Environmentally friendly jobs could make Charleston a national model
Going green
By David Slade
The Post and Courier
(From Left) William Gray and Tommy Rich with Table Rock Technology install support beams for solar panels Thursday that will heat Charleston's Martin Luther King Jr. Pool.
The goal is nothing less than reducing energy consumption in homes and businesses throughout Charleston.
And the plan is to do it without government mandates and without new demands on local taxpayers.
If the city pursues recommendations it received from a consultant last week and can make the plan work, Charleston could become a national model for energy efficiency, while creating green jobs and helping property owners cut their utility bills.
"This is really a phenomenal program that the city is working on," said Claude St. Hilaire of Home Energy Group, a local company that consults on green building projects.
Mayor Joe Riley pledged in 2005 to substantially reduce Charleston's greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat climate change. Reducing the energy needs of buildings throughout the city would go a long way toward meeting his pledge.
"We could make a big impact," Riley said. "It's a great idea, and very workable."
St. Hilaire said it's easy to cut at least 10 percent from a building's energy demand, and if everyone in the United States did that, dozens of power plants would not be needed. Serrafix, the city's Boston-based consultant, thinks savings of 25 percent are possible.
Making potentially tens of thousands of private homes in Charleston more energy-efficient sounds like a tall order, and there would be lots of hurdles to clear, but the premise is simple.
Serrafix has proposed that the city create an organization that would be a one-stop shop for energy efficiency projects.
From this single organization a building owner could arrange a home energy audit, find out what changes would produce the greatest savings, learn about rebates and government incentives, select an approved contractor, and have the work done with no up-front cost. The building owner would realize utility bill savings immediately, and pay off improvement costs over an extended period of time through a surcharge on their water bill.
"We envision providing the building owner with everything they need to do except for signing the pieces of paper," said Andrew Gottlieb, project manager for Serrafix.
Every building in the city gets a Charleston Water System bill, so Serrafix decided that water bill surcharges would be an easy way to handle extended payments. The city collects its stormwater fee the same way, as a water bill surcharge.
The commissioners of Charleston Water System have not approved the concept but likely will be asked to do so at one of their upcoming meetings.
The math that could make the Serrafix concept work comes from eliminating the large up-front costs consumers can face when planning efficiency improvements, while balancing long-term payments against utility bills savings.
That's how they do it in Babylon, N.Y.
Save now, pay later
"Our goal is to get residents a positive cash flow from the outset," said Steve Bellone, Babylon's administrator.
The town on Long Island, with about 216,000 residents, is eight months into a revolving-fund efficiency program of its own. After about two years of planning, the Long Island Green Homes program was launched using $2 million from the town of Babylon's solid waste reserve fund.
The Post and Courier
Ben Leigh demonstrates a blower door used in home energy audits for the Sustainability Institute on Thursday at Charleston County's main library.
"We have to explain to them that there's no catch," Bellone said. "You're making your house healthier, more comfortable, and better for the environment, at no cost to you and no cost to taxpayers."
In Babylon, if a homeowner is expected to save $100 a month from efficiency improvements financed by the revolving fund, they could pay $80 a month until the cost of the improvements are paid off and keep the remaining $20 of monthly savings. When the upgrades are paid off, the homeowner then realizes all the savings.
The town covers its overhead costs by charging 3 percent interest. Homeowners who participate can get "green" certificates from Babylon, which the town expects will be useful as real estate marketing tools.
"This is not a government handout or bailout," Bellone said. "It's a self-sustaining program that creates jobs, helps the environment, and saves people money."
Efficiency upgrades can create lots of local jobs because of the labor-intensive nature of the work installing insulation, windows, water heaters, heating and cooling systems, and more.
"There are huge green job opportunities here, and this is often work that can be done by small businesses," said Riley.
Bob Fleming lives in Charleston and runs Classic Remodeling. He's been looking at efficiency improvements as a business opportunity.
To see how the numbers work out, he is using his own home as a test case and started by paying the non-profit Sustainability Institute to perform an energy audit.
Fleming said that even for a building professional, there's a lot of conflicting information about energy improvements, and it's not always easy to know what makes the most sense. In his case, the energy audit showed that his less than five-year-old home needs more insulation and had more air leakage than he expected.
He's also considering energy-efficient lighting, a water heating upgrade, and solar panels.
"All this stuff makes a lot of sense, but a lot of people don't want to put the money up front or can't get financing," Fleming said.
He said the city's initiative sounds like a very good idea, because it eliminates the financing hurdle and simplifies the decision-making.
Of course, homeowners already have the ability to make efficiency improvements to their houses. They could arrange a home energy audit, research tax credits and incentive programs, hire contractors, and take out a home equity loan in order to pay for the work and spread out the payments.
"I think that for your average consumer, it's pretty difficult," Fleming said.
The program in Babylon, as well as the one Charleston is considering, are aimed at uncomplicating the process.
'Steal their stuff'
When Serrafix principal Doug Foy first came to Charleston in March 2008 to address the Charleston Green Committee formed by Riley, he said other cities have taken steps to improve efficiency, and Charleston should borrow from those ideas.
"Steal their stuff," Foy told the committee. That's what Serrafix is doing now, on the city's behalf, building on what's been done in Babylon, in Cambridge, Mass., in Seattle and elsewhere.
"I think the reach and scope of what we propose for Charleston is broader and deeper than what Babylon has been able to do," Gottlieb said. "We think the public sector has an important role to play, in the start-up, but there isn't enough public money out there to retrofit every building in Charleston."
Where Babylon's plan is part of the town government, Serrafix proposes that Charleston create a quasi-governmental organization that could potentially go to private financial markets to raise money for a revolving fund.
For example, the organization could sell bonds at favorable interest rates, backed by Charleston's ability to collect debts from property owners.
Hamilton Davis of the Coastal Conservation League said contracting with Serrafix could help the city get a program started faster than it might otherwise and might avoid some of the stumbles that could happen if the city created the initiative on its own.
"If we can do it in Charleston, then we can do it in other places in the state," he said.
Gottlieb said that if the federal government creates a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, the city's organization could raise funding by selling emission credits based upon the local energy savings.
Serrafix was hired by the city to develop a plan at the urging of the Coastal Conservation League. The company's initial report, delivered last week, was funded by private donations to the Green Committee.
The city has applied for grants to pay Serrafix up to $600,000 to deliver a turn-key program for the city that could be up and running next spring.
"We would get the city to the point of having a fully functional partnership, able and ready to raise money and begin providing services," said Gottlieb. "You won't find, in any one place, the breadth of what we have proposed for Charleston."
For more information
Powerpoint presentation (24 slides)
Serrafix web site: www.serrafix.com
The Charleston Green Committee: www.charlestongreencommittee.com/8x6_aboutus.html
The Babylon, N.Y. initiative: www.townofbabylon.com/whatsnew.cfm?id=252 and www.thebabylonproject.org
The Cambridge, Mass. Initiative: www.cambridgeenergyalliance.org/faq.htm
Federal tax credits for energy efficiency: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits
Climate change impacts in the U.S.(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) : www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/second-public-review-draft/default.php
South Carolina tax incentives: http://tr.im/phEU
Prior stories:
Company to explore energy efficiency
Green guru offers energy-saving ideas for Charleston
Mayor Riley wants city to get greener
Climate report paints grim picture for Lowcountry
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
zekemire (anonymous) says...
What a boondoggle! If the coastal conservation league supports it, it is probably worthless! Cap and trade, think new higher taxes and higher costs of everything we buy, is worthless except to TRANSFER THE WEALTH OF ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER! WE NEED TO BAN THESE GROUPS AS SUBVERSIVE!!
June 22, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
My gosh I'm glad I got out of Charleston! This is going to cost millions to do nothing, and the fund will be bankrupt and in debt in no time. At that point they'll have to raise your bills again to pay an increasing debt.
June 22, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
Megalomania, plain and simple.
June 22, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
desspec (anonymous) says...
The only thing that can be believed in this article is that they intend to tell you what you must do and give you a surcharge too ...
June 22, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jroller (anonymous) says...
What a bunch of idiots these commenters are, sucking at the teat of Rush Limbaugh, no doubt!
Sign me up. Sounds like a great plan... making energy efficiency doable for the average citizen.
June 22, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Being proactive is not in the mentality of most conservatives as proven by the idiotic comments of the earlier posters!
June 22, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
If it saves energy and saves me money....why not?
You would need to be pretty dim witted to think it is a bad thing.......duh!
June 22, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postman3 (anonymous) says...
Interesting Photo.
Can you count the safety vilations?
OSHA would have a ball.
I suggest the city safety inspectors do their job and monitor the job sites before someone gets hurt.
June 22, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
Sounds to me like a water WELL and a water purifier would save just as much by ELIMINATING a WATER BILL.....!!!!!
WE highly suggest this firm do the math on a water filtration system versus a freakin WATER BILL....!!!!!!!
WE're ALL FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.....bucko BOYz!!!!
Who wrote this .......FLUFF !?!?! .....DAVID "slay US" SLADE !!??
Citizens....this article is a blatant example of WHAT ???
Where there any HARD questions asked.....??? To put ANYONE on RECORD..???
MAYOR RILEY......what leadership does this display..?? WHAT..?
Where is ROBERT FORD on this for the ENTIRE state...!?!?!
WHERE is Andre' Bauer on this for Assisted Living Centers to reduce the ENERGY Health Care COSTs...!?!?!
Where is Henry McMaster on this "pumpernickel SCAM.." ??
Babylon can "KISS OUR FREAKIN' GE Wind Turbine GRITz !!"
WE ARE ...FED...UP !!!!!
June 22, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
MAYOR RILEY.........Do you have any idea (ANY?) ...how this article makes you look to the EDUCATED Citizen...!?!?!
Wholly COW..!?!
Anyone with Half a BRAIN would know that building out of ICF Construction (citizens read here www.polysteel.com !) would save not only ENERGY but reduce INSURANCE RATES...!!!! Why do you NOT come OUT and raise the standards in the building CODES to begin with so citizens would NOT have to fall for this to begin with..??? This would sure help the concrete and STEEL (Georgetown ...citizens ??) WORKERS instead of WHO ...!?!?! Mayor Riley ...just exactly WHAT State are those 2x4's Railed in from ...??? Do we not have a ICF Manufacturer in Georgia or North Carolina..??
As far a retrofitting buildings to save ENERGY....WELL if the "Babylon MATH" is so GRAND then would it NOT be wise to take a SECOND Mortgage out to get these upgrades done so homeowners could at least write of the ...WHAT ??
Mayor ...wasn't there a outer space TV show called "Babylon 5"..???
Come ON ...Riley..!! We highly suggest you study the efficiency of getting SC Farmerz to produce ALGAE Bio-Diesel (Citizens read here.... www.valcent.net !!) INSTEAD of using FOREIGN Diesel...!?! Which diesel would save MORE American BLOOD....!?!?!
WE ARE NOT FOOLS...RILEY !!!!
You can KISS our "BABYLON 5" Gritz...!!!!!
WE are fed up with your tax TACTICS on the assault of OUR WALLETS....!!!!!
YOUR TOAST in the NEXT ELECTION.....!!!!!!!
June 22, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Only intellectualy challenged people would provide the same old, dried-up tripe about "sucking on the teat of Rush Limbaugh" when there are legitimate concerns about the city and consumers wasting money for deficient, INFERIOR technology, just to save a buck.
I love how they tout being green as being more "cost-efficient" when the clear underlying agenda in these programs is to "save the planet", which is a false premise itself.
June 22, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
MR. CHARLES ROWE.....!!! Yes YOU !!
Bravo...(Clap, clap, clap) !!
Bravo...(Clap, clap, clap) !!
This wonderful article should win a Pulitzer...!!! Do you know why..?? Well ...it gets the brain pondering other blatant examples of in-efficiency..!?!
Let's take HABITAT for Humanity..!?! This is a great organization and does wonderful things with the help of fellow citizens..!! RIGHT ..?? Well, due to the FACT that the LABOR is essentially FREE, would it not be wise to use ICF block construction for these homes so Insurance and Electric Bills would be less for the Home owner..?? It sure would be EASIER to build and show the citizens working to build the house HOW easy it is to build out of ICF Blocks..!?!
On some of these OLD homes that would qualify for this program, would it not make better sense to level the OLD house and rebuild with ICF construction...!?! The Energy savings would be far greater...!?!
What happens if the house is "historical"..!?! Is the BAR gestapo going to stop all Exterior upgrades..?? No Hardy PLANK siding instead of wood..?? No Thermal windows instead of lead glass and wood..!?!
Would this lead to LAWSUITS by citizens if their Energy Bill is NOT reduced by some fairy TALE percent..!?!
Will Owners be allowed to OPEN their windows if the Heat or A/C is on..!?!
Will the Heat or AC be automatically turned off depending on the weather OUTSIDE regardless of what the owner wants or NOT..!?!
Charles ROWE......this is sounding more like the "PROMENADE LANDFILL" fiasco ....!?!?!
Charles...we know you will be DILIGENT in having David cover the "BABYLON 5" dealings with this SCAM..!!!
June 22, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
hhhhmmmmmm......saving money and being energy efficent? What sounds wrong with this picture? NOTHING!
And what is it that every living thing needs on this planet, including us??????? Clean Air to breath, clean water to drink and clean soil to grow food!
Please explain to me why anyone would be against that? Come on icb - give e one SANE reason! I dare you!
June 22, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nappyd (anonymous) says...
"Going Green" is one thing, but show me how to harness the humidity to help lower my bills and I'll be impressed.
Oh, and what happens when hurricanes & other harder storms hit and mess up my solar panels?
June 22, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
I'm thrilled that our city is taking the initiative to one day be a leader in energy conservation, especially in a place where there is so much dogmatic opposition. Posters here can claim the earth is flat all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that programs like these are desperately needed, yes for the planet, and for ourselves.
June 22, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
An important fact is that destruction of the rain forests has a bigger impact on carbon balance & climate change than all modes of transportation COMBINED (air street & water vehicles).
I was surprised to find this out.
Frankly, I do not know what the stats are on energy used in private & commercial dwellings, but I imagine that relative to the impact that rain forest destruction causes, it is a relatively small factor in the overall scheme of things.
Should we all take steps to be good stewards of the earth's resources?
Absolutely.
However, most of what we are doing to "reduce the carbon footprint" is like spitting in the wind(to put it nicely) as long as the rain forests are being destroyed.
The rain forests are nature's largest carbon "filter". Their destruction not only wipes out this filter, but also releases carbon, further adding to the imbalance.
Efforts to "go green" should first be aimed where the impact is biggest-the problem of rain forest destruction.
June 22, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GermanyXO (anonymous) says...
South Carolina leaders can learn a lot from leadership in the United Kingdom when it comes to "GOING GREEN". There are zones declared off-limits to all vehicles powered by a combustion engine [READ: Electric, pedal-taxis, and pedestrian traffic only]. What would it take to declare an entire street on the Peninsula a pedestrian-only zone for an entire weekend (allowing waivers only for emergency responders)?
June 22, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
libertarian (anonymous) says...
Philosophically, I am opposed to my government spending money on this.
Pragmatically, it certainly makes sense to use energy efficient & sustainable building techniques. (Whether or not man contributes in any substantial way to 'global warming'. There are both scientific arguments and anecdotal evidence on both sides of that issue, and I'm not taking a position on it here.)
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.
I heard on the radio that I could save $100/year on my power bill just by unplugging my Xbox rather than leaving it in standby mode. My new, more efficient dishwasher was going to save me $30/month on my water bill. Maybe if I upgrade my washer and water heater, and unplug my PC, 2 TVs, Tivo, and DVD player, I'll save so much money that the power/water company will be sending me a check. (And think of how much I'll make per month if I put in double pane windows!)
The Prius next door is supposed to be green. Yet respected environmental groups say that is only the case if you don't take into account the less-green manufacturing techniques used and the carbon footprint of disposing of that huge battery.
Point being that it is not always easy to tell what action is best for the environment or for energy conservation. And the claimed cost savings are often both illusionary and downright ludicrous.
I don't want my government (and by extension, me) subsidizing your green efforts. Inevitably there will be less benefits than promised, or unexpected side effects, and the program will end up costing more than projected while saving less than planned.
I put in more energy efficient appliances in my kitchen. I upgraded the insulation in my attic. I will put in a better AC when mine inevitably needs replacement. But I didn't ask any of you to pay for it. Why should I be required to subsidize you?
June 22, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
phenomena (anonymous) says...
Everyone knows:' Everything is slower in the South'.
So I'm thrilled too and agree with flatpickit's posting that our city is taking the initiative to one day be a leader in energy conservation, especially in a place where there is so much dogmatic opposition. It doesn't change the fact that programs like these are desperately needed, yes for the planet, and for ourselves and generations to come. Better late then never, AND we should start right here at our front door, a spot we can reach easily (where the rain forest is a bit further away and will take much longer to solve). We are also a city with lots of tourists, so by being a role model or on the way to become one, we can educate others by living it. Instead of coming up with excuses not to do it, put some energy and brain into the topic on how to support a healthier tomorrow!
June 22, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
You know what - if you wont spend your money then the government will spend it for you.
I have no problem with this motion as long as it is being spent on the good of the whole.
Greener industries and greener living for a better tomorrow is a worth while cause in my book.
Next up health care!!!!!!!
Watch Sicko and I defy you you not to cry!!!!!!
June 22, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Luna, thanks for posting a complete straw man argument. NO ONE has said that they are against clean air, clean water, and clean soil, but placing solar panels for energy and creating "water efficiency improvements" is about as effective on your budget and saving the planet as "spitting in the wind", to quote abitskeptical.
Also, you do realize that mixing and storing toxic chemicals are required to make batteries for the solar panels; in addition, large amounts of energy are necessary to create the actual silicon cells...far more energy than wind or solar power can possibly generate?
Clearly, you and the other greenies in the city are delusional.
June 22, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
Actually you are wrong icbmman. You are perpetuating a myth. A solar panel can surpass the energy cost that was used to create it. This can happen in two years. In fact, it can generate much more energy than was used to create it over its life in a good location. Here is one of many studies that show this:
http://solarbus.org/documents/pvpayba...
Energy savings can also surpass the dollar cost that was used to buy it . This is true because of the long life of solar panels. How long it actually takes depends on the type of panel and where it is (amount and intensity of sun). It can be a smart investment. Progress continues to be made toward the efficiency of solar panels. We need to support this progress instead of spreading misinformation.
June 22, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monstermusic (anonymous) says...
where to begin?
First of all, icbmman, solar is just a small part of what this article is about.
To all the doubters and skeptics, get with the program. The reality is that this is easy and will save a lot of money for everyone. Just because it's a public/private partnership, it's evil? Come on.
Rainforest, sure whatever, can't argue with that. But think globally, act locally, right?
I think this article kind of misses the point a little. Retrofitting is one thing, but each and every one of us could make huge impacts on our electric bills with only MINIMAL expense, with NO sacrifice of comfort!! I made simple, simple changes at home and work and immediately saw (and sustained) a 25% decrease in energy usage.
I replaced all incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents.
I put weather stripping along gaps in doors and windows.
I sealed off my chimney since i never use it, and put foam insulation on my (ceiling) attic access.
I put all electrical equipment (stereo, TV, computer, etc) on power strips and kept the power strips off when not in use.
I cleaned off the coils on the fridge (there are some who say this doesn't do any good - but what could it hurt).
And there are so many other SIMPLE things. There are literally dozens of things you can do to shave dollars off your electric bill, and those dollars add up. Note that I didn't spend more than $100 on the entire project.
Like the article says, if we all used 25% less energy, we'd need far fewer power plants. No need for any new nuclear plants (talk about a boondoggle!!! There's an industry that can't exist without government.)
If you want to replace your windows, more power to you - but there is so much EASY stuff you and I can do to reduce energy use at home & work. Just look for it!
What's evil about all of this? Think of all the wasted electricity in government buildings. Think there won't be major savings there? Quit thinking government is out to get you, people.
June 22, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldandintheway (anonymous) says...
let me get this straight,
we live in charleston, SC
and
we want to HEAT a pool.
geez.
June 22, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
I've got to work, so I'll try to make this short.
Flatpickit, the study you cited is basically farce. While the study measures and records data on production of silicon cell production, it refused to acknowledge the chemical production that is required to store solar energy. I mean, unless you don't count lead, lead dioxide, and sulphuric acid as toxic chemicals, sure, solar is VERY clean. Next, the study does not take into account the amount of solar cells that would be required to power a large city, nor does it figure back-up energy systems that will have to be used when the sun ISN'T shining. Interestingly enough, we continue to ignore nuclear power, even when physicists note that this source of power is the best investment for the future for the environment and in terms of "renewable" energy: http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/editor/g...
Monstermusic, you define what I call the energy trend follower.
- You use CFLs instead of incandescents...regardless of the amount of mercury that can poison water sources and the air, should even 1 break.
- You actually think reducing your energy bill is going to reduce our overall energy consumption...people, there are millions of people born into this country (let alone this world) every year, so stagnating energy resources is the SUREST bet to keep future generations from benefiting from whatever supposed good you think you're doing.
- Lastly, you seem to forget that government has a tendency to overreach (Iran is the extreme example, the fed running car companies is ours). People have every right to be suspicious of those in power, ESPECIALLY when it means more power and control for them.
Incidentally, your statement about nuclear power is hogwash. While there is some government oversight in the industry, the energy companies self-regulate in using nuclear power. They run their own nuclear surety programs which have better security and safety precautions than many government facilities.
June 22, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Numba10 (anonymous) says...
when we have this so called cure all of health care what happens to all the publicly funded clinics and hospitals and the jobs that go with them----dont we already have government run health care all over this country in varied shapes and forms--show me one that works---there also are examples of national health care plans around the world show me one that works without rationing and is not running huge deficeits----for all to have health care all must pay thier individual tab----health care is not a right unless you can pay for it--
June 22, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
Absolutely right, icbmman. You are correct about the delusional aspect of this and I urge you to consider the concept that the insanity that has us both concerned has become a political religious cult to its adherents, which is why REASON doesn't work with them.
Your last post is a good explanation of JUNK SCIENCE. Why do we see junk science? Well, "religion" and "science" are supposedly opposites. So why wouldn't a primitve religious cult that has sprung up in our supposedly modern world behave towards REAL science and people who employ REASON in the same way that the Catholic church did towards Galileo in the 16th century?
June 22, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
icbmman, you said, "large amounts of energy are necessary to create the actual silicon cells...far more energy than wind or solar power can possibly generate?"
The hyperlinked study above measures the energy required to make all parts of the solar cell, including all added process energy, all direct AND indirect materials, AND required upstream processes!!! (expressed in kWhe/kWp) You can't just call something a farce without reading it just because you don't want to agree with the results.
June 22, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatmorecollards (anonymous) says...
The high cost of going green far outweighs any benefits gained. Its still in its infancy. Going green is the modern equivalent of the old time snake oil salesman.
We should be putting more money into development of green technology, instead of giving it to those who's only purpose is to capitalize on the concept.
Most people already know the best ways to save on energy consumption and those concepts don't cost anything.
June 22, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monstermusic (anonymous) says...
oh, I see. People who actually want to do things productive are "delusional". You are so cynical and blinded by your knee-jerk conservatism. "Global warming" conversation or any sort of energy efficiency or sustainability initiative does not constitute a "religious cult". That's just wacky.
icbmman - so glad I fit into your pigeonhole. that means so much. Regarding CFL's: 1) Do you have any idea how much mercury escapes from our power plants and into our waterways and air? FAR more than a piddly broken CFL. 2) Do you work in a place or do any business anywhere that uses standard fluorescent bulbs? What about that mercury? 3) Do you have an oral thermometer in your house? what about that mercury? The risk of mercury poisoning and contamination from CFL's is so miniscule and so overstated. You have to be careful, like everything else. And LOTS of places recycle CFL's, Staples being one.
Okay, so the world population growth is the bigger problem, fine. So what are you doing about that? Because solution 1 doesn't fix problem 2 doesn't mean you don't have to take action about either problem 1 or 2. Again, a very cynical argument.
Sure, government overreaches sometimes, I get it. Sometimes they mean well and act foolishly. But what we're talking about here is such a simple mission. C'mon, our mayor has been in office 30 years and you're worried this is a power grab? I roll my eyes at you. We're not talking TARP here, or ridiculous deficit spending. This is a means towards consumption and cost control. It's a no-brainer all the way around.
And regarding Nuclear - you totally miss the point. Again, you are so knee-jerk conservative that it clouds your reason. "... some government oversight in the industry, the energy companies self-regulate in using nuclear power. They run their own nuclear surety programs...." That's not even what I'm talking about. The nuclear industry would not exist were it not for Billions in subsidies and giveaways - the power companies wouldn't be able to build the plants in the first place. Since you're so anti- monolithic "socialism", why aren't you railing against that? Your belief that big business self-regulates (particularly power companies) is a big fairy tale.
@eatmorecollards - you raise an interesting point that is probably missed by most, that being is government's motive here to benefit businesses as opposed to John Q Public? That is a discussion for another time. I do take issue with your "high cost of going green" comment - there will be economies of scale in the future, making it cheaper, to be sure; but you paint things the wrong color to imply "greening up" is expensive. Clearly, the benefits gaines (e.g. in one's power bill) are large, and immediate. Some things, such as a solar-powered water heater, will take 3-4 years to pay for themselves (typically). But I don't see that as a negative.
June 22, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
monstermusic, you are a shockingly limited intelligence that is hopelessly outgunned. You should be taking advantage of this opportunity to listen, learn, adapt and improve yourself instead of stupidity arguing due to your intellectual vanity.
June 22, 2009 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Thanks, postman. It is clearly obvious that indeed, we are casting our pearls before swine with people who are absolutely being brainwashed into a cult. I'm not even going to waste my time discussing it further.
June 22, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
When the evidence mounts up against them, they resort to petty insults....got nothin' else... love it.
June 22, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Flatpickit, you pose the typical liberal response; declare victory where there is none. I provided enough evidence to make my argument and rebut your. My problem is that I don't have time to deliberate this issue again..and again.......AND AGAIN. I refuse to waste time going back and forth with cultists like you, showing evidence or links that support my argument. It is pointless. You've bought the BS, and I'm calling it for what it's worth, because that's all the time I have right now. No evidence has mounted; I'm just tired of conversing with idiots.
June 22, 2009 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solarinstaller (anonymous) says...
For all of you who like to rattle off with little or no facts.
1. Solar panels does not have to have batteries to function.The most popular systems today use no batteries.(Grid-tie) There are many types of solar-panels, do not forget about thermal panels that can reach temperatures of 240 deg.F and above. We use these for hot water and heat.
2. Municipal pools do use large amounts of gas or electric energy to be heated, so off-setting this with solar is a great savings to the Charleston community. Also these panels can be used to cool a pool that is too hot.It will extend the season for an unheated pool with little cost.
3. Green is not a new concept,It has just been renamed. Remember how people used to have gardens and spent hours growing and putting up food before green living was ever "discovered" What do you call that? I'm sure some of you remember some excellent foods that came from those gardens. This is also an economic issue.
4. Energy efficiency is not a political issue,It is a money issue.It is quite true that most savings in todays houses can be done with relatively small investments.Most of the houses buildt just a few years ago used inadequate insulation,windows,doors etc.It is harder to cool a house than to heat a house.
5. Most of the badly needed energy efficiency needed is in low and middle income housing because of the reasons explained previously.
So people what is wrong with more cash to spend in your pocket, and a more comfortable house.
Your mayor is doing you right.
June 23, 2009 at 12:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
"Energy efficiency" in & of itself might not be a political issue, but politics absolutely is intertwined in various "studies" & claims about what exactly is happening regarding the earth's climate, whether it is a cyclical change or a change for which man is responsible & what "should be done".
As I stated earlier, I try to be a good steward of all resources & I believe all of us have that responsibility.
However, also, as I said earlier, much of what people are doing or proposing to "go green" is like spitting in the wind. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do what we can to recycle, re-use, conserve. I am saying we should look at the big picture....
monstermusic, FYI, the deforestation of rain forests deserves more than a "Sure whatever". That statement would come only from someone who is clueless about the huge global ecological impact these bio-systems have.
Deforestation of these places accounts for 20% of all carbon emissions from human activities. More carbon is released per yr from this than in 13 cumulative yrs of global fossil fuel combustion.
I could go on & on about how this activity also is tied to floods, drought, etc.
Slowing the destruction that continues in the rain forests is imperative.
You can put in all the solar panels & florescent bulbs (w/ their questionable positive attributes) & buy all the "smart" cars you want, but when all of the rain forests are gone, we'll be fighting a losing battle.
Seems to me that all of us need to find out what we can do in the area having the single biggest impact first...or at least do this at the same time you undertake other "green" measures.
June 23, 2009 at 1:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
Hey solar installer. The vast majority of what they'll be doing will cost more than it will save. As a solar installer if you pay any attention to the bills you know that solar panels in a private home is not ever going to pay for itself. Long before it's even paid for itself it will require expensive repair and replacement. The least efficient houses in Charleston will require blown insulation into thin wall spaces which won't pay for itself, and new windows and doors all around is expensive and won't pay for itself for who knows how long. Put all together the cost will far exceed that 3% tax, especially if huge numbers take take advantage of it. On top of that the savings will take many years to realize. If you spend $10,000 to shave $30 off of your monthly electric bill you aren't exactly saving the world.
June 23, 2009 at 5:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solarinstaller (anonymous) says...
Yes, being good stewarts are most important.
As for the cost of installation and cost of upkeep,The argument on shaving only $30.00 dollars of an electric bill is unfounded. Solar panels do pay for themselves,but is it reasonable to think that we should not pay for our services,i.e. electricity.Solar panels has a life expectancy of 30 + years. If you can insure yourselves against a pricehike in electricity cost for a period of 30 years,and have a return on investment of 12 to 14 percent,does this not make sense.Ask your accountant.Where is your return on investment on your payments to the utilities. Solar hot water pays for itselves in less than 6 years and has a life expectancy of at least 20 years.
These savings are real and has been proven. Solar is not an experiment we do for the fun of it.The first solar panel was invented before the car.
Wheather you beleive in global warming or not,conservation and good stewardship makes good sense. Who likes to go to the beach with a lot of trash floating around.
Technology today is moving so fast that products to help homeowner have better energy efficiency are coming on the market every day. If we embrace this,we create american jobs for americans and we can be proud of what we accomplish.
June 23, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
uh huh, icbmman, you don't have time to cite evidence, show links supporting your argument, or make a decent point (that's even halfway true), but you do have time to call those doing just that swine and cultists. Brilliant and respectable work.
June 23, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
monstermusic (anonymous) says...
@abitskeptical - right you are that the destruction of rain forests deserves more than my blow off - mea culpa - but to me this somewhat off topic, and not an excuse for not acting locally.
@flatpickit - yup, you nailed it.
June 23, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
Kool aid drinking fools - when this planet finally has enough of us, and she will......you will all be proven wrong righties, but heck at least you will be gone and she will just start over. Hopefully evolution will improve you all.
June 23, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
monstermusic-my point is that people should not be fooled into believing that all the effort & money being thrown at "going green" is going to have significant impact if we lose the rain forests.
Unlike some entities & people, most of us have only so much money & time to devote to various causes &/or areas of our lives.
Understanding some of the biggest pieces of the "big picture puzzle" of global climate & ecological issues is vital to having a productive & lasting impact. Excuse the pun, but people are not seeing the forest for the trees here.
June 23, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
I guess you virtually ignored my previous post that cited evidence and links? Why don't you review the exhausting debate I had with TP over the very issue of man-made global warming by looking at my history? I'm not going to use up my valuable work time posting them again.
Solar panels DO require storage of energy, since they cannot function to supply power if sunlight is not shining. That's common sense 101. As far as energy efficiency, it IS a political issue, because political forces are literally forcing it to the market place. Banning incandescents ring a bell?!
Again, flatpickit and solarinstaller, your idiotic posts provide more evidence why I do not wish to debate the issue any further. You've drank the Kool-Aid along with Luna, thinking you're more enlightened than people who have legitimate skepticism. It would be a waste of time to give you any more knowledge...hence, the Biblical metaphor "casting pearls before swine" which you took as a personal attack due to your ignorance.
June 24, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
Oh, so there was no personal attack? Just like the issue really at hand here, you are desperately trying to cover up the truth. You just won't look at it. Just like you won't scroll up and see that you called me an idiot and ignorant, in more than one post. Easy to do anonymously.
Yes i saw the link. The study I linked showed that you are wrong about solar panels. So, in response you link an article discussing nuclear power, with no mention of solar? Way to back yourself up.
Who said solar panels don't require storage of energy? You're babbling for no reason. Where's the common sense there?
You keep saying you don't have time, but again you come back to insult instead of showing anything constructive. You're a model for how not to use these comments.
June 24, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
femgineer (anonymous) says...
Folks, come on. The technology to transfer the energy of the sun has greatly evolved since the 20th Century.
Water is an awesome medium for transferring the thermal qualities of solar power. We can now let the sun heat our water, move it into insulated storage and hold it, still heated, until we are ready to use it at the tap or showerhead. Virtually eliminating the need for the hot water heater to heat the water.
Changing solar energy to electrical power has also evolved in efficiency.
The ONE thing no one has mentioned is BALANCE. Everyone wants to debate the all-or-nothing "side" of the topic. BATTERIES are NOT a necessary evil to couple with solar electricity.
A BALANCED (properly engineered) solar system will create the amount of electrical energy you will use during the sunshiny period of the day (also known as Peak hours), more or less. Net Metering will allow you to sell any excess to the power company for further distribution *and* allow you to purchase any extra you might need during the day (should you need to run power tools while you wash clothes and bake a turkey and turn up the air-conditioning while you play Nintendo under your sun lamp) and purchase electricity from the power company at night when it is cheaper (off-Peak).
Therefore, it is not necessary to totally disconnect the umbilical cord, nor is it mandatory to obtain all of our heat and power from the one source. The power of the Sun is there; harnessing it takes initiative.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of energy, seems like some of you would be all out from fighting so hard against being drug into the 21st Century.
Kudos to the leaders of Charleston for envisioning a bright future for the Citizens.
June 24, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
