42 responses to “Who Is Building The Solar Model For Barbados?”

1. 

   David

   June 20, 2008 at 5:23 am

   
   

   We understand that this is not a sexy topic but it is important.

   Loading…
2. 

   Cat Scan

   June 20, 2008 at 8:48 am

   
   

   The other challenge that should be discussed, is not only is oil increasing in price, demand is increasing and production output is flat. So running an electrical utility on oil is not a sustainable proposition in the long term. So other technologies need to be found. Oil could also become scarce say over the next say 20 years and what would Light and Power do then? This needs to be included in their risk planning.

   One must remember at the present time, oil is required as the energy input to manufacture solar panels.

   Is the UWI doing any research on solar or wave or ocean thermal energy or biomass?

   Loading…
3. 

   Chris Halsall

   June 20, 2008 at 9:17 am

   
   

   David, thank you for continuing to keep this critical issue on the table here.

   I would like to once again point out the opportunity which exists for solar power air conditioning. Everyone talks about electricity, but if the end produce is refrigeration, why not directly produce it from heat?

   The beauty of this is that the energy which would have further heated a building is instead used to cool it. A double win.

   Please note that this is technology which currently exists Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS). Available in China, Australia, Spain and the US.

   I dream of the day when most AC in Barbados is powered this way, much like our hot water. I don’t know what percentage of our electrical consumption is currently used by AC needs, but I suspect it is in the double digits.

   Lastly, I suspect there is the opportunity for R&D in this domain, possibly leading to Patents and other Intellectual Property (IP).

   A smart individual or group could do *very* well investing in this technology.

   Google for “absorptive refrigeration solar” — lots of information and studies available.

   Loading…
4. 

   Straight talk

   June 20, 2008 at 9:19 am

   
   

   Catscan:

   “Oil could also become scarce say over the next say 20 years”

   The price is rising because easy to get oil is already becoming scarce.

   Not only is production flat while demand inexorably rises, but the billions of windfall dollars the oil producing nations are raking in are being used to develop their own economies at breakneck speed.

   As they do their own energy requirements soar, thus leaving less product to export.

   So production figures are now less of a key parameter, the plunging oil export figures are causing the rapid rise in price.

   Loading…
5. 

   Chris Halsall

   June 20, 2008 at 9:28 am

   
   

   I posted this on the other recent energy topic here at BU, but I wish to repeat it here.

   The Economist had a couple of very interesting articles on this subject in the last (locally available) issue:

   http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=8780295&story_id=11482484

   http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=8780295&story_id=11482565

   Of particular interest in my mind is the Wave Energy solutions. I’m very intrigued by the solution which is entirely underwater. Very cleaver.

   Loading…
6. 

   David

   June 20, 2008 at 10:02 am

   
   

   Chris thanks for the links but can you copy and paste or email to us because the links not woking. Does one need to log in?

   This is an important topic and must be kept on the front burner. The BU family who are knowledgeable on these matters should try to separate the arguments between the national requirement and what John Citizen can do to be proactive if they can afford it.

   Loading…
7. 

   Chris Halsall

   June 20, 2008 at 10:44 am

   
   

   David — that’s odd, because I just successfully accessed both articles by clicking on the links above. There is no need to log in — this is not “premium content”.

   But if anyone else is having issues (I run Firefox under Linux — perhaps Internet Exploder under WinBlows has problems… ), just go to the http://www.economist.com site, and search for the articles.

   The first is titled “A new twist for offshore wind” and the second is “The coming wave”.

   Loading…
8. 

   Iain Edghill

   June 20, 2008 at 11:26 am

   
   

   Straight Talk said, “The price is rising because easy to get oil is already becoming scarce.”

   ST, would you care to back up your assertion with some documented sources?

   Undersea oil is becoming more-and-more accessible, and the technology to recover it more sophisticated. The Hibernia oilfields off Newfoundland are ‘reputed’ to contain more reserves than Saudi Arabia and Iran combined, and the royalties therefrom have turned Newfoundland from a “have-not” province into Alberta #2. The Alberta oil sands near Fort McMurray alone can provide all of Canada’s oil needs, with enough left over to export to the USA.

   I would venture the hypothesis that the price of oil is rising because American vultures on the NYMEX Exchange have succeeded in persuading the world that we’re running out of oil. They are the same ones who are pushing this “peak oil” theory. Panic buying.

   All the foregoing notwithstanding, it is good to see the discussion on the BU regarding solar power and alternative energy sources forging ahead. I am in the process of building a new house and will be incorporating solar and wind power as sources of energy. I am particularly interested in solar powered AC and wind-powered water [irrigation] pumps.

   Good discussion!

   Loading…
9. 

   David

   June 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

   
   

   Iain Edghill to borrow a term we heard from Dr. Hudson former Chairman of the Barbados Tourism Authority who we saw ‘pompasetting’ on CBC TV a couple nights ago, even if the price of oil comes down we still need to find an alternative to follow the USA lead i.e.to hedge against fossil fuel.

   To respond to your point about oil reserves in Canada. It is well known that drilling for oil in Alberta and elsewhere is very expensive. The feasibility to do so now is as a result of the high price of oil.

   Loading…
10. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 20, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    
    

    David, to expand on your comments…

    The “tar sands” in Alberta are *extremely* expensive, dirty, and inefficient to extract fossil fuels from. Similarly, extremely deep offshore oil is difficult and expensive to get to. As you said, it is only because of the extremely high cost of crude that they are now viable.

    And, please let us not forget — fossil fuels are a *finite* resource. At the end of the day, we humans are going to *have* to wean ourselves from them.

    Biofuels derived from maize is profoundly inefficient. (The only reason it is done is because the US is using it as a means of subsidizing their farmers.)

    Solar energy is an effectively infinite resource. Do some research on proposals to place solar collection arrays in orbit…

    Those who are pushing for further exploration and drilling are fooling themselves, and/or are trying to fool the rest of us, because of profit.

    We Bajans should view this as an opportunity, and use our brains, skills and purchasing power to our own advantage. Just as difficult to extract fossil fuels are now suddenly viable, so are many alternative energy sources.

    Loading…
11. 

    Cat Scan

    June 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    
    

    I agree with Chris Halsall that we really must get away from fossil fuels as they WILL RUN OUT.

    In the early 1980’s CDB did some studies on wave power off the coast of Barbados. These documents are probably still available. Things will have changed but these could be a starting point.

    The more I read on the current World energy situation the more concerned I become. We seem to have little time to react to mitigate the coming (lack of) energy tsunami.

    Loading…
12. 

    David

    June 20, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    
    

    We highly recommend this article on the Temas Blog. Here is a blog on the Lambert Wind Farm proposal.

    Here is an extract from a draft national draft plan which the former government was toying:

    The Plan envisions shifting 10% of all national energy usage to renewable sources by 2012, 20% by 2026. [Temas Note: This is a substantial pull-back from the Government’s previously announced goal of 30% by 2012, itself lower than the 40% by 2010 projected in the Government’s 2000-2010 strategic plan.] The 2026 renewables target range for electricity generation is 14-22% (quite a broad range! wonder why they cannot be more precise?), including:

    * 20-40 megawatts (MW) from wind energy [Temas Note: BL&P has already taken the prime onshore spot at Lamberts, St. Lucy. The Plan calls for identifying other sites, “including offshore,” but isn’t that the main option? If so, why not say so and discuss the areas already suggested by the “years of study” Barbados and BL&P claim to already have done regarding wind potential sites in and around the island? Do the potential offshore sites possibly interfere with the aesthetics of key beaches, or conflict with cruise ship approaches or marine protection areas?];
    * 5-10 MW from landfill gas recovery at Mangrove Pond (the landfill in the process of being closed and replaced);
    * 0-5 MW from photovoltaics;
    * 30 MW from co-generation using bagasse by 2010, as part of the Cane Industry Restructuring Project (CIRP) managed by the Barbados Agricultural Management Company (BAMC) and financed by the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) [Temas Note: essentially this represents a return to BL&P practice during the 1980s and early 1990s];
    * possibly 30 MW from “plant gasification”;
    * 10-20 MW from “other technology” [Temas Note: a rather large portion of the power generation pie to leave to unspecified supply technologies. Is this intended for some politically sensitive project the government does not wish to discuss, such as “co-incineration,” or one of the various unproven technologies Barbados has flirted with in recent years, such as hydrogen, wave, tidal or ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)?].

    Source

    Loading…
13. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 20, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    
    

    One of the things which drives me absolutely insane about our region is the lack of publicly available information. “Knowledge shared is power lost” seems to be a common philosophy…

    We always talk about “studies”. “We’re studying this.” and “We’re studying that.” But where are the results? Peer review is a key part of any serious analysis; it is upon which Science is based.

    Does anyone have any information on Internet accessible prior work which has been done in this region on this topic?

    Thanks for any information anyone might be able to share.

    Loading…
14. 

    Green Monkey

    June 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    
    

    It takes energy to get energy. The traditional light sweet crude that our economies have grown accustomed to and we have all come to know and love is mostly from shore based (or relatively shallow water off shore). It is, for the most part, easily accessible and therefore high Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) oil. However, deriving oil from oil sands, for example, takes much more input energy into the process than the energy it takes to derive oil by drilling a hole and sticking a pipe into the ground and pumping it out. Or better yet, in the case of some new wells, have it flow out on its own accord under pressure.

    This means that as time goes on and more of the
    “easy to get” oil is used up, more and more of the available energy we get from oil has to be spent in finding and producing new oil from the less desirable sources (i.e. from oil sands or deeper off shore fields, or from land locations which are more isolated and further from civilization with inhospitable climates etc.). This uses more energy intensive processes and takes more energy to get the oil to market and therefore we have less net energy available at the end of the day to do other useful things like run delivery trucks, private cars, aircraft, irrigation pumps, electric generators etc.

    Traditional oil from the land based giant fields in the US in the first half of the 20th century is calculated to have an EROEI of somewhere around 100:1. In other words, for every 100 barrels of oil that was pumped from these fields , they could set one barrel of oil aside to go look for and produce new oil wells and still have 99 barrels of oil left to do with as they pleased. E.g. run cars and transportation systems, generate electricity etc.

    As the easy oil has been used up over the years most estimates seem to figure our oil today has an EROEI somewhere around a high of 20 to 1 or a low of 10 to 1, and the trend is clearly downwards.

    At this time humans are especially dependent upon oil and natural gas, collectively called petroleum, for they supply about two thirds of the industrial energy both in the US and in the world. Petroleum is an especially advantageous fuel for human society because of its abundance, energy density and, at least in the past, high EROI. The concern at this time is twofold: there are many arguments and more than a little data that we may be approaching “peak oil” for the world, as has already happened, often long ago, for the United States and some 50 other oil producing nations. A related issue is that the EROI for oil and gas nationally and globally appears to be declining fairly substantially. For example, in the US in 1930 the EROI for oil was at least 100 barrels returned for each barrel invested (i.e. EROI = >100:1), but declined to about 30:1 in 1970 to from 11 to 18: 1 in 2000 (Cleveland et al. 1984, Hall et al. 1986, Cleveland 2004). Similarly, Gagnon et al. (in preparation) have estimated that the EROI for global petroleum has been declining steadily in recent years. Were these trends to continue, and there is little to indicate that they would not, then oil and somewhat later natural gas would be not only less available due to peaking but also much more expensive in terms of society’s resources, including energy, required to obtain them. Consequently there is considerable interest, at least amongst those relatively few who think about it, about what might be the EROI and scalability of alternative fuels.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810

    In a nutshell:

    When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

    This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

    This means that when a society moves to using energy sources that have lower EROEIs, the actual amount of energy available to use (for manufacturing, transport, heating etc.) inevitably will diminish.

    http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#economic-efficiency

    See also another Oildrum.com post “An EROEI Review” at:
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3707

    This link also touches on the EROEI topic: and has an interesting graph to show how as oil’s EROEI declines less and less oil will be available to do useful work (other than to go looking for and producing more oil):

    http://drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

    Another point we have to bear in mind is that our capitalist economies require continuous economic growth, for without it we have what are known as economic recessions and, worse yet, depressions. For continuous, long term economic growth to occur, it also means we have to keep increasing energy inputs as well. So not only do we need to worry about finding enough oil to replace what oil we use today, but in a world where most of the non-OPEC producers are already post peak and in declining production, we need to worry about where we will find the increasing quantities of oil to supply what we will need 5, 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

    If world oil consumption increases at an average of 2% per year (which it has averaged for the last 10 years of so), then oil consumption doubles every 35 years. (To find the doubling time divide the number 70 by the annual percentage increase). So in June 2043 we would be using twice as much oil as we are using in June 2008. If, because of increasing demand from China and Asia, world oil consumption were to increase by 3% per year, oil consumption would double every 23.3 years.

    Now a real fly in the ointment is that for each doubling time we use up more oil in that single doubling time than we used in the entire history of the oil industry up to the start of the doubling time. So lets say for the purpose of an example that we really do have lots of available oil and oil consumption increases steadily at 2% each year for 35 years until the year 2043 when world oil consumption would be twice what it is today.

    That means in the single 35 year period between 2008 and 2043 we would have consumed more oil than has been consumed in history in the 148 years from the start of the oil age (first commercial wells were in the late 1850’s/early 1860’s) to 2008, the start of our 35 year doubling time.

    If oil consumption continued past 2043 at a steady 2% annual increase, in another 35 year doubling time we would have consumed more oil in that 35 years than we had consumed in the approximately 183 years from the start of the oil age around 1860 to the year 2043.

    You can easily verify this with a chessboard. Put one grain of rice on the first square and then double the amount on each subsequent square. So you have from square 1 to square 4 : 1,2,4,8
    grains of rice. Now now notice that, as the number of rice grains doubles from square to square, at each doubling on a new square the new number of rice grains on the new square is greater than the total number of grains of rice that previously existed on the chessboard.

    Physics professor Albert Bartlett talks about exponential growth patterns and the unexpected effect they can have on resource consumption in a lecture (geared to a lay audience here):

    http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy
    (video is Real Player format only, but transcripts and audio MP3 files available as well)

    One final thought for the day from http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEFAQs.html :

    Remember: to think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet is precisely, mathematically equivalent to thinking that you may have a stabilized, steady state economy on a perpetually shrinking planet. Both claims are precisely, equally ludicrous!

    Loading…
15. 

    Cat Scan

    June 20, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    
    

    Green Monkey,

    I congratulate you for having explained the EROEI so very well. I have been following The Oil Drum for several years now and I am increasingly worried. We (mankind) are acting as if we can continue our rates of growth as we have been in the past. This is clearly not sustainable. We are approaching a point of inflection that is going to be very painful.

    The geology of oil says it is a finite resource. The problem is when it is half used up the rate of flow only diminishes. That is there is a peak volume per day that can be extracted. After that peak flow state is reached the flow rate drops. According to the oil drum it will be around 3% to 4% per year, possibly more.

    Politically and economically we are not prepared for this decline.

    Also we are getting excited about the possibility of oil off Barbados. It will take several years to be able to get production going and on the oil drum today in the comments section there is a discussion on the availability of the drilling pipe. It is in short supply and the prices are fluctuating daily.

    One last thing, a really good concise explanation of the oil problem can be found on Matthew Simmons web site http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

    He is a well respected investment banker in the energy arena and has been sounding warnings for several years.

    Loading…
16. 

    Hopi

    June 20, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    
    

    On our island where the average daily temp is about 85 degrees with about 10 – 12 hour of sunlight, we should have been “light”
    years ahead in the use of the sun’s energy and thus minimize the negative effects of this peak oil and global warming scam. Isn’t it a little bit strange that now the western economies are running out of steam fast and the east i.e China and India are going full speed ahead that we have people like Al Gore making billions from this global warming hoax? When the US and the UK were the power houses, everyone else just fell right in behind them but now the tables are turned everyone else should stop their development. What hypocrites. The Arabs are sitting on the oil that the the greedy corps would like to get total control of. Right now Iran is sitting on untapped oil, hence the urgency to go war with them. However, Barbados is in an enviable position where she can cushion herself against these impending “wars” and the fall out. This is one area where the gov’t of Barbados should take the bull by the horn and invest heavily and stop allowing external forces to dictate the economy. Its all about self-preservation. (By the way the criminal brotherhood is trying to impose a carbon tax on every human on planet earth).

    Loading…
17. 

    Straight talk

    June 20, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    
    

    Ian Edghill:

    Documented sources: the information is readily available. The EIA website provides all the data, The Oil Drum provides a more rigorous analysis of that data, but I am not a preacher just a concerned blogger.
    If you are seriously interested in acquainting yourself with the actuality of the end of cheap oil, I suggest you abandon the sources which provided you with your countering example.

    I note from data, provided by The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that Canada’s “more and more accessible undersea oil” along with more sophisticated recovery techniques has produced amazing results.

    Conventional Oil Production
    1970 = 10 million barrels per day
    2008 = 5 million barrels per day

    and your “supergiant” Hibernia platform has already peaked and is in terminal decline.
    ( 204,000 bpd in 2004, currently 133,000 bpd )

    However, I’m pleased to see that another Bajan is becoming interested in this important subject,
    and would be even more so if you provided documented proofs of your stated facts in future submissions.

    We need to alert everyone to the coming emergency, and undocumented tidbits of Fox News type info just confuses the public.

    Loading…
18. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    
    

    Yesterday Slashdot.org had a question from a reader about solar power. The resulting responses contained some useful links, which I thought I’d transcribe over here:

    Home Power Magazine: http://www.homepower.com/home/
    The OtherPower Discussion Board: http://www.fieldlines.com/section/solar
    Solar Power Forum: http://www.solarpowerforum.net/forumVB/
    Nanosolar (thin-film photovoltaic): http://www.nanosolar.com/

    Loading…
19. 

    Iain Edghill

    June 22, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    
    

    ST, rebuke accepted, and I repent in sackcloth and ashes!!

    The good thing about this string, however, is that it is raising the consciousness of Barbadians to the necessity of weaning ourselves off “cheap” oil and fossil fuels, and exploring the “alternative technologies” that are available to all Barbadians: i.e. solar and wind power. I am not sure about the technology to harness tidal power, but wind and sun are available to all here.

    It would be interesting to see if the GOB will give tax-credits to encourage Barbadians to develop alternative sources of energy, e.g. installing mini-wind-turbines for household power generation.

    ST, understand that I was not attacking you personally. We have heard so many “the-sky-is-falling” scenarios only to find out later that it was another money-making scam. My apologies if that was the impression that my post conveyed.

    Loading…
20. 

    Straight talk

    June 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    
    

    Iain:

    Apology naturally accepted.

    Keep spreading the word, no drama or embellishment needed, the truth is frightening enough.

    Loading…
21. 

    David

    June 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    
    

    We think it is necessary to advise the BU family that what started out as a promising interaction between Chief Marketing Officer Stephen Worme and BU seems to have soured of late. We have received no explanation from him as to why he has severed the budding relationship for which he received high praise from BU.

    Hopefully others in the blogosphere will step up to fill the void. We have noticed that VOB seems to be the beneficiary of it all.

    Loading…
22. Global Voices Online » Barbados: Solar Power

    June 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

    
    

    […] Barbados Underground makes the case for solar power, and says for the “first time in history, cost-competitive solar power is now within the planning horizon of every utility in the nation.” Posted by Skye Hernandez Share This […]

    Loading…
23. 

    Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    
    

    Hi all,

    I have been very busy of late and only just noted this latest post.

    I want to make one thing clear. After reading nearly all the articles linked to this post, I completely disagree with one conclusion – that it is mainly up to the utilities.

    BL&P said that there is nowhere off any coast to put an onshore wind farm. If that is true ( I’m having a hard time finding hard data – all of it seems to be of the “I am reliably informed” category) then we are back to what they seem to despise with a passion.

    Put PV cells on every roof that it is fit to put cells on.

    The second thing Prime Minister David Thompson should do in terms of energy is build a PV plant which assembles the panels.

    This is a gold mine – it just will step on a few toes, which is why it was killed the last time; as soon as my father died.

    If BL&P so desperately NEED to centralise their operations, build a Concentrating Solar Plant (CSP) on about 10 acres of land and combine it with both wave and very near onshore wind (less than 100′). When I say wave I mean a Limpet (http://www.wavegen.co.uk).

    On cloudy days, the increase in wave (I am assuming they design it properly) will compensate for the loss in power from the CSP, which can be used like any conventional steam powered plant.

    Now that I’ve dealt with the utilities – I want to say; it is up to those of us who have some spare money. Only when there are more that 3000 houses with PV on them will BL&P take this thing seriously and regulate (petitioning government) and seriously include PV in their plans.

    It was always the easiest, safest and simplest (not to mention cost effective – you only spend what you need to and scale appropriately) way to solve our energy deficit problem; which is mostly (but not solely) about peak energy.

    I think they’re allergic to it.

    It’s not going to happen people; not by utility, nor by government but by people doing what needs to be done, saith those of us who have been watching this for over ten years.

    Will BL&P buy a Limpet?

    Will Government invest in a PV plant?

    Will people sell any coastal anywhere to BL&P?

    No?

    Then it’s up to each of us to start somewhere, however small.

    Think positive; it starts with you . .

    Loading…
24. 

    Iain Edghill

    June 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    
    

    Hi Keith:

    Would you, or Straight Talk, or anyone else on this forum, have any info on small wind turbines, kinda like the old windmills that dotted the Barbados landscape to pump water out of the wells in the fields [Uh Oh! Now I’m dating myself].

    I’m building a house on the coast in St. John and it’s always windy. Was thinking of a small wind turbine to generate some electricity.

    Would appreciate any input. Thanks.

    IE.

    Loading…
25. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    
    

    Hi Chris

    the Skystream air-x is the best.

    http://www.windpower.com

    Let me know when you want more specific info.

    Loading…
26. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    
    

    Hey Keith.

    Why is this the best? Please expand and explain.

    With regards to when [we] want more specific info, how about now? Time is (literally) of the essence.

    Best regards.

    Loading…
27. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    
    

    Keith…

    My apologies, but I’ve just now read your post to this particular Blog entry dated 1220.

    With all due respect, there’s no “there” there.

    Please stop trying to leverage on your father, but if you have anything meaningful to contribute, do so.

    PV is *not* what is needed here. (Does Barbados have the ability to grow pure silicon crystals?)

    With all due respect, there is a great deal which can be done here, but you are so off the mark that it isn’t even funny…

    (IMHO, with best regards….)

    Loading…
28. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    
    

    Chris,

    there is only one thing to say to your last post. Get your facts straight.

    Unlike you, I have spent my whole life in renewable energy.

    Go ask James Husbands if he thinks I need to leverage my father.

    I could understand if you thought it was MY original idea to build a PV ASSEMBLY plant, where ( PLEASE get your facts straight) we buy the cells and assemble the panels into a working device.

    I could even understand if you didn’t know how far along into funding, approval ( the site was identified etc) it was – how major investors were convinced to back it.

    But to be so foolishly ignorant as to classify over eight years of my father’s work at Combermere, UWI, Government Headquaters, the fishing complex in St. John and the playing field just above UWI, all where MAJOR PV installations were put in as “so far off the mark it’s not funny” . . .

    “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise”

    GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT CHRIS!

    Call me silly all you want do NOT call the work Professor Headley CHB, who’s blood sweat and tears went into making this island a better place irrelevant.

    Get your facts straight.

    My father did not convince others to put millions into PV to have you speak without knowledge about it.

    Get your facts straight.

    Loading…
29. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    
    

    Keith…

    What is the current cost and availability of (thick crystal) silicon?

    Are we simply to be assemblers of refined products from afar?

    Or might we focus on what we can actually do here, ourselves?

    To be honest, no, I do not know your history. Nor do you know mine…

    But I *do* know the reality of *now*.

    Again, best regards.

    Loading…
30. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    
    

    No w, let’s talk about leveraging my father.

    I could ask for and get a job at NREL Solar Dynamics, Aquasol; but I work at CXC – and if you knew anything about me (ask anyone at UWI) you would know that I loved my father but I don’t “leverage” his name. There were over 15 people who went to school with me at UWI for years before they knew I was his son. Most of them found out through a picture in the paper – Christmas in the park with my aunt and family.

    I need to speak with authority about his work because there are others who COULD do it- none of them ARE doing it.

    I am duty bound to make sure his work doesn’t die. My father’s dream was that 60% of all power in Barbados be from renewable sources.

    And until that dream comes true I will not be shut up by persons like you.

    Loading…
31. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    
    

    Keith.

    My sincerest apologies. I didn’t mean to hit such a nerve. I look forward to watching and being in awe of you accomplish amazing things…

    Now, could you please speak to my post from 1817 today, speaking to your post from 1809?

    Loading…
32. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    
    

    As you may know (and for anyone who doesn’t know) single crystal silicon cells are made from the same “ingots” of purified silicon that many (but not all) computer chips are made of.

    The next generation of chips, using optical properties are about ten years away according to IBM who are considered to most likely “first to market” with this technology.

    This is significant because PV manufacturers (who make single crystal cells) buy the same ingots that the cell manufacturers buy.

    You see Chris, Guyana has the world’s largest supply of the world’s purest (found to date) silica (sand with high silicon content) – and the idea was that since in ten years the manufacture of single crystal silicon will begin to dry up, to make the ingots ourselves, using old and well proven technology.

    With profit margins of over 100% common for PV manufacturers (they’ve dropped now) the profits from the first would finance the second until it became profitable. Normally within five years.

    PV panel demand is way above supply. therefore the price of your feedstock is irrelevant. Like oil to gasoline refining, you simply pass it on to the customer, who will pay because in places like California, where the laws mandate cleaner air by a certain date (think EU as well), the only way to be SURE of getting there is to use PV.

    Nobody complains about “those dratted oil refineries” who pass on the high oil prices – no-one thinks twice about the PV manufacturers who pass on the high price of silicon.

    Loading…
33. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    
    

    Keith… so you’re supporting my argument that traditional silicon PV solar cells are extremely expensive, and increasing in price because of demand.

    So I again put forward, what can Barbados do *now* which will have a meaningful effect, but which isn’t dependent upon materials and sources influenced by outside market forces?

    (Hint: I’ve already defined this above….)

    Loading…
34. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    
    

    Now that I’ve calmed down (and I freely admit to being pretty pissed off) I’m not seeing those post numbers Chris is talking about (I’m using my old windows 98 computer while my wife and a guest use faster computers) – maybe I could switch to the Vista computer but I feel too lazy to get up.

    Chris if you know how to bring up those post numbers let me know.

    I’m assuming you mean your question as to why is the air-x the best.

    Well, if you read the independent reviews, the air-x is a class by itself in three major things (and a lot of minor ones but . .)

    1) Speed control. Gusts of wind produce nasty fluctuations in current in small windmills. Not with the air-x. This control also reduces noise.

    2) Blade design. Several windmill designers use air-x blades to test the other parts of their scale windmills. Need I say more?

    3) Built in charge controlling. Once it’s working properly, the air-x will never overcharge your battery.

    I need to change the URL I gave before. I was in a hurry and I misread it. it should be

    http://www.windenergy.com

    My mistake.

    The marine air-x is the most popular new windmill among sailors (in other words if you’re going to buy a new one). You rarely see used Air-x’s for sale. The sailors I talk to (sadly I never had time to learn – I love the sea) tell me you buy another brand only if you can’t afford an air-x.

    There are other things like longest warranty, virtually maintenance free since only two moving parts, brushless alternator ( so no brushes to wear out); but you get the idea.

    There’s a new one called the air breeze, but until it’s proven in the field I’ll stick to the air-x.

    (Shudders as he remembers new Coke)

    Let me know if you need to know more.

    Loading…
35. 

    .Keith Headley

    June 23, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    
    

    Chris,

    change your thinking. The only thing you have complete control of, over which outside market forces have absolutely no control, is your thoughts.

    Like the hospital there are things we can do in the short term, but these are not solutions. These are only band aids.

    In our present thinking, the hospital is somewhere you only go when you have no other choice. Generally, a place to be avoided.

    In our present thinking, energy is something we only think about in a crisis. Those of us in energy saw this coming and told those with and without power what to do. I wasn’t the only one saying “we need to change our lifestyles; we need to change our energy mix”. I was a very small voice among many.

    So let’s repeat again. Anything you can do right now is a dressing on a wound. Our energy policy needs surgery and long term rehabilitation. Do you think Tiger Woods is NOT going to have knee surgery because it’s too expensive?

    We have a country full of brilliant, experienced, powerful and yes even RICH people. Why think like Joe Blow when you’re Tiger Woods?

    For those who don’t think so, I say it loud and clear. We are the Tiger Woods of small nations, whose game is suffering because our thinking, our policies our individual thinking needs surgery.

    Let me say it again. There are no short term solutions. We need the surgery. What we can do right now is approach the massive changes we need with a an attitude that says

    YES WE CAN!

    Chris, even the copper wire we would need to connect to a power source that fell down from heaven – a power source given to us by God Himself – to the rest of the grid is influenced by outside market forces.

    Change your this-is-so-expensive-it’ll-never-work thinking.

    The first change must come from within us.

    Then, a person could one day log onto the BL&P website, and see on that day, a particularly hot day, that real-time demand is within two percent of available supply. This person, having been educated like several others, does his r her part. They turn off their A/C and go and sit in the shade in the veranda – perhaps with a fan.

    Because of new thinking, a couple thousand people do it and voila!

    The day of nationwide blackout is postponed while we work on the patient.

    It starts with each of us.

    Loading…
36. 

    Chris Halsall

    June 23, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    
    

    Keith… you misunderstand my argument…

    Let’s just leave it there….

    Loading…
37. 

    Keith Headley

    June 24, 2008 at 9:07 am

    
    

    Let me be real direct here.

    1) Educate yourself. Cheapest way to reduce your bill is not to add energy (e.g. buy a windmill) but to reduce your consumption (energy saving bulbs, turn off lights when leave room, smaller fridge, less or no A/C).

    2) Decide what you can afford. Energy is expensive. Changing your habits even more so. For example, I am cheap. I call a spade a spade – I am as cheap as is practical. I own a motorcycle which gave me 74 miles to the gallon – it needs repairs at the moment. I have access to a car but I choose the bus. I do this even though it has a very high inconvenience cost – I have to rearrange my life around bus schedules and know first hand that buses do not always come. Only you can know what you can afford in both price and inconvenience.

    3) Petition others, especially those who make major buying decisions to make changes. Try a few energy saving bulbs for example. Do we have to leave on every single light in a large office at night? Could we not leave on fewer lights in an attractive pattern?

    4) Realise that real change in energy begins at a grassroots level but must culminate in change at the top. Business is reactive, not proactive. They react to legislation in most cases, not change before it happens. The car industry built SUVs because that’s what we as consumers bought. Now some dealers will not take a SUV as a trade in. Consumers will not buy SUVs now, so car manufacturers are building energy efficient cars. They are simply following their profits. If Toyota was truly pro-active they would not have run out of batteries for the Prius. But following profits (which is what their shareholders want them to do) they built only as many as they were absolutely SURE they could sell.

    5) Realise the facts; PV production is now controlled by the Oil Companies. Every major PV panel manufacturer is now owned by an Oil Company. The panel shortage and super high price point is almost completely artificial. Also, chip makers are financing their R&D efforts into upcoming optical technology with artificial shortages of high grade silicon. Know also, that wind, CPS, nuclear, coal, geothermal, natural gas, traditional oil and hydro/mini-hydro all suffer from both NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and PEST (Politics Economics Social Technology – in that order of importance).

    6) There is a reason why every major utility in the world is installing or considering installing PV. Nothing else works on so many levels.

    Loading…
38. 

    David

    June 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    
    

    We listened with interest to the news today Chief Marketing officer Stephen Worme going public in his criticism of the Town Planning department over delays in responding to the application by Barbados Light and Power to operate a wind farm at Lamberts plantation.

    Are we finally seeing a sense of urgency by our power plant?

    Loading…
39. 

    Thewhiterabbit

    June 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

    
    

    On the off-chance that anyone follows this lead so late, there is a very cheap, very reliable, very clean, and essentially endless source of power available in the area. Geothermal is only 90 miles away, near enough to use. Don’t bother me with the geopolitics argument, just get CSME, and get real.

    Loading…
40. 

    Iain Edghill

    June 30, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    
    

    Keith, many thanks for the info. Will research it.

    It would be good if GOB would allow the importation of these small wind turbines duty-free and VAT-free. Don’t know what BL&P would say to that, however. Monopolies hate competition.

    Loading…
41. 

    David

    July 2, 2008 at 12:07 am

    
    

    The maverick and debonair billionaire plans to show the leaders in the Caribbean the type of energy plan which they should have been pursuing for years now.

    Richard Branson plans Caribbean eco-resort

    By LUIS ANDRES HENAO, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 30, 12:41 PM ET

    NECKER ISLAND, British Virgin Islands – Richard Branson, the adventuring chairman of the Virgin Group of companies, says his two private Caribbean islands have a higher purpose than serving as ultra-luxury retreats for entertainment and business A-listers.

    Walking barefoot on the sandy trails of his Necker Island, the British tycoon said his sun-soaked island properties in this British chain will prove that the Caribbean — with its wealth of sun, wind and waves — can lead the globe in renewable alternatives to carbon fuels.

    Full Article

    Loading…
42. 

    SolarForum24.de

    July 6, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    
    

    really good

    Loading…