Checking in With "Going Green"

Going Green is a blog by a commodity analyst and trader from Connecticut who is trying to reduce his use of oil and natural gas. Recently, he installed a 2.5 KW photovoltaic array on his house.

For more on the story, and how things are turning out, follow the posts in this order:

What I Wanted from the Solar Panels

Solar Panels: What We Got

How Much Oil Did the Solar Panels Save?

I'm a sucker for folks who have the gumption to experiment on their own. Be sure to stop by and offer some comments on his project. And check back, as he's promising more analysis.

Technorati tags: Energy, Technology, Economics, Electricity, Solar

Comments

Anonymous said…

I went through this same drill back in the late '70s, when Carter was pushing his solar ideas and you got up to a 50% tax credit for putting one of these things in. Plus, in my state, you got another 10% on your state income taxes. I looked at them all, PV, hot water heating, space heating, the whole smash. The answer was always the same: I'd be dead before I saw any kind of real savings.

The numbers always turned out that I could buy a lot more kwhrs and BTUs from the local utility than I could ever save using these things. I just couldn't afford the economic penalty. I know a lot of people get warm and fuzzy feelings from doing these kind of things but in my case it just didn't make sense. I had college tuition to save for and young children to clothe and feed.

One thing people often overlook in the cost analysis is the time value of money. Would I be better tying up capital and interest charges on financing purchase of a solar heating system, or would I be better off buying CDs and other investment instruments that would earn me interest on my money? Kind of a no-brainer.

November 21, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Stewart Peterson said…

>>I'm a sucker for folks who have the gumption to experiment on their own.

Did you see this?

November 24, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog