Continuation from previous comment:
If the ROI is not dramatically changed due to other energy saving projects, or the ROI is not the biggest factor, other projects like converting to LED lighting has other monetary and environmental benefits.
The monetary benefits other than the reduction in energy consumption, is the cost savings from reducing lighting maintenance costs. Rather than replacing fluorescent lamps and ballasts every 7 to 10 years LEDs will nearly twice as long, and there is the elimination of ballasts. Plus the added benefit is the elimination of disposal costs of the lamps that contain mercury, which is a positive impact to the environment.
My main point, is that there are other options available to building owners to consider to make a positive contribution if solar is not viable...
If the ROI is not dramatically changed due to other energy saving projects, or the ROI is not the biggest factor, other projects like converting to LED lighting has other monetary and environmental benefits.
The monetary benefits other than the reduction in energy consumption, is the cost savings from reducing lighting maintenance costs. Rather than replacing fluorescent lamps and ballasts every 7 to 10 years LEDs will nearly twice as long, and there is the elimination of ballasts. Plus the added benefit is the elimination of disposal costs of the lamps that contain mercury, which is a positive impact to the environment.
My main point, is that there are other options available to building owners to consider to make a positive contribution if solar is not viable...
The endeavors for doubling down on climate change sound reasonable and courageous but the burning issue of the day is different. Rather than aiming at increasing renewable energy footprint or cutting greenhouse gas emissions in a long haul, immediate reduction of fossil fuel consumptions is called for action.
The truth of the matter is if nation-states do not own the energy and power industries or if state-subsidized investments are absent, climate change will continue. Individual life style changes and sacrifices are urgently needed:
1. Cut down the number of daily meals from three to two (breakfast and heavy lunch only).
2. Raise thermostat temperature in the summer to 81°F and cut it down in the winter to 68°F.
3. Plant flowering plants, trees or vegetables around the house to cool the room temperature down slightly in the summer; avoid removing trees.
4. Prepare yourselves for the bad news coming sooner than you’d expect that governments have to enforce obedience to an order of electricity rationing: scheduled power-outs from 10.00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. In order to retain food in fair preservation, photo-voltaic or solar panels will be installed by governments and the cost shall be a burden to government loan or shared, if needed, as the case may be.
Hanging out for business to help one out is Joe's crackpot scheme and one had better do it oneself. It is up to us to grapple with the disaster by united action against the fossil fuel power industry.
The truth of the matter is if nation-states do not own the energy and power industries or if state-subsidized investments are absent, climate change will continue. Individual life style changes and sacrifices are urgently needed:
1. Cut down the number of daily meals from three to two (breakfast and heavy lunch only).
2. Raise thermostat temperature in the summer to 81°F and cut it down in the winter to 68°F.
3. Plant flowering plants, trees or vegetables around the house to cool the room temperature down slightly in the summer; avoid removing trees.
4. Prepare yourselves for the bad news coming sooner than you’d expect that governments have to enforce obedience to an order of electricity rationing: scheduled power-outs from 10.00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. In order to retain food in fair preservation, photo-voltaic or solar panels will be installed by governments and the cost shall be a burden to government loan or shared, if needed, as the case may be.
Hanging out for business to help one out is Joe's crackpot scheme and one had better do it oneself. It is up to us to grapple with the disaster by united action against the fossil fuel power industry.
The subsidies to the Fossil fuel industry should be stopped.
That money directed to Solar, Wind, Wave and research.
That money directed to Solar, Wind, Wave and research.
1
It is bizarre that the US, the richest country in the world, is behind the times on so many energy saving technologies, not just solar energy.
When I stayed in London, every dual electrical outlet had a small switch next to each socket (they are called "switched sockets"). By default, each switch is off and this is part of the outlet, not an add-on device. Because of this, when the socket is not in use it is not still drawing power, which is called "vampire energy use". One example would be a coffee pot used only in the morning, but left plugged in all day.
They look like this (and yes, the UK has direct current, but that should not make any difference):
http://www.screwfix.com/p/mk-13a-2-gang-dp-switched-plug-socket-white/15747
In the US, where so many technological breakthroughs come from, we are astoundingly behind the times on almost everything. It is incomprehensible, as there would be lots of money to be made in both manufacturing switched sockets and replacing outlets in millions of American homes.
But then our electrical bills would be much lower if we did made these inexpensive and practical changes, so there's your answer right there.
When I stayed in London, every dual electrical outlet had a small switch next to each socket (they are called "switched sockets"). By default, each switch is off and this is part of the outlet, not an add-on device. Because of this, when the socket is not in use it is not still drawing power, which is called "vampire energy use". One example would be a coffee pot used only in the morning, but left plugged in all day.
They look like this (and yes, the UK has direct current, but that should not make any difference):
http://www.screwfix.com/p/mk-13a-2-gang-dp-switched-plug-socket-white/15747
In the US, where so many technological breakthroughs come from, we are astoundingly behind the times on almost everything. It is incomprehensible, as there would be lots of money to be made in both manufacturing switched sockets and replacing outlets in millions of American homes.
But then our electrical bills would be much lower if we did made these inexpensive and practical changes, so there's your answer right there.
4
The US went through the "Current Wars" before WWI. At the time, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison were disputing the value of the different types of systems. Edison is renowned among hustlers for faking the invention of the "first practical electric light" andfor having an elephant electrocuted for a movie to fake the dangers of AC electricity. In fact, Edison's DC was expensive and would have needed a generator every 10 blocks or so in NYC to supply it. It was a disaster. Edison was forced by economics and physics to adopt AC. which hasn't got the "vampire" problems England's DC outlets may have.
Edison's propaganda was so good, though, that by 1960, only about a few thousand US citizens knew who Nikola Tesla was and that he was the real electrifier of America. Canadians knew him and remembered him, though.
Edison's propaganda was so good, though, that by 1960, only about a few thousand US citizens knew who Nikola Tesla was and that he was the real electrifier of America. Canadians knew him and remembered him, though.
2
UK is on alternating current like us, just different voltage and frequency.
United Kingdom 230 V / 50 Hz
USA 120 V / 60 Hz
United Kingdom 230 V / 50 Hz
USA 120 V / 60 Hz
What dreck...
Vanity rooftop solar - and wind - projects in NYC make about as much sense as each brownstone burning its own trash...
Or burying it within its own postage-stamp-sized back yard...
Without huge subsidies - they'd make no sense whatsoever...
You wanna argue - just look at what the transformational multi-million-sf NYC real-estate projects are all doing...
Gas-based co-generation...
http://investors.tecogen.com/2014-12-18-Tecogen-Sells-Natural-Gas-Driven...
PS - take a page from NYS's own Cornell University...
https://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/util/cooling/production/l...
If you all actually do take the incredibly short-sighted step of shutting down Indian Point - at least use the resulting gigawatt-scale reservoir of Hudson River water to make your heating and air-conditioning more thermodynamically efficient...
What's next - solar rights, to go along with air rights???
Vanity rooftop solar - and wind - projects in NYC make about as much sense as each brownstone burning its own trash...
Or burying it within its own postage-stamp-sized back yard...
Without huge subsidies - they'd make no sense whatsoever...
You wanna argue - just look at what the transformational multi-million-sf NYC real-estate projects are all doing...
Gas-based co-generation...
http://investors.tecogen.com/2014-12-18-Tecogen-Sells-Natural-Gas-Driven...
PS - take a page from NYS's own Cornell University...
https://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/util/cooling/production/l...
If you all actually do take the incredibly short-sighted step of shutting down Indian Point - at least use the resulting gigawatt-scale reservoir of Hudson River water to make your heating and air-conditioning more thermodynamically efficient...
What's next - solar rights, to go along with air rights???
Shhhh! Insolation rights are and will be very valuable.
1
yesterday gazing at leaves on a tree with the sunlight making them glow yellow through the other side, I was thinking - these are little solar panels ! - storing sunlight as energy/food
so if we want to use our intelligence - how about copying nature ? Rather than erecting towers of reflective surfaces that damage other stuff (Gehry's LA museum melting car dashboards?) - let's just put solar surfacing on glass to use them to generate power - and/or where it's too hot, just use solar panels as shade - so where you want shade you're also getting free power !
so if we want to use our intelligence - how about copying nature ? Rather than erecting towers of reflective surfaces that damage other stuff (Gehry's LA museum melting car dashboards?) - let's just put solar surfacing on glass to use them to generate power - and/or where it's too hot, just use solar panels as shade - so where you want shade you're also getting free power !
1
This sounds like the gas lobby warning against the dangers of electric lighting back in the 1880's. Or Detroit laughing about seat belts, air bags and now electric cars.
Solar will, eventually become so efficient that it will be uneconomical not to use it . Combustion is aform of energy provision we can't afford anymore. AS for nukes-we ought to have switched to an all nuclear power system decades ago. That we didn't is what will cause some of the biggest disasters since melting glacial ice created the Black Sea, which gave us the stories of Noah's Ark and similar narratives.
Solar will, eventually become so efficient that it will be uneconomical not to use it . Combustion is aform of energy provision we can't afford anymore. AS for nukes-we ought to have switched to an all nuclear power system decades ago. That we didn't is what will cause some of the biggest disasters since melting glacial ice created the Black Sea, which gave us the stories of Noah's Ark and similar narratives.
So we just go plant another magic money tree to pay for solar - wind - electric cars? Of course not - the tax payer can always pony up a few more dollars on their electric bill.
If you want to see the end-game for massive solar subsidies just google what is going on in Ontario, Canada or Germany.
If you want to see the end-game for massive solar subsidies just google what is going on in Ontario, Canada or Germany.
The market is getting very clear on this.
Read and learn.
The future is renewable.
http://bloom.bg/1UHPrQh
Read and learn.
The future is renewable.
http://bloom.bg/1UHPrQh
I went to your link, sounds good at first - before they link to 'Southern Company' with an 'all of the above' approach of profit over long-term outlook for our civilization.
1
All sounds good until (a) the rebates and tax credits end, which they will at some point, and (b) more importantly, the utilities either raise rates for everyone or impose some form of surcharge on electricity supplied to the grid by rooftop solar. The fundamental problem is the grid and the available capacity from traditional power plants to support the grid and peak demand cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Unless we completely overhaul the grid and the public utility plant infrastructure to adjust for the forecasted growth in rooftop and other non-utility provided electricity, we are heading for a political and economic train wreck. Perfect example is what is happening out west, where utilities, politicians, homeowners and the solar industry are already duking it out. I am all for renewables. But, folks, there is no free (or subsidized) lunch on this one.
Is New York ready for solar energy? No, not for “power” or “energy”. The words are not synonymous. What's the difference? It's like the difference between “miles” and “miles per hour”, which, as most people know, are very different things. And that difference is at the very heart of the matter because we need to store solar “power”, i.e., the varying output of solar cells, to get the “energy” we need when that output is insufficient. At night, for example. And we don't have that ability yet. Far from it. About all we have right now are ordinary batteries, which are, even the Lithium kind, woefully inadequate to store the billions of kilowatt hours (energy) we use every day (Not, please note, Mr./Ms. Times' editor, “kilowatts” but “kilowatt hours”.; the former is power, the latter is energy, and we;re talking about energy storage here. I do hope I've managed to make at least that distinction, if nothing else, clear in this note).
So that's the problem with solar energy; the sun doesn't shine at night. It's that simple. But itt's a very big problem . It can be solved but we haven't even begun to solve it and it must be solved if we're going to save even part of 0ur planet. So we better get started.. Soon.
So that's the problem with solar energy; the sun doesn't shine at night. It's that simple. But itt's a very big problem . It can be solved but we haven't even begun to solve it and it must be solved if we're going to save even part of 0ur planet. So we better get started.. Soon.
2
You are right, the sun doesn't shine at night... but that's only a minor problem, because storing energy during day-time for use during the night would probably be manageable (very costly, though), but solar PV's biggest drawback is that it needs storage IN SUMMER for future use in winter. Take any "solar calculator" showing the production of a PV system in NY as a function of the month of the year... and you'll see that between November and February, 4 full months, there is no way that a household-size PV system can generate enough electricity during the day AND store sufficient energy (not power!... you are right) during the day. There is not enough battery available, anyway... only way would be pumped hydroelectricity... i.e. transforming the low-voltage PV in NYC to higher voltages (i.e. the opposite of what the distribution network does today), up to very high voltage and up to NY State's reservoirs... if there is any available, or across the border to Canada (more likely). How about factoring in these huge costs? Who's gonna pay for all this?
Where I live in sunny PA there are a number of neighbors who have solar and no one regrets getting them. Most who have done so are engineers, electricians etc. all people with backgrounds that give them a through understanding of the science involved. Everyone of them has been happy to state just how much they are saving on the electric bill.
My husband chose not to have solar panels because he believed that panels would get too hot and cause a fire.
My husband chose not to have solar panels because he believed that panels would get too hot and cause a fire.
2
Those prices are outrageous. I can get a fully installed 4.4kW system in NZ with ZERO subsidies for US$9700. That's with 16 LG panels with 25 year guarantee. US products are normally miles cheaper than here in NZ, I can't understand why the list price on a system should be as high as $27,225 for only 4.25kW?
1
Well... your US$9700 for a 4.4 kWp system are ALSO outrageous... since in Germany you can get the same for 6000 Euros.
The list price are high because there are hefty "incentives", i.e. someone ELSE pays the difference, in this case all the other people who can't install panels on their rooftops... the local utilities at some point always increase their fees, since they are obliged by "green" politicians to buy the unwanted "surplus" of electricity churned out by PV. Same happened in Germany for several years, but now has stopped, because the "incentives" have decreased considerably... and as a consequence the installation of new PV system has fallen behind the forecasts made few years ago, which had a couple of GWp/year... now they are way below that. Italy the same... US is next, just wait a bit and you'll see... there's no way that intermittent renewable take the place of dispatchable thermall units, be them fossil fueled or nuclear.
It's simple physics.
The list price are high because there are hefty "incentives", i.e. someone ELSE pays the difference, in this case all the other people who can't install panels on their rooftops... the local utilities at some point always increase their fees, since they are obliged by "green" politicians to buy the unwanted "surplus" of electricity churned out by PV. Same happened in Germany for several years, but now has stopped, because the "incentives" have decreased considerably... and as a consequence the installation of new PV system has fallen behind the forecasts made few years ago, which had a couple of GWp/year... now they are way below that. Italy the same... US is next, just wait a bit and you'll see... there's no way that intermittent renewable take the place of dispatchable thermall units, be them fossil fueled or nuclear.
It's simple physics.
Today Governor signed law extending the nyc property tax credit for solar.
2
As a power engineer all of my working life, this is nothing but a bunch of baloney. At best you get 8 hours of sunlight per day and only at high noon are the panels operating at rated efficiency. In the Northeast you can goes weeks at a time with rainy or overcast days that produce almost no solar electricity. What are we supposed to do for the 16 plus hours every day and the week long periods without sun light?!? If you think you can just store that "extra" solar power generated when the sun is shinning brightly, you have no conception of the square footage of solar panels you would need to generate that extra electricity and no idea of the immense cost of the storage system big enough to store that amount of energy.
7
"As a power engineer all my life" ... baloney. This is another water army poster.
My posting name is my real name, I'm a PhD engineer well-known to many on the New York Times, I authored the nytimes guest article you can see here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/can-obama-do-for-the-grid-w...
and I want to tell you that comments like those from "br8krboy" are just trolling.
Solar energy is economic in New York City today. If you have rooftop area that "sees the sun," you are foolish not to take advantage of it.
My posting name is my real name, I'm a PhD engineer well-known to many on the New York Times, I authored the nytimes guest article you can see here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/can-obama-do-for-the-grid-w...
and I want to tell you that comments like those from "br8krboy" are just trolling.
Solar energy is economic in New York City today. If you have rooftop area that "sees the sun," you are foolish not to take advantage of it.
2
As a power engineer you seem unable to picture the fact that rooftop solar is just one part of a big, complex set of power supplies. As you note, solar helps smooth out demand during the daytime by providing extra energy when demand is high, so that levels out the utilization of the transmission grid.
But NY also has hydro from Niagra, nuclear plants, and other generation sources, plus can buy power across state lines.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ny
The grid is changing under you, power engineer, better keep up. Why not read the IEEE Power and Energy Society's magazine and reports?
http://www.ieee-pes.org/about-pes/getting-started
But NY also has hydro from Niagra, nuclear plants, and other generation sources, plus can buy power across state lines.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ny
The grid is changing under you, power engineer, better keep up. Why not read the IEEE Power and Energy Society's magazine and reports?
http://www.ieee-pes.org/about-pes/getting-started
3
Year round, you can get solar energy from sunrise to sunset. NYC has longer days from the Autumnal Equinox to the Vernal Equinox than Seattle. Also even cloudy days generate solar energy (of course, not as much as sunny days) otherwise places like Germany and Seattle wouldn't be viable markets (and both are).
Most all solar systems are designed to send excess generated energy (after it supplies the household with electricity) back to the grid. Your utility keeps track of the energy it receives from your system (that's what net metering is all about) and the energy it supplies you during times when your system doesn't generate enough energy to meet your needs. IN an urban environment, it's EXTREMELY rare to see people install solar systems off the grid. Some people here with solar systems and natural gas to their residences have put in emergency generators so that when the power goes out (and your system shuts down--which it has to due to safety factors) the generator kicks in and they at least have some power to the residence.
Most all solar systems are designed to send excess generated energy (after it supplies the household with electricity) back to the grid. Your utility keeps track of the energy it receives from your system (that's what net metering is all about) and the energy it supplies you during times when your system doesn't generate enough energy to meet your needs. IN an urban environment, it's EXTREMELY rare to see people install solar systems off the grid. Some people here with solar systems and natural gas to their residences have put in emergency generators so that when the power goes out (and your system shuts down--which it has to due to safety factors) the generator kicks in and they at least have some power to the residence.
1
My friend lives in CT, it welcomes energy saving solar installations... Three local towns joined together to get group discounted solar installations for homeowners. Here is what it cost him to install an 8.5 kW system with 34 panels... This system was expected to provide the $150.00 per month worth of electricity the owner had been averaging in CT... The original system price - $35,000. Discounted price, $31,450... Minus $10,224 - the actual State of CT incentive paid to the installer, made the total price $21,226... then a Federal Tax Credit of 30% was available to the homeowner or leasing company, which brought the GRAND TOTAL to $14,858...!!! (FOR A $35,000 DOLLAR SYSTEM)... The best part is that my friend had 3 options of how to pay for it: (1) Pay in full $14,858, or (2) pay $1099 down and $176. per month before Fed. tax credit, or $117 after Fed. tax credit for a 15 year loan... OR (3) pay $110. per month for a 20 year lease, with NO MONEY DOWN...!!! He took the 3rd offer of $110. per month... Remember that he is generating $150 worth of electricity per month...!!!... CT, DEMANDS that the utility company pay the homeowner for the EXCESS electricity that the homeowner generates, this program is called Net Metering - actually putting excess solar generated electricity back into the grid. In fact: On Jan 1, 2015 the utility company raised its rates 54%…!! Demand that your state and Fed. Govt. offer incentives for solar installations and allow Net Metering.
3
What remains however is that, considering the alternatives solar PV in New York City is in many cases a negative NPV decision, exactly because we have such limited roof space, so whenever you can manage the integration, it is more productive to go after the heat and hot water with solar thermal than after the electricity with solar PV. It's the difference between going after the 70% of the bill versus 30% of the energy bill. On the other hand, if it is possible to do a retrofit with heat pump technology, be it air source, or ground source, that drastically alters the economics and then solar or wind, or ideally a combination of both are very valuable.
3
We've had our photovoltaic system for ten years now without issue. One advantage that goes unmentioned in the article is the satisfaction of knowing that where electricity is concerned, a greedy corporation that treats its customers and workers egregiously isn't making a profit off of our family. That satisfaction never gets old!
14
Trump's foibles should not rule him out as president. He will be far better at making important decision than she ever will!
1
Oh really? And you know this why?
And this is relevant to solar energy uptake in New York City because?
Common decency (and I have some, and Mr. Trump does not), makes it impossible for me to express what I think about both Mr. Trump and those who follow him with comments like yours.
And this is relevant to solar energy uptake in New York City because?
Common decency (and I have some, and Mr. Trump does not), makes it impossible for me to express what I think about both Mr. Trump and those who follow him with comments like yours.
1
The article says:
"Ms. Schaetzel’s electricity bill in August was $36.10 for a service connection charge to Con Edison, a fraction of the $250.19 bill she paid in August 2015. "
...well, citing the August bill doesn't tell much, let's see how much electricity can Ms Schaetzel churn out during the 4 months of Nov to Feb.
"Ms. Schaetzel’s electricity bill in August was $36.10 for a service connection charge to Con Edison, a fraction of the $250.19 bill she paid in August 2015. "
...well, citing the August bill doesn't tell much, let's see how much electricity can Ms Schaetzel churn out during the 4 months of Nov to Feb.
1
Let's also find out from Ms. Schaetzel how much she runs her air conditioner between November and February.
Note that the article also says for Mrs. Tornquist: "the electricity bill averaged about $320 per month before they went solar. After the system was installed in May 2015, the bills dropped to $18 a month during the summer and about $50 a month during the winter."
Note that the article also says for Mrs. Tornquist: "the electricity bill averaged about $320 per month before they went solar. After the system was installed in May 2015, the bills dropped to $18 a month during the summer and about $50 a month during the winter."
3
Listen, I don't know what Mrs Tornquist does during the day, but unless you are someone who stays home all day long, using candles instead of electric lights, there simply is no way that a typical family with parents having some kind of office job and kids in school can use much of the electricity that a PV system can generate from Nov to Feb. You wake up at 7 am (or earlier) to get ready for work/school, leaving at 8, and you come back in the late afternoon or early evening. In NYC, unless it moved in the caribbean lately, from Nov to Feb there is no sunlight to use directly before 8 am and after 6-7 pm. This is 5days/week. This means that if you want to use your own PV electricity you must install lots, but really lots of storage.
Additionally... just look at the photos here!... PV panels installed horizontally... they loose easily 30% of their overall efficiency, and you install them at an angle you loose footprint on the roof, since they need to be spaced or else they cast a shadow on each other.
Coming to Mrs X or Mr Y words, journalists can write whatever they want... but physics and astronomy are not opinions, that should be clear. It is very difficult to use more than 30-40% of a domestic PV system production as own-consumption, that's a well documented fact.
Additionally... just look at the photos here!... PV panels installed horizontally... they loose easily 30% of their overall efficiency, and you install them at an angle you loose footprint on the roof, since they need to be spaced or else they cast a shadow on each other.
Coming to Mrs X or Mr Y words, journalists can write whatever they want... but physics and astronomy are not opinions, that should be clear. It is very difficult to use more than 30-40% of a domestic PV system production as own-consumption, that's a well documented fact.
I'm just reporting what the article said. $50 a month in winter down from $320.
The NYT continues to run solar articles without mentioning the fact that neighbors are subsidizing roof-top solar. As a long-time times reader, I don't understand this.
2
They did not mention that YOU and I are subsidizing billionaires like Trump and the Kotch brothers, who PAY NO TAXES...!!!
What do you mean "neighbors subsidizing solar?"
What you mean is that those who don't go solar, are losers. Get used to it.
What you mean is that those who don't go solar, are losers. Get used to it.
1
I like solar and wind power. But they are still niche technologies. They're effective for peak-shaving and powering (with storage) remote locations. But they are not now reliable or cost effective for providing base load electric energy.
Massive subsidies and mandates, along with unneeded controls on CO2 emissions, are wrecking the electric grid. The grid is becoming less reliable, and the end of subsidies and mandates will result in a massive financial crisis. Investors should dump these investments now while the getting is good.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is for sure NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely causes are well documented elsewhere.
Here's why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. Everything else is sophistry or mass hysteria.
A modern coal power plant emits few pollutants except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.
Massive subsidies and mandates, along with unneeded controls on CO2 emissions, are wrecking the electric grid. The grid is becoming less reliable, and the end of subsidies and mandates will result in a massive financial crisis. Investors should dump these investments now while the getting is good.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is for sure NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely causes are well documented elsewhere.
Here's why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. Everything else is sophistry or mass hysteria.
A modern coal power plant emits few pollutants except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.
1
I don't know what your source is for that "3%" number, but we have more than doubled the atmospheric CO2 in just over a century. That has clearly come from somewhere. That higher CO2 is a contributing factor in climate change.
Setting aside the carbon emissions issue, though, the cheap, clean energy provided by solar and wind are eminently more sensible and sustainable than building plants that continually need to be fed. WalMart is now among the biggest solar operators in the US; hardly a company known for progressive initiatives.
Yes, this is disruptive to fossil-fuel generation, but given how much success the Europeans have had it's inevitable that it will take root in North America.
Oh, and coal actually isn't the most economical traditional form of generation. Nuclear is, and it remains the most sensible source of base load.
Setting aside the carbon emissions issue, though, the cheap, clean energy provided by solar and wind are eminently more sensible and sustainable than building plants that continually need to be fed. WalMart is now among the biggest solar operators in the US; hardly a company known for progressive initiatives.
Yes, this is disruptive to fossil-fuel generation, but given how much success the Europeans have had it's inevitable that it will take root in North America.
Oh, and coal actually isn't the most economical traditional form of generation. Nuclear is, and it remains the most sensible source of base load.
I got my bachelor's in chemistry 40 years ago, and admittedly my knowledge is quite rusty, so I could be wrong, but what Miner49er asserts does not sound right to me. First, I believe that CO (calcium oxide or "quick lime") does not exist in nature, in the oceans. Rather it is made industrially by heating CaCO3 (calcium carbonate), which releases CO2. But at ambient temperature the equilibrium favors calcium carbonate, which is the water-insoluble stuff that coral and sea shells are made of. As the ocean absorbs CO2, carbonic acid is formed. This in turn reacts with calcium carbonate to form the bicarbonate, Ca(HCO3)2, which is quite water soluble. And this is not so good for coral and sea creatures that live in shells. Moreover, the reaction to form the bicarbonate is also in equilibrium, so the ocean cannot absorb carbon dioxide without limit. And still further, if human activity is not the cause, what then is the reason that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased 40% since the start of the industrial revolution? Is this mere coincidence? We know that carbon dioxide re-emits infrared back to Earth, warming it. Isn't betting that we are not the cause of the rise of carbon dioxide levels (with resultant warming) kind of like playing Russian Roulette, except while aiming the gun at somebody else's head?
4
Thanks Miner 49er.
But I seriously doubt your "interesting" fact set would stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Better to check the whereabouts of your daughter Clementine.
But I seriously doubt your "interesting" fact set would stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Better to check the whereabouts of your daughter Clementine.
3
RMI made the state tower building much more efficient. Then they don't need much solar power. Solar hot water also makes a lot of sense. Having Solar during the day actually helps the power company. It the On Peak early morning and evening that are hard for the Power company and solar. So you can add some advanced battery back up for those times. We all win.
2
The installer came out to my home and after five minutes said the trees are too tall and your roof doesn't face the sun effectively. Additionally, they can not be installed on standing seam steel roofs. He left after five minutes.
Trees are an issue but I've installed dozens of systems on standing seam metal roofs with products such as these:
http://www.s-5.com/home/index.cfm
http://www.s-5.com/home/index.cfm
If photovoltaic technology could be incorporated into roofing materials, the cost of solar conversion could be integrated into the cost of replacing a roof and, with subsidies and tax breaks, the need for fossil fuel and/or nuclear power plants would be dramatically reduced within thirty years.
5
Read this Q&A:
Sun Roof: Solar Panel Shingles Come Down in Price, Gain in Popularity
Photovoltaic roof shingles, which are tax-subsidized and easier to install than bolt-on panels, have become a viable option for homeowners looking to lower their electric bills
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-...
Sun Roof: Solar Panel Shingles Come Down in Price, Gain in Popularity
Photovoltaic roof shingles, which are tax-subsidized and easier to install than bolt-on panels, have become a viable option for homeowners looking to lower their electric bills
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-...
I think this is either a reality or almost a reality in some markets.
Thanks b fagan, that's exactly what I am talking about. Upgrade the solar every time you re-roof.
1
Why are we increasing taxes and power bills for poor people so that homeowners don't have to pay a power bill?
7
I don't understand your question, but if you're asking why we're switching to renewable energy, it's because we here in New York City, living on islands, as we do (except the Bronx), would rather not wade to work in a couple of decades.
5
John, solar does not benefit only the homeowner (who hosts the array) through reduction of their electric bill. Solar benefits everyone, by decreasing production of greenhouse gases, which is necessary to slow and hopefully halt greenhouse gas-induced climate change. You should understand the need for this quite well, coming from CA, which is enduring chronic drought and forest fires that are almost certainly due to greenhouse gas-induced climate change (rather than normal variation in climate). Moreover, in some states (such as CT, where I reside) it is possible to lease a PV system for zero down. Such pay-as-you-go leases decrease monthly electric bills more modestly than paod-up-front leases, but they make PV available to even to those of modest means. Again, the real objective is not reducing ones electric bill but reducing GHG, which benefits everyone.
5
Hmm, climate change maybe... ?
1
I agree that latitude is everything. The Mojave desert has the efficiency of scale with acres of mirrored solar panel farms. Transmission lines should be set up near electric car pumps and we get the demand supply ratio right. We certainly have the grids in major cities but not in mid sized or rural areas. As the planet gets hotter and drier, hydrogen cars with fuel cells can emit H2o in the atmosphere Also how can roofs be fireproofed with solar panels? The best idea for roofs in the city is green vegetation on roofs. Let nature produce energy and provide cooling. This was first tried in SF's Science museum rooftop at golden gate park.
1
In addition to the 30% Fed Income Tax Credit, there is also a 25% NYS Income Tax Credit (NYS capped at $5K and this only applies when the system is installed on the homeowner's primary residence...second homes cannot take advantage of this credit).
Unfortunately, lower income residents who have no income tax liability, or receive an income tax return, cannot take advantage of these credits. This increases the "payback period" substantially.
All NYS homeowners can take advantage of the NYSERDA Incentive Rebate program...the application is handled by your solar installer, and the incentive amount comes off the top of the installation price.
Unfortunately, lower income residents who have no income tax liability, or receive an income tax return, cannot take advantage of these credits. This increases the "payback period" substantially.
All NYS homeowners can take advantage of the NYSERDA Incentive Rebate program...the application is handled by your solar installer, and the incentive amount comes off the top of the installation price.
3
If the 30% Federal Tax Credit was a "Refundable" Tax credit then everyone would get the same help from the Government.
A simple word added to the tax code, and many more clean energy sources would be affordable to those who want to help the environment.
Those elderly, who installed without the 30% help (Borrowing to make up the difference) should be grandfathered in so they can pay down the loan and get out of danger.
A simple word added to the tax code, and many more clean energy sources would be affordable to those who want to help the environment.
Those elderly, who installed without the 30% help (Borrowing to make up the difference) should be grandfathered in so they can pay down the loan and get out of danger.
1
The installer captures the bulk of the 30% tax credit by increasing the selling price of the solar panels. Making it refundable would only increase profits for the vendors.
The 30% Federal Tax Credit and NYSERDA Incentive Rebate money doesn't just fall from the sky. It comes by raising the tax rate and utility bill of everyone else - including the poor as pointed out elsewhere in the comments. Right now solar power still cannot compete with conventional power and just takes money out of one pocket and puts it in another. Also, let's wait 20 years and factor in the cost of maintenance plus removal when they become eyesores or the roof has to be replaced.
I wish it could be so easy.
I wish it could be so easy.
3
That CitiCorp Bldg had its top turned to catch the sun using solar panels.
This was done at great expense. It is about time there were panels on it.
The output of the latest panels means they don't have to be pointed exactly south.
Free standing panels are pointed slightly to the south east in order to catch the first morning rays more efficiently, after a long dark night.
This was done at great expense. It is about time there were panels on it.
The output of the latest panels means they don't have to be pointed exactly south.
Free standing panels are pointed slightly to the south east in order to catch the first morning rays more efficiently, after a long dark night.
The May 9, 1977, NYT mentions the abandonment of the solar system for the Citicorp Building:
"The decision to scrap the solar‐energy project came one day when “we. were sitting in a meeting and threw some numbers on a blackboard,” said Mr. Dexter. “To me they showed it would cost us $3,000” a year to run. “To others it saved $3,000 a year.”
Who is going to quibble over $3.000 one way or another when installation. would cost at least $1.7 million and who knows how much to maintain, he asked, adding, and how are you going to wash all those windows?"
"The decision to scrap the solar‐energy project came one day when “we. were sitting in a meeting and threw some numbers on a blackboard,” said Mr. Dexter. “To me they showed it would cost us $3,000” a year to run. “To others it saved $3,000 a year.”
Who is going to quibble over $3.000 one way or another when installation. would cost at least $1.7 million and who knows how much to maintain, he asked, adding, and how are you going to wash all those windows?"
1
Solar or other alt. energy should be part of building codes for new construction. As with most add-ons, it is cheaper, more effective and less sightly to include it in new construction. Countries such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Norway have adopted such policies very effectively. The poor are not affected because they generally don't buy or rent new homes, and the initial payback comes well before the end of the average mortgage.
6
It is cheaper to install solar panels in new construction than to retrofit. Even with the cheaper new construction installation, solar electricity is more expensive than conventionally sourced electricity, with or without government subsidies.
Actually, I am astonished at the $200 and $300 electric bills put forth in this article. I'd be interested in installing solar panels on my roof just on principle; but even in the summer, with nighttime use of air conditioners, my electric bills aren't higher than $150.00.
For at least a couple of dozen years now, I have turned my rocker switches to "off" when I leave the house or even when I'm not actively using some electronic device. Only the refrigerator and a couple of clock-radios have juice running in them. Most often, I pay about $70 a month. There are many ways to save electricity.
(It's not all virtue. It's also a little phobia regarding electrical fires.)
For at least a couple of dozen years now, I have turned my rocker switches to "off" when I leave the house or even when I'm not actively using some electronic device. Only the refrigerator and a couple of clock-radios have juice running in them. Most often, I pay about $70 a month. There are many ways to save electricity.
(It's not all virtue. It's also a little phobia regarding electrical fires.)
7
B, the cost of running AC will of course vary with volume of the residence and, perhaps more importantly, ratio of volume to surface area of the outside wall and roof. If you have a single family home then the ratio of outside surface area to volume will be relatively greater than that of a unit (apartment) in a multi-unit dwelling. An apartment surrounded on all but one side by other apartments will have especially little outside surface area, and especially little flow of heat from the outside. The same should be true of heating during the winter. Apartment buildings are potentially much more thermally efficient than single family houses, and potentially cheaper to cool and heat. I have a single family house that receives little shade from trees. My electric bill for cooling sometimes exceeded $300 per month. So, I decided to beat the sun at its own game and make it cool my house by installing a photovoltaic system. On an annual basis, it makes 70% of electricity I use, reducing my electric bill substantially. And my carbon footprint is vastly reduced.
3
Private house, 3Bikes, exposed on all sides, with a fierce southwestern exposure -- but true, not centrally air-conditioned and, true too, air conditioners not on all day. I envy your solar panels. Someday, perhaps.
In the meantime, I think my rocker switches do save electricity. I'd love to have one of the English systems where you can turn off electricity to an entire room with a flick of a wall switch. Seems safer to me than having all that electricity running through the walls all the time.
(Not that electricity isn't safer than candles.)
In the meantime, I think my rocker switches do save electricity. I'd love to have one of the English systems where you can turn off electricity to an entire room with a flick of a wall switch. Seems safer to me than having all that electricity running through the walls all the time.
(Not that electricity isn't safer than candles.)
Great to see things being done to help move things forward. I love the idea of a solar canopy not only for electric but for shade on my roof!
5
And solar panels will protect your south-facing roof which means that it won't have to be replaced as often.
1
Small correction, unit of measure should be KWH not kilowatts.
Correction:
"157,000 kilowatts of electricity per year" makes no sense. Perhaps the author meant kilowatt-hours.
"157,000 kilowatts of electricity per year" makes no sense. Perhaps the author meant kilowatt-hours.
6
I'm willing to bet that no amount of governmental subsidies will be able to alter New York's latitude.
5
What on earth does that have to do with it? Germany is not "sunshine bathed" land and they get a lot of power from solar.
5
Meaning what? That we're too far north to make solar power viable?
Germany is farther north of us and they get about a third of their electricity from solar generation.
Try again.
Germany is farther north of us and they get about a third of their electricity from solar generation.
Try again.
10
NYC is at the same latitude as Madrid, Spain.
6
One thing that wasn't alluded to in the article, although one commenter did mention it, is landmarking. I live in a neighborhood of houses with large pitched roofs, seemingly ideal for solar, but we were informed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission that we are not allowed to make any non-historic changes to the exterior of our houses that are visible from the street, including the street behind the house. I have not "seen" any solar installations in the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if there are any or if the law has been changed to allow them.
5
"I'm wondering if there are any or if the law has been changed to allow them."
I hope not. Many of our old Brooklyn Victorians are architecturally significant, and whole neighborhoods are landmarked. I suppose solar panels on the backs of pitched roofs would be all right, but . . . .
I hope not. Many of our old Brooklyn Victorians are architecturally significant, and whole neighborhoods are landmarked. I suppose solar panels on the backs of pitched roofs would be all right, but . . . .
1
It's one type of law (or homeowner's association ruling) that could need a fresh look. I'd read an article on wildfires out west and there was one picture of a neighborhood in San Diego after a 2003 wildfire went through it. One of the few remaining homes had just recently installed a fire-resistant roof - over the objections of the local association, who wanted wood shingles. In a fire area.
I look at all those tall buildings and wonder where the windmills are.
Ready made towers to harness the wind.
Ready made towers to harness the wind.
4
They tried it here in London and look what happened.
http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-rarely-spinning-turbines-of-the-strata-t...
Ha ha ha!
http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-rarely-spinning-turbines-of-the-strata-t...
Ha ha ha!
There is an oopen and free online solar potential map for all of New York, developed by MIT-born Mapdwell, at www.mapdwell.com/ny
5
Wake up New York ! You're being ripped off. Solar systems don't cost $20,000 and $50,000 anymore. Those are prices from 3 years ago. Today, an average sized 5 kW solar system with name brand solar equipment costs less than $12,500 and before any incentives. After applying only the 30% federal tax credit, the cost would only be $8,750.
The solar leasing companies are the worst offenders when it comes to pricing, charging nearly twice as much as a fair market priced solar dealer. Don't be fooled. Search the Internet using the name of your state followed by the words discount solar and don't overpay for solar.
The solar leasing companies are the worst offenders when it comes to pricing, charging nearly twice as much as a fair market priced solar dealer. Don't be fooled. Search the Internet using the name of your state followed by the words discount solar and don't overpay for solar.
36
You have to be careful in using these maps.
On our building, the shape and usable area aren't accurately drawn on this map. Moreover, for some reason, it sub-divides our building into six "blocks", even though they're all part of the same building, and each "block" includes usable roof area but also people's terraces on the top floor, which would obviously not be usable space.
On our building, the shape and usable area aren't accurately drawn on this map. Moreover, for some reason, it sub-divides our building into six "blocks", even though they're all part of the same building, and each "block" includes usable roof area but also people's terraces on the top floor, which would obviously not be usable space.
This is all great news. What would be even better is for the city and/or state to form a public-private partnership to build solar capacity on city and stated owned buildings and properties (schools, police stations, MTA facilities, government buildings, etc.)
26
Most of the incentives are tax credits, government buildings don't usually pay taxes and don't have an income to offset.
A lot of the government buildings in Chicago use green roofs. They cool the building - reducing energy requirements a bit, absorb some rainfall to reduce runoff, and are inexpensive to maintain.
The following phrase is misleading: "Solar panels *occasionally* short circuit and need replacing."
To the layperson this reads worrisome, as if it were a given that at least a few of their panels will eventually short out, requiring repair crews up on their roof.
In reality, if IEC / NRTL-listed panels are installed in a professional way, short circuits and failures in general are extremely rare. Do a websearch for "pv module failure rates".
The article below mentions: "An NREL study, reporting on ten years of field results, showed that unqualified modules suffered from 45 percent field failure rates while qualified modules suffered from a less than 0.1 percent field failure rate."
0.1% (1 out of every 1000 panels) is a lot better track record than "occasionally".
*Note: You can't pass an NYC electrical inspection if "unqualified modules" are installed. Such "unqualified modules" are the equivalent of buying a "Somy" or "Parasonic" walkman on Canal St in the 1980's. Fringe oddities, only available via very shady sources and obviously not a good idea.
If you have a reputable contractor install certified panels on your roof, its more likely than not those same panels will still be producing electricity 40 years from now.
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
To the layperson this reads worrisome, as if it were a given that at least a few of their panels will eventually short out, requiring repair crews up on their roof.
In reality, if IEC / NRTL-listed panels are installed in a professional way, short circuits and failures in general are extremely rare. Do a websearch for "pv module failure rates".
The article below mentions: "An NREL study, reporting on ten years of field results, showed that unqualified modules suffered from 45 percent field failure rates while qualified modules suffered from a less than 0.1 percent field failure rate."
0.1% (1 out of every 1000 panels) is a lot better track record than "occasionally".
*Note: You can't pass an NYC electrical inspection if "unqualified modules" are installed. Such "unqualified modules" are the equivalent of buying a "Somy" or "Parasonic" walkman on Canal St in the 1980's. Fringe oddities, only available via very shady sources and obviously not a good idea.
If you have a reputable contractor install certified panels on your roof, its more likely than not those same panels will still be producing electricity 40 years from now.
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
10
I agree....that statement seemed unnecessary. Maybe to appease the fossil fuel gods? In the meantime, how many homes heated by gas explode every year?I'd be more afraid of a gas line entering my home than solar panels on my roof.
1
The typical 6 story building with fire escapes requires, in addition to the 6 foot perimeter, free movement from the stairwells to those fire escapes that go down from the roof. This can markedly reduce the available area. There is an informative "Solar Map" online where one can lookup a building and determine its estimated electrical output, and more importantly, the pay back time. For our two cooperative buildings that are similar to those in the photos, it would take 15 years to break even. What is the lifespan of the solar panels? What if the roof requires replacement or another major hurricane comes along? Most buildings have probably switched to low energy use lighting for common areas at this point and saving 70-80% of this is no big deal for the budget.
http://nycsolarmap.com/
http://nycsolarmap.com/
1
"This can markedly reduce the available area"
That was discussed in the article.
That was discussed in the article.
2
It may be true that the payback/break-even period is fifteen years, but you would need to do a more specific calculation for your building.
A lot of those calculations are based on outdated numbers. When we went through an assessment for our building, the calculations that we came up with was closer to five years, with the upfront tax advantages factored in. So you have to dive into the specifics and get an assessment done by someone like Solar One:
http://www.solar1.org/here-comes-solar/
They will do an assessment for free then send the estimates to several licensed installers for bids. Only then will you know what the actual cost and potential payback will be.
A lot of those calculations are based on outdated numbers. When we went through an assessment for our building, the calculations that we came up with was closer to five years, with the upfront tax advantages factored in. So you have to dive into the specifics and get an assessment done by someone like Solar One:
http://www.solar1.org/here-comes-solar/
They will do an assessment for free then send the estimates to several licensed installers for bids. Only then will you know what the actual cost and potential payback will be.
2
Great intent but is this really the best first step in reducing energy costs and environmental impact for our older housing stock? I have seen so many owners ask about solar when a better investment would be to replace the 75-year old oil boiler with a more efficient gas boiler, change out old lighting, paint a black roof white, put in better building system control, etc. These other energy efficiency measures are less sexy, but they replace old equipment prone to sudden and costly failure and generate returns on investment in the 25-50% range without any subsidies. They also address air quality issues that cause asthma for too many kids. And don't forget that many solar panels (or their parts) are manufactured over-seas in places with little environmental regulations, so they have a poor impact on environment before they ship around the world. When the "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency measures are completed for an older building, then think about solar. Doing otherwise is just green-washing.
17
Shouldn't it be "all of the above"? Calling converting to distributed solar "greewashing" is a bit overstated, no?
9
Where do you think they manufacture the: GAS BOILERS, LIGHTING, and WHITE ROOF PAINT?
4
Energy literacy is the first step in improving our grid - I'd assert most of my UWS neighbors know more about the provenance of their tomatoes at Fairway than about the source of the electricity they depend on. Ditto in population centers upstate...pay the bill and it comes out of the wall socket. Distributed solar will change how Con Ed and LILCO dispatch the electricity they generate and bring in from other sources. Hmm...sounds like a NYT Sunday Magazine article...
6
I have read other articles that mention that it takes one homeowner to purchase solar or electric cars and it catches on with neighbors.
I think most of us are still living in the era that solar is way too expensive.
I think most of us are still living in the era that solar is way too expensive.
1
Solar is no longer "expensive". That is a denier myth and completely out-dated.
There is an upfront installation cost that can be mitigated in a number of ways, but the ultimate payback during the generating life of solar panels today will be many times the upfront installation cost. The average payback or break-even period a few years ago was ten years. I wouldn't be surprised if it's half that or less, depending upon what sort of tax breaks are available in your state. The cost of solar panels has plummeted, and with greater scale and experience with installations, those "soft" cost will also continue to fall.
There is an upfront installation cost that can be mitigated in a number of ways, but the ultimate payback during the generating life of solar panels today will be many times the upfront installation cost. The average payback or break-even period a few years ago was ten years. I wouldn't be surprised if it's half that or less, depending upon what sort of tax breaks are available in your state. The cost of solar panels has plummeted, and with greater scale and experience with installations, those "soft" cost will also continue to fall.
15
Once Solar Windows has its product up and running every skyscraper in Manhatten can be its own power plant. That's a lot of Watts.
23
The 30% federal tax credit for solar installation does not help retirees who use their life savings to help stem climate change. The 30% should be a "Refundable tax credit". Then retirees would get the same break as folks who are still working and owe Uncle Sam tax. Older Americans already paid the Tax on their savings, so they cannot now write off the 30%.
Retired folks are on thin enough ice. To disqualify them from the same help as those still working, by not making the 30% tax credit "Refundable", is a serious handicap to put on them.
Retired folks are on thin enough ice. To disqualify them from the same help as those still working, by not making the 30% tax credit "Refundable", is a serious handicap to put on them.
7
Not if they are living on non-Roth 401/403/457 eferred compensation retirement money (which most of us under 65 will be when we retire. Retirees will be paying income tax on the money they pull out when they retire.
So who paid the other 21K for the install?
I am thinking taxpayers via credits, reduced corporate taxes and just plain giveaways.
I am thinking taxpayers via credits, reduced corporate taxes and just plain giveaways.
2
The same benefits given to the fossil fuel companies for more than a century?
8
And who "pays" for the carbon and other pollutants that are spewed into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning power generation?
8
PV panels do not grow on trees!... they are built mainly in China (>70% of them) using 70% electricity from coal.
Nice try, though.
Nice try, though.
All those black solar panels going up on roofs will heat the city up even more in the summer.
1
You clearly have no understanding of science.
2
If you paid for your science classes, you are owed a refund.
5
Rooftop solar is the most expensive energy available. The only reason folk can do it is due to subsidies. Also net metering is a rip off of all other electric customers who are paying for it. So all you who are installing solar, you're not welcome.
5
My solar panels power my entire home. They power all the electricity, including cooking, heating, cooling, hot water, as well as my plug-in electric vehicle. The system's payoff is approximately 7-8 years, meaning I will have free electricity, heat, hot water, and car miles for the next 20+ years. Please explain how that is more expensive than using fossil fuels.
Also, please account for the fossil fuel subsidies reaped by Big Oil and Big Gas over the last 125 years. Paid for by consumers.
And don't forget that Big Oil and Big Gas have dumped their waste into the Earth's atmosphere FOR FREE for more than a century, leaving future generations to pay.
Also, please account for the fossil fuel subsidies reaped by Big Oil and Big Gas over the last 125 years. Paid for by consumers.
And don't forget that Big Oil and Big Gas have dumped their waste into the Earth's atmosphere FOR FREE for more than a century, leaving future generations to pay.
31
Most expensive energy as compared to what? Cite your statistics. You can't because it's not true. There's a greater upfront installation cost, but over the life of the solar panels' generating life, it will repay the owner multiple times the original acquisition cost. What other source of energy does that, particularly ones generated by fossil fuel consumption?
Moreover, net metering is simply being able to sell any unused excess energy generated back to the utility at retail rates. How is that a "rip off"? Again, cite your sources. Again, you can't, because there are none.
Moreover, net metering is simply being able to sell any unused excess energy generated back to the utility at retail rates. How is that a "rip off"? Again, cite your sources. Again, you can't, because there are none.
9
Factually incorrect. Take your propaganda elsewhere please.
4
Indeed, every roof and even every window should collect energy from the sum to reduce carbon footprint.
But will the solar conversion reduce consumer's energy bills and result in significant savings?
It depends on whether the solar panels will be owned by house owners or leased. If panels are not owned then there is no true energy independence it's simply switching who you pay the bill to.
Eventually, one company, maybe even ConEd, will buy out all small solar panel leasing companies, squashing competitive pricing and service quality.
But will the solar conversion reduce consumer's energy bills and result in significant savings?
It depends on whether the solar panels will be owned by house owners or leased. If panels are not owned then there is no true energy independence it's simply switching who you pay the bill to.
Eventually, one company, maybe even ConEd, will buy out all small solar panel leasing companies, squashing competitive pricing and service quality.
2
As I have said before don't lease your solar roof. Buy it.
I always wonder if there are ill-advised (meaning environmentally damaging) procedures/operations in the manufacturing of solar panels. It always seems that that are unintended consequences even in our best intentions. Then we have to go back and correct THAT mistake. Does anyone know where a person can go to find out before I go ahead and do this? Still, it is very encouraging to see endeavors to cut back on damaging energy costs. Keep it up, everyone.
4
My Brooklyn brownstone was one of the homes that went solar as part of the Gowanus-Park Slope
Project sponsored by Here Comes Solar NYC, at Solar One.
My home is located in a Landmark district and it required an additional permit that was easily handled by the installer, Brooklyn Solar Works.
In addition to the tax credits from the Federal and NY State, homeowners with solar get a 5% tax reduction on their NY City real estate taxes for 4 years. Since the install which took place in November, 2015 I have had zero in the way of electric bills. A few neighbors on the block have also installed solar and are enjoying their savings and making their roofs work for them.
So many homes in brownstone Brooklyn could benefit going solar, helping to cool the planet and save electric cost year after year. I'm going to use my savings to invest in new energy efficient windows and pump my money into the New York economy.
Project sponsored by Here Comes Solar NYC, at Solar One.
My home is located in a Landmark district and it required an additional permit that was easily handled by the installer, Brooklyn Solar Works.
In addition to the tax credits from the Federal and NY State, homeowners with solar get a 5% tax reduction on their NY City real estate taxes for 4 years. Since the install which took place in November, 2015 I have had zero in the way of electric bills. A few neighbors on the block have also installed solar and are enjoying their savings and making their roofs work for them.
So many homes in brownstone Brooklyn could benefit going solar, helping to cool the planet and save electric cost year after year. I'm going to use my savings to invest in new energy efficient windows and pump my money into the New York economy.
31
Very nice to see the solar panels on NYC rooftops! If only we could combine energy conservation (i.e. Turn off the lights in Times Square!) with a big push in solar energy, maybe, just maybe, we would have a chance to save the future for our children.
7
There are several other factors pertaining to the amount of roof space to consider in the decision if solar is viable:
1. The amount of shading being casted by other buildings. On like ground mount arrays in open fields where surrounding trees casting shade can be removed ( with new tree planted to offset the removal of trees); neighboring structures cannot be removed.
2. The age of the roof and other roof mounted equipment. If the roof is not relatively new, the cost for replacing (not repairing) need to be factored into the project. Other equipment such as HVAC condensing units should be relatively new, since you would want to be replacing such equipment after the solar installation.
One other factor to consider that has an adverse impact on the ROI are other energy saving projects being considered. For example, if an owner of an office building is considering to convert to LED lighting, the reduction in energy consumption, will increases the payback of the solar project (depending on the load reduction, which a greater reduction causes an increase in the ROI.
To be continued...