Going Electric: A new LEAF on life

I can see the Promised Land but I can't go there.

 

Way cooler than a reverse mortgage. He gets paid for being green!

 

I would like to know HI tax incentives he got, for some reason the article quoted CA tax incentives.

 

That's a cool story.

Worth noting that there's no mention of the cost of the 34 solar panels and support equipment. Guarantee the payback on that is in decades.

 

He was just saying CA residents get the $2500 rebate, thats all. Guess he just wanted to let CA readers know about it if they don't already know.

 

The editor wrote the3 sidebar about the cost in CA, not the author of the article.
This is really about the life style you can have when you have the money.

 

Sorry about that dark cloud following you. Here's to hoping you have a brighter future. Funny you should mention 'payback'. Our 36 panel system (purchased in 2009) will have paid for itself by the end of next year .... just shy of six years, thanks to 30% of cost picked up by Fed tax credits as well as generous CA rebates. It's a LOT less costly than building a new nuke reactor or two, and no radioactive wast sitting around waiting for an accident to happen. It's a lot less costly than subsidizing the fossil fuel industry too. But even if the pay back IS longer (maybe true for some) than ours, I sometimes wonder why the darks clouds never follow the hydro electric dam cost (building, maintenance etc) payback 'issue' ... that is, if folks have to find that an issue. BTW - when's the 'payback' on the nuke aircraft carriers, laser guided bombs, Ospry VTOL aircraft, etc. Yea, I'll stick with the PV payback.

.

 

Given his close proximity to the Mauna Loa measuring point for global CO2 content of air, his low-carbon lifestyle will certainly not negatively impact the next month's CO2 measurement.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about dark clouds.

First and foremost, you're comparing public finance with personal finance. I can't tell the government what I will and won't pay for, including power plants. It's not as direct as whether I personally get solar or not.
Secondly, most people don't have the money to drop 30-50k on a solar system, plus financing isn't exactly sunny.

Third, CA and a few other states are the only ones offering rebates. The rest of us pay full pop which is rather substantial and payback is cloudy.

All in all, if solar were cheap, I'd be at the front of the line. Believe me. I just don't think that day has come for the majority of Americans.

 

In some states solar panels make sense because of rebates and intense dealer competition. It's certainly not for everyone.

 

Or the utility rate of electricity is high. HI is the leading example with 42 cents/kWh in at least some places.

A bit of arithmetic, a finance calculator, and the following assumptions

• Sunny locale, good location collects 1.8 kWh/watt a year
• 5% opportunity cost or apr
• $5/watt, 30% federal rebate -> $3.5/watt end installed cost
• Average 30 year full production

Tells us that PV costs the same as utility electricity at 12.5 cents a kWh (inclusive of taxes etc.).
I have to say that just about without fail the people who whine about the cost of PV are incapable of performing the simple arithmetic above, and are just regurgitating BS.

You want some real money reasons to second guess personal PV ?
1. The resale value is unknown
2. QC concerns are popping up, particularly with Chinese made panels

 

I've got to agree there. Thankfully san onofre is now done for, and let's hope diablo canyon, build on a fault line will close when it license expires in 2025. Who knows the PG&E claims it creates jobs somehow to have an unsafe nuc on a fault line it wasn't designed for, and has applied to go another 20 years.

I don't know about that. Per kwh solar is subsidized to a much larger extent than natural gas. It takes less than 2 cents of natural gas and maintenance to generate a kwh of electricity, and the plants are needed to back up solar. What you can say is with subsidies, and poorly run utilities solar is less expensive than new natural gas in california. That isn't true in many other places in the nation, but solar prices are going down.

In hawaii, there is not natural gas available, electricity is generated by oil. Wind, wave, and solar is cheaper there, than shipping in oil then burning it for power.

Can we agree that the US has more nuclear submarines and air craft carriers than any of our enemies. Maybe it's time to mothball some, and stop building new ones. Laser guided bombs are insurance policies, you don't need payback.

 

Let me do the math using you numbers.

Assuming a 5kW system,
Total production per year = 1.8 * 5000 =9000 kW
Cost of electricity earned per year @ 12.5 c =9000 * 0.125 = $1150
Cost of installation = 5000 * $3.5 = $17500
Number of year to pay back = $17500/$1150 = 15 years (excluding interest earned for 15 year on investment)

Not a good deal for me, 30 years of life is a little stretched for me with Chinese panels.

 

. . . last time I checked, the U.S. had about 2X the military budget compared to all the rest of the countries in the world:



Yes, I understand the supposed 'deterrent' / insurance policy theory. But after your stock piled up to your eyeballs you need to blow up a few countries like Iraq. Stock piles are getting huge again ... and the military industrial complex employee payroll can't be met without blowing up more stuff. How do YOU spell Syria

We may not be able to build a 1st rate high speed commuter rail system (expenses similar to hydro dams, universities, professors, hospitals, etc that eventually pay back 100 fold) but by god ... we'll spend trillions / debt to assure we keep the power broker's petro-dollars worth something - by controlling oil.

.

 

Is dirty electricity at the same cost as PV a good deal for you ?

 

If you can't win on cost, then try dirty electricity .

 

C-H-E-N-E-Y , although Syria really has nothing to do with keeping the military-industrial complex happy and rich.

 

You misread what I wrote. I said we should mothball some of that expensive to maintain hardware and stop building new stuff. Now the smart bombs, those we need to build in case of war. That would slash the military budget, which is why most democrats and disagree.

Last I checked Syria didn't have any oil. Most americans are against even a cruise missile strike. But the president is following the carter doctrine. That piece of crap has cost a lot of lives and treasure

I think the California high speed comuter rail thing is the next big dig. Lots of corrupt politicians with their hands out. I will be very surprised if it doesn't cost at least $100B. Can't we stop building stupid weapons without paying 5 x too much for trains. Does it have to be either or?

 

not yet . . . . there's always tomorrow.

It's definitely not a huge reserve. But it's not that they're oil-less either. the U.S. and the E.U. have huge sanctions against its exports for one. Plus, their infrastructure is torn up due to civil unrest. Certainly that's worth at least a couple thousand dead U.S. soldiers. Never mind the fact that they're in close proximity to major sea routs / pipelines that they might want to mess with. We can't have that now. No. Must protect 'freedom' (rolling eyes). I wonder how far we could all commute on the fuel we burn over there, 'protecting freedom' (wave flag here).

I agree politicians rape money that we attempt to spend on world class mass transit. But how much money grubbing goes on while working deals to spend on our world class bomb / tank / jet / carrier fleets. Maybe because it's such a tiny percentage it doesn't matter?
.