California schools $120M solar project
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 9 Jun 2010 07:18 On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:37:23 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >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) Non-sequitur, commercial properties change into ?, residential properties change into ? >- schools have little "after hours" energy needs Pretty much except for dances, plays and such. >- schools have reduced "summer" energy needs (typical school year) Depends on whether it is year-round or not and how much "summer school" they have. >- cogeneration lets weekend and summer power "turn a profit" Does not follow >- creative accounting: bond issues to pay for construction so > you don't "see" the cost (vs. the electric utility's monthly cost!) Not to mention when there is a solar subsidy bond on top of ordinary bonds. >- "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.") At the other extreme i am considering using occupancy sensors in my home. > >I've not yet seen a good analysis of the maintenance cost of >PV systems -- failure rates, replacement costs, labor costs. Nobody will publish it, they are too embarrassed. > >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?" As homer might say "Mesmerism, mmmmm.".
From: Don Lancaster on 14 Jun 2010 12:52
On 5/31/2010 6:58 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > 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. NONE of the subsidies address the economies of scale of emerging solutions. Instead, they REWARD ripper offers for business as usual, paying people to put known defective gasoline destroying net energy sinks on inappropriate rooftops. And SETTING BACK eventual net pv breakeven by many DECADES! <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf> <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu09.asp#d06-16-09> -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |