The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: alfsauve on November 05, 2010, 07:38:05 PM
-
[So I didn't know where to put this post. It's an "opinion" piece, but it isn't about RKBA. Well, it's really about "ME" which is what's important.....right?]
I got published in the local rag today. An article, last week, was extolling the virtues of the new $700,000 solar system at a local, national park. I sent this letter to the reporter who yawned and said if I sent it to the editor it might get published. (So much for "investigative" journalism.) The original article just gave some basic facts and said how wonderful the park ranger thought it was to have a "green" solar energy system, that produced "free" electricity. There were only three facts in the article. The system was bought with $700,000 of stimulus money, it will produce, under ideal conditions 70KW of electricity, and the ranger said it would save $25,000/year.
I like to take limited data and do some number crunching. Hence the letter to the editor.
http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/10171152/article-Money-for-park-s-solar-power-is-not-being-spent-wisely?instance=lead_story_left_column (http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/10171152/article-Money-for-park-s-solar-power-is-not-being-spent-wisely?instance=lead_story_left_column)
And a text version for those who don't want to follow the link........or if the link gets broken.
DEAR EDITOR:
Re: Story, "Stimulus funds set up power savings at visitor's center," Oct. 22 MDJ
The numbers don't add up. Sure, the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park gets $700,000 that will help defray expenses, but investing it in solar power is a losing proposition. Given ideal conditions for eight hours a day, 365 days per year ( a ridiculously generous assumption) and that the system won't require replacement or repair of its batteries, cells or inverters, then at best, at an extreme best, this cost $0.14/KWh. Now unless the government got a really bad contract from Georgia Power, it shouldn't be paying more than about $0.12/KWh. But those are very generous assumptions. If more realistic numbers of five hours of peak production and 300 days of sunlight are used then the cost is $0.25/KWh.
So this system actually costs more than it saves. But that is being extremely generous with its production capabilities and assumes the park uses every bit of the power generated. Even if Georgia Power pays it for unused power, they're still losing money, unless Georgia Power is paying a rate above what it charges them for electricity in return.
I'm not sure how Superintendent Dr. Stanley Bond arrived at his annual savings of $25,000.
Over a 28-year period the system costs that much a year and that's without maintenance or replacement costs. Even at $0.20/KWh, the system isn't capable of producing $25,000 worth of electricity in a year. How can there be a savings of $25,000? And that doesn't account for the time value of the money, which if properly invested, could easily return over $35,000 per year to be used on whatever projects are needed.
The only way the numbers add up is if you ignore the $700,000 that was invested in it in the first place. That's fine for nonprofit accounting but it doesn't add up for the economy as a whole. Money that could be used more efficiently has been wasted. While the Park Service benefits, and who wouldn't from a $700,000 gift, that money, taken out of private hands where it would have been used more efficiently and created more value, was spent wastefully by our government on a feel good project.
Alfred Sauve
Marietta
-
Nice one Alf, nothing like pointing out the flaws in an idiots logic.
-
Nice one Alf, nothing like pointing out the flaws in an idiots logic.
They didn't do the math, and didn't expect anybody else to, either. I guess they just don't know Alf like we do, do they? ;D
-
One little known fact about ol' Alf, is that he held CPA certificate # 5502 in the state of Florida. The Florida licensing board is trying very hard to deny this fact, but it is true. Sadly, they revoked it some years ago due to non-payment of license fees. Even sadder is that's the only way you can get them to cancel a professional license. There's no provision in the law for you to voluntarily "surrender" it. You have to wait 10 years then they "censure" you for non-payment. Duh-h-h-h-h-h.
While in school, my professors and I had some lively discussion about non-profit accounting. They always won, because they owned the grade book. I however, to this day feel I had some very valid points.
Non-Profit accounting would, in this situation say, that the park service showed a net gain of $700,000 for this year and a net gain for the next 28 years (life of the system) of $25,000/year for the saving in electrical costs. Overall, by convoluted accounting practices, a governmental bean counter, who probably took the CPA exam 10 times and failed, would say that over the life of the solar system the park service gained $1,400,000. How sad, they traded their $700,000 for $700,000 and at the end of 30 years, they'll have......nothing.....except a broken down solar system with environmental hazardous batteries to dispose.
-
.....except a broken down solar system with environmental hazardous batteries to dispose.
That what always gets me about any Green system, almost all of them have some sort of hazardous waste associated with them.
-
The only way to justify government spending on this kind of stuff is to jump start an economy of scale. That is, folks are only going to invest in producing solar and wind equipment if there's a demand. If the unit costs currently are higher than buying power, there will be no demand. If however, the government will buy it initially, than per unit cost will (hopefully) drop eough to make it attractive to the private sector. its sort of like having busses and fleet vehichles run on propane. There has to be a demand for the stuff to be affordable. I think you can justify it here due to national security concerns and aiming at energy independence. Still, it better be part of an overall plan, not just done piecemeal or its wasted money.
FQ13
-
Nice work mate
-
Nice try Alf, but you forgot one small point..."You can't fight Big Government, especially with FACTS!"
Richard
-
An excellent, well thought out piece! It's always easy to nail 'em when you've got the numbers and the facts straight, as you've just proven. I'd love to hear this guys comeback. I seriously doubt he'll have one. He's dead in the water and sinking, with the taxpayers money. Bill T.
-
I really don't want to argue with you, Alf. But you failed to take into consideration the added benefits associated with unicorns that actually fart rainbows. That's where the extra $25,000 comes in. Of course, that's assuming that Purina will donate the Unicorn Chow. You are such a Negative Nellie. Sheesh. Just take a nice, deep lung-full of "hope-ium" and you'll see. Everything is okay. And stop with your reliance on things like logic and facts. That just gets people confused.
-
Well done Alf!
While in MA, I found that some of the "Stimulus" funds were being spent on replacing a boat ramp in the center of the state on a lake that I had to google to figure out where the hell it was.
I started a letter to the "Guvna" but after a few paragraphs, I ran out of four letter expletives and never finished my point.
-
You know I really don't understand why people cannot come to the realization that all of this "savings" with solar anything is nothing more than a load of bull. It is very easy to check into this stuff by simply making a few phone calls to places that actually sell this equipment. When you weight the initial cost including any and all of these so called "tax incentives", the life expectancy of the solar panels, any and all maintenance, the savings is not only non existent, it will cost you money as Alf so eloquently pointed out in his well written letter.
The reason this stuff hangs on to the extremely small market it possesses is simply because of liberals the likes of Al Gore and Hussein who keep continually pushing all of this "green" crap, and in the process try to make citizens feel guilty for not exploring more of it on their own dime. If this stuff was that great, and saved anywhere near what they claim, (solar as well as wind), you would see it everywhere. You don't because it isn't. It is just that simple.
As I mentioned once before I checked into both solar hot water and solar electric. Both were extremely expensive, Over $14,000.00 for a system that had any kind of production that was worth anything. And there was no way I could recoup that money in the duration of the equipments life expectancy. Not to mention it all makes your house look like crap with panels and pipes all over your roof where they are susceptible to wind and hail damage. And mind you this is here in Arizona where we have some of the most abundant Sunshine in the United States. If you lived in the Midwest, forget it. You will wind up with an expensive headache, not any savings. The technology simply isn't there yet, and Hussein cannot legislate technology, regardless how much he thinks otherwise. Bill T.
-
And I love the comments...they true believers resort to trying to make fun of him or name calling instead of arguing. Pathetic.
-
The reason I want to see wind and solar technology pursued has nothing at all to do with "going Green", which I happen to think is a crock of sh!t.
The weak link in modern electricity is not the fuel, when was the last time you lost power because the plant ran out of oil, coal or radiation ? the weak link is transmission from source to use.
Being able to generate your power on site with panels or windmills on the roof decentralizes energy supply and eliminates the vulnerable wires. This means that if a tree falls on your building it only blacks out your building, not everything in town.
-
I would rather see more dams and hydro electric power. It is cost effective and has proven over the last 75+ years to work well. Personally I don't give a damn about the fish, which I think is a crock of $h!t anyway. The Colorado is the most dammed up river in the U.S. and it's got plenty of fish from Lake Powell to Yuma. They are cheaper and safer than Nuclear Plants, and cheaper to run once in place. All with zero by products. Shoot the environmentalists and build more hydro electric dams. It's better than pissing away $1 trillion on a "stimulus" package that did nothing. Bill T.
-
I would rather see more dams and hydro electric power. It is cost effective and has proven over the last 75+ years to work well. Personally I don't give a damn about the fish, which I think is a crock of $h!t anyway. The Colorado is the most dammed up river in the U.S. and it's got plenty of fish from Lake Powell to Yuma. They are cheaper and safer than Nuclear Plants, and cheaper to run once in place. All with zero by products. Shoot the environmentalists and build more hydro electric dams. It's better than pissing away $1 trillion on a "stimulus" package that did nothing. Bill T.
Bill, not pi$$ing on your dam parade, but the problem with building more dams is that virtually all the best hydroelectric sites have already been used.
-
Bill, not pi$$ing on your dam parade, but the problem with building more dams is that virtually all the best hydroelectric sites have already been used.
That's the beauty of Hydro power, you can just put another dam facility a little down stream
(Pun intended ;D )