Solar could save Minnesota schools millions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Currently, Minnesota's public schools spend approximately $84 million per year on electricity costs, money diverted from the classroom. But a bill to make clean, local energy accessible now (CLEAN) could help the state's public schools use solar to zero out their electricity bills and add $193 million per year to their operating budgets. The proposed bill would create a CLEAN Contract for public entities in Minnesota, requiring local utilities to buy electricity from solar photovoltaics (PV) systems on public property on a long-term contract and at a price sufficient to offer a small return on investment. The program mimics the traditional model for utility power development, where the public utilities commission rewards utilities a fixed rate of return on investments in new power generation. If schools maximize their participation in the new program, and cover their available roofspace with solar PV, the 750 megawatts of power would provide $193 million per year for school budgets, create hundreds of local jobs, and make the schools electricity self-reliant.

The cost of the program would be negligible: adding less than two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour to customer bills.

Minnesota's CLEAN Contract proposal is one of several programs spreading across North America, from Ontario to Vermont to Gainesville, Fla., and one that has ushered in thousands of megawatts of solar across Europe. In Ontario, the full-scale program has contracted over 2,700 megawatts of renewable energy and is responsible for 43,000 new jobs. Minnesota's program is restricted to solar PV on public property, but as this analysis shows, it could still have a significant impact on school budgets without a significant impact on ratepayers.

For more detail on CLEAN Contracts, read our 2009 report. For more on CLEAN Contracts in Minnesota, check out Solar Works for Minnesota.

John Farrell is an Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ISLR) senior researcher specializing in energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. He has written extensively on the economies of scale of renewable energy, the benefits of decentralized energy generation, and the policies and rules that support locally owned and distributed generation of renewable energy.

http://www.grist.org...chools-millions

Edited April 1, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[SuperDuper! 230]

Solar energy is a false economy. You put up much capital up front in hopes of getting a payoff of the system in the end, but by then you have to pay for replacement solar panels to keep things going. Similar to a hybrid car when you have to spend $thousands to replace the costly batteries after 5 years or so. Don't do it.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Boing!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Solar energy is a false economy. You put up much capital up front in hopes of getting a payoff of the system in the end, but by then you have to pay for replacement solar panels to keep things going.

Our neighbor put in a system 2 years ago. He told me it cost $25000 and he got $12000 in rebates and tax credits. He expects to break even in 8 years and he has a 25 year warranty on the panels. Doesn't sound like a false economy to me. We do get a lot of sun year round in Colorado. Obviously the break even point will be longer if you get less sunlight.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Our neighbor put in a system 2 years ago. He told me it cost $25000 and he got $12000 in rebates and tax credits. He expects to break even in 8 years and he has a 25 year warranty on the panels. Doesn't sound like a false economy to me. We do get a lot of sun year round in Colorado. Obviously the break even point will be longer if you get less sunlight.

that's what makes it a false economy.

it's the same with the Chevy Volt.

A true product that can sell itself needs no 'incentives.'

[Otto 83]

** Post violating TOS has been removed; further violation(s) may result in administrative action.

[Zero Sum 305]

Excellent information and thanks to those posting things in the circumstance of reality.

[Dakine10 5,452]

that's what makes it a false economy.

it's the same with the Chevy Volt.

A true product that can sell itself needs no 'incentives.'

Both our vehicles had manufacturer rebates. So did our TV and half the computer hardware I buy. The furnace and the AC had tax credits. A true product sells any way the manufacturer can move it off the shelf.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Both our vehicles had manufacturer rebates. So did our TV and half the computer hardware I buy. The furnace and the AC had tax credits. A true product sells any way the manufacturer can move it off the shelf.

the government is a manufacturer

[Dakine10 5,452]

the government is a manufacturer

I didn't say it was. A manufacturer (or retailer) can use tax credits or rebates as a selling strategy. It doesn't mean they are the ones offering them.

If you find a good product with a rebate, do you turn down the rebate because the product is good enough to sell itself? Or do you assume anything with a rebate must not be a good product?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I didn't say it was. A manufacturer (or retailer) can use tax credits or rebates as a selling strategy. It doesn't mean they are the ones offering them.

If you find a good product with a rebate, do you turn down the rebate because the product is good enough to sell itself? Or do you assume anything with a rebate must not be a good product?

Tax credits in the sense we are talking here, is government intervention/meddling in the market.

Sure, we all want to save money in the long run on the energy efficient AC units, etc. That's not the point though. When you heavily subsidize a product, especially in the early days, you create a false market for that product. You create a market that is only there because of the incentive.

It's the same thing we are seeing with the housing market after the home buyers credit expired. Sales have gone down. Though there are other factors there as well.

Apple doesn't need a rebate to sell an ipod/ipad, etc.

Microsoft doesn't need to sell its newest OS with a credit of any sort.

HDTVs came down in price over time because people bought them at their premium and it was a desired product... THAT is how a market works. A true market anyway.

A tax credit is a taxpayer buy down. You are in a sense stealing from your neighbor, so you can buy this car you want in the case of the volt, the home buyers credit, etc. You are saying without them paying for your purchase, you otherwise would not buy said product. THAT is a false market.

[TBoneTX 45,333]

Minnesnow-ta is more polar than solar, brrr man.

Opportunistic joke: Why doesn't Iowa slide into Missouri? Because Minnesota sucks, si man.

[TBoneTX 45,333]

Minnesnow-ta is more polar than solar, brrr man.

Opportunistic joke: Why doesn't Iowa slide into Missouri? Because Minnesota sucks, si man.

[TBoneTX 45,333]

Minnesnow-ta is more polar than solar, brrr man.

Opportunistic joke: Why doesn't Iowa slide into Missouri? Because Minnesota sucks, si man.

[Dakine10 5,452]

A tax credit is a taxpayer buy down. You are in a sense stealing from your neighbor, so you can buy this car you want in the case of the volt, the home buyers credit, etc. You are saying without them paying for your purchase, you otherwise would not buy said product. THAT is a false market.

That depends on if you would still buy it without the credit. Many markets are subsidized without being false. Government subsidized corn and the derivatives that benefit from that, such as cheap beef for example. In a sense, everyone is stealing, it comes down to who is doing it more.

I have a hard time believing someone wouldn't claim a tax credit if they qualified for it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That depends on if you would still buy it without the credit. Many markets are subsidized without being false. Government subsidized corn and the derivatives that benefit from that, such as cheap beef for example. In a sense, everyone is stealing, it comes down to who is doing it more.

I have a hard time believing someone wouldn't claim a tax credit if they qualified for it.

That's not the point though. Almost everyone would claim the tax credit 'if they qualified.'

While I disagree highly with corn subsidies, that is one that effects everyone. It would be hard to point out anyone who doesn't benefit directly from that. Be it the meat you buy, the corn product/by-products you buy, to sodas, etc. As I said though either way, I don't feel it should be subsidized, especially when it's being wasted by being placed into fuel and also when we are still paying farmers/companies in this country NOT to farm...

How does one benefit directly from their neighbor getting a $5,000 credit on a Chevy Volt though? A car that is fun for thier inner-city running around, but at the end of the day, they still need that gas guzzler to get anywhere meaningful...