Category: Energy

  • California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes – Bloomberg

    California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes – Bloomberg:

    California is 1/3 of the US economy and probably 1/3 of the US housing market. So, when California voted today to have mandatory solar on most new construction houses, this blows the top off of the non-solar rooftop.

    Headlines read that the CA house will now cost about an additional $10,000 to build with the energy efficiency and solar roof mandates. This Bloomberg article says that the savings will be about twice the increase in building costs.

    True, it costs more to build, but the operating costs are dramatically less.

    This is related to new houses, so the decision is easier than for an existing house.

    However, that decision should be really simple as well for a house with good sun exposure. There are tax credits and ways to finance that will allow the homeowner to pay for the solar system out of the savings in power, until the whole solar system is paid off in 15-20 years and then it is a perpetuity of savings!…

    So, a $40,000 system in Florida is $28,000 after a 30% federal tax credit. The payment on the loan would be equal to, or less than the payments for electricity, on average. And, after you pay off the system in, say, 15 years, you have about $250 worth of net savings per month for a long, long time. That’s $3,000 per year in year 15; as a perpetuity, at 5% interest, the net present value is about $29,000 positive.

    Wait a minute. That is more, net present value-wise, then the entire out-of-pocket cost of the system if you had paid cash up front (less the tax credit). But you may not have paid any cash up front for it and paid all loan/lease payments from the savings on the electric bill!

    So, if the same math applies for a $300,000 home in California (cause everything’s far more expensive in California), which is now increased to $310,000. The additionally $10k can be separately financed; probably, with terms of nothing down and loan payments that are less than the electric bill. That is, from day one, the cash flows from operations are as good or better than paying full electric bills.

    Once you pay off the PV loan, you now have free electricity, for a long time.

    Plus, it is good for the environment and reduces CO2 emissions, and significantly reduces the reliance on centralized energy production form your favorite power utility.

    The net present value of the cash flows may be $10-$20,000 positive.

    A couple important factors: Power companies have traditionally increased costs by more than the level of inflation (inflation at about 2% and rising). Inflation and interest rates should rise significantly with full employment. PV technology reduces very slightly over time (0.5% per year).

    The private PV power system protects against the rising costs of power.
    ….
    So, the headlines might more accurately read:

    New CA Solar Mandate will increase home costs by about $10,000 but offset by about twice from the reduced of operating costs. 


    Another win, win, win of sustainability.

    This should not be a hard decision to make, in any sunny state. The mandate should not be necessary. Consumers should be making this decision as a smart decision, not just a green decision.
    Being Green, and making Green too.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Contura Coal Goes Public — jumping off of the coal train!

    Contura Energy is going public. (CTRA).

    On the one hand, they have a lot of metallurgical coal; on the other hand it seems like a rather bad investment — especially long-term.

    All the proceeds will go to buy out existing stock holders. Existing shareholders are based on creditors… Alpha Resources went bankrupt and the Contura Energy company rose out out of the ashes.  (After Peabody went bankrupt also in 2016, about half of US coal miners, and about half of US coal production comes from bankrupt mining companies.)

    At some point, coal should hit peak simply because we eventually run out of it… But based on reduced demand, it appears to have peaked in 2012 (see peak coal).

    Coal really should be taxed because of the massive negative externalities. No one anywhere can think that the cost of coal at the meter in anyway resembles to true cost of burning coal. Many of Contura’s mines are strip mines, so the added environmental costs are huge in those local areas. Health impacts affect hundreds of millions of people and contribution to deaths is millions.

    Remember one of the dirty little secrets of coal: Coal Ash.

    Environmental impact of coal. The true costs of coal, including externality costs, could easily be at least twice what we pay for it per ton. One estimate in Europe is that hidden coal costs are 1-2% of GDP.

    Plus there’s the major contribution to greenhouse gases.

    China, the world’s largest consumer of coal (50%) is back-peddling on coal at an astounding rate. At one point, less than 10 years ago, they had 2 new coal-powered plants coming on-board every week. Now, they may have only a handful more (finished). Like the US, we can expect China to continue converting their coal to NatGas.

    As a percentage of the world primary energy mix, coal has dropped below 30%, never to return again. In the US, NatGas has switched with coal as the primary source of electric generation (coal dropping from about 40% ten years ago to only about 30% now). NatGas is so much cheaper, cleaner, safer. Plus the renewables are really starting to be competitive and gain critical mass. Many wind and solar projects are getting to be cheaper per KW than coal (before considering externalities).

    India is the other big wildcard. In many cases they are aiming to skip the smokestack technology and go straight to solar. In many cases, India has serious water issues (since mass amounts of water are needed to run steam turbines in conventional energy).

    So, is it a good investment to buy into the Contra IPO? All the money goes to giving existing shareholders a parachute so that they can get out of the coal plane — well, off of the coal train, technically.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal

    ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal:

    The WSJ’s big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.

    A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.

    A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.

    Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).

    Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn’t mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)

    Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.

    You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.

    Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Great answers on climate and solutions.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/10/opinions/cop21-facebook-chat/index.html
    This has been some of the clearest points about renewable energy, and why it is so important.

  • Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 – Bloomberg Business

    Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 – Bloomberg Business:

    Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.

    With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.

    So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.

    The one thing for sure, is that it won’t be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can’t afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.

    The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.

    Don’t want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.

    ‘via Blog this’