Solar energy initiative for Gore, WF and Belleayre

PeeTex wrote

Ok, let's look at some facts, from the article, the state pays $0.077/kWh for electricity. Solar costs between $4 and $5/watt installed. For Washington Co, a 1kw panel will produce 1259kwhr/year or about $97 worth of electricity and cost $4,000 to install or have a payback of 41 years if it lasts that long. Need I go on?

Your tax dollars at work!

our tax dollars subsidize fossil fuel production too bro.  So, your argument is moot!  Hoot Hoot for the solar powered lifts!  

campgottagopee wrote

All I read was $1-billion .... will take a lot of sunshine to get that back .... wonder who's making all the $$$ from that "investment"

the sun shines so much every day that we could power the whole world ten times over!  

PeeTex wrote

Ok, let's look at some facts, from the article, the state pays $0.077/kWh for electricity. Solar costs between $4 and $5/watt installed. For Washington Co, a 1kw panel will produce 1259kwhr/year or about $97 worth of electricity and cost $4,000 to install or have a payback of 41 years if it lasts that long. Need I go on?

Your tax dollars at work!

NY State's incentive contribution to solar projects has been reduced from $1.30/watt in 2011 to $.77/watt currently.
Link to article
There is no info about the Washington Co site on the Borrega Solar web site.

ScottyJack wrote

campgottagopee wrote

All I read was $1-billion .... will take a lot of sunshine to get that back .... wonder who's making all the $$$ from that "investment"

the sun shines so much every day that we could power the whole world ten times over!

Oh, here I was thinking we were talking about NYS. Silly me!

I don't understand the financial arguments against this. It seems easy to me:

Status quo: Ski Areas pay market rate for electricity, are subject to the whims & profit motive of Electric companies, and contribute to environmental degradation through the acquisition of fossil fuels and the production of harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

Solar: Ski areas own the means of power production, have a safe & renewable source of energy for years to come, but have pay some money out of pocket.

Assuming that government spending should be in the public's interest, this seems to be an ideal case of using our collective money for the common good (leaving aside the question of whether NYS should be in the ski resort management business). Obviously, there's some upper money limit that is unacceptable (that limit will be different for each person), but if the costs are somewhat comparable, which they are, why would anyone choose the status quo?

campgottagopee wrote

All I read was $1-billion .... will take a lot of sunshine to get that back .... wonder who's making all the $$$ from that "investment"

The Chinese make almost all the solar panels so they will certainly benefit.  Some big installer is going to benefit.  Wanna bet whom they contribute to politically?

The big thing here is that there is no way this has a good ROI or payback as Ptex mentioned.  Since we won't see real financial results from Orda its easy to saddle the agency  with this albatross.  In a couple years when your season pass increases you can think about how you helped pay for this.

Chances are this is the Daks big investment project from the Govs slush fund.  Norman and  Tupper are probably out of luck

As part of the agreement back in the 1970's Orda and LP get crazy cheap electric from hydro on the St Lawrence.  This is going to likely cost way more for WF.

Most in LP heats thier homes with electric because it's so cheap

Coach Z wrote

   Wanna bet whom they contribute to politically?
 

BOOM

PeeTex wrote

Great supporting argument, come back when you can add something intelligent to the discussion.

A quick google search reveals a variety of prices for kwh installed.

I pay 20 cents per kwh delivered though, sounds like the govt gets choice rates regardless. Still, if you believe that these infrastructure projects can have a social purpose in addition to saving money, then it is fine by me. Emphasis still on save money, but what and how much we're paying seems like it will never be exactly known because these govt agencies are simply not transparent enough.

that said, like Harvey, everyone I know with Solar is saving bigtime and the ROI is less than 8 years and getting better all the time.

ScottyJack wrote

AC is so lame!

truth

Coach Z wrote

 Some big installer is going to benefit.  Wanna bet whom they contribute to politically?

agreed, it is politics

Coach Z wrote

 In a couple years when your season pass increases you can think about how you helped pay for this.

passes basically go up every year anyway

The article said the NYS paid $1M for 13M-KW-Hr, that's $0.077/KW-hr. The rest of the data came from the NREL website, including the expected output for Washington Co. (I used a Whitehall address).

Yes- people who put up solar panels pay less for electricity and sometimes get a credit, but ask how much the initial investment was and/or how much they are paying a month on the loan for the equipment. It's just like anything else, unless you are truly objective you will always find ways to justify how good your decision was. I do know an objective Doctor who added rooftop solar to his home, after looking at the data we discovered he was getting about 1/2 the output the solar company promised and that his break even point was not within his expected remaining life and if you include the additional cost it will add to his eventual roof replacement, it is a looser for him.

ml242 wrote

that said, like Harvey, everyone I know with Solar is saving bigtime and the ROI is less than 8 years and getting better all the time.

I really only know that one guy, personally.  He worked for the state enviro dept and new about the incentives when they came out. His deal was so sweet that he paid back in way less than eight years. I think it was three.  Sure it was a government subsidy (on installation and cost/kwh) but let's face it that is what government is: subsidy.  It's all about what you chose to subsidize.

I don't think anyone thinks that burning fossil fuels is good for the planet or even benign. Even if you think climate change is BS, you know that burning chemicals isn't good for us.  You don't bend down to breath in from your tailpipe.

So the arguments against moving forward or subsidizing alternative energy ideas on the surface seem to focus on the idea that those sources of energy are impractical or will never work.

But all kinds of shit is impractical, until it is practical. Some crazy guy had an idea that everyone could talk to everyone else with a small device in their pocket.  Another guy thought he could sail across the ocean and find India.

Deep down I don't think the people who fund the nay don't believe in America's capacity to innovate.  There is just too much history to prove otherwise.  I think the "impractical" talk is just to paper over the fact that they are vested in the status quo, making a shit ton of money from the system as it is, and they don't give a damn about humanity or the future of the planet.

What is with this American ingenuity comment has to do with solar.  The Chinese own this market now.  Low cost labor and lax environmental controls is what us allowing the ROI to come down from 40 years to less than 10 but without cost of capital included.

There also is the matter of life of solar.  The power output of the PV cells degrades by 1% per year and the expected life is 20 years except in extremely cold and snowy climates where it is much worse.  I think solar in the SW U.S. Makes perfect sense.  In the North Country not so much.  Back to my original comment this was a political grandstanding move by the Gov.

Harvey - if I told you I had a great technology that saves a barrel of oil over it's life but cost 2 barrels of oil to make would you buy it? This is in essence what the solar industry has managed to do. I really think the government should be investing more in energy research to build processes and techniques that actually save energy or create non polluting or negatively polluting energy at a break even cost. Genetically engineered algae's that use sunlight and CO2 to produce energy and Solar turbines are two examples.  

Coach Z wrote

What is with this American ingenuity comment has to do with solar.  The Chinese own this market now.  Low cost labor and lax environmental controls is what us allowing the ROI to come down from 40 years to less than 10 but without cost of capital included.

There also is the matter of life of solar.  The power output of the PV cells degrades by 1% per year and the expected life is 20 years except in extremely cold and snowy climates where it is much worse.  I think solar in the SW U.S. Makes perfect sense.  In the North Country not so much.  Back to my original comment this was a political grandstanding move by the Gov.

Germany recently peaked at 50% of their electricity from solar panels a little over a month ago. 90% of the solar in Germany is small arrays on individual's roof tops. The latitude of Germany is around 48dN to 54dN. Quebec City is 46.8dN latitude. The US -Canadian border in the Western part of the US is 49dN latitude and Edmonton is around the 52dN latitude. Solar works fine in the northernly latitudes.

As for degradation, it really depends on the type and quality of the panels. Here is a home in Maine that has had panels since 1995 and there does not seem to be any degradation. Most panels have a warranty that says they will produce 80% of a new panel's production after 25 years.

Maine Solar House

Just re read the press release

Note that it only references how much it will save Gore not WF.  WF already has a carbon free energy source in hydropower that is super cheap.  This could end up costing WF way more than they pay now with a negative impact to the environment since those panels don't make themselves as PTex pointed out.

The Gov wouldn't want facts to get in the way of this parade but they were smart enough to not mention WF in the PR realease so you can be sure they know this.

x10003q wrote

Germany recently peaked at 50% of their electricity from solar panels a little over a month ago. 90% of the solar in Germany is small arrays on individual's roof tops. The latitude of Germany is around 48dN to 54dN. Quebec City is 46.8dN latitude. The US -Canadian border in the Western part of the US is 49dN latitude and Edmonton is around the 52dN latitude. Solar works fine in the northernly latitudes.

Germany is not a model for Solar, they may have installed a higher percentage than any other country but it has been at a huge cost. The Germany public demanded that they get off nuks and they had 9 plants with poor safety records so that decided to shut them down and they needed to replace that power without being dependent on Russian gas, so they went to renewables. That sounds good but now they pay more than any other country for electric power - $0.34/kWH. They have had to build coal plants to keep a spinning reserve for when the solar isn't providing power and some reports say they have actually increased their CO2. Unfortunately I have yet to find a credible scientific study to say whether they are better or worse off from a pollution perspective but what we do know is that many of their working poor have dropped off the grid because they can't afford the cost - I guess that's one way to save the planet.

I am not claiming any specific technology is good or bad or viable. I''m not qualified to make those judgements.

This is what I am saying:

PeeTex wrote

I really think the government should be investing more in energy research to build processes and techniques that actually save energy or create non polluting or negatively polluting energy at a break even cost.

I'm against the idea that because alternatives aren't able to solve our problems today, they should be abandoned. The amount of money "wasted" on alternatives in tiny compared to at least 5 other government programs.

It's my opinion that energy independence should be considered part of national defense. If we spent 10% of the D budget for the next ten years on alternatives, we'd make huge strides and we'd be exporting/selling our technology to countries around the world.