2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It might be worth exploring today or on another program in future the significance that Union County (in an advisory measure 31-75) voted down a 300 megawatt wind plant.  This was advertised by some as being the 1st such measure in the country, and was voted down narrowly (~51% "No" to 49% "Yes").

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I recently had a professional evaluation for a 1400-watt PV system (i.e., small system) on my home.  The system would produce roughly $140 worth of electricity each year (that is about 15% of our home's annual usage of about $1000), and the complete system would cost ~$12,000 (including installation).  After state and federal tax credits the residual cost would be ~$4,300, and the "simple" payback time (calculated at a rate of $0.08/kWh) would be 31 years (that's right 31 years).

Despite my sincere desire to install this system, it is really hard for me to justify an up-front, out-of-pocket expense of $12,000, for a system that will replace only 15% of my annual electricity usage, and which will require ~30 years to just pay itself back (fully, at today's rates).  The tax credits (residential in my case) are nevertheless substantial, and "doing the right thing" has its own merit, but these considerations can only carry so much weight in a spending decision of such magnitude.  I have reluctantly concluded that despite its environmental merit, solar technology remains more of a "rich man's toy" than a real solution for the majority of Oregonians.  At today's price, it is inconceivable to me that solar can be more than a novelty to be enjoyed only by the affluent.

Will somebody please prove me wrong?

  

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context