by Ethan Johnson
June 16, 2006

I have been thinking lately about how to be more "eco". The problem is that I am not entirely willing to give up my creature comforts in favor of burlap and flax. Just the same, I believe that we can all contribute to the greater good in some small way, and that pennies add up to dollars sooner or later. Here is my major complaint about "green" energy: The suppliers aren't doing much to win over converts. The following are my observations about "eco" power options in Dallas:

Wind: I covered wind power to some extent on May 30, 2006. Suffice it to say that 100% wind power is a pricey alternative. I see wind as being more of a "wind and..." option, which beats "coal only" any day.

One thing I do want to touch on regarding wind power is that there seems to be a scam in the making: Rather than sell you wind power, some companies are encouraging people to do a study of their conventional power usage (such as 1500 kW/h per month) and buying "wind credits" to offset the emissions generated the "bad" way. The problem as I see it is a potential lack of oversight, and worse, a trade in an intangible good. These "credits" are said to be used to invest in wind power anywhere on the globe. How do I know that they're actually doing this? Are my emissions truly being "offset"? This strikes me as really shady, or at best a guilt-trip. I'd like to see something more "solid" before I buy any wind credits.

Solar: I told Mar that solar is "off the table." Here's why: I read the hype about residential solar, and was all excited at the thought of "sticking it to the man" by running solar and "selling back" power to TXU. Eat it, The Man! As it turns out, The Man took precautions against being stuck. It is not economically sensible to retro-fit one's home with a residential solar system as the system cost alone is roughly $24,000 USD. At the current cost per kW/h versus our average usage, it would take several years to break even. We plan to be long since moved away by then.

The other problem I have with residential solar (as sold on eBay) is the top seller on eBay engaged in semantic chicanery which should have set off someone's BS detector. They advertise a system that could generate 78,000 WATT hours, not KILOWATT hours. Divide this by 1000, and you have yourself 78 kW/h. Per day, under ideal conditions. But the system they are selling does NOT generate that much power. You have to add panels for an added expense. In truth, to power a 2000 sf home, you're looking at a system that costs closer to $24,000 - $30,000 USD, not counting labor. My current electric bill is $325 USD. Assuming this rate to be constant forevermore, and assuming I could power my home entirely from solar (you can't, with a "grid-tie" system - you're looking to break even), it would take about 12 years on the low end to break even. Again, this is a tug-of-war with the meter, and whatever gains are made during daylight hours are lost overnight. The savings will take much longer to realize under those conditions.

Solar panels today are rating at 11-16% efficiency. That's hugely disappointing, considering the surface area necessary for the panels and the cost of the equipment. I'm hearing good things about SunTech, and will keep an eye on improvements in the solar sector. But I think the trick to residential solar right now is to build it into a new home and roll the equipment cost into the mortgage payment. Retro-fitting an existing home, even here in TX is cost-prohibitive for a lot of people and doesn't make sense if you're not going to stick around to reap the benefits. Of course, if you can command a higher asking price when selling your home that could be an incentive.

Bio-Diesel: I drove up to Anna, TX recently to check out a gas station that was selling "Bio-Willie": A blend of diesel fuel and soybeans (or plants?). The bottom line: It was $2.75 USD per gallon. Across the street they sold "plain old diesel". For $2.75/gallon. Way to incent people to make the switch. And not to get all Bill Maher over here, but excuse me, are you saying that 20% soy plants are the economic equivalent of 20% diesel fuel? If so, Bio-diesel is a tough sell. Although if it could be made with 100% soy plants, grown domestically, the case could be made that it is win-win for everyone: We stop using foreign materials to make our diesel fuels, our farmers (more like ADM) will benefit, emissions will improve, life will be good. But offering up a product that is priced the exact same as the "bad" stuff isn't going to inspire anyone, unless you are specifically looking to fill up with Bio-Willie.

Conclusion: I am not dissing "green" power per se. But Northern Arizona Wind and Sun said it best:

Living with an all solar home is a lot more than just tossing up a few solar panels. It involves a lifestyle change. The typical American family is about as energy conscious as a hippo (even a dancing solar hippo). You will probably have to give up your air conditioner and electric stove at the very least, and that is just the beginning.

I see residential solar as a means to offset conventional energy use, but without committing to a total lifestyle overhaul, living "all solar" isn't realistic. And people love their huge houses and SUVs. I agree with their recommendation to spend money on upgrading inefficient appliances rather than going bonzo with a $25000 solar hookup. Face it, that's like getting expensive plastic surgery to fix your low self-esteem problem.

As for sticking it to The Man with alternative energy, all that is well and good when demand is low. If the balance of world energy power shifts from OPEC to ADM, we'll have the same problems with a new name. But the air should be cleaner on the up side. I'm not giving up on "eco" energy, let alone "eco" anything else. But this is a lifestyle change situation, and old habits die hard. I'll have more to report later after some additional research and planning. <EM>