California schools $120M solar project
in [Design]
|
From: D Yuniskis on 31 May 2010 13:37 amdx wrote: > Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district > spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. > I did a Google search and can't find any info. > The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, > so I'm curious. I suspect some (huge!) portion of this comes in the form of a subsidy (?). Even if the school district's share is $120M, it's not unreasonable to think some bean counter considered this as a "good investment". - schools tend to remain schools (not like business/residential properties that change hands) - schools have little "after hours" energy needs - schools have reduced "summer" energy needs (typical school year) - cogeneration lets weekend and summer power "turn a profit" - creative accounting: bond issues to pay for construction so you don't "see" the cost (vs. the electric utility's monthly cost!) - "feel good" factor ("Let's spend all this money instead of, perhaps, learning how to turn off a few lights when not in use. Or, installing some skylights in the halls, etc.") I've not yet seen a good analysis of the maintenance cost of PV systems -- failure rates, replacement costs, labor costs. We looked into a solar hot water heater here and laughed at the presentation. "Do people actually *think* about these things or do they just get mesmerized by all the hand-waving?"
From: Robert Baer on 31 May 2010 18:36 amdx wrote: > Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district > spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. > I did a Google search and can't find any info. > The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, > so I'm curious. > Anybody know more about it? > Mike > > Since when does a government institution have to be sane or spend taxpayer money effectively?
From: Sylvia Else on 31 May 2010 21:58 On 1/06/2010 12:25 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On May 31, 1:38 pm, PeterD<pet...(a)hipson.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:02:23 -0500, "amdx"<a...(a)knology.net> wrote: >>> Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district >>> spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. >>> I did a Google search and can't find any info. >>> The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, >>> so I'm curious. >>> Anybody know more about it? >>> Mike >> >> I believe they gave $119 million to Al Gore's efforts, and spent the >> remaining million on publicity. > > The request was for information about what the California School > District has done, not an invitation for you to exercise your > incompetent imagination. > > Admittedly, anyone asking for information about a political solar > energy initiative here should expect to get answers drawn from the > imagination of our resident right-wing nit-wits. > > A quick google picked upt these initiatives > > http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/8110902-fremont-california-school-district-eyes-solar-panels.aspx > > http://www.chevronenergy.com/case_studies/sjusd.asp > > which do seem to involve expenditure of the order of $120M. > > At the moment solar energy is only cost-effective if you figure in the > uncosted consequences of the CO2 emissions associated with fossil > fueled energy generation. Political initiatives that subsidise solar > energy generation are designed to fill in that gap, and often a bit > more beside, since increasing the market for solar energy > installations helps the economies of scale, I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels already represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as they are, have already been obtained. Sylvia.
From: amdx on 1 Jun 2010 07:45 "Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message news:bb2dnV2Vrq5ppJnRnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... > amdx wrote: >> Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district >> spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. >> I did a Google search and can't find any info. >> The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, >> so I'm curious. >> Anybody know more about it? >> Mike > Since when does a government institution have to be sane or spend > taxpayer money effectively? That thought did come to mind. I'm hopeful that we (the people) are taking the power that the constitution says we have and telling our reps it's time to cut the spending. When our reps stop having town meetings because the people are angry, that is a change. November is coming, please support candidates that believe in the ideas that provided a great standard of living in 200 years. Limited government, freedom, liberty and property rights. Mike That property rights is a getting to be big. Getting so you can't dig a hole on your own property and in PC Fl. It's is a $1000 fine to cut down a pine tree over a certain diameter, on YOUR* property. Government and the environmentalist are out of control. * If you can call it yours, try not paying that rent. Also known as property tax. end of rant.
From: vaughn on 1 Jun 2010 07:56
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:86j7pjF9i7U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels already > represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as they are, have > already been obtained. Not so, especially not so at the consumer level. At the consumer level PV panels remain a nitch product, so lack of retail competition and huge shipping costs because of a lack of any local distribution channel presents significant barriers. Vaughn |