disasters include intense and abrupt events created by environmental factors.
Such events can injure people and destroy property. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis,
tornadoes, and wildfires are a few of the natural disasters we’ve experienced
in recent decades.
What causes natural disasters?
Natural disasters are more prevalent in some seasons of the year. High population density and human activities may contribute to natural disasters.
movements of the Earth can cause sudden natural disasters—this includes
tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. We also have weather-induced
natural disasters. Examples of weather-induced disasters, caused by extreme
cold or hot weather, are wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes.
supplementary effects of weather-induced natural disasters could be famine,
landslides, mudslides, and floods. Floods are also caused by rising sea levels.
Rising sea levels are a direct effect of global warming and melting ice caps.
Aside from natural reasons, greenhouse gas emissions (inducing global warming)
from human activities are contributing to the intensity of natural disasters.
What impacts do Natural Disasters
have on the environment and humans?
Natural disasters disrupt daily human activity. Economic activities are grounded with widespread damage to property. Prices go up as food and drinking water become scarce. Crops and livestock are negatively affected due to a lack of water, pollution or the spread of diseases. Agricultural production and industrial production are halted due to power shortages and health hazards. The transportation sector is often terribly affected. And most importantly, thousands of lives can be lost.
From California to the Amazon, extreme heat, due to global warming, has caused several wildfires in the past decade. Warmer ocean currents have led to intense events of hurricanes. Cases of drought are being reported around the world, even in developed countries.
floods, and wildfires are capable of wreaking havoc on the natural ecosystem,
significantly upsetting coastal native mammal, birds, insect, fish, and
shellfish habitat. Due to floods, hazardous industrial pollutants, sewage,
or debris can be transported into the watershed, waterways, groundwater, and
even the sea. Thus reducing water quality and availability. Flooding of
properties could even bring about lead, mold, or asbestos hazards.
defoliated, and wildlife would be in danger through direct death or through
alteration in food and habitat availability. When habitats are devastated,
endangered species are particularly vulnerable.
helmets (football or bicycle) handy if you stay in a tornado-prone
area. In cases of hurricanes, tsunamis, wildfires, or floods, it’s better to
have a plan with your loved ones in place. An emergency preparedness plan, for
instance, can help you create escape plans and acquire important resources
ahead of time.
A trusted means of communication has
to be established, too. Coast Guard communications, NOAA weather updates,
Emergency Radio app, connected to police and fire and police scanners, and so
on are crucial. Listen to your local radio and TV stations for the latest
information. Keep a map handy and keep your phones charged.
Have a well-stocked supply of
nonperishable food and water, as well as prescription medicines—that would
last, at least, three days. During hurricanes or floods, be wary of drinking
Brush up on your first-aid skills by
learning how to handle common medical emergencies yourself. Keep a first-aid
kit ready—containing bandages, aspirin, latex gloves, gauze, hand sanitizer,
antibiotic creams, tweezers, thermometers, bug spray, and so on.
Prepare your home. For tornadoes and
hurricanes, board up your windows. For wildfires, clean your gutters and roof.
For earthquakes, turn off the gas valves, and start bolting and bracing gas
appliances and water heaters.
Ensure your vehicle is always filled
with gas to ensure quick evacuation. Safeguard important documents like Social
Security cards, diplomas, birth certificates, passports, as so on in waterproof
Lastly, make safety preparation for
your pets and livestock.
According to the United
Nations, more than half of the world’s population now lives in
cities, a number that is projected to increase to two-thirds by midcentury.
This trend represents both a blessing and a curse as it relates to climate
change. On the positive side, urban modes of living are quite sustainable in
relative terms. City-dwellers are far more likely to utilize public transportation
rather than personal automobiles, and typically live in smaller spaces in
buildings with shared heating and cooling systems, allowing for efficiency
gains. All this is to say that as the planet’s population continues to grow, sustainability
goals are more easily accomplished if its residents are living in cities.
Unfortunately, cities are also particularly vulnerable to
the effects of climate change. Due to historical reasons, cities tend to be
located along coasts and rivers, putting them at the mercy of increasingly
violent weather events, namely hurricanes, bringing storm surges and floods. We
saw this play out in New York with Hurricane Sandy in 2012, where a storm surge
inundated many of the city’s low-lying areas. Seven years on, New York is still
cleaning up, with the most notable Sandy casualty probably being the L
Train-carrying Canarsie Tunnel under the East River. More recently, Hurricane
Harvey’s historic deluge of 40 inches of rain in four days over Houston
resulted in catastrophic flooding, essentially drowning the city. In dense
urban areas, catastrophic storm events can result in incalculable damage.
Given cities’ unique vulnerability to the effects of climate
change, they cannot simply rest on their residents’ relatively small carbon
footprints. Cities cannot afford to be passive actors in the fight against
climate change. Central to their role in this fight is a conversion to renewable
energy sources. Within that, however, converting cities away from fossil fuels
is an extremely challenging task, particularly in dense urban areas dominated
by multifamily buildings and large office towers. The task of converting
carbon-driven cities to renewable energy cities is extremely complex, and
involves a number of separate but interrelated challenges.
Dense urban agglomerations like New York City stand out in
that their chief source of carbon emissions is not vehicular transport, as it
is in most of the United States, but instead buildings. In order to become
renewable energy cities, these buildings must utilize renewable energy sources.
In many cases, however, this is far more challenging than it would seem. For
one, buildings may be able to produce some energy through the use of solar
panels or wind turbines, but they are still dependent on renewable energy
sourced from the electric grid. In order for buildings to help cities along the
path towards a renewable energy future, the grid needs to be prepared to supply
renewable energy to match demand. Currently, while our grid has become cleaner
over the last decade, this has been in large part due to the advent of cheap,
plentiful natural gas replacing coal. Utilities are still a long way from meeting
100% of our energy needs with renewable sources.
Alongside the challenge of a greener grid is that of
electrification. Currently, many of our buildings are dependent on fossil fuels
for their heat and hot water. Fuels used vary by building, with the worst
highly polluting diesel fuels. Combustion-based heating and hot
water systems represent a health hazard to local communities while contributing
disproportionate quantities of climate change-inducing greenhouse gases. In
many cases, the systems our buildings depend on essentially represent small oil
and gas power plants in the midst of our cities. We would object to an oil
burning power plant being situated across the street from our homes, but we
accept it in our own buildings as a necessary evil.
Long term, electrification is central to moving our cities towards a renewable energy future. Electrification is the process of shifting energy use from localized combustion of fossil fuels – think furnaces – to grid-supplied energy. Buildings currently burning oil and gas to supply heat and hot water would shift these systems over to electric. Ultimately, oil and gas are not and cannot be renewable energy sources. They must eventually be retired if our cities are to minimize their respective carbon footprints and undergo a large-scale shift to renewable energy sources.
As it pertains to greenhouse gas emissions, however,
electrification poses challenges of its own. Primarily, our grid is still quite
dirty as currently composed, with coal, oil, and natural gas continuing to play
a major role in electricity production. It can reasonably be predicted that
grid power will get significantly greener in the coming years as large solar
and wind projects, including offshore wind, come online alongside improved and
scaled up battery storage. This transition will take time, however, and in the
interim the grid will become more
carbon-intensive as comparably clean nuclear plants reach the end of their
lifespans and are subsequently decommissioned. New York City is at the front
lines of this challenge, where the Indian Point nuclear facility supplies
approximately 25% of power used in the city, essentially emissions
free. With the plant set to be closed by 2021, the carbon intensity of New York
City’s grid stands to increase in the short-term.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Converting building systems is not a simple or quick
process. Just as a homeowner installing a new furnace expects it to last twenty
years or longer, buildings operate on capital plans that span decades. These
long timespans represent a complicated signal as we push for electrification.
In the short-term, the reality of electrification might be increased carbon
emissions, in light of the grid getting dirtier before it gets cleaner. But
without electrification, buildings installing new combustion-based systems in
the next few years will be polluting unnecessarily a decade from now, with the current
goal being for renewables to make up 50% of New York State’s grid power by
2030. While we know that electrification is the answer in the long run, how to
address the process in the short term remains a challenge.
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Beyond electrification, improving buildings’ energy
efficiency is also crucial to limiting their carbon output. Many buildings,
particularly in older cities like New York, are quite inefficient in their use
of energy. Residents on upper floors often have scorching hot apartments in
January, necessitating that they open their windows, resulting in wasted
energy. Residents on lower floors, on the other hand, are often freezing. Many
boilers supplying heat and hot water rely on technologies developed generations
ago, and do not take advantage of subsequent advances in engineering. Windows
are often drafty, releasing warm air in the winter and cool air in the summer,
reducing the effectiveness of heating and cooling systems. Improvements in
building energy efficiency allow for improved resident comfort while also
limiting energy needs, and can often be economically beneficial to building
owners, as they reduce energy costs.
Some cities are utilizing innovative policy solutions to
address the issue of building emissions. Tokyo stands
out as a leader in this area with the world’s first emissions
trading scheme addressing building emissions. Tokyo’s program utilizes a system
commonly known as cap-and-trade, wherein its large buildings are limited in how
much they are permitted to emit. If they go beyond that limit, they are
required to buy credits from other participants in the system. These other
participants generally receive their credits for reducing emissions below what
the threshold required, thus providing an incentive for building owners to
exceed mandated carbon reductions while also providing an alternate compliance
pathway for buildings where energy efficiency measures are more expensive. New
York City is in the process
of following Tokyo’s lead, with a bill limiting building emissions
brought before the City Council in December. Needless to say, conversion to renewable
energy is central to such mandates, as its utilization allows for buildings to
use energy that does not count against their carbon allowance.
While buildings often may make up a majority or plurality of
carbon emissions in dense urban areas, this is not to say that that
transportation is not a significant source in its own right. Urban residents’
carbon emissions from transit tend to be lower than those of suburban and rural
dwellers for two key reasons. For one, zero-emissions forms of transit, namely
walking and biking, are much easier when you live near things that you can walk
and bike two. Secondly, and arguably more important, is that buses and trains
are shared, and the emissions per passenger are far lower than for personal
vehicles that often carry just one or two passengers.
Within this, however, there is still room for cities to
improve their transit-oriented carbon output. Municipal rail lines are
typically powered by grid electricity, and increases in renewable energy
sources’ share of the grid can offer carbon emissions abatement in that area.
Buses, meanwhile, typically still rely on the combustion of fossil fuels. While
the fact that they can carry many passengers makes much more efficient use of
these fuels, that does not change the fact that they result in carbon
emissions. This is an area where transitioning
to more fuel-efficient hybrid buses or electric buses can make a huge
difference. Electric buses in particular have yet to see widespread adoption,
but New York City is currently conducting a pilot study
utilizing vehicles from two manufacturers.
Electric buses have benefited greatly from the decline in
battery costs over the last ten years, and typically offer cost savings in
terms of both energy – grid power being less expensive than fuel – and
maintenance, as their mechanics are less complex and undergo less wear and tear
than combustion-powered conventional buses. As with other modes of
electrification, electric buses are only as green as the grid, but in the
long-term they represent an opportunity for us to shift transportation’s energy
burden to renewable sources.
Cities can also work to speed the adoption of electric
personal vehicles. Adoption of electric vehicles has exploded in recent years,
with Tesla probably the most prominent example, accompanied by models like the
Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt. Unfortunately, however, these vehicles are often a
better fit for suburban homes featuring garages with plugs than they are for
curbside urban street parking. As it currently stands, vehicle-owning urban
residents are limited in their ability to switch to electric vehicles in that
they often do not have a convenient place to charge them. Some companies are working
on this issue, with technologies geared towards allowing for easy,
unobtrusive curbside charging. In moving our cities towards a renewable future,
this is a crucial gap to solve for.
The focus on converting to limiting our carbon emissions and
converting to renewable energy sources tends to be on climate change, but there
are also significant localized public health benefits to a shift away from
combustion-based energy. When our buildings burn oil or our cars burn gasoline,
it is not just carbon that they emit; they also spew out a range of
co-pollutants that poison our air, resulting in a range
of health problems including stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and
respiratory problems. In some cases urban residents ingest pollutants equivalent
to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Shifting away from fossil
fuel combustion in our urban areas means removing major pollutants from those
areas, promising significant health benefits. As such, in assessing the
potential cost of shifting to renewable energy, we should not merely look at
the cost-benefit of renewables versus carbon fuels, but also include the carbon
combustion-associated health costs currently impacting our cities. A shift to
renewables does not merely help in the fight against global warming, it also
offers urban residents a pathway to more healthful lives.
Clearly, converting our cities to renewable energy is not
something that can happen overnight. Our urban built environments reflect the
reality that the combustion of carbon fuels built our current economy.
Recognizing, that, however, there is a way forward to a renewable energy
future. Our buildings can become more efficient and rely increasingly on
electricity. Our grid can shift to more renewable sources like wind and solar.
Our transportation can move away from combustion and towards batteries and
electrification. In concert, this transition promises healthier, cleaner, more
livable cities, benefiting residents both present and future.
Unprecedented wildfires in California. 1,000-year flood events happening on what seems like an annual basis. Massive polar vortexes bringing bone-chilling cold. With climate change evolving from a distant danger that people hear about on the news to something that effects their daily lives, there is increasing interest in renewable energy sources.
While solar has conquered suburban subdivisions across the United States over the last decade, people tend to be much less familiar with other renewables, particularly as they relate to where power to their homes comes from. Thankfully, while the thread of climate change is real and omnipresent, our energy grid is increasingly shifting towards renewable sources.
What is renewable energy?
In better understanding renewable energy as it pertains to the grid, it is important to first understand what exactly constitutes a renewable. According to the US Energy Information Administration, renewable energy sources are those that are “naturally replenishing but flow-limited.” Essentially, these sources represent finite potential energy in any moment in time but are inexhaustible over a longer period. Under this definition, potential renewable energy sources include solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Essentially, the earth replenishes renewable energy sources on a human-scale timeline of days, years, and decades, whereas carbon-based fuels are produced on a geologic timeline measuring in the millions of years.
In human terms, renewable energy sources also represent a
return to our energy roots. Energy from the sun is what makes life possible,
and humans have harnessed its power to warm homes and dry food for millennia. The
origins of water power are hazy, but historians date the use of the first water
wheels back approximately 2,000 years, and it has played a crucial part in the
grid since the first hydroelectric power plant was constructed at Niagara Falls
in 1879. Widespread use of windmills dates back approximately 1,000 years,
having been used to move water for irrigation and break down hard kernels of
grain into flour for bread. The use of the earth’s geothermal energy is also
quite ancient, with evidence of paleolithic humans warming themselves in
geothermal baths, and later Chinese and Roman bathhouses situated to take
advantage of hot springs. Biomass-fed fire, meanwhile, represents the first
energy source humans truly harnessed.
Needless to say, renewables have evolved significantly from
their respective original forms to represent sizable and growing grid energy
sources. Home solar installations have become omnipresent throughout the United
States, growth driven by a combination of technology improvements and
government incentives, allowing for home owners to lower their own energy bills
while feeding sun-powered electricity back into the grid. The energy
independence afforded by home solar, offering every home the chance to be its
own miniature power plant, would have been a radical concept just a few decades
ago. Moreover, residential solar represents a consistent source of clean power
for utility companies seeking to meet renewable energy mandates while planning
for a more resilient future.
Beyond home solar, large scale solar energy projects, often dubbed solar farms, have been initiated and brought online by major grid energy suppliers. China’s arid Inner Mongolia region currently plays host to the world’s largest solar farm, roughly ten times the size of Central Park at 43 km2 and with enough generation power to light 1.5 million homes. Closer to home, California’s Solar Star represents the largest solar project in the United States at 559 megwatts, narrowly edging out two other California solar projects that each clock in at 550 megawatts. Speaking to the technology’s maturity, Disney recently completed a 50 megawatt project in Florida, enough to power two of its theme parks. With projects like these having proven solar energy’s ability to scale, we can expect to see its share of grid power increase in the coming years.
As noted, hydroelectric represented one of the first large scale sources of electricity in the United States. Hydropower differs significantly from solar in that its effectiveness is limited at a smaller scale. Hydro projects represent massive capital investments, and the dams resulting from them can often be disruptive to communities situated near water sources. As such, these are massive, complex, challenging projects that often take decades to see through completion. More importantly, most major water sources in the United States, particularly on the East Coast, have already been dammed, meaning that building more dams does not represent a simple renewable solution to our climate woes. Hydropower also faces environmental concerns in its own right, as its utilization often requires the damming of rivers, altering local environments and preventing riparian migrations of fish and other animals. The challenges associated with hydropower mean that it does not represent a panacea to our emissions woes.
Hydropower’s major advantage is that water never stops
running. This stands in contrast to solar and wind, where cloudy skies and
still air result in reduced energy production. Constancy in production of
electricity is critically important to meeting baseload needs, baseload being
the electricity needed to meet the grid’s needs at times of minimal usage.
Solar and wind are not ideal sources for baseload power, given their
intermittent nature, as there might be a time when it is either not sunny –
nighttime – or not windy, and production
drops. Water, however, runs all the time, making hydropower the ideal renewable
source for meeting our baseline needs.
Despite humans having harnessed wind power more than a millennium ago, widespread use of wind for electricity generation at scale is a relatively new development. Nonetheless, wind played an often overlooked but crucial role in supplying electricity to rural areas prior to the extension of the modern grid, providing the only source of electricity for many remote North American farms. Though windmill use for historic uses, namely to pump water, remained common throughout the 20th century, it was only in the later decades of the 1900s that global interest in wind power began in earnest. Over the last two decades, wind power has become a crucial component of the grid’s power supply both at home and abroad. Currently still under construction, at 7-megawatts the UK’s Hornsea Wind Farm will be the world’s largest when completed in 2020. New York, the 15th windiest state in the US, currently has 20 wind projects in development. With a single turbine
Wind’s moment has arrived, and it stands to play a crucial
role in the future of New York’s downstate electric grid. Offshore wind
represents an infinite energy resource for the region. Wind does suffer one
major drawback relative to some other sources in that it is intermittent and,
to a degree, unpredictable. In addition, wind may not produce electricity when
grid demand is at its peak, evidenced by Texas
utilities providing nighttime electricity free of charge due to
surplus production of wind energy. To mitigate for intermittence and allow for
wind power to reach its maximum potential, large scale energy storage technology
– batteries – also needs to mature, allowing for the storage of cheap power
produced during peak periods.
While still intermittent, offshore wind is significantly
more reliable than its onshore counterpart, an advantage to New York given its
proximate access to the former. Moreover, while offshore wind installations are
currently more expensive than those onshore, A 2017 report
from McKinsey stated that this is largely due to offshore being a
more nascent technology, and predicts that prices will fall quickly as the
technology scales and comes to match the maturity of its onshore counterpart.
Adding battery storage to the mix and allowing for wind generated power to
serve the grid at peak demand – and thus peak price – can only help in this
regard, allowing for better optimized pricing of wind-generated power.
When people think of geothermal power, they typically think of hot springs and geysers, and they are not wrong. Geologically active Iceland, for example, sees almost 100% of its energy come from renewable sources. Geothermal power makes up a large portion of this, with nine out of ten Icelandic homes heated by geothermal sources. We see something similar in New Zealand, where geothermal power generation makes up 13% of installed capacity. The largest geothermal plant in the world is here in the United States, the Geysers Geothermal Complex in Northern California. Generally speaking, geothermal power is similar to hydroelectric in that it produces power at a constant rate, avoiding the issues with intermittency that we face with sources like wind.
Though the focus of this article is grid-sourced renewable
energy, the growth and maturity of home geothermal installations bears
mentioning. Installing geothermal in your home does not require that you live next
to a volcano. Geothermal heat pumps instead make use of the earth’s temperature
constancy at depths greater than 20 feet. This temperature constancy allows
heat pumps – generally using grid electricity – to pull heat from the ground
when seeking to warm the air, and to force heat from warmer air into the ground
when seeking to cool a home. These systems are extremely efficient, and allow
homeowners to take advantage of the planet’s constant core temperature
regardless of where they live.
Biomass is a broad energy category representing organic matter that is used for fuel. Sources of such organic matter vary widely, including both virgin agricultural products and waste products from other applications. Biomass burning for energy production is generally a simple process akin to the use of fossil fuels, where heat is converted to energy. The similarity to fossil fuels does not end there, which is largely why biomass represents the most controversial renewable energy source. While biomass fits the technical definition of a renewable in that sources are replenishable on a human timescale, it can also be a significant polluter in its own right, emitting carbon during the combustion process.
Emissions stemming from biomass complicate the source’s
potential as a component of a renewable-centric grid. Biomass’ environmental
impact is largely
tied to fuel source, both the organic matter used and where that
organic matter was grown. Suffice it to say, there exists a fundamental
difference in terms of carbon output between growing crops for fuel on
otherwise unproductive land and cutting down virgin forest for biomass to use
in electricity. Biomass’ overall impact can be significantly mitigated if land
is replanted after harvest, allowing for the next crop of organic matter –
whether that be trees, sugarcane, corn, or some other potential fuel product –
to capture carbon equivalent to the matter combusted as fuel.
Some of biomass’ more interesting applications involve the
use of waste products for electricity production. The UK supermarket chain
Sainsbury’s, for example, is diverting
food waste from landfills and instead converting it to biofuels and
electricity production. Efforts like these are particularly important in the
fight against climate change, as anaerobic decomposition of organic matter
produces methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Globally, animal farming
accounts for approximately
15% of total greenhouse gas emissions, with much of that coming in
the form of methane from manure. An ongoing
project in North Carolina seeks to use manure as a fuel source,
turning hog farms into biogas producers by converting their methane emissions
into biogas. In a similar vein, Oswego,
NY plays host to a waste biomass plant, combusting waste from
municipal and industrial sources for local power generation. The above efforts
represent the best of biomass-driven energy production, converting what would
otherwise represent organic waste into organic energy production.
If our energy future is to be a renewable one, we cannot depend on any single renewable energy technology. The sun does not always shine. Droughts occur. The wind does not always blow. A resilient renewable energy future is a diversified one, maximizing the utility of renewable technologies while determining what fits best where on a case by case basis. We need hydropower for our baseload needs, wind and solar for their cheap utility, geothermal where it is available, biomass to keep waste out of our landfills, and batteries to help distribute it to times of peak demand. While the grid of the 20th century assumed the existence of cheap, plentiful, consequence-free fossil fuels, that assumption has become rather faulty in the 21st, requiring a deep rethink of our energy future.
The looming threat of climate change is quickly becoming more apparent. Now more than ever is the time for cities to pledge their support to transition to renewable energy.
Over 100 cities in the United States have already committed to 100% renewable energy. According to Sierra Club, “A community is powered with 100% renewable energy when the amount of energy generated from renewable energy sources in the community (or brought into it) equals or exceeds 100% of the annual energy consumed within the community.” Click here for a full list of cities with renewable energy commitments.
As a Cleantech finalist, Social Solar continues to demonstrate their commitment to providing access to clean options, and is actively working to help communities connect with alternative energy solutions such as solar, wind and hydroelectric.
Are you interested in making a green difference? Click here to enter your zip code and see what Social Solar can do for you.
Donna Sanders, Social Solar’s Founder and CEO, has lived a life of service. This passion for service continues to inform her approach at Social Solar.
She is a United States Marine Corps veteran who served as a Captain in the Financial Management & Nuclear Biological & Chemical Warfare specialties. She earned the National Defense Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Meritorious Unit Citation, and Certificate of Commendation before separating from the service.
After the Marine Corps, Donna pivoted to focus on service from a different perspective—this time through the lens of business to solve pressing energy challenges.
Donna is a certified Energy Auditor with the Association of Energy Engineers. She is also a 2016 Veterans in Global Leadership Fellow, Impact Investing Consultant with Columbia University Impact Investing Initiative (CI3), and a 2016 Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corp Fellow. She has worked on sustainability projects in China, Hong Kong, and the United States. In 2017, she graduated with MBAs from Columbia University, London Business School, and Hong Kong University. During her time at Columbia University she founded Social Solar.
The inspiration for Social Solar arrived in 2012. Donna kayaked Alaska’s Glacier Bay National Park, experienced the reality of climate change firsthand, and decided to one day build a global enterprise to help address climate change at scale.
Social Solar is a trusted third-party online platform that matches families and businesses seeking community solar opportunities with vetted community solar developers.
“Every time we help a city resident purchase clean energy, five parties are involved—the city resident, renewable energy supplier, local utility, business partner, and ourselves, Social Solar” explains Donna. “We are happy to usher in this new era of cleaner cities.”
In that sense, Social Solar serves as a connector between the parties involved in generating and delivering electricity to consumers. Donna continues to center her initiatives around service and looks forward to bringing Social Solar to your city.
We’re thrilled to announce that Social Solar was selected as one of 2018’s 6 national finalists at the 2019 Cleantech Open Global Forum.
Founded by Donna Sanders, Social Solar is driving urban clean energy adoption where consumers, channel partners and energy suppliers all win. Through the combination of algorithms and machine learning capabilities, Social Solar’s utility bill web app makes it much easier for customers to opt for renewables.
The full article, first published on Greenbiz, can be found here.