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?)

ERC pushes tariff for solar home system

by Myrna Velasco
July 9, 2014

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) is due to promulgate a tariff system that shall serve as benchmark for the installation of solar home systems (SHS) to interested customers by servicing electric cooperatives.

Prior to Rules promulgation, the regulatory body announced that it will be undertaking public consultations in specified venues in Manila, Cebu and Davao. The first one was concluded July 7 at the ERC offices in Ortigas, while the Cebu leg will be this July 24. The Davao consultation is slated August; while the process culminates in Manila on August 18 – also at the ERC headquarters.

The ‘benchmark SHS tariff’ to be prescribed shall refer to a regulated tariff that must be approved by the ERC for the supply of electricity by an eligible electric cooperative (EC) via the deployment of solar home systems.

The ERC noted that such tariff-setting shall be in support of the “SHS mainstreaming program for rural electrification” that is being implemented by the Department of Energy.

According to the ERC, the SHS benchmark tariff “shall be the approximation of the operating cost an EC would incur in providing electricity service to all SHS member-consumers,” and must also factor in “the cost of the replacement of components as necessary, and covering both direct and indirect overhead costs.”

The draft ERC Rules similarly provided that “the higher costs of servicing SHS for more remote and difficult-to-reach areas shall be considered in an incremental cost adjustment that will apply to SHS in such areas.”

The regulatory body added that such adjustment “will be common across all ECs serving customers in the same defined zones,” — as the household consumers being target of the SHS deployment program will be grouped into cost zones.

As laid down, cost zones “shall capture the range of areas in which the ECs shall operate.” The plan is to segregate the areas into three cost zones that shall be measured by distance from the nearest office of a servicing electric cooperative.

As per policy, the initial capital cost for the SHS “shall be covered by a subsidy” as anchored on the rules crafted by the DOE on solar technology deployment underpinning the government’s electrification program.

Meanwhile, for those classified as non-eligible ECs, installation of SHS system to a customer may also be done – but enforcing the benchmark SHS tariff plus premium, as may be “determined by negotiation between the SHS customer and the EC.”

Under this, it was noted that “an SHS customer may request an EC to provide supply through SHS of larger capacity than the eligible SHS.” The cost the customer pays may cover additional capital and replacement costs for larger capacity systems.

http://www.mb.com.ph/erc-pushes-tariff-for-solar-home-system/

Meralco: Slight increase for July consumption

Claire-Ann Marie C. Feliciano

MANILA Electric Co. (Meralco) customers will pay a slight increase for their power consumption in July, given adjustments across the bill components.

Electricity rates will go up by around P0.03 per kilowatt-hour (/kWh) in July, the utility said in a statement yesterday, as the distribution rate cut partly offset higher generation and transmission charges.

“This adjustment comes after two straight months that power rates have gone down, for a combined reduction of P0.89/kWh,” Meralco said, referring to the May and June adjustments.

For July, households consuming an average of 200 kWh per month -- about 75% of the firm’s customer base -- will pay P5.40 more, said Meralco Senior Assistant Vice-President Larry S. Fernandez.

Those consuming 300 kWh, 400 kWh and 500 kWh on average will have to pay an additional P8.67, P11.95 and P15.23, respectively.

Meralco said there was a P0.10/kWh increase in generation charge to P5.41/kWh mainly due to higher costs incurred from suppliers.

Rates from its power supply agreements (PSAs) and independent power producers (IPPs) also went up by P0.26/kWh and P0.10/kWh, respectively.

“These were, however, partly offset by the P4.24/kWh reduction in the average price of the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM),” Meralco said.

The company noted that the lower dispatch of several power plants -- which had scheduled and unscheduled outages during the June supply month -- also contributed to the higher generation charge.

These plants were identified as: Pagbilao 1 in Quezon; San Lorenzo units 50 and 60, Sta. Rita unit 40 and Ilijan 2 in Batangas; Calaca 1 and 2 in Batangas; Masinloc 1 and 2 in Zambales; Malaya 2 in Rizal; Quezon power plant; GNPower 2 in Bataan; and Sual 1 in Pangasinan.

But Meralco said a “favorable peso-dollar rate coupled with cheaper coal prices tempered the increase in generation charge.”

PSAs, IPPs and WESM accounted for 53%, 41% and 6% of Meralco’s total energy requirements, respectively.

The generation charge accounts for around 57% of total charges in Meralco’s electricity bill. The rest comprises the distribution charge (17%), transmission charge (10%), system loss charge (5%), and taxes and other charges (11%).

A P0.08/kWh hike in transmission charge, mainly due to higher ancillary charges, also contributed to this month’s adjustment.

Meralco said a P0.003/kWh cut in taxes also offset the P0.002/kWh cumulative increase in subsidies and system loss.

A huge mitigating factor in this month’s rates was the P0.15/kWh reduction in distribution charge that also covers supply and metering charges, the utility added.

The lower charge, which was ordered by regulators following an annual revenue requirement review, will be in effect until June 2015.

Meralco’s controlling stakeholder, Beacon Electric Asset Holdings Inc., is partly owned by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT).