Global Warming News

[keegs]

Well, a few days back someone suggested shutting off their power It does have a certain appeal to it.

It's an issue and one that has gotten worse as more people want to live in more rural areas, it's not just an issue in population centers. Just try to find a power corridor or hilltop that won't impact somebody.

For the last 5-10 years, the most effective way to keep things away from your property is to play the 'environmental impact card'. Of course, then when people read about it the newspapers, they can blame it all on the tree huggers.

Dave.

Who was it Dave....Churchhill I think that said, you can alway rely on the Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else.

I guess we're in the "try everything else" phase...

 

[piller]

EEPete: I read your post about installing a 7.7 kW solar system at your house and reaching break even on the project, including the cost of money, in less than 10 years.

I wish that this was true. My electricity costs me 8 cents per kW-hr. I would love to get off the grid, but for me the numbers don't make sense. Would you care to share your analysis?

 

[Pilot]

Loren49,

You asked, "Pilot-What would it cost to interconnect 2461 of your 6.5kw units (16MW) to state specs and operate them 12 hrs a day for 25 years minimum plus the upkeep."

A valid comparison is not as easy as it might seem. First, your solar panels don't produce full power all day, just mid day, but the generators deliver uniform output. Then there are clouds and that darn global cooling that happens in the winter, especially when snow covers the panels. Then there is the cost of the money, the present value of all the costs and including the investment. On the other hand, we don't know what the cost of fuel and oil will be and if I were to try to optimize the fuel situation I might find that diesel would be a better choice, or perhaps natural gas.

Solar, in spite of it's drawbacks, makes a lot of sense in the long run, but the experts say it won't be economically efficient for some time yet. And when efficiencies are borderline, solar should start where the sun shines a lot, like near Death Valley, not the upper midwest. Tax breaks make it more viable for private operators, but tax incentives just distort the market.

 

[Loren49]

The primary obstacle the 3 proposed wind farms in my area (within 70miles) is not the EPA. It is the NIMBY people. When the 300MW wind farm was in the works in my town I was part of the planning board - the EPA required the company to jump through lots of hoops and some of it was probably good. It appears that small group who is motivated and very vocal (often with half-truths and lies) have been able to achieve their goal.

Also I have been asked many times over the years about the payback on my solar/wind home. There are lots of variables such as future fuel and electricity costs. I'm sure that my out of pocket cost per kwh is actually high as I have a stand alone system and batteries are not that efficient. The reason that I have spent less on power is that I don't waste my electricity. If I had to calculate my actual costs I would need to "guess" how long my solar panels will continue to produce because they require no upkeep until they quit. They vary in age from 1 to 25 years of use with the majority about 15 years. The nice thing with solar is that its easy to adjust size with need.

On a system with utility interconnect it will depend on your cost of installation, your location, and what the utility company pays or charges you for electricity. Also as with any venture - will the rules change.

Good luck with your decision and sometimes its feels good to do something just because you feel its the right thing to do.


Loren

 

[Stimw]

I took a class in solar in the low 80's taught by a published instructor and came away with the fact that it is expensive. The only solar application that is cost effective is for heating water either for home use or a heating system.
And just one hail storm will cost you many thousands of dollars. Since there are tax benefits it will cost other people for you to be green.
The mediterranean and Middle East have used Passive Solar water heating for years in the form of black water tanks on their roofs.
I'm not anti-green, I just am not going to spend more for it. I have a Geothermal Heatpump. I have 29 years experience with them and know I am saving money.

 

[Loren49]

Pilot - thanks for a good response.

I was just trying to make a point in my earlier post - thanks for taking it well. I know we were comparing apples and oranges. (which I'm aware just froze in Florida)

Just for information purposes - I have used both wind and solar in Northern NY (50 miles south of the Canadian Border). Germany, which is considerably north of us has a significant amount of solar. I completely agree that solar/wind is limited to only a portion of our demand but feel we aren't close to that yet. My panels produce very well in the winter, when it isn't cloudy, (or dark) because I stand them vertical. (angled in the summer) The only issue is a wind driven sleet and then I have to clear them like you clear a car windshield. Also their hours of production when they do not track with the sun varies considerably at my latitude. Just ballpark guess its a minimum of 6hrs (winter) and a max of 10hr (summer) with reasonable output. (please don't hold me to those numbers - just a guesstimate) My winter demand is less mostly because my freezer on the unheated porch doesn't work too hard.

My 2 cents on elections - much of what truly effects what happens is done at the local, county, and state levels with the local government being the most accessible and responsive. (Everything that has held up or accomplished wind development near here has been local and county decisions)

Loren

 

[eepete]

Pillar: here's the #s:

Cost of panels, inverter, rails: $34,100
Cost of stainless steel threaded rod and hardware: $753
Cost of lumber for inverter shed: $1,000
Cost of concrete: $250
Cost of 100A drop from power company: $300

Total cost of system: $36,403

33% from feds, $10K from NC, after tax credit cost: $14,390

I get 20 cents per kilowatt hour. 15 from NC Greenshares (cap and trade deal) and 5 from the power company (burden cost). Power company also has net metering, cost of electricity here is 10 cents per KWH. That's my worst case rate if NC Greenshares can't sell enough carbon credits.

On-lin calculator for my area (Raleigh, NC) shows $2000 per year at that payback rate. Also I'm assuming that investing the money elsewhere (i.e. cost of lost opportunity) would be around 2% annually, since interest rates are bad.

Risks are: NC Greenshares pay goes down. If I go to net metering, the system is only valued for $1000 per year, looking at break even over life of the system. Interests rates could go up. The "Anti-risks" are cost of electricity goes up, then it pays back sooner.

Note also I've not put a value on my time. Commercial quotes for this system installed ran $60K to $80K. The markup should be around $10K if you go by a $500 per day per person on site estimate, I suspect many here would be delighted to get that on a job.

Yes, this is all heavily dependent on tax breaks and people buying green power to feel good. But all you can do is play by the current rules. Government levels the field, I play. How many people on this forum get a good deal because they can do the labor? Lots.

Panels are made in TN with semiconductors from Japan. Rail system for mounting and all hardware made in US. Inverter is made in Germany. The German government used heavy subsidies over the last decade to build up that countries solar manufacturing and design sector. So they have the jobs building the inverter, we don't. Basically, we can make aluminum and re-melt existing steel. This could all be made in the USA, but we don't have the market for it so there are few players. Don't want to get political here, but it shows yet another complexity when looking at the big picture. What are the real cost and benefits of the tax incentives?

So Pillar there it is. May not be able to be duplicated by all, but much like a good deal on a used tractor if you can get it, go for it.

Pete

 

[charlz]

The mediterranean and Middle East have used Passive Solar water heating for years in the form of black water tanks on their roofs.

From what I have read solar heating is a much more efficient than solar electric. I would love to put a solar heating system in for domestic hot water. However my house is already built and it gets complicated (expensive) fast. To me this is where Government has a role. Pass a law, implement a building code, whatever and require all new home construction to have sufficient piping installed between the hot water heater location and the attic to support solar DHW. This wouldn't add much to the cost of a home and gives every owner of that home the option of installing solar DHW much cheaper than if they had to have that piping installed after the fact. It's a small thing but it could add up over time.

 

[Ken45101]

here's the #s:

Cost of panels, inverter, rails: $34,100
Cost of stainless steel threaded rod and hardware: $753
Cost of lumber for inverter shed: $1,000
Cost of concrete: $250
Cost of 100A drop from power company: $300

Total cost of system: $36,403

33% from feds, $10K from NC, after tax credit cost: $14,390

So the real cost is $36,400, plus your labor.

If I invest that money at 5%, that's $1800/year, which is more than our annual electric bill. You said that a commercially done installation would have cost twice that much, which makes investing the money even more sensible.

I assume you aren't storing the power (e.g. batteries) for non sunny periods.

(Yes, I might have to hunt to find 5% today, but it's been quite easy in the recent past and probably will be in the near future.)

Without government programs manipulating the results, solar isn't practical from an economic standpoint. Just like corn ethanol is only viable with government subsidies twisting the costs.

Ken

 

[keegs]

So the real cost is $36,400, plus your labor.

If I invest that money at 5%, that's $1800/year, which is more than our annual electric bill. You said that a commercially done installation would have cost twice that much, which makes investing the money even more sensible.

I assume you aren't storing the power (e.g. batteries) for non sunny periods.

(Yes, I might have to hunt to find 5% today, but it's been quite easy in the recent past and probably will be in the near future.)

Without government programs manipulating the results, solar isn't practical from an economic standpoint. Just like corn ethanol is only viable with government subsidies twisting the costs.

Ken

I think this argument might be a little overstated Ken. At some point the system should pay for itself. The programs will create a market that overtime will drive down equipment costs. And not having to add capacity keeps everyone's rates lower. I think even with the subsidies though, something like this may be out of reach for many if not most budgets.

Many existing home sites may be ill situated for solar or wind. We have 60'+ red oaks on the south side of the house. They cool it in summer. The rake end faces east and is also shaded by trees.

But there's a leaky exterior door in my TV room that probably needs replacing and I could probably go with a larger wood stove. There's the attic pull down stairs that leak warm air into the attic that I tried to seal last year but failed. I could do with more attic insulation too and even blowing some insulation between the floors might make sense.

 

[eepete]

Ken, I agree with what you say and numbers don't lie. If I put that money in North Carolina municipal bonds and if I could get 5% that would then be tax free state and federal, it doesn't make sense economically and at best might break even over the life of the equipment. If I can only get a few percent and it's taxed, it can still makes sense. If electric cost go up, it makes more sense.

There is, as with any decision to spend money instead of save it, a subjective portion. It's a fun project, various people are doing it and the like. Some projects I'm working on tie into this, and knowledge gained might lead to some income some day. Much like many tractor owners might be better off to contract out any work they have than to buy the tractors, implements, sheds, and do maintenance, they elect to buy the tractors. If it's close they are happy. Early adopters of home computers certainly didn't get their money's worth. My geothermal heat pumps are way over priced, giving me a 8 to 10 year payback. Same on insulation. My economic choices with the PV array are no more silly than any of the above. Given my options for investing and my costs, and given what I expect electric rates to do in the south in the next decade, I still expect a break even point of about a decade on this.

I don't want to take my situation and extrapolate it out and say that solar is economically feasible today. Like so many discussions on tractor stuff, this is what works for me. I very much agree with your last sentence. But if as an early adopter I can be part of the trend to make the cost go down, and then these PV arrays (grid tie systems) can fill their little niche in the energy picture, and in the process create jobs in the USA, then my payback is far more than just money. If man made global warming is not an issue, I had fun and it wasn't a pile of money. If there is something to it, I'm part of the solution. These sorts of scenarios are the ones I'd like to see people focus on.

I know the government programs manipulate the results. But there are so many programs in so many areas that I don't know how to deal with it all. Remove all crop subsides, energy subsidies (oil, gas, solar, wind), R&D subsidies for companies and who knows what the world would look like. If I had my druthers, I'd phase them all out since I think a free economy works better. I always vote, and follow the various climate change data as it unfolds. Sometimes you take more of a beating by being in the undecided category than by taking a stand.

Anyway, let me close by referencing my earlier post. I'd rather do something than spend too much time on what's the real answer. I'm more concerned with the long term for all than a little more money for my estate.

Hope this makes sense...

Pete

 

[dave1949]

Keegs, For goodness sake, seal up that attic door!

Tax incentives and markets are incredibly complex entities that are woven throughout our economy.

Take roads and highways for example. Roads are paid for and maintained with fuel taxes, some pay annual auto excise taxes, city/township/county, state and federal funds, tolls, etc.

I like a California or Florida orange in winter here in Maine as well as the next person, but strictly speaking, the road and highway network we have isn't a necessity. We collectively decided we would rather have our roads and grudgingly pay for them.

The existance of roadways distorts markets. Certainly their existance distorts rail travel and shipping markets. Same for barges and cargo ships. Housing and commercial real estate markets. How much is a gas station worth without roads to drive on? What is an orange grove worth, or how much would a fresh orange in Maine cost without publically funded roadways?

Many of the same types of distinctions can be made for the air travel/cargo industry.

I think it is an oversimplification to say tax incentives and the corresponding manipulation of markets should be done away with. If you start looking at the less obvious cases there would be a growing list of exceptions people would be/are willing to make.

When looking at energy subsidies, the debate is really about how much the public values the results of manipulating the market. It's also about being forced by circumstances to adopt new paradigms. Whole books can and have been written just to address 'circumstances'. Good points have been made here for and against subsidies.

My personal opinion is we are making a slow but certain exit from the age of fossil fuel energy. The debate is going to continue for some years. Fossil fuels will continue to be used, but will become a specialty fuel. Disclaimer: It's possible my crystal ball is smudged, your mileage may vary.

Here is a factoid from blurtit.com :
In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year.

I believe I have heard it stated also as: the sun provides enough energy on the surface of the earth each hour to power all human needs for one week.

The solar energy is there if we are smart enough to utilize it.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

Who was it Dave....Churchhill I think that said, you can alway rely on the Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else.

I guess we're in the "try everything else" phase...

This is just too close to the truth of how our government works.

Eddie

 

[Loren49]

Or maybe heading in a good direction. Remember the meaning of non-renewable - there is a finite amount of fossil fuels and as the demand goes up and they become more difficult to extract the price will go up. Its even possible that wars could be fought over this and that the burning is doing serious harm to our environment. (many people agree on the possibility) Someday fossil fuels will be gone.

Loren

 

[keegs]

Keegs, For goodness sake, seal up that attic door!

Tax incentives and markets are incredibly complex entities that are woven throughout our economy.

Take roads and highways for example. Roads are paid for and maintained with fuel taxes, some pay annual auto excise taxes, city/township/county, state and federal funds, tolls, etc.

I like a California or Florida orange in winter here in Maine as well as the next person, but strictly speaking, the road and highway network we have isn't a necessity. We collectively decided we would rather have our roads and grudgingly pay for them.

The existance of roadways distorts markets. Certainly their existance distorts rail travel and shipping markets. Same for barges and cargo ships. Housing and commercial real estate markets. How much is a gas station worth without roads to drive on? What is an orange grove worth, or how much would a fresh orange in Maine cost without publically funded roadways?

Many of the same types of distinctions can be made for the air travel/cargo industry.

I think it is an oversimplification to say tax incentives and the corresponding manipulation of markets should be done away with. If you start looking at the less obvious cases there would be a growing list of exceptions people would be/are willing to make.

When looking at energy subsidies, the debate is really about how much the public values the results of manipulating the market. It's also about being forced by circumstances to adopt new paradigms. Whole books can and have been written just to address 'circumstances'. Good points have been made here for and against subsidies.

My personal opinion is we are making a slow but certain exit from the age of fossil fuel energy. The debate is going to continue for some years. Fossil fuels will continue to be used, but will become a specialty fuel. Disclaimer: It's possible my crystal ball is smudged, your mileage may vary.

Here is a factoid from blurtit.com :
In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year.

I believe I have heard it stated also as: the sun provides enough energy on the surface of the earth each hour to power all human needs for one week.

The solar energy is there if we are smart enough to utilize it.
Dave.

Great post Dave....

 

[20 20]

Address your concerns at the ballot box. For those that don't know this November 435 seats in the house and 1/3 of congress are up for election. Choose wisely regardless of their party. You have time to study the candidates, their positions and talk to those you know in hopes that they register and vote.
I hope this is generic enough to not get removed.

The only problem with our "fair" voting procedure is we are still voting on garbage. Even if we could vote fairly the ones allready in office have influance, and can change minds. Corruption is the simplest way I can explain the ones we have in charge, and without a complete overhaul nothing will change . Reminds me of owning a tractor with a bad engine and changing the wheel to make it run right????

 

[20 20]

I took a class in solar in the low 80's taught by a published instructor and came away with the fact that it is expensive. The only solar application that is cost effective is for heating water either for home use or a heating system.
And just one hail storm will cost you many thousands of dollars. Since there are tax benefits it will cost other people for you to be green.
.

I have to agree with the expensive point. I researched this when we were building our home, love to get off the grid. I believe in my area it would take any where from 60-80 yrs to have a solar powered home pay for itself. Now that would be if the solar panels batteries etc... would last that long. If you live somewhere that solar is a good idea I still believe it would take 10yrs. Once again that would be without any repairs or replacement. Maybe solar will become more affordable but it is anybody's quess?

 

[EddieWalker]

If I remember correctly, Rob said that his solar system was in the $100,000 range. He's totally off the grid and has two massive solar panels that follow the sun, plus a generator and a room full of batteries. Once a month, they check the batteries and make sure everything is working properly. I forget how long the batteries last, but a big drawback to solar for just one house is that those batteries only last so long and then you have to replace them. Not figuring the damage that they do to a landfill, they are a big expense that has to be figured into the break even formula of going solar.

If you think that you'll break even in ten years, but then have to buy new batteries every ten years, when do you break even?

If you can get a small home solar system that generates a small amount of electricty, but you still have power coming in and you are not dependent on it, there might be some savings in not buying as much power because the solar is supplying part of your demand. That would be really tough to figure out, but possible with the right monitoring equipment. I just wonder how much you'll actually be saving, the cost of that electricty, and if there really is a payback for the life of the solar equipment that you paid for. I highly doubt it. When you factor in your time, it gets even harder to see where it's worthwhile.

The obvious solution is nuclear. Natural gas makes allot of sense too with the announcements of how much there is available. Wasting money on windmills is just part of that cycle of pretending to do something while others are actualy doing what has to be done. As long as we keep the power plants going, windmills can pretend to be doing something, but I sure hope nobody is expecting windmills to actually replace power plants.

Eddie

 

[psj12]

Windmills on a commercial scale are not feasable because where the wind is there is no electrical infrastructure to transmit the power. Also there is no viable large scale way to store that much electrical power. Ask T. Boone Pickens, i'm pretty sure he has given up.

 

[Ken45101]

Here is a factoid from blurtit.com :
In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year.

I believe I have heard it stated also as: the sun provides enough energy on the surface of the earth each hour to power all human needs for one week.

The solar energy is there if we are smart enough to utilize it.

It's not just a question of "smarts". We are no where near the technology to utilize solar energy at anywhere near 25%, much less 100%. Besides, do you realize that if you utilized all the sun energy that shines on Lake Erie, it would freeze!

Yes, hopefully some day we will have high efficiency solar energy. But today the efficiency is quite low and it is not a widespread solution. I'm not saying that we shouldn't work on improving it, but it just isn't a broad solution. Besides, the manufacturing process is environmentally unfriendly if it were currently implemented in massive fashion.

Ken