KUOW reports on a government-funded non-profit which pays Seattle residents to install solar electric panels.
(Hint: Seattle has one of the lowest levels of sunshine of any major U.S. city)
The reporter spoke with Fiona Jackson, who spent $20,000 to install solar panels on her home (generating 1400 kwh of solar electricity this year). The marginal cost of electricity from Seattle City Light is $0.08/kwh, so assuming that last year had average sunshine and that the discount rate equals the electricity inflation rate, it would take Jackson about 178 years to recover her investment in solar equipment. Jackson admitted that "it wasn't a financial decison". She teaches business at Bellevue Community College, so I trust that she knows exactly how unfavorable the cost/benefit relationship really is.
Of course it's not merely a "financial decision". Those $20,000 represent consumption of environmental resources, and certainly a foregone opportunity to invest in other measures that could have much bigger environmental benefits. So it strikes me that, like many other schemes pitched by environmental fanatics, deploying solar power in Seattle is less about actually helping the environment as it is a kind of religious sacrifice ritual. I have no problem with anybody spending their own money on this sort of religious practice. But government subsidies for this? That seems to be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 03, 2008 02:20 PM | Email ThisHow's this helping the environment again?
Funny that Stefan wants the Govt. to leave him alone but objects when people choose to install items that separate themselves from the Govt. owned power monopoly.
If people want to offset that growth in demand by installing solar panels, more power to them- no pun intended.
Posted by: hi on October 3, 2008 02:29 PMBTW Stefan, please rid this place of David Matthews (again). He's back, and polluting this blog.
Posted by: Palouse on October 3, 2008 02:31 PMI have no interest in building mercury spewing coal power plants near my family.
Does that really make me religious..?!?
Posted by: hi on October 3, 2008 02:33 PMPlease go find yourself a bathroom wall to scribble on and leave the rest of us alone to have an intelligent conversation.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 3, 2008 02:37 PM
@6: I'm actually not too far off from you on this... but I'm waiting for an alternative from you that you can present to people that would reduce their electricity use and environmental impact. I mean, I absolutely agree with you in principle, but you're only providing half the argument here. Where can dirty hippies, eco-liberals and conservatives find common ground with issues of air quality and conservation?
Or is your answer to just do nothing and expect someone else to do it? (And just stating that the environment is just fine the way it is doesn't count.)
Posted by: demo kid on October 3, 2008 02:54 PMThey all seem to be based on either plugging into the grid (like it can handle everyone with an electric car)
Of course no Nuke Power, especially in this god forsaken state.
Posted by: gs on October 3, 2008 02:58 PMEvery solar panel installed in Seattle, is a solar panel that can't be installed in Phoenix. If solar is worth doing in Seattle, it is ten times more worthwhile in Arizona. There is no sense in doing solar up here till every roof top in the desert is covered with them.
Posted by: Joe on October 3, 2008 03:16 PMPS--
This is yet another reason (Reason #1,342,675,893,047) why I call them
LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS!!
There is a reason why we call leftists loons. In fact there are lots of reasons.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 3, 2008 04:03 PMIt's about status and bragging to their friends.
Posted by: Chris on October 3, 2008 04:16 PMI already acknowledged that we have hydropower. Why did you ignore my point that the hydropower capacity is limited, but demand for power is not. In fact it is growing rapidly in the NW due to migration (difficult to control) and immigration (which is easier to control if there were any political will-power).
Posted by: hi on October 3, 2008 04:24 PMI already acknowledged that we have hydropower. Why did you ignore my point that the hydropower capacity is limited, but demand for power is not. In fact it is growing rapidly in the NW due to migration (difficult to control) and immigration (which is easier to control if there were any political will-power).
Posted by: hi on October 3, 2008 04:24 PMWhere do we start?
With oil?, with natural gas?, hydroelectric generation?, wind, solar, biofuels? conservation?
If the marginal cost of power is eight cents a kilowatt hour, we'll never see nuclear power.
I don't think it is unreasonable to subsidize start up energy if it leads to a self-sustaining market in a reasonable period of time.
178 year payback - that is never. But then, when heat-pumps were first introduced their payback calculated out to occur just a bit further out than their lifespan too. Creating a market demand, then private sector initiative, made them work.
Posted by: BA on October 3, 2008 04:41 PMHydroelectric dams don't have to be on major rivers with salmon runs. Only big ones do. There are plenty of mountain valleys way above the salmon runs that could be used to build s network of hydroelectric generators capable of providing power for many centuries. As a secondary benefit they could provide water for people, fish and agriculture.
Its all about choices. About weighing costs, benefits and trade-offs.
Posted by: deadwood on October 3, 2008 04:56 PMPlenty of mountain valleys to fill with water?
I don't know about that, but looking at existing dams that were built just for irrigation and seeing if they could be retrofitted might make sense.
Are there significant drainages in this state that have available water rights or purchasable water rights for many additional dams?
Posted by: BA on October 3, 2008 05:05 PMI'll say this, this whole subject has become so politicized and there are so many special interests feeding at the trough that nothing constructive can get done. This is what happens when the government gets involved choosing the winners and losers. Look no further than the Fanny and Fred meltdown for a good example. I'll tell you this, shoveling zillions of taxpayer $$ into corn so we can have more air polluting oxides produced and worse gas (10 to 15 percent) mileage with more expensive food (world wide) is not the right way to do it. Look at CFLs. They contain mercury and printed circuit boards that need to be disposed of. And that doesn't include the extra carbon producing manufacturing that they require. I did a calculation a year or two ago on the number of CFLs in use if everybody converted to them (nationwide it's HUGE and I was conservative in my numbers) and the amounts of mercury generated. The freaking cure is worse than the disease! Breaking one of those things in your kids room should generate a environmental spill response by law. How is that a good thing? A whole massive recycling culture would have to be constructed with no guarantee that people would even use it. What would that cost in carbon to save a few kilowatts? See what I mean?
Solar power up here is a joke. We already went through all of this in the 1970s. A 20K cost with a 150 year payback and a 10 year life span is foolish beyond the extreme. With number like that, the payback would never arrive. Imagine how many other things that could be done with that money. I'm all for conservation but it has to make free-market sense at least. Wind farms kill birds (raptors particularly, the species that can least afford the deaths). Tide generators would probably kill fish, maybe even whales. Forget the unreliability at this point. Nuke is the most practical now that the technology has progressed. But Nuke will never happen because the eco-wackos will never let it happen just like they haven't in the past. Clean coal is good by just like Biden says "No coal here ever." Bio-fuels are good but require expensive heaters and filters just to operate in our mild climate. There is very little that hasn't been tried before (like I said, in the 70's) and the reason they aren't being used now is that they didn't work then and they don't work very well now.
I think that the eco-wackos have to realize that mankind uses resources to create and live. Just like any other animal in the biosphere. It is a growing economy where all boats are lifted. There is nothing wrong with conservation because true conservation saves money without subsidy but, like I said before, the radicalization of the subject has screwed us all. We should all be light on the planet as we can be but creating massive bazillion a year federal bureaucracies the eat up massive amounts of GDP while beating everybody over the head just because they live is not the answer.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 3, 2008 05:50 PMIt would be far better for WA to start building H2 fueling stations for cars like the BMW Hydrogen 7 and Honda FCX (fuel cell) as a way to fight pollution than installing solar cells.
Those are better situated in Eastern Washington where they can be used to generate Hydrogen for transport via pipeline and truck to the Puget Sound!
It's just like buying a Prius instead of a high mileage conventional engine sub compact. This high additional cost for the batteries and extra electronics, which will never be recouped in gas savings, etc. are for the privilege of bragging to one's liberal friends and displaying to everyone else that you are a financial idiot.
It's too bad that taxpayers have to help fund such idiocy. At very least, instead of handing subsidies to individuals, the money could be spent on a larger statewide plant that would be located East of the cascades where there is much more sunlight. That might actually do some good. But this is government. When has efficiency ever been a concern?
It's not about results on the left. It's just about feeling. Hope and change feel good, but they don't produce baseload energy or efficient solar panels that have a reasonable ROI for Seattle's climate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 3, 2008 11:03 PMSorry John @ 34, transporting hydrogen isn't a good idea. The hydrogen atom is VERY small and and because of this, a conventional pipeline that carries liquids wouldn't work sufficiently well. You can build them but they are going to be much more expensive. Do you REALLY want trucks transporting liquid hydrogen at 5000 psi out on the roads? Hydrogen needs to be produced near the filling station, as transporting it isn't very efficient.
Posted by: Dik on October 4, 2008 08:44 AMI-937 was(is) an act related to NEW energy resources. It recognized our legacy of hydroelectric projects and includes efficiency improvements, and tapping the flow of irrigation waters, that result in more hydroelectric generation as qualifying as renewable.
I wonder, but don't know, if by 2020 we won't have utilities in this state that remain 100% sustainable in their energy use as we demand energy in excess of what the legacy dams produce.
I just installed a more sophisticated thermostat in my house and the payback appears to be two months.
I think conservation is really the answer to our energy demands, starting with maintaining flat energy demand while we grow, then reducing our energy costs further. Why add a solar panel (with the resultant capital cost, material use, maintenance) to provide perhaps 5% of your energy when a 5% energy reduction is probably easy to obtain and a much cheaper capital expenditure?
Seattle, and I suspect most utilities in this state, have gone from higher than national average energy use per customer to lower than the national average over the last decade.
I understand it's fashionable to say "dril, drill drill" and as we consume a quarter of the world's oil and sit on perhaps 4% of the remaining world reserves it might benefit us in the short-term - but what if we used less instead?
Posted by: BA on October 4, 2008 12:43 PMThat's disingenuous, mr/ms BA. You are welcome to use as little as you like, beginning today. But your obvious hope is to prevent your fellow citizens, by political action, from making their own decisions on that energy use. "Choice" must extend beyond whose gonads get entangled with whose, and whether to abolish the results of the entanglement.
I rather like the labor-saving effects of mechanized travel (on MY choice of routing and scheduling) and mass production of the items which I find available in current living in the US. I would not elect to arbitrarily undergo the reduced mobility and higher costs which those political actions would force on the citizens. Quite possibly, numbers of other voters feel the same way.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on October 4, 2008 04:19 PMWhen I say use less energy, I mean use less energy - that doesn't mean drive less, heat your home less, sit in the dark, store your milk out on the porch in the winter, etc.
It means use less energy.
Our furnaces and air-conditioners are significantly more efficient in their use of energy to produce the same output as they were not too many years ago. Electric motors, lighting and building controls provide for the less energy use for the same outcome than before. Our cars, trucks, trains and planes can travel further on a particular amount of fuel than in the past.
Who'd have thought, some humans are clever.
An expert in the field of energy use once said that any energy saving strategy for Americans had to take into account that air-conditioning and cold beer could not be messed with.
I imagine that's what you're worried about.
Your presumption that I mean for you to use less energy in a manner that affects your lifestyle is a reflection of your own insecurity, not any aspiration I have.
Posted by: BA on October 4, 2008 11:36 PMAs for energy efficiency improvements, the argument continues today which is first, conserve or build renewable resources, this again is due to politics and special interests, not common sense!
you said, "tapping the flow of irrigation waters, that result in more hydroelectric generation as qualifying as renewable."
-WRONG AGAIN, only incremental hydro, or run of the river, meaning NO NEW DAMS! Incremental hydro is so scarce it will have little affect on making the goals. This also relates back to the above special interests.
"I wonder, but don't know, if by 2020 we won't have utilities in this state that remain 100% sustainable in their energy use as we demand energy in excess of what the legacy dams produce."
Do you have any idea what this would cost? If a hydro dam produces 1000 MW's for example SCL's Boundry Dam, then you would need 3000 MW's of wind, and 8000 MW's of solar to accomplish the same output. As the costs for both are substantially more one to one, then add 3 to 8 times the cost to replace firm energy with non firm. Most don't understand this issue which is part of the problem. So by 2020 utility rates will be more than twice what we pay now, more than likely even more!
ou said: "I just installed a more sophisticated thermostat in my house and the payback appears to be two months."
While I more than support programmable thermostats, even helped develop them for Honeywell, there is no way it was a 2 month pay back, even if you shut everything off for 2 months. Again please do not mislead the public, 2 years maybe, not 2 months,, impossible!
You said "I think conservation is really the answer to our energy demands, starting with maintaining flat energy demand while we grow, then reducing our energy costs further."
The only way even with conservation you can reduce energy use and maintain a flat demand is in a recession or depression, meaning no more "growth" Power, which is an equation made up of energy and capacity are two different things, energy, kWh, reflects energy efficiency, capacity, KW/demand is different. In the Pacific NW only recently have load shedding or demand reduction programs caught on. We are a long way away from these as it requires considerable investments in the infrastructure from Electricity Distribution, load controls, smart meters , price signals and oh yes your programmable thermostat to take advantage of price signals, then you may see a 2 month pay back, but I doubt it.
Why add a solar panel (with the resultant capital cost, material use, maintenance) to provide perhaps 5% of your energy when a 5% energy reduction is probably easy to obtain and a much cheaper capital expenditure?
Finally spot on old chap!
Seattle, and I suspect most utilities in this state, have gone from higher than national average energy use per customer to lower than the national average over the last decade.
No actually the first power plan in 1981 kicked off energy conservation, we have been in this realm for many years!
I understand it's fashionable to say "dril, drill drill" and as we consume a quarter of the world's oil and sit on perhaps 4% of the remaining world reserves it might benefit us in the short-term - but what if we used less instead?
Agree, and switch to natural gas for the next 20 years until we can perfect the next generation of renewable energy.
Sorry to correct you, you are not alone, 98% of the people think the same way, and most work with me in the industry, which is scary!
Not what I believe to be cost effective or even sensible.
Look folks solar panels in space beaming microwaveable energy back to earth are being studied, possibly some technology from these efforts might make sense, but our rays where ever you live are filtered so much that solar is not currently an affordable option.
Posted by: Remember I-937 on October 5, 2008 04:40 PM1. A utility with 100% sustainable energy in 2020. If there is an existing utility that sources 100% of their energy from hydro, and their growth is less than 20%, do they have to substitute "new" sustainable sources to meet the 20% rule? (I understand that existing hydro is by definition left out of the mix - I read the law).
2. There is language in the law that provides for allowing for increasing the efficiency of existing hydro and utilizing irrigation flows for generating power.
3. I used Seattle City Light as my source for statistics regarding energy use from the last decade...couldn't find quickly better information that looked further back.
4. My thermostat - inexpensive, just a "time clock" type, and with no other changes except a slightly cooler average temperature last month my energy use from last year dropped as I said.
Finally, why do you believe that energy demand can only decrease or remain flat with a recession or depression? Are you saying that there is insufficient room in our creativity to work efficiencies in devices faster than our natural growth based on population?