are expensive. Efficiency should not be your primary concern. As you will later discover, cost-and space-efficiency are the determining factors for most people.

Crystalline silicon forms the basis of mono- and polycrystalline silicon solar cells:

Monocrystalline Silicon Solar Cells

Solar cells made of monocrystalline silicon (mono-Si), also called single-crystalline silicon (single-crystal-Si), are quite easily recognizable by an external even coloring and uniform look, indicating high-purity silicon.

Monocrystalline solar cells are made out of silicon ingots, which are cylindrical in shape. To optimize performance and lower costs of a single monocrystalline solar cell, four sides are cut out of the cylindrical ingots to make silicon wafers, which is what gives monocrystalline solar panels their characteristic look.

A good way to separate mono- and polycrystalline solar panels is that polycrystalline solar cells look perfectly rectangular with no rounded edges.

Advantages

• Monocrystalline solar panels have the highest efficiency rates since they are made out of the highest-grade silicon. The efficiency rates of monocrystalline solar panels are typically 15-20%. SunPower produces the highest efficiency solar panels on the U.S. market today. Their E20 series provide panel conversion efficiencies of up to 20.1%.[3] Update (April, 2013): SunPower has now released the X-series at a record-breaking efficiency of 21.5%. [7]

• Monocrystalline silicon solar panels are space-efficient. Since these solar panels yield the highest power outputs, they also require the least amount of space compared to any other types. Monocrystalline solar panels produce up to four times the amount of electricity as thin-film solar panels.

• Monocrystalline solar panels live the longest. Most solar panel manufacturers put a 25-year warranty on their monocrystalline solar panels.

• Tend to perform better than similarly rated polycrystalline solar panels at low-light conditions.

Disadvantages

• Monocrystalline solar panels are the most expensive. From a financial standpoint, a solar panel that is made of polycrystalline silicon (and in some cases thin-film) can be a better choice for some homeowners.

• If the solar panel is partially covered with shade, dirt or snow, the entire circuit can break down. Consider getting micro-inverters instead of central string inverters if you think coverage will be a problem. Micro-inverters will make sure that not the entire solar array is affected by shading issues with only one of the solar panels.
• The Czochralski process is used to produce monocrystalline silicon. It results in large cylindrical ingots. Four sides are cut out of the ingots to make silicon wafers. A significant amount of the original silicon ends up as waste.
• Monocrystalline solar panels tend to be more efficient in warm weather. Performance suffers as temperature goes up, but less so than polycrystalline solar panels. For most homeowners temperature is not a concern.

Polycrystalline Silicon Solar Cells

The first solar panels based on polycrystalline silicon, which also is known as polysilicon (p-Si) and multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si), were introduced to the market in 1981. Unlike monocrystalline-based solar panels, polycrystalline solar panels do not require the Czochralski process. Raw silicon is melted and poured into a square mold, which is cooled and cut into perfectly square wafers.

Advantages

• The process used to make polycrystalline silicon is simpler and cost less. The amount of waste silicon is less compared to monocrystalline.

• Polycrystalline solar panels tend to have slightly lower heat tolerance than monocrystalline solar panels. This technically means that they perform slightly worse than monocrystalline solar panels in high temperatures. Heat can affect the performance of solar panels and shorten their lifespans. However, this effect is minor, and most homeowners do not need to take it into account.

Disadvantages

• The efficiency of polycrystalline-based solar panels is typically 13-16%. Because of lower silicon purity, polycrystalline solar panels are not quite as efficient as monocrystalline solar panels.

• Lower space-efficiency. You generally need to cover a larger surface to output the same electrical power as you would with a solar panel made of monocrystalline silicon. However, this does not mean every monocrystalline solar panel perform better than those based on polycrystalline silicon.

• Monocrystalline and thin-film solar panels tend to be more aesthetically pleasing since they have a more uniform look compared to the speckled blue color of polycrystalline silicon.

String Ribbon Solar Cells

String Ribbon solar panels are also made out of polycrystalline silicon. String Ribbon is the name of a manufacturing technology that produces a form of polycrystalline silicon. Temperature-resistant wires are pulled through molten silicon, which results in very thin silicon ribbons. Solar panels made with this technology looks similar to traditional polycrystalline solar panels.

Evergreen Solar was the main manufacturer of solar panels using the String Ribbon technology. The company is now bankrupt, rendering the future for String Ribbon solar panels unclear.

Advantages

·         The manufacturing of String Ribbon solar panels only uses half the amount silicon as monocrystalline manufacturing. This contributes to lower costs.

Disadvantages

·         The manufacturing of String Ribbon solar panels is significantly more energy extensive and more costly.

·         Efficiency is at best on par with the low-end polycrystalline solar panels at around 13-14%. In research laboratories, researchers have pushed the efficiency of String Ribbon solar cells as high as 18.3%.[3]

·         String Ribbon solar panels have the lowest space-efficiency of any of the main types of crystalline-based solar panels.

Thin-Film Solar Cells (TFSC)

Depositing one or several thin layers of photovoltaic material onto a substrate is the basic gist of how thin-film solar cells are manufactured. They are also known as thin-film photovoltaic cells (TFPV). The different types of thin-film solar cells can be categorized by which photovoltaic material is deposited onto the substrate:

• Amorphous silicon (a-Si)
• Cadmium telluride (CdTe)
• Copper indium gallium selenide (CIS/CIGS)
• Organic photovoltaic cells (OPC)

 Depending on the technology, thin-film module prototypes have reached efficiencies between 7–13% and production modules operate at about 9%. Future module efficiencies are expected to climb close to the about 10–16%.[4]

The market for thin-film PV grew at a 60% annual rate from 2002 to 2007.[5] In 2011, close to 5% of U.S. photovoltaic module shipments to the residential sector were based on thin-film.

Advantages

• Mass-production is simple. This makes them and potentially cheaper to manufacture than crystalline-based solar cells.

• Their homogenous appearance makes them look more appealing.

• Can be made flexible, which opens up many new potential applications.

• High temperatures and shading have less impact on solar panel performance.

• In situations where space is not an issue, thin-film solar panels can make sense.

Disdvantages

• Thin-film solar panels are in general not very useful for in most residential situations. They are cheap, but they also require a lot of space. SunPower`s monocrystalline solar panels produce up to four times the amount of electricity as thin-film solar panels for the same amount of space.[3]

• Low space-efficiency also means that the costs of PV-equipment (e.g. support structures and cables) will increase.

• Thin-film solar panels tend to degrade faster than mono- and polycrystalline solar panels, which is why they typically come with a shorter warranty.

Solar panels based on amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium selenide are currently the only thin-film technologies that are commercially available on the market:

Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) Solar Cells

Because the output of electrical power is low, solar cells based on amorphous silicon have traditionally only been used for small-scale applications such as in pocket calculators. However, recent innovations have made them more attractive for some large-scale applications too.

With a manufacturing technique called “stacking”, several layers of amorphous silicon solar cells can be combined, which results in higher efficiency rates (typically around 6-8%).

Only 1% of the silicon used in crystalline silicon solar cells is required in amorphous silicon solar cells. On the other hand, stacking is expensive.

Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) Solar Cells

Cadmium telluride is the only thin-film solar panel technology that has surpassed the cost-efficiency of crystalline silicon solar panels in a significant portion of the market (multi-kilowatt systems).

The efficiency of solar panels based on cadmium telluride usually operates in the range 9-11%.

First Solar has installed over 5 gigawatts (GW) of cadmium telluride thin-film solar panels world.

Copper Indium Gallium Selenide (CIS/CIGS) Solar Cells

Compared to the other thin-film technologies above, CIGS solar cells have showed the most potential in terms of efficiency. These solar cells contain less amounts of the toxic material cadmium that is found in CdTe solar cells. Commercial production of flexible CIGS solar panels was started in Germany in 2011.

The efficiency rates for CIGS solar panels typically operate in the range 10-12 %.

Many thin-film solar cell types are still early in the research and testing stages. Some of them have enormous potential, and we will likely see more of them in the future.

LISTED FIRMS URGED TO RUN OWN GENERATORS

MANILA, Philippines - The 263 companies listed at the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) were urged yesterday to run their own generators under the government’s interruptible load program (ILP) to ease the projected electricity shortfall in next year’s summer.

“We are appealing to all PSE-listed firms to join the ILP,” Rep. Arnel Ty of party-list group Liquefied Petroleum Gas Marketers Association, who sits in the House energy committee, said.

The program seeks to encourage private companies to run their own generators during peak demand periods between March and June next year, instead of getting their supply from the Luzon grid.

The electricity that these firms would not be taking from the grid would be available to household and small users. The goal is to prevent a rotating brownout.

During next year’s summer months, the Department of Energy (DOE) is forecasting that electricity supply would be sufficient but reserves would be short of the desired level just in case one or two power plants break down.

Ty said seven PSE-listed firms – Ayala Land Inc., Century Properties Group Inc., GMA Network Inc., Megaworld Corp., Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Robinsons Land Corp., and SM Prime Holdings Inc. – have already signed up for the ILP.

He said Federal Land’s office skyscraper GT International Tower has also enlisted. Federal Land is a wholly owned subsidiary of PSE-listed GT Capital Holdings Inc.

He said Posh Properties Development Co., a unit of PSE-listed Anchor Land Holdings Inc., has likewise joined the ILP, along with Shangri-La Paza Corp., an affiliate of PSE-listed Shang Properties Inc.

He added that based on established protocols, ILP participants are to disconnect from the Luzon grid and run their own generators once there is a high risk that supply of electricity may fall short of demand.

A total of 29 private companies have so far enrolled in the ILP, and are ready to drive their backup generators.

“We applaud these entities for going out of their way to shield consumers, by helping to minimize the threat of potential power brownouts in Luzon between February to June next year,” Ty said.

The House and the Senate are no longer granting President Aquino’s request for special congressional authority to rent or buy generators from foreign suppliers. The rent or purchase scheme could cost as much as P12 billion.

Instead, lawmakers are now focusing on ILP, which they forecast is sufficient to meet the DOE-reported shortfall of 21-31 megawatts (MW) in the first two weeks of April and a desired reserve of 647 MW for the entire summer.

Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali, House energy committee chairman, said as of October, ILP participants have committed to free up at least 800 MW, which would be available to small users.

Executive Director Francis Juan of the Energy Regulatory Commission has told the Umali committee that private companies have standby generating capacity of up to 3,000 MW, while the Philippine Chamber Commerce and Industry estimates such backup generators at 2,000 MW.

Diaz, J. (November 11). Listed firms urged to run own generators. Philippine Star. Retrieve from http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/11/11/1390261/listed-firms-urged-run-own-generators

Government moves to fast-track renewable energy projects

Posted on September 16, 2014 10:23:00 PM

By Claire-Ann Marie C. Feliciano, Senior Reporter

THE ENERGY department is keen on fast-tracking the development of the renewable energy (RE) projects, with a number of service contracts already cancelled due to lack of progress.

“So far, we have already cancelled over 100 RE contracts because they are not moving forward,” Energy Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla said during a budget hearing in Pasay City.

“Of the total, 67 contracts are already cancelled with finality but we also have those which are supposed to be cancelled but are still under appeal,” he added.

Mr. Petilla said this is part of the Energy department’s program to support the country’s RE sector.

“We have already cut the service contract processing to 45 days from two years to attract more developers to invest in RE,” he said.

“However, we are also very fast in canceling. Within six months, if the project proponent is not going to perform, we cancel the contract.”

Data from the department showed that since the enactment of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, there are currently a total of 614 RE contracts with combined capacity of 12,040.28 megawatts (MW).

RIGHT MIX
Mr. Petilla said that among the thrusts of the department is to formulate the right mix of RE and traditional energy sources, such as coal and diesel.

“At present, the Philippines is harnessing 30% of RE in our energy mix. If we keep it at that level, we will have a secure energy source, even if oil prices go up or if there is a shortage in supply in the international market,” Mr. Petilla told reporters separately.

“Because RE is indigenous which means it is locally available, we can depend on it for energy security even if there are political issues such as war in other countries,” he added.

The official noted that benefits of RE projects are expected to outweigh the cost implications.

As part of the government’s efforts to use RE in a larger scale and attract new investments, it expects the effective implementation of the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme.

Under the FIT, RE developers will dispatch the capacity of their projects to the grid at a premium rate for a period of 20 years.

The FIT rates -- approved in July 2012 -- provides the following rates for RE technologies: run-of-river hydro (P5.90 per kilowatt-hour), biomass (P6.63/kWh), wind (P8.53/kWh), solar (P9.68/kWh).

These were based on the installation targets -- which limit the capacity of projects for each RE technology -- that have been set by the Energy department.

The targets for RE technologies total some 750 megawatts (MW). Currently, run-of-river hydro and biomass projects are allocated at 250 MW each, wind power at 200 MW, and solar power at 50 MW.

This year, the department allowed the increase of solar to 500 MW.

Concerned stakeholders are also evaluating the possibility of hiking the allocation for wind projects to 500 MW.

EXPENSIVE BUT ESSENTIAL
“The FIT is a testament that while RE seems to be more expensive than traditional energy sources, admittedly, it is needed because it is essential to the country’s energy security,” Mr. Petilla said.

“In the long term, we hope to develop systems in order for RE to compete toe-to-toe with traditional energy resources and eventually lower the cost of electricity,” he added.

The Energy department is working with other government agencies such as the Climate Change Commission and organizations like Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit to improve public and business perception on RE and promote the shift towards a more sustainable energy supply in the country.

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy&title=Government-moves-to-fast-track-renewable-energy-projects&id=94599

‘Lousy managers don’t deserve extra powers’

• Written by  Angie M. Rosales 
• Monday, 15 September 2014 00:00
• • http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/lousy-managers-don-t-deserve-extra-powers

SERGE HINTS PALACE TRYING TO BYPASS SENATE

The proposal to grant President Aquino emergency powers to address a supposed power supply crisis next year will have to pass through the proverbial needle’s eye before the Senate even if the Palace and the House which is packed with allies of Aquino collude to railroad the granting of the special authority.
Sen. Sergio Osmeña slammed the Palace and its allies insistence on the grant of emergency powers to Aquino, saying the expansion of the President’s authority will not be an assurance in addressing the energy supply problems which he said were the result of Aquino’s poor management skills.
“It’s an accepted fact that they are lousy managers and it is almost criminal,” the chairman of the Senate energy committee commented, on the apparent negligence of the Aquino administration in addressing the problem of the power sector as well as the worsening condition of the public transport system and port congestion which has led to losses in income in both the government and private sector.
Now, if they need emergency powers because there’s a crisis, we will look into it. How long do they need this power? How much
power do they need? At what price they will charge the customers? We will look in all of that,” he explained.
He said that the blame for the pile up of problems facing the nation should be on the Aquino administration and its poor governance skills.
“Had this happened in other countries such as the United States, woe to the government. It will be facing suits,” Osmeña said.
Osmena also revealed that the supposed meeting the Joint Congressional Oversight Power Commission (JCPC) held with Energy Secretary Jericho Petilla and business groups did not happen since it did not involve any representative from the Senate energy committee which is part of JCPC.
The meeting was supposedly called to discuss Malacanang’s proposal to grant Aquino emergency powers by Congress but Osmeña said only members of the House  energy committee were present in the meeting.
“We, the JCPC, did not have a meeting. It was only the congressmen who had a meeting. Besides, it was not correct to say the JCPC will be the one providing for the resolution (to grant emergency powers to the President) because the JCPC does not have any jurisdiction insofar as coming up with a legislation. The JCPC is an oversight committee and the resolution should be referred to the energy committee of the lower house and the Senate,” he said.
“Even if the House approves and the Senate does not, the proposal (for emergency powers) will not pass. We want to make it hard because we are tolerating inefficiency by reasoning that emergency powers can always be granted,” he said. “That means the management is very lousy. They don’t even know what emergency powers means. There is no definition for emergency powers. It just gives the government a temporary right to contract a power, to buy power,” he said.
In the event that a resolution for such provisional and additional authority to the President is introduced, the senator said it will have to undergo a series of public hearings to ascertain the nature of the shortage, the period of its coverage and other available solutions, he said.
“Since there are other solutions, giving government contracting power is not necessary. Contracting power means the power to contract for energy. The government will pay and at the same time grant guarantees (to contractors). That is not allowed under EPIRA (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) because we guaranteed to the private sector that government will not compete with them,” he said.
Investments for power is huge, something like $2 million or almost P88 million per megawatt (MW). So to build 100MW, that’s P8.8 billion. And that’s a 25-year payback. So, the government promised okay, we will not compete with you, Osmeña added.
“We need to know how it came to this. The government had long been warned since 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. Four years. Nobody listened,” he said.
Besides anticipating the power supply problem, Osmena said the government should have also addressed some other related concerns such what he called as permitting process which could have lure potential investors in the energy sector.
Under the present set-up, before any power producer could put up a plant, they would have to go through a tedious process effectively requiring 162 signatures of government officials.
“The government should have prepared for that a long time ago. Until now there is nothing being done about it. So now if you want to invest, it will take you two years just to finish all the permitting process,” he said.
“That is a last resort (emergency powers). I will ask them how did all these problems came about?, we will put that on record. What did you not do? And what should you be doing now?,” he said.
“We will examine through the hearings the reasons therefore. We will examine, do we really need to give the government the power to contract additional power or can this be supplied by existing generating sets that are in the hands of the private sector, which the private sector uses as their back-up or standby power,” he said.
A lawmaker, meanwhile, asked both houses of Congress to act swiftly on President Aquino’s request for a joint congressional resolution—which will have the force of law—so the government can contract additional generating capacity of around 600 megawatts.
Rep. Sherwin “Win” T. Gatchalian said it is crucial that the Congress act fast in approving the emergency powers being sought by Aquino to effectively address the looming power shortage that is expected to hit Luzon early next year.
“If congress doesn’t approve the request for emergency powers by October, we will have brownouts in Luzon next year. We will see massive layoffs especially contractual workers. And unemployment will surely go up,” Gatchalian, who attended last week’s hearing of the joint congressional power committee, said.
It was the first time that Aquino admitted the reality of a looming power shortage in Luzon and is now asking Congress to grant him emergency powers “that will authorize the national government to contract an additional generating capacity to address the 300-megawatt projected deficit, and, on top of that, to have sufficient regulating reserves equivalent to 4 percent of peak demand, for another 300 megawatts.”
The President sought to assure the private sector that government intervention will be focused solely on addressing the projected shortage. “We have no plans of intervening to distort the market or complicate the situation even further,” he said, echoing Petilla’s proposal contained in the 2014 State of the Nation (SONA) technical report.
The SONA technical report pegged the energy shortage in Luzon at 400 MW to 1,000 MW from March to May 2015.
“Right now, Congress and Malacanang must move as one team and decide how to stave off this serious problem in our energy supply which is expected to be a full-blown crisis during the dry season,” Gatchalian said.
Petilla was the first to propose the granting of emergency powers to the President to deal with the impending power crisis in the form of contracting modular power plants from Dubai and the United States that can be installed from four to five months. The mini power plants can generate anywhere from 2 to 30 MW and can be contracted on a short-term basis.
“I fully support the granting of emergency powers to deal with the power crisis but this should be specifically defined by Congress in the joint resolution by the House and Senate. Such emergency powers should be specific and time-bound to allay fears of possible executive abuse like what happened during the time of the Ramos administration,” said Gatchalian.
Gatchalian pointed out that Secretary Petilla’s original proposal makes sense as no new power plants can be installed in the next two years since natural gas pipe plants can take two to three years to build while coal-fed plants take three to five years to install and become fully operationalized.
“And since the EPIRA law prohibits the government from setting up its own power plant, it is more practical to rent modular powers plants that are easy to install and disassemble once the power crisis is over,” he noted.
Gatchalian said it is also vital that the government and the private sector work together so the energy sector can realize its full potential.
“A public-private partnership in the energy sector will definitely be a critical factor in finding solutions to the looming power crisis and addressing existing issues once and for all,” he said.
Aside from contracting additional generating capacity, the President also instructed the Department of Energy to “continue to solicit participation” in the Interruptible Load Program (ILP) until 2015.
The program taps those with spare generators like Manila Electric Co. to make their units available to come up with additional capacity. The government would compensate the generator owners with the approval of the Energy Regulatory Commission, according to the President.
“But the problem with the ILP is that being a voluntary program, private companies cannot be compelled to participate in this venture as they will have their own, valid reasons to choose to participate or not. The government should lead the way in averting the power shortage by using emergency powers,” Gatchalian said.
Gatchalian attributed the increased electricity demand to the country’s economic resurgence, with the Philippine economy growing by an average of 6.3 percent from 2010 to 2013.
“The rotational brownouts experienced in Metro Manila and in nearby provinces long after Typhoon Glenda are indicators of the likely power crisis as existing power plants cannot catch up with the energy requirements,” he concluded.

Grid Tie Solar Power_Net Metering

Solar power can help PH avoid looming crisis

http://opinion.inquirer.net/77026/solar-power-can-help-ph-avoid-looming-crisis#ixzz395wUFW00 

Despite alarm bells being sounded to warn of the energy shortage expected in the summer months (March-May) of next year, nothing concrete is being done to address the problem.

This is not an imagined shortage. The government itself recognizes the very real possibility of the shortage coming to pass and turning into a crisis. But fast-tracking projects that can mitigate it doesn’t seem to be anybody’s urgent agenda. Everybody is only thinking of fossil fuel-powered generation plants that may be already on the drawing board or in early phase of construction. But they will not be online in 2015.

The best option is to go renewable energy. Solar power generation plants can be constructed in 6-8 months. If the government can issue the permits and licenses for the construction of solar power plants now, it is still possible to avoid the power crisis next year.

The utility-size solar power plants with megawatts-range capacities are the longest to put together. But there are solar power generating panels that can be installed on rooftops in 3-5 days. Imagine 1 percent of the houses in Metro Manila equipped with these facilities. Include the shopping malls, taking 1 percent of their total consumption from their own rooftop solar power generation panels; and every public school building, even renting their rooftops to power utility producers. Not only will the schools be a resource for power generation, their immediate communities will benefit from locally produced and distributed electricity. And not only will there be more power supply, electricity from the grid will also be freed up for distribution elsewhere and transmission losses will be reduced.

This undertaking will, however, need the cooperation of Meralco and the electric cooperatives. They should be willing to enter into net metering agreements with private homeowners who are willing to install solar panels on their roofs and to share the excess power they generate with nearby communities.

The net metering provisions of Republic Act No. 9513 (Renewable Energy Act of 2008) has been in place since 2013, and yet private homeowners are still having a hard time getting their own solar power generation projects approved.

Private citizens can play a role in mitigating or avoiding the power shortage expected in 2015. Let them install their own solar power generation panels posthaste, after all, the law allows them, the regulations are in place, and they are willing to invest. Only the distribution utilities are preventing them from pursuing such undertaking.

The looming power crisis is real. Free up the generation playing field; let small-scale solar power generation flourish as the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 envisions.

—PHETZ BORJA,

SPECIAL REPORT: Dirty coal a thing of the past

By Iris C. Gonzales (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 19, 2014 - 12:00am

(Part 3 of 3)

MANILA, Philippines - Coal plant operators in the Philippines insist that the era of dirty coal is gone.

Technology has significantly improved, according to businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan, chairman of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), which, through its power generation subsidiary MGen, is also a coal power player.

“On many respects, those fears are misplaced because technology has moved further on to improve the quality of coal-fired power plants. And the ability to comply with the environmental standards have improved,” Pangilinan told The STAR in a recent interview.

Meralco’s MGen, together with the Aboitiz Group, wants to build a 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Subic, but the project is currently stuck in a legal battle because of opposition from local communities.

Businessman Tomas Alcantara, whose family owns Alsons Consolidated Resources Inc., a major power player in Mindanao has the same position on coal.

“The technology of coal now is much improved than before.  That is a scientific fact. In addressing all these fears, we always tell our people that we are undertaking measures to mitigate the impact. For example, we have reforestation projects. So for example, in ensuring that the pristine waters of Sarangani remain pristine, we have made sure that we are mitigating the whole impact of our disturbances by ensuring the growth of corals close to our plant, but outside our sphere of influence,” Alcantara told The STAR.

He said given the country’s state of development, coal is the only alternative.

“Yes, there’s solar but can we afford it?” Alcantara said.

“Dirty coal is a thing of the past. It doesn’t happen anymore. It would be misleading to say it is still prevalent,” Joseph Nocos, vice-president for Business Development of Alsons, also said in an interview.

Nocos explains that when coal is burned and you have the proper technology to address the pollutants that will arise from the combustion of coal, then coal is safe for use in power generation.

“The problem sometimes when people claim that there is no such thing as clean coal they tend to generalize and they tend to use a disparate set of data and assumptions to lead to the conclusion that coal is not clean,” he lamented.

“But what we are talking about is whether or not it is safe to use coal for power generation, and the answer there is yes,” he stressed.

The present-day technology uses a scrubbing agent that captures the sulfur dioxide emissions. In the past, this was not used.

In the so-called circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology for instance, coal is mixed with limestone, which helps in the combustion process.

“(The limestone) serves as the scrubbing agent that captures the sulfur so when the emission comes out of the chimney the sulfur dioxide emissions are reduced,” Nocos explained.

“It’s an effective solution,” he added.

In all, Nocos insists that the use of coal could continue without adverse effects on the environment and without exacerbating the global warming problem.

Alsons is presently developing two coal-fired power plants, which it said would help alleviate the power shortage in Mindanao.

George Ty’s Global Power Business Power Corp., a major power player in the Visayas, said building coal-fired plants meets the needs of the communities.

“We build coal plants because it is a required technology for the needs of the community,” said Jaime Azurin, vice-president for Business Development of Global Power. He said coal-fired power plants are cheaper compared to other technologies thus providing cheaper electricity to communities.

Global Business is the leading independent power provider in the Visayas, with a combined total capacity of 633 megawatts of power supplied to the Visayas region.

It currently owns and operates nine power plants with a total installed capacity of 627 megawatts (MW).

Against this backdrop, anti-coal groups such as Greenpeace accuse the Aquino administration of being pro-coal, but Energy Secretary Carlos Jericho Petilla said this is not the case.

According to Petilla, coal is an important source of fuel in the country. He argued, the Philippines cannot rely on RE alone even if that’s the ideal scenario. Advanced countries, he said, are pushing for coal but are also pushing for RE.

“We’re coming up with a fuel mix. We want to put a mix where we have non-coal such as gas, liquefied natural gas. We want to go for renewable energy. (RE) Do you know that in Germany, they are pushing for RE but they are also pushing for coal. We cannot survive on RE alone. We have to have base load plants. In the Philippines, the only thing available for us for base load is coal and diesel, and diesel is more expensive. There’s another thing available, which is nuclear. We’re also studying nuclear. We have a team studying nuclear but for practical reasons, what is accepted here is diesel and coal,” Petilla said.

He agreed with coal players that the new technology now has improved the quality of coal emissions but he acknowledges Department of Environment and Natural Resources could also put in place additional measures to make sure that even existing plants could be upgraded.

“We continue to formulate the policy because we continue to receive information such as the cost of health. We’re trying to find out the health issues if we use coal or diesel or gas. We are looking at the real costs of each fuel of type,” Petilla said.

Right now, the government is still crafting its policy mix.

“The firm policy on the target will only come out when we do the costings,” Petilla said.

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. country chairman Ed Chua said that when looking at the cost of energy specifically electricity, one should not only look at the cost of generating it but the social costs as well.

“In 2011, researchers from the Harvard Medical School found that coal power generation results in economically quantifiable costs to society amounting to anywhere from P4 per kwh to as high as P11 per kwh due to health impacts and climate damages by coal emissions.   One can, therefore, see that the implications go far beyond the prices paid for electricity generated by coal,” Chua said.

It is for these reasons that the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have all decided to put forward energy policies that seek to end or severely limit financing for coal-fired power generation, he said.

Indeed, there is a need for the government to look into the real costs of power in the Philippines including the health costs. Anti-coal groups can only hope, it’s not yet too late.

SPECIAL REPORT: How unhealthy is coal?

By Iris C. Gonzales (The Philippine Star)

 (Part 2 of 3)

 

MANILA, Philippines - In the Philippines, where short-term solutions to problems are often the norm, coal power plants may be considered the pink elephants in the room.

Not many people want to look at its debilitating effects on the environment and health.

For experts, it’s no longer a question of whether or not coal is unhealthy. The question, they said, is how seriously unhealthy coal is.

In the book, The Silent Epidemic authored by Alan Lockwood, a physician, and published by the MIT Press said while “exposure to burning coal” would never be listed as the cause of death on a single death certificate, tens of thousands of deaths from asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and other illnesses are clearly linked to coal-derived pollution.

“As politicians and advertising campaigns extol the virtues of “clean coal,” the dirty secret is that coal kills,” Lockwood said.

He said that every aspect of coal – from its complex chemical makeup to details of mining, transporting, burning, and disposal – describes coal pollution’s effects on the respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, and how these problems will only get worse.

Relatively few people are aware of the health threats posed by coal-derived pollutants, and those who are aware lack the political clout of the coal industry, he said.

“Coal-fired plants make people sick and die, particularly children and those with chronic illnesses, and they cost society huge amounts of money desperately needed for other purposes,” he said.

Lockwood is Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

There are no recent published extensive reports on the health impact of coal in the Philippines.

However, in a report on coal operations in Australia, where environment standards are stricter, data showed a number of adverse health effects.

“These effects range from excess deaths and increased rates of cancer, heart, lung and kidney disease and birth defects to minor respiratory complaints,” according to the report titled Health and Social Harms of Mining in Local Communities.

“These concerns are nowhere more apparent than in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW) – Australia’s oldest and most productive coal mining area – which has in excess of 30, mostly open-cut coal mines, and six active coal-fired power stations. The Hunter Region includes 11 local government areas with a combined population of some 700,000 people whose livelihood is derived from a number of important industries including tourism, farming, grazing, wine growing and making, and race horse breeding, as well as coal mining. There have been multiple anecdotal reports of disease clusters associated with mining, and calls from various community organizations and local government for studies to explore and examine these issues,” it said.

According to the report, children and infants in coal mining communities have been found to have: increased respiratory symptoms including wheeze, cough and absence from school.

Meanwhile, adults in communities near coal-fired power stations and coal combustion facilities have been found to have: increased risk of death from lung, laryngeal and bladder cancer, increased risk of skin cancer and increased asthma rates and respiratory symptoms.

Furthermore, children, infants, and fetal outcomes in communities near coal-fired power stations and coal combustion facilities have been found to have Oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, higher rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, miscarriages and stillbirths, impaired fetal and child growth and neurological development and increased asthma rates and respiratory symptoms.

This is because coal combustion releases a combination of toxic chemicals into the environment and contributes significantly to global warming, according to a 2009 report, Coal’s Assault on Human Health by the United States-based Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Coal combustion releases sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (Pm), nitrogen oxides, mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. Coal combustion contributes to smog through the release of oxides of nitrogen, which react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to produce ground-level ozone, the primary ingredient in smog, the report said.

As a result, the damage is to the respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems and contributes to four of the top five leading cause of death in the US.

These are heart disease, cancer, stroke, and respiratory diseases.

“Although it is difficult to ascertain the proportion of this disease burden that is attributable to coal pollutants, even very modest contributions to these major causes of death are likely to have large effects at the population level, given high incidence rates. Coal combustion is also responsible for more than 30 percent of total US carbon dioxide pollution, contributing significantly to global warming and its associated health impacts,” it said.

The specific impacts of each coal emission, according to the report, are as follows:

Sulfur dioxide, which reacts in the air to form sulfuric acid, causes coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, nasal congestion and inflammation and worsens asthma. The gas can destabilize heart rhythms and increases risk of infant death.

Particulate matter (PM), on the other hand, directly emitted from coal burning, crosses from the lungs into the bloodstream, resulting in inflammation of the cardiac system, which in turn, is a root cause of cardiac disease including heart attack and stroke. PM exposure is also linked to low birth weight, premature birth, and sudden infant death.

Mercury, on the other hand, has developmental effects in babies that are born to mothers who eat contaminated fish while pregnant.

Fetuses and children are directly at risk. In adults, mercury affects blood pressure regulation and heart rate.

Next… (Part 3: Gencossay dirty coal is a thing of the past).

http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/07/18/1347361/special-report-how-unhealthy-coal

SPECIAL REPORT: What is the true cost of electricity?

By Iris C. Gonzales (The Philippine Star)

(Part 1)

The cost of electricity in the Philippines is measured in many ways.

For the consumers, the cost is measured in pesos per kilowatt-hours that appear in the monthly bills.

There have been record high increases following petitions before the Supreme Court and due to clearing prices set at the country’s trading floor for electricity, the Wholesale, Electricity Spot Market or WESM.

Experts believe, however, that the true cost of electricity could be higher because not many people take into account the impact of coal, which is the main source of power in the Philippines.

To illustrate, in 2013, coal-fired power plants accounted for 5,568 megawatts in installed capacity, whereas oil-based power plants come in a far second with an installed capacity of 3,353 MW.

Natural gas power plants, meanwhile, have a total installed capacity of 2,862 MW, while geothermal account for 1,868 MW of installed capacity.

The Philippines currently has 14 coal-fired power plants.

The renewable energy sources, meanwhile, account for 3,521 MW for the hydropower plants; 33 MW for the wind; 119 MW for biomass and one MW for solar.

The data is based on a report from the Department of Energy as of March 2014.

While coal plant owners insist that the use of coal is much cleaner than before, Climate Change commissioner Naderev Saño, as well as environmental groups like Greenpeace, say that there is no such thing as “clean coal.”

“Coal will always be dirty because even with technology to control air pollution, the process still produces coal ash, which when disposed improperly can contaminate the environment with heavy metals,” Saño told The STAR.

He also explained that the water used for scrubbing smoke stacks or in the ash ponds have to be disposed and pose a dangerous risk to human health.

“When viewed from a value chain perspective, coal has to be extracted from coal mines, usually through open pit mining that leaves irreversible damage and creates black wastelands. As such, there can be relatively “cleaner” coal technologies but it can never be truly ‘clean,’ Saño said.

As such Saño said, coal burning for power generation remains the main reason for heat-trapping gases that cause anthropogenic climate change.

Saño recognized that there have been gains in reducing the pollution coming from coal plants, but noted that these are still not enough.

“As a technology, there have been gains in reducing the pollution coming from coal plants but the band-aid measures at the end of the pipe have very prohibitive costs and only in countries with strict air quality regulations would the pollution control investments make business sense,” he said.

Because coal is a cheaper option compared to other forms of fuel, many opt to rely on this fuel.

“Unfortunately, these environmental and public health concerns are externalities and are not considered in the economic equation. For many developing economies like the Philippines, the true cost of coal is not internalized and so coal apparently seems the cheapest option. Because of the political economy surrounding fuel and energy, and the urgency of providing energy when it is needed and where it is needed, the balancing act between short-term cost-efficiency and long-term sustainability becomes a challenging task,” Saño said.

The non-government Greenpeace, as expected, maintained that there’s no such thing as clean coal.

“They always claim that there is clean coal. The truth is there is no such thing as clean coal. The technology that is used is more advanced in order to lessen the emissions, but in truth there are still emissions. The emissions may be lower, but that doesn’t mean the emissions are gone. There are other factors too such as coal ash. The process might be cleaner, but it doesn’t mean you can actually claim it’s clean coal. It’s a misnomer,” said Greenpeace climate change campaigner Reuben Muni.

Muni believes the solution is for government to promote renewable energy (RE), which authorities say are dependent on the specific energy source such as sun and water.

“That’s another myth on RE. A lot of the myths being peddled by the coal industry are just myths. One of the common misconceptions is that there is only one source but if you talk about power generation by RE you can talk about the energy mix. For example, you can have both solar and wind in one place. In some places, that’s possible. It’s also possible to have solar and hydro in one place.

What is lacking is information, which is why some communities think it’s impossible,” he said.

“What the government should do is to push for the development of RE,” he added.

The Department of Energy (DOE), however, is doing exactly that. It provides incentives to RE proponents under the so-called feed-in-tariff (FIT) system.

The FIT regime is a form of incentive for renewable energy players.

Feed-in tariffs offer cost-based compensation to renewable energy players among other perks.

The FIT rate approved by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), the power regulator are as follows: P9.68 per kilowatt-hour for solar; P8.53 per kWh for wind, P6.63 per kWh for biomass and P5.90 per kWh for hydropower projects

Aside from providing incentives to RE proponents, Greenpeace’s Muni said the government should also stop approving coal contracts.

“Definitely, the government should stop approving coal fired power plants. It’s also possible to revoke permits issued for new power plants. They can do more than that especially in terms of information. There is a lot of misinformation. They should also have a one-stop shop for RE applications to speed up the process,” Muni said.

I think that the government should really prioritize RE especially development of RE facilities not just large scale but community based RE facilities. It’s the more suitable model.

http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/07/17/1346934/special-report-what-true-cost-electricity

Next…(Part 2: Howunhealthy is coal?)