|
| Friday, February 22, 2008 |
| Economist magazine hates solar power |
The Economist magazine's recent article Sunny side down argues that solar panels are a luxury few can afford. Solar power ought to be the answer. The house faces south-east, lacks trees or other shadow-casting obstructions, and its flat roof offers ample space for a sizable solar array. At 720 feet up the hillside, it is well above the “marine layer” (the locals’ fancy name for morning fog) and gets about 300 sunny days a year. So what’s the problem?
It’s not even as though the place gobbles electricity. When the house was being rebuilt five years ago, the new roof came with over a foot of thermal insulation. The floor-to-ceiling windows along two sides of the structure were replaced with double-glazed “low-E” glass (the sort that blocks infra-red radiation), and thermal linings were included in all the exterior walls. Even during the summer, the air conditioner usually stays off.
Admittedly, the architect went overboard on lighting. Fully illuminated, the house demanded seven kilowatts of raw lighting-power before fluorescent lights replaced thirsty tungsten filaments. Overall electricity consumption is now a reasonable 8,300 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year.
Given the local utility’s rate of 10.8 cents per kWh, that adds up to a modest $900 for the year—or just $2.50 a day. At those prices, solar energy simply cannot compete with juice from the local power-station, even with California-level subsidies.
[...]
Here’s where going green gets tough. At today’s prices, your correspondent would have to stump up $48,000 for the solar panels alone. Add the cost of the switching modules, the power controller, the fault protector, the DC-to-AC inverter and the service panel—not to mention the installation charges and the contractor’s profit—and the final bill could easily come to $65,000.
What about incentives and tax credits? That depends on where precisely you live and how effective an installation you have. To get anything like a full grant in your correspondent’s neck of the woods, the array would have to be facing due south and tilted at an angle of 34 degrees to the sun. The first might be possible; the second would definitely not. At best, Mayhem Manor would qualify for about $12,000 worth of local assistance plus a $2,000 federal grant.
Borrowing the balance at today’s interest rates would mean repayments of roughly $600 a month for ten years, even after setting the interest charges against tax. And all that just to feel good about saving $75 of electricity a month. Better to buy a couple of tons worth of carbon offsets each year for $70 and have done with it. Now I agree that going solar is expensive and your best bang-for-buck is conservation. He seems to have made some smart choices with his home (the insulation and the low-E windows) but what if his daughter had been bugging him about going solar five years ago when he was budgeting for his whole house remodel? Would investing money in solar panels instead of in stainless steel appliances or granite counter tops be more or less wasteful? He already realizes the mistake he made with lighting. Then I see other problems. His $65,000 price tag seems WAY high. I am in the process of getting solar panels and I can tell you prices vary by vendor - you shop around. And his statement Overall electricity consumption is now a reasonable 8,300 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year. - how is that number reasonable for a 5 year old home which does not use air conditioning?!? How big is that house and what kind of appliances are running? Lastly, how much have electric prices increased in his area in the last five years. How much are they likely to continue to increase in the coming years?
Going solar is not a purely financial decision. You are doing it because you believe it is the best thing for yourself, your family, your community and your environment. I am also hoping it will make me continue to work to conserve. My planned solar array is purposefully sized to only provide about half of my current KWH usage. If I can continue to conserve, invest in more energy efficient appliances, reduce my need for energy consuming gadgets, etc. I will increase my ROI on my solar investment. I can also add to my array in future if needed (say if I find myself purchasing a plug in hybrid car).
I guess his whole - just buy carbon credits - annoyed me. It sounds like, just keep being the energy hog you are and buy yourself out of the guilt trip your daughter is subjecting you to... |
| posted by Boston Gal @ 12:20 PM *
* Subscribe to Boston Gal's Open Wallet |
Links to this post:
|
| 5 Comments: |
-
If you're goal is purely green, and not to recoup expenses, I think a good alternative is to use a third-party electricity provider that uses renewable resources (Green Mountain Energy) if the option is available in your state. Then you can use your solar power funds to buy a Prius! :) Or invest it in a socially conscious ETF.
For the average person, solar panels are still too pricey. Are there any chances for cost overruns like in normal building projects?
(And at least the guy switched to compact fluorescents. It's more than a lot of people do.)
-
Where the hell are they living to get 10.8 cents per kWh?
Here in Boston I am paying 21.5 cents per kWh and thats with Dominion Energy which supposed to be cheaper than NStar.
Solar is a good idea, but before its time. We need $$ invested to allow research to bring out newer technologies.
Evergreen Solar has new products coming to market soon that are supposed to also provide power in the dark! They can generate power from infrared light/radiation. This means even at night your panels can trickle in some power.
Until the cost per kWh of solar gets down to less than a few bucks to install, it will be cost prohibitive to the vast majority of consumers.
-
Do the power companies in Boston not have renewable options?
I have at least five choices, from various renewable local projects, for a slight surcharge. That has got to be a lot cheaper than installing your own panels.
-
BostonGal, since nobody else has said it, I agree with you!. I think too many people are reluctant to invest the money NOW, because they don't see the actual rate of return. And there are many ways to make solar panels cheaper. I think this guy is just trying to make himself feel better with the carbon offsets, and my other question -- would he actually spend the $70/month for them? Show me the paid bills!
-
It has to be a HUGE house. First off looking at the lighting 7kw of lighting is equivalent to 58 amps. Considering that old houses may only hvae 100A panels and all new houses require a 225A panel. Taking into account ratings and such. The 58A of lighting takes 2/3 of his panel.
To give you an example. 58 A is like running 6 refrigerators. we estimate that a 4 foot long T8 fluorescent (most common) is using 40W or 1/3 of an amp.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
If you're goal is purely green, and not to recoup expenses, I think a good alternative is to use a third-party electricity provider that uses renewable resources (Green Mountain Energy) if the option is available in your state. Then you can use your solar power funds to buy a Prius! :) Or invest it in a socially conscious ETF.
For the average person, solar panels are still too pricey. Are there any chances for cost overruns like in normal building projects?
(And at least the guy switched to compact fluorescents. It's more than a lot of people do.)