|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Jan 24, 2012 10:07:33 GMT -5
Works for me! But wouldn't a wind farm make sense too? The insert in the article shows the numbers ... timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jan/24/chattanooga-airport-wants-to-double-solar-farm/Chattanooga airport wants to double solar farmChattanooga Airport officials are looking to nearly double the size of its new solar farm, already the biggest in the area and larger than at any other Tennessee airport. The 1.1 megawatt solar farm on the west side of the airport's main runway will grow to 2.1 megawatts if officials can secure a federal grant for the project.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 24, 2012 15:50:21 GMT -5
If it's such a good idea, why do they need a federal grant? Wouldn't it pay for itself?
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 24, 2012 19:52:06 GMT -5
I wonder if that's in excess of their consumption or total. Unfortunately, solar is just not viable anywhere that doesn't have sky hight electricity rates. I had plans to put 3kw on the roof of Fredoland central command and even after the 30% federal rebate and a couple of smaller rebates the best case scenario was a 10 year payback. I can think of better ways to employ $15k.
On the one hand, I think(the airport solar farm) is a good idea. It lets the feds offer the kinds of subsidies to the PV industry that could help reduce overall costs and bring solar closer to grid parity. In the end, that would be a good thing. If we could reach grid parity in inexpensive markets like this one, it would be a very small step to eliminate nuclear altogether. 1kw on every rooftop could allow us to shut down all the nuclear plants in the South.
OTOH, the feds have never been very good at picking winners and losers in any industry.
|
|
|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Jan 25, 2012 8:46:52 GMT -5
If it's such a good idea, why do they need a federal grant? Wouldn't it pay for itself? First of all, they are a corporation and corporations always reap the federal bounties. Would you want a corporate entity to be exempt from a grant program that is already in place? How do you think the corporations retain their wealth in the first place? Will they pay it back? No, payback usually isn't part of the deal. Grants don't work that way if the recipients hold up their side of the deal and there always is 2 sides to the deal with most grant programs. To answer your question, eventually the expansion will pay for itself but not initially. That is how the TVA's Renewable Standard Offer initiative operates. But TVA Inc. is another federal program in itself. The Chattanooga airport applied for the grant using the proper format and they received it. Don't go after them if they followed procedure. It is time to accept the absolute fact that the feds are all up in airport business and will not be going away, ever. Whatever it takes to keep our airport safe and productive is fine with me. This airport is surrounded by a heavily populated residential area. It has to be safe. Until we no longer pay federal taxes in this city I prefer that we get as much of the federal energy kitty as possible. Especially when the grant adds to the security of the airfield like a solar farm has the potential to do. The more self-sustaining it is the better, IMO. When it comes to energy / utilities in this region the government is already co-mingled with the private sector and you'd be hard pressed to separate the two. Toss in the federal regulations involved in airport management and again, you have a conjoined operation.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 25, 2012 23:42:47 GMT -5
I'm not "going after" them, simply asking a question. If it's so great, why wouldn't everyone be clamoring to buy it?
|
|
|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Jan 27, 2012 8:57:14 GMT -5
I'm not "going after" them, simply asking a question. If it's so great, why wouldn't everyone be clamoring to buy it? Because it is cost prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 27, 2012 9:26:00 GMT -5
So, for a government entity to do it, it's a boondoggle?
|
|
|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Jan 28, 2012 10:02:48 GMT -5
So, for a government entity to do it, it's a boondoggle? Where is the boondoggle? Like TVA was a boondoggle?
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 12:08:54 GMT -5
TVA was expected to return a profit. The Hoover Dam was expected to return a profit. (Not sure about TVA, but the Hoover Dam was built using a government loan, not a grant, with interest.)
The solar thing doesn't work yet without subsidization.
Kind of like the Volt.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 28, 2012 13:18:10 GMT -5
Actually, solar does work but the payback is roughly equal to the useful life of the cells. This is the kind of thing that makes good sense to subsidize. If the government breaks even and helps ramp up production on PV we've, essentially, put a zero cost subsidy in place.
Plus, we get a small net environmental benefit out of it. It's a win/win.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 14:55:37 GMT -5
Except for the production aspect, which uses more energy than they ever provide.
But:
a. That is changing; they are becoming more cost-effective b. If excess energy is being used (such as hydro), then it's a trade off.
However, instead of grants, companies should be competing. For that, I would not be opposed to low interest government loans. With grants, bureaucrats decide who gets the money, and, as you have said, their track record on picking winners is abysmal.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 28, 2012 15:16:30 GMT -5
Loans would still have to be awarded by the same people who award the grants and carry maintenance costs that likely exceed the 1-2% interest that they would earn. With grants, we can award them and walk away.
Actually, the input costs for modern PV aren't nearly as high as they used to be so they're producing a net increase in power generation these days. Once thin films are in large scale production, the net gain will be pretty substantial.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 28, 2012 16:20:03 GMT -5
The Hoover Dam was built using a 2% loan. Took them 40 years to pay for it. They had a plan on how to make it pay for itself instead of some pie-in-the-sky hippie feel good emotionalism.
If a company has a plan for making quality solar cells or film, loan them the money and let them make a profit by selling a product that people want.
Remember the first electric car boondoggle? The government mandated it and it was a disaster. Then, when two companies (Toyota and Honda) built a hybrid vehicle that actually worked and people wanted (although I still thing the Prius is atrocious looking), guess what? They sold it.
Right now, with no profit motive or responsibility, we have the Volt. (Ford built an electric car decades ago (I think the 30's) that had a better range.)
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 28, 2012 16:51:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't even go that far. If a company is making a product who's further development is in the best interests of the country(like PV solar) but it's still not cost effective enough to make inroads into the consumer market why not just buy some of them?
The government has the luxury of not needing to make a profit from solar installations. If we buy them and break even the day before they become obsolete, we've made out just fine and the manufacturer has been able to ramp up production and, hopefully, reduce costs to the point that their products are viable in the consumer market. If the company can never make it, the taxpayer is no worse off.
Think about this, what if instead of mandating that electric vehicles be built, the feds had put out a contract for electric mail trucks. If we said "I'll buy 1 million trucks at a specified price if you can give me a specified range and longevity" someone would have figured out how to do it. That's not a subsidy, handout or loan. That's saying "if you can build it, I'll provide the beginning of the market".
If we would just buy the products that we can use, the industries would succeed or fail on their own.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Jan 29, 2012 2:03:53 GMT -5
That is a very good example of the way things ought to be, but it's a far cry from being a grant. It's the government buying something it needs and buying it from the lowest qualified bidder.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Jan 29, 2012 14:26:03 GMT -5
That is a very good example of the way things ought to be, but it's a far cry from being a grant. It's the government buying something it needs and buying it from the lowest qualified bidder. I don't think it's that far off. One government entity giving a grant to another government entity for the purpose of buying stuff we can use is, essentially, just an indirect procurement process. It's not perfect, but it's not exactly a handout either. The funds have to be allocated somehow and that's how it works today.
|
|