Abstract: The author finds that electricity should cost more, we
should use less, and it should be cleaner...good thing those all go
together in most any PV project. Also, it's a good thing the author
took some time to remove the snarkier remarks from the early drafts.
Andy, 20090804: "I think their math is a bit fuzzy. Powering 80,000
homes on 80MW would
only give each home 1kW and I think typical homes use more like 4-6kW."
Right:
NYS residents use 2600 kWh per capita per annum. ( 2005 number,
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/residential.cfm/state=NY ) That's
0.30 kW (there were 8760 h in 2005). So, at 10% capacity factor, we
would need 3.0kW of PV installed per capita (not saying we should be
dependent solely on PV, just using the number to see how many homes
it can handle). 80,000 homes, having between 2 and 3 people, thus
would need between 480MW and 720MW. Likewise, 80MW of PV would
produce 8MW on average, so supply 27,000 New Yorkers, about 10,000
homes. Jon: the average American uses a lot more electricity than the
average New Yorker, although I guess the city skews the numbers quite
a bit; NYS uses less electricity per capita than 48 other states!
Give me fifty cents and I'll crunch the real numbers from NYISO to
figure the Finger Lakes average. I think the difference between Jon's
approach and Andy's was the capacity factor, but PSE&G (NJ), as
reported in the Daily and Sunday Review, is overoptimistic by a
factor of 3.
Andy: "I heard the jury is still out of whether solar panels are
worth it. The embodied energy, manufacturing processes, and shipping
of panels across the world is probably not the most sustainable use
of our resources."
Wrong; well, right only if you focus on the qualifaction "most":
Panels use between 15% and 30% of their lifetime warranted output to
manufacture and distribute, well to wheel, so to speak. The best are
Evergreen Solar at 15%. To be clear: install them right, and they are
carbon-negative, assuming we need at least some electricity in our
future and that they replace AES Cayuga (see below for considerations
on elastic use). Don't believe Evergreen? Try the math (just as we
did last year with replacing vehicles). If a 200W panel (current
retail about $700 unsubsidized) works with a 10% capacity factor for
20 years, it should produce 3500kWh (0.2kW x 0.1 x 20y x 8760h/y). If
it took that much energy to produce, then the manufacturer would have
to pay for that energy, about $350 (more if it were all electricity,
but oil is used for transport). Nice try, but, you know, most of the
cost of PV goes into the fancy equipment, the labor, the lobbying,
the fancy overhead projector at the stockholder meeting, etc.,
leaving a much smaller margin for energy costs, something I assume to
be under $100. When Evergreen says they spent 500kWh to produce it,
thus about $50, I believe them; otherwise, how could the panel be
just $700, considering how well paid their engineers and
equipment-makers are?
Andy:"As always, I wonder how far $515 million would go towards
education and making local solutions for low-energy living. Just
imagine if groups like Sustainable Tompkins were given MILLIONS to
educate - it would go a very long way I believe. Maybe it doesn't
create 100 jobs (although maybe it does!), but it goes a lot farther
to protect our resources than just slapping up solar panels that will
be trash a few decades down the road."
Right and wrong:
Both actions create ripple effects that you are not counting.
Creating installing jobs makes a demand for educated people. You are
telling the installers that they don't do a good job educating, that
all they do is install future trash? Got any research numbers to back
up "it goes a lot farther"?
Margaret 20090806: "How dumb is cash for clunkers?" Isn't it non-dumb
that there's a program that takes yucky internal combustion engines
and makes them unusable except for recycling? To see a video of a
clunker being euthanized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0IcIxhd8ks
One person out there in the internets actually posited that since all
the tow-trucks that'll be used to scrap the clunkers get bad mileage,
the whole program is a waste.
People want solutions that don't chafe them socially. The ways of
granola-nuts aren't going to appeal to donut-munchers, to
over-generalize. We all eat too much, travel too much, and use
computers too much for our own good, but making others feel guilty
for things might be counter-productive, as might be harshing on
people who take baby steps. So I qualifiedly agree with Margaret for
saying "all approaches welcome."
Andy, "Give them solar panels (at no perceived cost to them), and
what's to say they won't just use more energy?": It's called
elasticity, and in lolspeak, "u has it." If my electricity rates were
1/10th of what they are now, I would still use exactly the same
amount; I'm wealthy (relative to most of the world), and I use what I
use (and pay for it later), not what I can afford. Instead of
needlessly leaving my lights on, I would take the savings and spend
it on something else, maybe an economics tutor to help us with this
topic. Elasticity in the market has its limits. In this case, no
matter how low the rates go, there's only so much more a consumer
would want to use. For example, if stereos cost 1/3 of what they do
now, maybe you'd buy two instead of one. If they cost 1/10 of what
they do now, you wouldn't buy 10 times as many for your house, right?
Right, you'd go out and buy strawberries, or pay down your credit
card, or whatever, anything but buy an infinite amount of stereos.
How much room do you have in your house? How much more electricity
can you consume, when you have a limited number of devices you use a
limited number of times? If not limitless, then the demand isn't
completely elastic. "Give people higher mileage cars, and they won't
feel so bad about driving farther." LOL, I have higher mileage cars
than I used to, and I drive less...hmmm; not that I'm everyone, but
I'm just saying... Europeans have higher mileage cars and drive less
than we do (I know, I know, better transportation options). "Oh, now
that I get double the miles per gallon, I should think about getting
a job twice as far away, and shopping at the Cortland Tops instead of
the Ithaca one. Maybe my daycare is a little too close for comfort,
and now I can afford to have it in Horseheads." Sound a little silly?
It does to me.
Also, people in NJ *are* getting solar panels at some perceived cost,
the addition to their bill. So, the people of New Jersey are getting
cleaner power, paying more for it, getting less from that twitchy
operator in Ohio, and with a limited elasticity probably using
slightly less because of the added cost. Now what exactly is the
problem with that? PV provides donut-munchers a staircase for the
descent, but it seems some of us would rather they (we) just be
pushed off the cliff.
-Shawn Reeves
[email protected]
http://energyteachers.org
P.S.
If anyone would like more stories of inelasticity in markets:
Our wedding cost our families $5000. If flowers and musicians etc.
cost only $5, would we get married 1000 times, or hire 1000 musicians
and have a boatload of flowers?
The iPod costs $150. if it cost $15, would I buy ten?
If cat-surgery cost $5 an hour, all-inclusive, would I go ahead and
replace all my cats' organs once a year?
If twinkies cost a penny each, how many would you eat a year?
Make up your own and tell it over a campfire. You are now ready for
calculus-based economics.
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
