Posted on 12/23/2010 12:51:07 PM PST by matt1234
Would you spend $880,000 to save $147,000?
Washington state did.
Earlier this year the state opened a new 2,000 bed prison called the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center that some are calling the "nation's greenest prison." The prison meets LEED Gold standards, as required by a state law passed in 2005. While LEED Gold is particularly expensive, one aspect of the new prison stands out - its installation of solar panels.
The prison features a "solar array that covers 16,929 square feet" that is rated at 75kw of energy. Installation cost taxpayers $880,000 -- money provided by a grant offered by the state to renewable energy projects. Installing those solar panels will save the state an estimated $4,000 to $7,000 a year in electricity costs. The lifespan of solar panels is typically 25 years, meaning the total savings is likely to be in the range of $140,000.
Some argue that even though the solar panels aren't economically responsible, they are environmentally responsible because they cut carbon emissions. Solar energy fails this test, as well. In Washington state, for every megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity, we emit 322 lbs. of CO2. Annually, those solar panels will produce about 91 MWh, reducing carbon emissions by 13 metric tons a year. The average cost of a metric ton of carbon emissions on the European Climate Exchange is about $20. In other words, the state could buy the same amount of carbon emissions reductions for about $270 a year. Over the 25-year lifespan, this means the state will achieve carbon emissions reductions worth about $6,700.
So, adding the $6,700 to the $140,000 yields a savings of $146,700 for the low cost of $880,000. The state is spending $6 to save $1. Remember, all of the costs are paid immediately, and during a time of budget shortfalls and serious cuts to state programs in the social safety net. The savings come in the future.
Solar panels are a trendy option for politicians wanting to appear "green." Unfortunately for taxpayers and the environment, spending scarce state funds on solar panels is economically and environmentally irresponsible.
The biggest problem with so called green energy is that it needs government subsidies to operate.
If there were any real practical inexpensive green energy alternatives, private enterprise and entrepreneurial free markets would have investigated and developed them.
But the true fact of the matter is that we will be dependent on oil and natural gas and coal for a very very long time. We should also build more nuclear power plants. We should allow states to vote on off shore drilling. We should build more oil refineries.
All these things taken together would create massive amounts of new jobs throughout the entire country if states are willing to look into these possibilities.
WA ping request. Thank you.
“The lifespan of solar panels is typically 25 years, meaning the total savings is likely to be in the range of $140,000.”
I give these 10-12 with maintenance by a gubmint crew.
“with maintenance by a gubmint crew.”
In that case, five years.
“The biggest problem with so called green energy is that it needs government subsidies to operate.”
But you don’t understand. Subsidizing industries that can’t economically exist without government handouts is the whole point!
“Green” jobs are a scam, and those who perpetuate their funding know that. The whole point to “green” jobs is that they can never be economically self-sustaining without government handouts, thereby creating new entitlement classes dependent upon, and therefore supportive of, the Rat politicians who buy their votes with taxpayer money.
Obama wants to destroy fossil fuel interests and their political power, which he is naturally antithetical to anyway, precisely because they require no Federal subsidies to exist, and therefore are a political force that opposes a larger Federal government and the Marxist Rat politicians that strive otherwise.
The Obammunists want to build a new political base of special interests by lavishing massive federal taxpayer-funded give-aways on any and all crack-brained “green” schemes as long as they are not nuclear or fossil fuel based. His plan is to develop large numbers of industries like corn-based ethanol that are unable to exist without permanent and continuous taxpayer handouts, and which therefore become yet another potent entitlement group that must support Rat politicians for their continued survival.
The only thing “green” about so-called “green” energy is that it requires a continued infusion of green taxpayer money to exist. “Green” energy, like all entitlement programs, is simply another vote-buying scheme using taxpayer dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.