Yes. As long as your roof has room for additional panels. Simply contact an LTM Energy Solar representative who will guide you through the process.

Excess energy produced by your solar panels during the day is sent to the utility grid depending on your local municipality’s regulations. You could receive the power back at night after the sun has gone down. Contact a call centre representative for a quote on storage batteries.

Yes, you could become completely independent of grid power at a higher cost than you would normally pay for a hybrid solution (grid and PV hybrid solution), but you would have no backup available if your batteries are completely depleted on cloudy days unless you have a backup generator connected to your system. Contact us at greensolutions@ltmenergy.co.za or 087 149 2691 for a customized solution.

The amount of savings when going solar varies depending on the utility rates in your area. With LTM Energy as your solar solution provider, you can be certain that your utility costs will be less than what you are currently paying. When you contact an LTM Energy representative we will help you understand what you can expect to save by converting to solar energy in your area.

We believe solar should be affordable for everyone. Get an instant quotation on our green solutions Calculator. FNB/RMB finance is available.

You can either purchase the system upfront or get a loan via FNB/RMB.

After the term of your loan is complete you officially own the system and enjoy free power for the remaining life of the panels.

Solar panels will still produce energy on a cloudy or foggy day. Rain and snow may affect production for your system.

LTM Energy advises clients to use our energy calculator to get an estimation of what size system they would need and also the potential cost of such a system. If the client is happy to move forward we will allocate an accredited PV installer to do a site inspection. Only after a site assessment had been done would we be able to issue a finalised quote for installation. Upon quote acceptance, we will coordinate with installers to deliver equipment to the clients home. The installation would then commence based on the client’s orders, after installation is completed we would train the client how to use the system or at the very least the emergency procedures. After training a COC is handed over to the client and we declare the system commissioned and completed. A maintenance agreement could then be set up between the installer and the client (PV panel cleaning).

LTM energy offers cleaning and maintenence of panels on request. Quotes could be requested from our call centre. Maintenance frequency is dependant on environmental factors such as dust, rain and salt content (Coastal regions).

The question seems simple and easy to answer, but in fact it is a bit more complicated. The cost of solar energy and the payback period of a solar installation to generate electricity depend on the company from which you buy it. Each company has got it’s own tariffs. You will be provided with a proposal from LTM Energy which has information on how the payback period was calculated the payback period.

1. Get an energy efficiency audit done of your property. This can be done by LTM Energy. We will conduct an assessment free of charge to see if an installation will be viable. 2. Choose a credible company like ourselves to work with. 3. Get your finance in order. 4. Commit to a price. 5. Go ahead with installation.

1. Solar Energy: Energy generated from the sun. 2. Wind Energy: Energy generated from wind. 3. Waste to Energy: Energy generated from a bio-gas digester. 4. Hydro Energy: Energy generated from the flow of water. These are the main ones available.

Cost savings on energy can be achieved in two ways: 1. Pay less for the energy by using a more suitable tariff structure, and 2. Use the energy more efficiently i.e. do more with less energy.

This question has different answers for different places. The best way is to conduct an energy survey (aka energy audit) so that a complete analysis can be made on the major energy consumers and opportunities for energy savings at the facilities. An action plan is normally supplied as part of the survey report to guide the implementation of savings in a structured way. The survey can be repeated at a later stage to identify the next cycle of savings. This is a continuous improvement process. Trained specialists in energy management are available to conduct such a survey for your unique circumstances.

Previous energy surveys in agricultural applications has shown that energy savings between 10% and 40% are possible. These surveys were part of the IEE project of the NCPC-SA and the PSEE project of the NBI. Cost savings can be achieved by improved management of the tariff structures, while energy consumption savings were identified on applications such as irrigation pumps, cold stores, packing lines, heating, drying tunnels, buildings, fans, compressed air and also diesel use on farms. These are very technical solutions and trained specialists are available with dedicated measuring equipment to assist in energy saving solutions.

Energy consumption depends on the rate of energy use (kW) and the duration of use (time). A small machine running 24 hours 7 days a week will consume more energy than a larger machine that is only used for a few hours a week. Typical large energy users are cold storage or cooling facilities, heating equipment and water pumps. Look out for equipment that runs during the night and on weekends – the longer time periods means more energy consumption. The energy survey as mentioned in the previous question will identify the large energy users at your facility, which may differ from other locations depending on the size of equipment and the duration of use.

The utility supplier (Eskom or the municipality) has different tariff structures. These tariffs are based on different cost components based on a period (e.g. days), or consumption as measured in kWh, or maximum demand as measured in kVA. By selecting the most appropriate tariff structure for his needs, the farmer can manage the energy use and time periods and thereby reduce the total cost paid for the electricity per kWh used.

A VSD (variable speed drive) is a piece of equipment used to change the speed of an electrical motor. In situations where the water pump supplies too much pressure or flow, a VSD is used to reduce the speed for optimal flow or pressure. Less energy is required at lower speeds and thus the saving. Please note that lower pump speed also results in less pressure and less water flow. In applications where less pressure or flow is not required, a VSD will not contribute to power savings.

Rebound effects are part of the reason that energy use is still growing, even as the economy gets more and more efficient. True, economic growth drives up energy use, even as we get more efficient. But those two terms – economic growth, and energy efficiency – are related, and rebound effects describe the relationship between the two. Part of the reason the economy continues to grow is because below-cost energy efficiency improvements grow the supply of energy services and increase the productivity of the economy – we get more economic activity and income and welfare out of the same amount of energy – and productivity improvements are a key driver of economic growth. Some economists argue that the supply of energy services is a key enabling force in economic growth: think about the impact of electric motors, industrial lasers, computing, automation, and all of the other ways in which we use energy to greatly improve the productivity of our economy.35 Efficiently expanding the supply of energy services may thus be one of the principal factors determining the rate of economic growth in rich and poor nations alike. That said, there are definitely other factors driving economic growth, including improvements in the productivity of other inputs to the economy, such as labor, capital, and other materials.

Rebound effects differ in scale depending on the type of energy efficiency improvements, and in which part of the economy they occur. Over 100 academic studies have examined the empirical evidence, conducted modeling inquiries, and otherwise tested the scale of rebound effects. While there is much more work to be done to determine the precise scale and impact of rebound effects in different circumstances, the conclusion is that rebound effects are significant and cannot be ignored in energy and climate analysis and policymaking.

Not usually. Combined rebound effects drive total economy-wide increases in energy demand with the potential to erode much (and in some cases all) of the expected reductions in energy consumption. In certain cases, efficiency improvements will “backfire,” driving a rebound in energy that fully compensates for the initial energy savings, increasing energy demand overall. Think of it this way: for every two steps forward we take in energy savings through efficiency, rebound effects take us one (and sometimes more) steps backwards. On the other hand, rebound effects equate to a net increase in consumer and social welfare, and thus should not necessarily be viewed negatively.

At the microeconomic level, below-cost energy efficiency improvements lead to cost savings, allowing consumers or firms to spend or invest on economic activities. At the macroeconomic, economy-wide level, widespread energy efficiency improvements could increase the overall productivity of the economy, resulting in increased economic growth. In some cases, energy efficiency improvements lead to the efficiency of other factors of production, such as capital or labor. Consider how the introduction of electric arc furnaces to steelmaking in the United States allowed scrap steel to be recycled for the first time, bypassing the most energy intensive step of the incumbent technology (the blast furnace) and greatly improving the energy efficiency of the industry. But arc furnaces greatly improved capital efficiency as well, compounding the overall productivity improvement. Another way that energy efficiency improvements may lead to economic growth is when more efficient energy technologies and services open up new markets or enable new, widespread energy-using applications, products, or industries – a so-called “frontier effect.” Frontier effects are most likely to occur following the commercialization of energy efficient technologies have “a wide scope for improvement and elaboration, have potential for use in a wide variety of products and processes, and have strong complementarities with existing or potential new technologies.” Energy efficiency improvements in such general-purpose technologies (GPTs) can open up new frontiers of economic activity, particularly when the efficiency improvements occur at an early stage of development and diffusion of the technology.

Energy efficiency improves when our economies grow and our technologies get better. Examples of improving energy efficiency include requiring less petrol to drive the same number of kilometers; improving the thermal efficiency of a power plant to generate more electricity with less fuel; step-wise substitutions towards more energy-efficient technologies (such as the transition from kerosene to incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescents and LEDs); and the general, long-term path of economic growth from more energy-intensive sectors (such as agriculture and industry) towards less energy-intensive sectors (services and knowledge).

In rich, developed nations, if we improve the efficiency of end-use consumer energy services, like cars, home heating and cooling, or appliances, the literature indicates that direct rebound effects are typically on the scale of 10 to 30 percent of the initial energy savings. Additional indirect and macroeconomic effects may mean total rebound erodes roughly one-quarter to one-half of expected energy savings.22 Rebound is smallest in cases when demand for the energy service in question is already saturated (that is, we use as much of it as we would care to use), and highest in cases where the cost of the energy service is a key constraint on fulfilling demand for that service.

As it stands, economic growth continues to outpace energy efficiency improvements, and energy use continues to grow overall. The global economy has been growing at the rate of roughly 3 percent per year. Historically, there has been roughly 1 to 1.5 percent improvement in energy use per unit of economic output (energy intensity or productivity) each year. For energy efficiency gains to outstrip the increase in energy demand driven by the growing economy, the economy must improve energy intensity/productivity by at least 3 percent per year, roughly doubling or tripling the historic rate of improvement. Efficiency advocates argue that if we work harder at capturing energy efficiency opportunities, we can more than double or triple this rate of efficiency improvement and bend global energy use downwards. That’s a big task, and there at least two factors make this challenge even harder: 1) a large portion of changes in energy intensity over time can be attributed to structural changes in the economy, as economies shift from agricultural to industrial to services-oriented.37 These aren’t the technical improvements energy efficiency policies are concerned with, and these trends are hard to accelerate or affect through policy; 2) rebound makes the doubling/tripling goal even more challenging, as it means efficiency feeds back into energy consumption and economic growth (increasing both) and makes the horizon we’re reaching toward recede even further.

Many analysts used to assume that energy efficiency leads to a one-to-one reduction in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the efficiency of buildings, vehicles, appliances, and industry plays “a key role” in climate mitigation scenarios envisioned by today’s leading environmental and consulting organization, including McKinsey, the National Resource Defense Council,7 Rocky Mountain Institute, and the ClimateWorks Foundation.9 But in recent years a growing number of economists and energy analysts have challenged the assumptions and methods behind these studies. These economists and energy analysts have criticized many of most bullish efficiency reports and projections, faulting them for underestimating the technical, financial, and information barriers to pursuing energy efficiency improvements.

Yes. As today’s rich countries did, the developing world will continue to experience major improvements in energy efficiency at the technical, sectoral, and economy-wide levels. And unlike in industrialized economies where the demand for many basic services like electricity and water is mostly provided for, in developing economies the unmet demand for such services is large. Cost savings from energy efficiency improvements are quickly reabsorbed into further production and provision of such services, helping to lift these economies out of poverty. On the consumer side, access to more energy efficient technologies (eg, switching from wood and dung burning to oil and gas burning) saves much-needed time and money for these consumers, but also saves lives by reducing local pollutants.

Yes, absolutely. Unlocking the full potential of efficiency is the difference between a richer, more efficient world, and a poorer, less efficient world. Broadly speaking, when car engines, computers, and light bulbs were less efficient, they used less absolute energy. As they became more efficient and delivered services faster, we produced and used more of them, leading to greater energy use overall. Improving the energy efficiency of a technology or service allows for wider spread diffusion and attendant increases in economic growth, human development, resilient infrastructure, and a host of other benefits. Improving energy efficiency has a consistent tendency to spur technological diffusion, economic growth, and the freeing up of energy resources to be used on novel, productive energy services.

No. Rebound and backfire effects are both most important and least understood in emerging economies. Rebound effects are almost certainly larger in poorer, developing nations. In terms of efficiency improvements in end-use consumer energy services in developing nations, direct rebound effects are likely to be much higher than in richer nations, possibly reaching at least as high as 100 percent. Rebound is higher because demand for energy services is far from saturated and more elastic, and the cost of energy services is often a key constraint on the enjoyment of energy services. This is important because growing demand in developing nations is the principal driver of energy demand growth worldwide. Long-term price elasticities of demand also tend to be higher during early stages of development. Since expanding the supply of energy services is a key constraint on economic activity in developing nations, the macroeconomic impact of efficiency improvements in developing economies is likely to be more significant, helping developing economies grow faster (and thus consume more energy).

Rebound is particularly high in productive sectors of the economy – such as electric power or steel production – and sectors where efficiency improvements can motivate significant consumption increases and “frontier effects,” or whole new energy services.29 While further study of rebound effects for efficiency improvements at production firms is needed, the literature to date indicates that direct rebound effects in developed countries may be on the order of 20 to 70 percent for industrial sectors, with additional rebound due to indirect and macroeconomic effects. In developing countries, rebound in industrial sectors may be on the order of 50 to 90 percent.

A “rebound effect” is when an improvement in energy efficiency triggers an increase in demand for energy. When the efficiency of an energy consumptive activity improves, the cost of the service derived is lowered. Individuals and firms respond to price changes in two general ways: 1) Increase the use of that energy service to increase outputs or incomes. For example, a low-income resident may now heat his or her home more often or more areas of the home after weatherizing because it is now more affordable to heat. 2) Rearrange the factors of production, or goods and services consumed, to substitute now-cheaper energy services for other goods or services (maintaining the same level of output or income). For example, a more efficient heat plant may enable a chemicals plant to raise temperatures in industrial processes to extract high quality product from poorer quality inputs (substituting energy for materials) or to reduce process times (substituting energy for labor). Likewise, lower energy prices will increase total factor productivity, increasing economic growth and attendant energy consumption; this is called “economy-wide” rebound.

Rebound effects in firms depend principally on the ability of firms to take better advantage of now-cheaper energy services. This is especially true for new productive capacity. If long-term substitution is high, rebound effects can be substantial. In addition, output effects contribute to rebound for energy intensive firms with a high elasticity of demand for their products (that is, where consumers are very responsive to changes in the price of their products and demand more product as prices fall). Improvements in energy productivity at firms can also contribute to greater economic activity and growth, driving up energy demand overall. In general, rebound effects are higher for efficiency in productive sectors of the economy than for end-use consumer efficiency. This is notable, because two-thirds of the energy consumed in the United States is consumed in the productive sectors of the economy and “embedded” in the non-energy goods and services purchased by consumers.32 In China, India, and many other developing economies, an even greater share of energy is consumed for productive activities.

At the economy-wide, macroeconomic scale, the aggregate impacts of widespread energy efficiency improvements can lead to substantial rebound effects. As producers and consumers respond in turn to various cascading changes in the price of goods and services, the pace of economic growth quickens, and market prices for fuels may fall, driving further rebound. A number of ‘Computable General Equilibrium’ (CGE) models generally show rebound at the scale of a national economy at 40 to 60 percent for developed economies, and 50 percent to much greater than 100 percent (‘backfire) for developing economies. These studies look at national economies and thus ignore global, macroeconomic impacts beyond national borders, which can add additional rebound in energy consumption. ‘Integrative modeling’ found that if the world adopted all of the “no regrets” energy efficiency policies suggested by the IEA, then rebounds effects would erode more than half of expected savings (52 percent) in the long-term. There are also several reasons to think this is may be a conservative estimate.

Energy efficiency is a measure of the energy productivity of an economic good or service. The less energy required to produce a unit of output, the more energy efficient that economic activity is. Energy efficiency is correlated to energy intensity, a commonly used measurement of economic goods, services, and even whole industries and sectors. Energy intensity is typically expressed in some unit E (for energy) over GDP (gross domestic product), or E/GDP.

The magnitude of rebound effects determines how effective efficiency improvements are at contributing to lasting reductions in total energy use (and therefore greenhouse gas emissions). Energy efficiency is frequently cited as the single greatest contributor to emissions reduction. The problem is that all of these estimates are based on an assumption: that energy efficiency reduces energy demand in a linear, direct, and one-to-one manner. An X% gain in efficiency leads to an equivalent X% reduction in total energy use. The economy is anything but direct, linear, and simple, especially when responding to changes in the relative price of goods and services. If we don’t accurately and rigorously account for rebound effects, we risk over-relying on energy efficiency to deliver lasting reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and we might fall dangerously short of climate mitigation goals.