Following is my submission for the next company newsletter to go out this next month. I titled the piece “Technically…” since that seems to be how I always preface a technical correction to a common misconception.
Recently there has been an increase in interest among some of the cooperative’s membership in installing alternative energy generation systems on their homes. The greatest level of interest has been in photovoltaic (solar) panel and windmill generators. In discussing this topic with these interested members, it’s clear that the sudden interest in alternative energy stems from a recent spike in media coverage of global warming fears and misinformation on how to mitigate the effects of the alleged global warming.
Since the fear mongers base their justification in an alleged “consensus” among “scientists”, it’s important to note that a consensus among scientists on any theory is neither true nor, even if it were, scientific. Science isn’t based on consensus. Science is defined, and constantly re-defined, by applying “the scientific method,” which means: observation, formulation of a hypothesis, skeptical analysis, documentation, and repeat. Any discussion that brands honest skepticism as heresy and requires blind acceptance is, by definition, not scientific. While science is never based on consensus, politics is. And since the group that is leading the cheer of man-made global warming is the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control – a governmental panel, made up of politicians, and not scientists – it is not surprising that they would naturally seek a “consensus” rather than follow the scientific method.
The reality is that non-government-affiliated scientists disagree whether the Earth is due for a slight warming period or for a slight cooling – weather forecasting, especially in the long-term, is notoriously imprecise. The only two things that can be stated categorically with regard to the weather are that it’s variable and unpredictable. But whether we warm or cool over the next 100 years, it’s not going to matter to mankind, since either average temperature change is projected to be so small (+/-1°F) that it will not affect our environment in any significant way. Nevertheless, in reaction to the panic induced by the UN, our government is proposing legislation that will significantly affect our economy and the ability of each of the cooperative’s members to make a living. But since that topic has already been covered in our General Manger’s column, I’ll focus this discussion on the reality of installing alternative energy generating sources on the cooperative's distribution system.
First, some members have expressed the perception that it’s frequently windy in the cooperative's service territory. And while that may be true to some extent, the amount of wind found in our area is insufficient to generate electricity. A quick reference of the wind resource maps created by the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) informs us that there is no location in Southern Utah or Northern Arizona with sufficient wind speed and force to generate electricity. Further, where there is reported to be sufficient wind, such as around Milford, Utah, the availability is at best 20-25% (contrasted with coal or natural gas-fired generation with an availability of 95%.)
Lastly, one natural resource that we have in abundance in the cooperative's area is sunshine, and sunshine can be converted into electricity, but not in great quantities and not cheaply. For example, the average residential customer on the cooperative's system uses 1420 kWh per month. To approach that level of energy consumption, a member would need to install 9,000 watts of solar panels, which would generate about 1225 kWh per month, during the sunny days. Those solar panels would occupy 910 square feet on the roof and yard of the home to which they were attached and would cost at least $90,000 to purchase. If the member received $2000 tax rebates from both the Federal and the State Governments, then they would only need to finance $86,000 to pay for the solar panels. If the member could procure a 30-year loan at a 5% interest rate, the monthly payment on the solar panels would be $462, which would be to offset $46 per month from their power bills (leaving a balance of $36/month), for a net loss of $416 per month for 30 years. Certainly not a financially sound investment.
But, in accordance with State Law, the cooperative offers a Net Metering tariff for any member that still chooses to generate a portion of their electrical needs with an approved alternative energy source. And while the staff of your cooperative has done their best to make this tariff revenue neutral for the rest of the membership, State Law does mandate a certain level of subsidization in this rate. If you have any question on the tariff or interconnection requirements, please don’t hesitate to contact us in the engineering department.
Since the fear mongers base their justification in an alleged “consensus” among “scientists”, it’s important to note that a consensus among scientists on any theory is neither true nor, even if it were, scientific. Science isn’t based on consensus. Science is defined, and constantly re-defined, by applying “the scientific method,” which means: observation, formulation of a hypothesis, skeptical analysis, documentation, and repeat. Any discussion that brands honest skepticism as heresy and requires blind acceptance is, by definition, not scientific. While science is never based on consensus, politics is. And since the group that is leading the cheer of man-made global warming is the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control – a governmental panel, made up of politicians, and not scientists – it is not surprising that they would naturally seek a “consensus” rather than follow the scientific method.
The reality is that non-government-affiliated scientists disagree whether the Earth is due for a slight warming period or for a slight cooling – weather forecasting, especially in the long-term, is notoriously imprecise. The only two things that can be stated categorically with regard to the weather are that it’s variable and unpredictable. But whether we warm or cool over the next 100 years, it’s not going to matter to mankind, since either average temperature change is projected to be so small (+/-1°F) that it will not affect our environment in any significant way. Nevertheless, in reaction to the panic induced by the UN, our government is proposing legislation that will significantly affect our economy and the ability of each of the cooperative’s members to make a living. But since that topic has already been covered in our General Manger’s column, I’ll focus this discussion on the reality of installing alternative energy generating sources on the cooperative's distribution system.
First, some members have expressed the perception that it’s frequently windy in the cooperative's service territory. And while that may be true to some extent, the amount of wind found in our area is insufficient to generate electricity. A quick reference of the wind resource maps created by the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) informs us that there is no location in Southern Utah or Northern Arizona with sufficient wind speed and force to generate electricity. Further, where there is reported to be sufficient wind, such as around Milford, Utah, the availability is at best 20-25% (contrasted with coal or natural gas-fired generation with an availability of 95%.)
Lastly, one natural resource that we have in abundance in the cooperative's area is sunshine, and sunshine can be converted into electricity, but not in great quantities and not cheaply. For example, the average residential customer on the cooperative's system uses 1420 kWh per month. To approach that level of energy consumption, a member would need to install 9,000 watts of solar panels, which would generate about 1225 kWh per month, during the sunny days. Those solar panels would occupy 910 square feet on the roof and yard of the home to which they were attached and would cost at least $90,000 to purchase. If the member received $2000 tax rebates from both the Federal and the State Governments, then they would only need to finance $86,000 to pay for the solar panels. If the member could procure a 30-year loan at a 5% interest rate, the monthly payment on the solar panels would be $462, which would be to offset $46 per month from their power bills (leaving a balance of $36/month), for a net loss of $416 per month for 30 years. Certainly not a financially sound investment.
But, in accordance with State Law, the cooperative offers a Net Metering tariff for any member that still chooses to generate a portion of their electrical needs with an approved alternative energy source. And while the staff of your cooperative has done their best to make this tariff revenue neutral for the rest of the membership, State Law does mandate a certain level of subsidization in this rate. If you have any question on the tariff or interconnection requirements, please don’t hesitate to contact us in the engineering department.
1 comment:
Colin, I love your blog! You are bringing to light the "other" global crisis--Our Energy, Our Future. I don't know about you, but I want to keep my electricity. I do think the new buzz word is "climate change" rather than "global warming". Wonder why, don't you?
Linda Fisher
www.earlyonset.blogspot.com
Post a Comment