What if all the NYC traffic lights are powered by solar? It might be less chaotic in a blackout situation like last night.
1
Looks like its going to come flying off in a good wind.
I read about record heat-waves in Europe. I see articles stating Miami-like summer temperatures in Anchorage, Alaska (for Pete's sake). I presume all of us can see the outlines of the impact our current style of living is having on planetary environmental "control" systems. I further presume rational human beings can understand and divine what those impacts portend. Well, here's what I say.
From the vantage point of an office on the 51st Floor of 1 Penn Plaza in mid-town Manhattan you cannot tell me all that roof-top space I see, flat or otherwise, and my office commands Empire State building worthy views of the landscape, isn't just about the biggest business opportunity imaginable if you're into alternative power and see the need to move our grid up a notch, or two or three, from "power grid 1.0 to 2.0."
The opportunity is clearly there. We just need the imagination, and political/social, gumption to make it real. And something tells me it's building (no pun intended). About time, too.
John~
American Net'Zen
7
And Trump puts tariffs on imported solar panels. Somebody should “put” a solar panel on Trump !
2
The cost of solar in the US is ridiculous and deliberately inflated to deter installations.
I have 5,000 kWP on my Belgian house for $6,000, no subsidies. Why? No 25% import taxes on Asian solar panels and no excessive rules, regulations and certifications that are only designed to kill profitability. There is a healthy competition of installers. Rates charged by installers here are insulting, designed to rip off the occasional fool who wants to do something for the environment. Such a shame, consider the US has a much higher solar potential than Europe. Even Chicago is on the same latitude as Barcelona.
Democratic leadership in our blue cities has done almost nothing in terms of the fight against climate change. No low emission zones, filling streets with Uber’s instead of bicycles, helping utilities to kill solar, etc.
7
my neighbors complained about my proposed solar panels,and was turned down instead forcing me to waste thousand dollars in landscpping .its hard to be first unless your the town itself which has hundreds and hundreds of solar panels rented out to the connected few who walk among us
in my case absurd DOB rules prevented a solar system in Brooklyn to be installed.
Turns out an elevated solar canopy counts towards FAR, while e.g. HVAC equipment doesn’t.
The rule that a solar canopy equals another fully built floor is absurd
8
I highly recommend Brooklyn Solar. We added solar to our 2 family “row house” in Windsor Terrace. The system cost about $38,000. Tax credits bring it down to about $9,000. The breakeven will be in 4-5 years. Having a 2 family was key as it allowed each family to claim the $5,000 NYS Tax Credit thus bringing down the breakeven period.
I am very much enjoying the $21 electric bills and the environmental benefits are gravy as far as I am concerned.
13
Please keep these articles on solar coming! The more people become aware and start to think of home solar as hip, responsible, and stylish, the better.
14
Didn't we learn after Hurricane Sandy that the massive housing complexes in New York were built in low lying areas and that their power systems - situated at ground level or below - were vulnerable to flood damage?
What's been done to correct that? And is the city housing authority doing anything to install solar panels on top of high rise public housing?
3
It sounds like these building would get better saving via new windows, better weatherizing and new boilers. None of which will happen with the new rent control scheme.
6
@James
More generally, rented housing usually means either the landlord or the tenant has no incentive to use utilities efficiently. It does not seem obvious that charging a regulated rental price or a free market price would influence the situation.
4
@Alan
Yes, I know that but know that. With rent control landlords will have even less incentive to upgrade. If that is what NY wants then so be it.
3
@James: Actually, an intelligent landlord WOULD do all those things, b/c the better insulated the building is (including windows), and the more efficient the boiler is, the lower the LANDLORD'S cost for heating would be.
But some landlords apparently can't see the forest for the trees.
9
The islands of Manhattan and Hawaii have high electric rates, but they are islands. Here, on the west coast, Sempra Energy, an island of shareholder value, has the third highest rates in the country.
Producing on avg. one thousand kwh per month, my bill is zeroed out, my payback is 6 years, based on a prior monthly bill of $200, which includes a swimming pool.
Rates will never go down, and air conditioning in the summer costs nothing, due to net metering.
When your monthly bill approaches $200 it makes sense.
7
Maybe we need to go beyond that cost benefits of solar. Of course, the most important thing is to reduce one's use of energy. That is so important because no matter how the energy is generated there are always some negative side effects such as the pollution resulting from the manufacturing of solar panels. Still solar panels are just great at reducing pollution overall. We need much more solar to benefit our environment. In addition, having individual solar reduces some of the political power of the large utility companies. By all means go solar And as a side benefit you will save money over time.
9
@Bernard Waxman: No, in NYC if you put in solar power you're *still* firmly in the clutches of (and paying $$$ every month to) the large utility companies, such as Con Ed.
In NYC there are 3 things you can be sure of: death, taxes, and a bill from Con Ed for *something* (generally a zillion bucks in fees for the $10 in power you used).
5
@L Still you are paying less to Con. And for significanly more you can get battery backup and disconnect from Con.
1
@bmw: Have you ever lived in NYC and dealt with Con Ed? I ask b/c I've been dealing with them for decades, and they are VERY good at extracting $$$ from their customers.
As to getting "battery backup and disconnect from" them, I don't think so! Or if it's possible, the cost would be enormous - b/c if it were reasonable, a LOT of people would have done it already.
2
There are people pointing out correctly that this system of subsidy for solar roofs is inefficient, and they are being countered by the argument that climate change is more expensive/worse. Bad argument. The money being spent in taxes on individual, inefficient solar installations could instead be spent on massive, efficient solar power generating plants and off shore wind energy sources that would socialize the costs and benefits rather than direct the flow of money (both costs and benefits) through individuals, no matter how good it makes them feel about themselves. We can all opt into green energy plans through ConEd right now; not so flashy as a platform of panels on a person’s brownstone, but effective.
8
This is, of course, a no-brainer.
However, power companies and their rates are regulated by the State's Public Service Commission. By law power companies are entitled to a certain rate of return as profit. If enough people go solar the power companies will be permitted to increase rates so as to make up for lost profit due to lagging sales and we will all pay more for the power that we purchase. All of which would fuel, (pardon the pun), an argument for a government takeover of power companies so as to negate the profit motive.
7
@MIKEinNYC
Public Service "commissions", like all the "authorities" run their own game and the public has no seat at the table. The NYS Liquor Authority. Port Authority, Transit Authority, Bridge and Tunnel Authority, The Lottery Commission, etc. etc. which we know almost nothing about except that they operate in secret, don't open their financial books though they are public agencies and hire exclusively father to son and if you peek inside, almost all white, male and Irish just like Albany itself run by the Irish alone. Most names in power in Albany are Irish surnames. All these authorities are bogus in what they do and are really not needed. They dont investigate and they dont find fault which they need to do.
1
My solar panels just celebrated their 10th anniversary. There was a short period in New York when the ROI was about 4 years.
I was fortunate enough to be watching. I signed the first day the stimulus plan went in effect because it halved the prices overnight.
They have now returned more than double the investment and I expect a long life of the equipment.
Just a note the first solar panels ever made are still working from the 60’s
23
I've got a small solar array only on a flat portion of my roof as my 60 year old single home has the original slate (slanted) roof and I am trying to preserve it to outlive me.
My initial costs were nowhere near those quoted here. In Philadelphia the Solarize program offers homeowners discounted solar installation and i took advantage of the program over a year ago. It was a smart decision. While I always was aware of my energy usage having solar makes me even more attuned to it.
Last month I generated more electricity than I used and my bill was $9.94 for the delivery service fee.
15
I'm amazed at the cost of systems in NYC. I live just over the border in Nassau county, and have had solar since 2013. My experience is much different. My *total* monthly energy bill is *always* between $12 and $13, even in the winter (since excess production in summer is "banked" for use in winter months)--the residual $12/month is for connection to the grid. The panels require no maintenance (apart from an occasional hosing) and I'm closing in the break-even point in a few years--no big deal since I'm planning to live in the same home indefinitely. There is also a solar property tax exemption, which means my taxes didn't go up even though my home was appraised at a higher value. I was even able to remove PMI on my mortgage, which was running $100/month, due to the higher assessed value of my home. My only regret is that I should have gone solar sooner.
21
The problem is not the cost of the electric use on your coned bill, it is all the other charges such as a "basic monthly charge" of $27 plus taxes and "delivery fees" . Even if you install led lights with occupancy sensors, energy efficient appliances and insulate your home/apt you still pay coned $52 automatically even for using a small amount of electric each month.
You can pay $49 just by only using $12 a month of electricity. So the bulk of $61 is not the electric it is CONED fees and taxes!
The only way to make solar worthwhile is by installing a battery storage with your panels. Cutting out Coned is your only hope for real savings.
9
@Gilbert Rosen
Con Edison continues to collect all those additional taxes and fees at the behest of the government. So does Verizon and Spectrum. It was a hand to hand deal The utilities get ALL of what they want which is YOUR bill going up by cents every single month. We are not supposed to notice and in return, they collect fees for our 311 system, our 911 system. You would be shocked to know what they pay to keep themselves profitable, more than profitable with the government looking the other way and granting HUGE increases from utilities to consumers. The utilities pay off the government WITH our own dollars. They have a monopoly and lets face it, most of us live securely with the type of services they provide like electric and gas lines that only blow when compromised by untrained construction done on our homes and a gas line is ruptured. When storms break the utility companies are right out there keeping our faith in them but at too high a cost. Just like all major corporations, it is profit first. last and always to their decision making.
3
@Gilbert Rosen
If my understanding of the process is correct, a consumer will still be grid tied unless they remove their property from the grid altogether. The solar installation will have to generate more power than required for their use in order to sell back to the utility company.
3
My HDFC worked with solar one to install solar panels on our Manhattan coop. Each shareholder gets a credit on our individual electric bills. I’m saving so much money! I recommend going solar.
13
The killing of the solar myth - in three acts -
“Even with tax breaks and power-bill discounts, though, a break-even point can be distant. Mr. Ling, who installed his system in 2016, predicts his will come in about a decade.”
“The savings are about 15 percent, Mr. Zion said.”
“homeowners pay a monthly rental fee of about $80 in New York, on top of a $40 utility bill, for a total of $120, a company spokesman said, noting that a typical utility bill for a Brooklyn house without solar panels is $135.”
The whole thing is a bit of virtue-signaling feel-goodery. It makes no sense (or cents) for consumers.
13
@Andy Deckman
"The whole thing is a bit of virtue-signaling feel-goodery. It makes no sense (or cents) for consumers."
Yep, but some folks still persist in the face of facts.
1
@Andy Deckman
Paying $120 per month instead of $135 makes no sense (or cents)???? That sounds like some politicized woodoo math to me.
3
Tired of the pro solar articles without research into the real costs for homeowners, the issues with resale and for those with electrical sensitivities the information on power inverters that are installed and creating health havoc impacts for some. Just because something is deemed "green" doesn't meant that its good for you. LEDs are another great example. The blue light given off by LEDs is terrible for your health. Lighting up your house at night in LEDs is the fastest way to ruining your circadian rythmn.
3
I have not found that to be true. While in my basement I use daylight LED bulbs, in the rest of the house I use soft-light bulbs which are no different in color or effect on sleep from the lightbulbs my parents used.
4
@ladyluck Just nonsense. For example LED lights come in all color temperatures they do not have to be blue. There are LED lights that mimic the color temperature of old fashioned incandescent lights though slightly less efficient than the blue LEDs. In addition there is absolutely no evidence that having an inverter in your home is any more of a problem for your health than having electric wires or any electrical appliance in your home. Maybe ladyluck would be happier living in a remote location with no electricity.
3
It seems to me that retrofitting these old buildings to make them more energy efficient is the least cost prohibitive and most practical long-term approach. Obama had a program to do just that, but it wasn’t nearly ambitious enough and, of course, Republicans killed it once they took over Congress.
13
@AlNewman
Actually, the MOST practical way is to invest your first, second, add third energy-saving dollars into reduction: insulation, windows, light and heating changes...THEN invest in newer less-proven technologies. By all means, go forward with solar, wind, or ground water solutions, but only AFTER reduction strategies are in place. Do it right.
4
The low-density housing in these areas allows solar panels, but low-density housing in old stock causes so much energy consumption (through urban sprawling that requires energy-hungry transports, and because the energy efficiency of old buildings is so much lower than what you can do in new ones at little cost) that the whole environmental angle is a bit ridiculous. A bit like if you were bragging about UV-filtering glass on your giant pick-up that saves fuel on AC in the summer.
New construction of high-density, energy-efficient housing would save infinitely more energy, without the need for that much taxpayer money ($41,000 subsidies on a $65,000 system as an example in the article; how is that even remotely close to an efficient scheme, with net metering another form of subsidy?). Yet if everyone installs solar panels on their roof, it makes increasing density much more difficult and expensive, because any new tall building will create shading and therefore a large compensation to be paid to many people (and a headache for planning).
Also remember: electricity is a product that is incredibly easy to transport. There is very little need to generate it where it is used, rather than in the vast amount of (much cheaper) empty space we have in the country.
6
@Bob Robert
Buildings create most of their pollution during construction. It would be extremely difficult to construct a scenario where a new building is "greener" than continuing to use an existing building if one allows the existing building to make improvements such as solar panels.
If transportation will become "greener" with electric cars, distance will not matter so much. It would be profoundly inefficient to make major investments without considering that other aspects of the economy are changing also.
3
@Bob Robert
So since in your opinion half of NYC should be torn down and rebuilt taller, no solar panels should be installed on that half?
Also, putting solar panels atop existing buildings has a much lower environmental impact than putting them out in the vast 'empty' space you think is out there.
2
Re: '...Solar panels have traditionally been designed for sloped roofs, putting Brooklyn’s flat-topped rowhouses at a disadvantage. But new technology is starting to change that..."
If I owned the building i live in, it would be covered in solar panels, roof-wise; I fail to see why EVERY U.S. building roof above a certain square footage DOESN'T have at least 1 bank of solar panels on the roof!
Imagine the megawatts that could be, cheaply, (almost, 'passively'...), generated by such a country-wide increase, w/o further damaging the environment / the potential tax reductions, based on 'kilowatt hours, generated', etc.!!
11
@R.G. Frano You do not generate electricity “cheaply”: even if the company’s figures are true, that’s $15 of savings a month. When the installation is a couple of grands, that’s a ridiculous return on investment, on an asset that has a limited lifespan. If solar power was cheaper than normal power, the government would not bother offering tax rebates for installation.
Which brings the second point: everyone installing solar power does not mean everyone pays less taxes thanks to the rebate. If the cost of public services does not change, someone’s tax rebate is necessarily someone else’s tax hike. And that’s not taking into account the fact that net metering is also a transfer of costs (the cost of investing in and maintaining the grid) from the solar producer to the other power consumers.
Last reason is that if everyone installs solar panels on their roof, you can’t increase density anymore, because any new tall building will create shading and therefore a large compensation to be paid to many people. Considering the very marginal benefit from having panels in a city rather than outside the city, that is not worth it since the lack of housing creates many very important issues (including some environmental ones, in relation to urban sprawling).
9
@Bob Robert: Why confuse people who have simple Green Solutions with... cold hard facts?
In addition to all that you mention, there is also the horrible pollution that making solar panels generates. To turn quartz into silicon, the quartz must first get mined - and we know how polluting mining is; and how dangerous it is to the miners. Then the quartz gets refined in enormous furnaces. Do we have clean furnaces anywhere? The limited lifespan you mention guarantees that those furnaces will be fouling the air non-stop making replacement panels.
The idea that there is a single, instant solution to everything is the way people get duped by con artists time and again.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
7
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD
And mining/fracking/pumping/refining and the transportation of (heavy) fossil-fuel products is so very clean? One manufactures a solar panel ONCE, and use it for decades. Do not get me stated on nukes and the unsolvable problem of tens of thousands of years monitoring wastes that is never calculated into the "cost" of producing the energy.
TRUE costs, Rev, true costs!
7
Just a reminder: Anything that works with a remote control is actually using electricity every minute, day or night. Except for my refrigerator, everything electrical in my house including some lamps (but excluding two small c. 1970s Sony clock-radios) is plugged into power strips, and unless I'm using the TV, or the toaster, and so on, those power strips are on OFF.
My lightbulbs are LEDs, ditto my outdoor security lights.
My electric bill hovers around $55 a month for much of the year. I live in a house. I know apartment dwellers whose bills are a lot higher.
In the summer, of course, I have a dehumidifier on in the basement. And around 9pm, I turn on the air conditioner. Then I'm looking at $120 for July and August.
Something to think about until the government puts its muscle behind making solar panel design more reliable. Years ago I read about a company whose solar shingles looked like roofing. What ever happened to that idea?
9
Tesla Energy (xSolarCity) had the most natural looking solar shingles that were unobtrusive. Unfortunately, their production did not ramp up in time for me. I had to cancel my contract with them, since I need a new roof now (the most efficient way of installing them). In addition, my roof is pitched the wrong way to catch the sun effectively, and is otherwise shaded by an evergreen, with which I refuse to part. 7-8-19, 8:55 am
2
How about a real article on the costs and benefits including future costs associating with roofing and hurricanes. I find it hard to believe these systems are cost effective even with the generous tax incentives.
9
Climate chaos is a lot more expensive. And solar systems are built to withstand hurricane force winds up to 135 mph. Furthermore, federal incentives will start going down after 2019. The time to install solar is now.
31