Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[Popeman38]

Forgive me guys. I skipped an important step in my math and screwed up the deduction/credit equation. Factoring in the tax credit, and doing my math properly (at least I hope lol), I came up with 8.16 years. Not bad at all.

 

Posting while occupied is dangerous...

[tshile]

Forgive me guys. I skipped an important step in my math and screwed up the deduction/credit equation. Factoring in the tax credit, and doing my math properly (at least I hope lol), I came up with 8.16 years. Not bad at all.

 

Posting while occupied is dangerous...

 

Awesome, i felt bad for a minute I'm glad you found the error

 

That sounds like what I figured.

 

The green/alternative energy items are really not that bad as long as you're talking about investing them into a home you plan on staying in.  My wife and I were/are looking at building a house (if we can ever find land...) and I'm looking at solar and geothermal heating/cooling.  The geothermal heating/cooling system isn't that bad either, so long as you're already doing serious construction (lot clearing, digging for a basement, etc.) I believe it's ridiculous if you try to add i to an existing house,.,

 

The tax credits do help, and if you (general you) are against that then that's fine and a different discussion, but people are really underrating the cost savings on some of these things.

 

One thing I did 2 years ago was replace all the inner workings on my toilets, and in some cases outright replaced the toilets. My water bill is now $25/month. My neighbors are all 80-100. They scoffed and rolled their eyes when I told them I replaced everything. I guess they think technology doesn't change and rubber gaskets are good for 20+ years or something.

 

They can keep paying 3x-4x a month what I am. My investment paid itself off less than a year. Was maybe 3-4 hours of work?

 

New windows/doors will make a huge difference too. But that conversation leads to the same scoffs and eye rolls from people in my area. The leakiest part of your house is windows and doors, and the ones they build today are so much better than 15-25 years ago....

[twa]

 

 

One thing I did 2 years ago was replace all the inner workings on my toilets, and in some cases outright replaced the toilets. My water bill is now $25/month. My neighbors are all 80-100. They scoffed and rolled their eyes when I told them I replaced everything. I guess they think technology doesn't change and rubber gaskets are good for 20+ years or something.

 

They can keep paying 3x-4x a month what I am. My investment paid itself off less than a year. Was maybe 3-4 hours of work?

 

New windows/doors will make a huge difference too. But that conversation leads to the same scoffs and eye rolls from people in my area. The leakiest part of your house is windows and doors, and the ones they build today are so much better than 15-25 years ago....

 

those are certainly worthwhile, as well as is updating the lighting and insulation ect

 

the newer ac/heat pumps make a big difference as well.

 

I'm not sold on solar though,even with the subsidies

[Popeman38]

Awesome, i felt bad for a minute I'm glad you found the error

 

That sounds like what I figured.

 

The green/alternative energy items are really not that bad as long as you're talking about investing them into a home you plan on staying in.  My wife and I were/are looking at building a house (if we can ever find land...) and I'm looking at solar and geothermal heating/cooling.  The geothermal heating/cooling system isn't that bad either, so long as you're already doing serious construction (lot clearing, digging for a basement, etc.) I believe it's ridiculous if you try to add i to an existing house,.,

 

The tax credits do help, and if you (general you) are against that then that's fine and a different discussion, but people are really underrating the cost savings on some of these things.

 

One thing I did 2 years ago was replace all the inner workings on my toilets, and in some cases outright replaced the toilets. My water bill is now $25/month. My neighbors are all 80-100. They scoffed and rolled their eyes when I told them I replaced everything. I guess they think technology doesn't change and rubber gaskets are good for 20+ years or something.

 

They can keep paying 3x-4x a month what I am. My investment paid itself off less than a year. Was maybe 3-4 hours of work?

 

New windows/doors will make a huge difference too. But that conversation leads to the same scoffs and eye rolls from people in my area. The leakiest part of your house is windows and doors, and the ones they build today are so much better than 15-25 years ago....

At my old townhouse, I replaced the exterior doors and windows at a ridiculous cost (and then sold the house 4 years later  ). It was amazing how much better the temp was regulated in the scorching hot and frigid weather.

 

I just had a house built last spring, but didn't have the option for geothermal or solar (downside of buying into a development vs bare land). Builder-grade windows and doors will have to do for the next decade, as the cost will be ludicrous with the 18 6' windows, 4' window, square kitchen window, 3 exterior doors, and a sliding glass door. 

[mcsluggo]

A tax credit is something Popeman38 read as tax deduction, and like an assumption...

 

I used my average electricity cost over the course of the year to do the quick calculations. I'll admit that my calculations are not exact and state the margin of error is +/- 50 months. Happy?

 

those are the margins of error that i am used to operating with!  

Forgive me guys. I skipped an important step in my math and screwed up the deduction/credit equation. Factoring in the tax credit, and doing my math properly (at least I hope lol), I came up with 8.16 years. Not bad at all.

 

Posting while occupied is dangerous...

 

you know... this is an admirable trait that is so sorely lacking (both here in the tailgate and everywhere else). 

[Predicto]

Forgive me guys. I skipped an important step in my math and screwed up the deduction/credit equation. Factoring in the tax credit, and doing my math properly (at least I hope lol), I came up with 8.16 years. Not bad at all.

 

Posting while occupied is dangerous...

 

 

Awesome post.   Too many  of us just dig in our heels, or try to change the subject.  

[twa]

the best laid plans of mice and elephant handlers gets NIMBYed once again.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sej-elephant-dung-story.html

 

is is a story that Billy, Dolly and the rest of the elephants at the Denver Zoo will probably never forget: how they almost, but not quite, became not just animals on exhibit, but also sources of renewable energy.

A decade or so ago, zoo leaders had an innovative idea. As part of their quest to become “the greenest zoo in the country” and a zero-waste facility by 2025, they would develop a technique to transform elephant dung and other waste at the zoo such as paper plates and dirty diapers into fuel pellets that would generate electricity through a process called gasification.

The power would help light and heat the 10-acre elephant exhibit and warm pools in which the animals wade and swim in the winter. The zoo estimated it would reduce what it sends to landfills by 90%
...

 

.So there were politics, but there were also questions of money, priorities and practicalities. The zoo had spent nearly $4 million during construction. Yet, while the plant was nearing completion, the zoo was still refining the development of the fuel pellets it planned to make from its diverse stream of waste.

“What we were still working on was pellet consistency,” Barnhart said. “How do you create a consistent pellet out of an inconsistent waste stream?”

Another factor: The zoo hired a new president and chief executive, Shannon Block. She started in March and began pursuing a substantial new master plan for the zoo.

Using elephant waste to make energy, it turns out, will not be in it.

On Friday morning, Block and other zoo leaders called the whole thing off. Sort of. Block said the zoo would no longer pursue the project, but hoped another entity, to be determined, would perhaps take the expensive equipment somewhere else and complete the plan.

[twa]

the expected result of the solar push 

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-net-metering-20150927-story.html#navtype=summary

 

Utilities seek to charge solar system owners more for connection to grid

 

A recent assessment by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center found that 16 of the 44 states with net-metering policies were considering or enacting changes. Wisconsin and Arizona recently imposed significant increases in the amounts that utilities can charge solar users.

 

 

calculations are difficult when parameters are out of your control eh?   

[Hersh]

the expected result of the solar push 

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-net-metering-20150927-story.html#navtype=summary

 

Utilities seek to charge solar system owners more for connection to grid

 

A recent assessment by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center found that 16 of the 44 states with net-metering policies were considering or enacting changes. Wisconsin and Arizona recently imposed significant increases in the amounts that utilities can charge solar users.

 

 

calculations are difficult when parameters are out of your control eh?   

 

I can't imagine California approving this terrible policy proposal.

[TheGoodBits]

I can't imagine California approving this terrible policy proposal.

Virginia would (state legislature is basically owned by Dominion).

[twa]

I can't imagine California approving this terrible policy proposal.

 

Is Cali exempt from economics?

 

they do ignore them at times, but not for long 

[Hersh]

Is Cali exempt from economics?

 

they do ignore them at times, but not for long 

 

Don't bother to elaborate.  

[twa]

what do you think the response will be by Cali officials to the pressure from rising rates on the ordinary folk?

 

accept responsibility or feed a pound of flesh from those to appease the masses

 

 

ignoring it only makes it grow

[PeterMP]

Until roof top solar panels get cheaper or more efficient and can be coupled with cheaper and more efficient batteries, roof top solar has issues.

 

I'm not sure at all, especially in a state like CA, where they can build relatively efficient solar farms/electric plants, it makes much sense to favor roof top solar the way the laws in many states do.

 

And the fact of the matter is that the roof top solar industry is hurting the larger solar farms industry.

[Hersh]

what do you think the response will be by Cali officials to the pressure from rising rates on the ordinary folk?

 

accept responsibility or feed a pound of flesh from those to appease the masses

 

 

ignoring it only makes it grow

 

Cause power companies wouldn't try to raise rates on everyone if solar wasn't around. Sure thing.

[Hersh]

Until roof top solar panels get cheaper or more efficient and can be coupled with cheaper and more efficient batteries, roof top solar has issues.

 

I'm not sure at all, especially in a state like CA, where they can build relatively efficient solar farms/electric plants, it makes much sense to favor roof top solar the way the laws in many states do.

 

And the fact of the matter is that the roof top solar industry is hurting the larger solar farms industry.

 

As is the case with most anything

[twa]

As is the case with most anything

 

not anything we depend on

[PeterMP]

As is the case with most anything

 

They key part of my statement is the and.  You are dependent on 2 things.

 

In most of CA, dual/combined power plants (e.g. solar and natural gas plants) are pretty efficient and economical.  Dual power plants are more efficient than having two independent power plants, which is essentially what you are doing with roof top solar.

 

There's a reasonable chance that roof top solar will never really be as efficient as long as there is some dependence on the grid without even worrying about the battery.  Scale matters.

 

And in states that get even less sun the CA, there is even less of a chance of ever coming off of the grid.

 

People like the idea of roof top solar because of what it means to the energy industry and the "democratization" of the energy industry.

 

But I'm not sure that it makes economical sense even in the context of climate change.

[Hersh]

not anything we depend on

 

Not true at all. Think about all the things society depends on these days.

[Hersh]

They key part of my statement is the and.  You are dependent on 2 things.

 

In most of CA, dual/combined power plants (e.g. solar and natural gas plants) are pretty efficient and economical.  Dual power plants are more efficient than having two independent power plants, which is essentially what you are doing with roof top solar.

 

There's a reasonable chance that roof top solar will never really be as efficient as long as there is some dependence on the grid without even worrying about the battery.  Scale matters.

 

And in states that get even less sun the CA, there is even less of a chance of ever coming off of the grid.

 

People like the idea of roof top solar because of what it means to the energy industry and the "democratization" of the energy industry.

 

But I'm not sure that it makes economical sense even in the context of climate change.

 

How are they more efficient? (I'm asking because I don't know) The article mentioned power plants needing to ramp up when the sun goes down so I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

 

People like the idea of roof top solar to produce clean energy that they use and we very much look forward to the development of battery storage.  

[twa]

they are more efficient by the stability of supply(though they do lose thru transport losses)

combined power plants utilize the solar to reduce fuel use yet are not dependent on it.....thus stable supply(which is critical in the electric generation grid)

 

you can dry your clothes on the line in the sun,but if it is raining every other hour you then need to expend resources to take them down and put them back out or use a dryer to finish them.

 

solar w/o self sufficiency or stability just increases instability and costs overall to the grid.

[PeterMP]

How are they more efficient? (I'm asking because I don't know) The article mentioned power plants needing to ramp up when the sun goes down so I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

 

People like the idea of roof top solar to produce clean energy that they use and we very much look forward to the development of battery storage.  

 

What is more efficient than what?

 

Solar farms are more efficient than roof top solar simply as a function of scale mostly.  If you have to install/maintain/replace solar panels and the like is it easier to have them all in one place in an easily accessible height/orientation or to have them scattered over a large area on the roofs of a bunch of different buildings where you have to access every roof individually?

 

And it isn't just the panels, but everything and anything associated with it.  I need to replace some parts.  Is it easier to have to go to a bunch of different people's homes or is it easier to go to one place an replace them?

 

People used to have coal and wood fire stoves in their homes.  It is certainly on a home-by-home basis to burn coal/wood in a home and generate electricity, but that model lost as compared to a single large plant generating electricity for a reason.  It isn't as economical.  Transportation of electricity isn't that expensive as compared to the penalty for decentralization of equipment.

 

I don't really see why solar would be any different, especially as long as you have to be connected to the grid so you are keeping most of the costs associated with transporting electricity in place.

 

Then you get into the types/shape of the panels used in the new solar farms, where they are going to the parabolic systems because they are more efficient than what you see with the roof top ones.  In addition, the solar farms solar panels actually move based on the movement of the sun to capture the most energy based on the time of day and the location of the sun.  This is something you don't see with the roof top solar.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/08/1024028/-Using-Parabolic-Mirrors-To-Concentrate-Solar-Rays-On-Photovoltaic-Collectors-Reduces-Cost-In-Israel

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough

 

I guess you might be able to install such systems on roofs, but people don't.  I'm not sure if that's a costs, technology, weight issue or what.  But the most efficient solar farms are getting away from what you see on people's roofs.

 

So the plants are more efficient in terms of scale and technology actually used.

 

Then you get into the efficiency of combo plants that you don't get with roof top solar alone.

 

They can come in the form of wind/solar

 

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/wind-solar-hybrid-plants-up-to-twice-as-efficient_100010997/#axzz3my48YlFe

 

Or solar/natural gas

 

http://www.gizmag.com/solar-gas-hybrid/27073/

 

But as long as you need separate power plants (i.e. as long as you are connected to the grid), the combo plants will be more efficient for a variety reasons (depending on the combo) than an independent plant and roof top solar.

[Hersh]

The power companies are not the ones that would come out to my house to repair my solar panels so it has nothing to do with efficiency for them here in NC. Also, I'll do some research later, but I'm not sure we have any combo solar/natural gas power plants here. We've been heavy coal for a long time but those are being phased out almost completely.

[TheGoodBits]

Consider also the (potential) efficiencies associated with solar panels on every south facing roof vs needing to acquire and maintain acres upon acres of land for solar panels in a given location. The "solution" is likely a multi-faceted one, given not all roofs have the optimal direction and pitch for solar. But rooftop solar technology is to the point that it can be a significant part of a renewable energy plan.

[PeterMP]

The power companies are not the ones that would come out to my house to repair my solar panels so it has nothing to do with efficiency for them here in NC. Also, I'll do some research later, but I'm not sure we have any combo solar/natural gas power plants here. We've been heavy coal for a long time but those are being phased out almost completely.

 

They aren't, but somebody has to (even if it is you).  In terms of total costs and over all efficiency, it doesn't matter.  Realistically, if you are using roof top solar, you are over paying for electricity.  You are over paying for electricity as compared to a solar plant where you get electricity from the grid.  Somebody somewhere is  paying for that costs.

 

And I don't think that's ever going to change.

 

There is a costs associated for decentralization for most things.

 

Why doesn't everybody feed themselves with a garden in their backyard?  Why don't I pay people to come in and plant and grow crops in my back yard and then use that food to feed myself?

 

Because even with the pretty expensive costs of transporting food, it isn't as economical as centralized food production.

 

In terms of the dual plants, they are relatively new, but I'm talking longer term as older ones are replaced.

 

Compared to already built coal plants, roof top solar is surely inefficient.

 

And if you are going to pay money to build a new infrastructure to generate electricity cleanly, you are likely paying more money than you should if your solution is roof top solar.

 

If you said, we are going to pay to replace coal power plants with a clean energy source, your'd be better off building a modern solar plant (or a combo plant) as compared to paying for (large scale) roof top solar.

 

I'm not sure how much NC subsidizes roof top solar, but in total, you would have almost certainly been better off taking all of the associated money (the subsidizes, the money from net metering, and the money individuals are paying for roof top solar) and building a modern solar power plant.

 

Consider also the (potential) efficiencies associated with solar panels on every south facing roof vs needing to acquire and maintain acres upon acres of land for solar panels in a given location. The "solution" is likely a multi-faceted one, given not all roofs have the optimal direction and pitch for solar. But rooftop solar technology is to the point that it can be a significant part of a renewable energy plan.

 

The nice thing about solar power plants is they are frequently built in deserts and the like where there isn't a lot of demand for land.

 

The other thing that you see (and I live in NJ) is you see them associated with areas that are trying to curb/slow growth congestion.  In NJ, we actually pay people to let their land be used for solar farms to discourage them from selling it to developers.

 

The need to acquire land is relatively cheap and in terms of "maintain" I'm not sure what costs there would be to maintain a solar farm property that wouldn't be associated with a roof.

 

**EDIT**

We can imagine situations where roof top solar might make sense, but by and large and in general, it is going to be less efficient than other ways of making energy, including other centralized clean energy methods.