Time and time again, the effects of "green" living shows that it is not "green". It does not save "green". It does not create "green" jobs, nor does it cause the earth to "green".
What it does do is cause people to turn red in rage and their accounts to see red.
Case in point: Florida.
Florida Power and Light recently constructed a massive solar array on their grid. Praises and hallelujahs galore abounded.
Florida Power & Light Company recently flipped the switch on its DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Arcadia, Fla., a 90,000-panel photovoltaic solar facility,,,
But the [Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine]'s Dr. Arthur B. Robinson has dug deeper into claims of just how much energy the plant will produce.
Robinson cites an FPL estimate published in Renewable Energy News that the plant will produce 42,000 megawatt hours per year of electricity. Robinson calculates that level of output only makes the DeSoto plant a 4.8-megawatt facility, or roughly one-fifth the "25-megawatt" boast.
"This fivefold difference is typical of reports on solar installations," Robinson writes.
Robinson also criticized the project after comparing its purported energy savings to the $150 million it took to build the plant.
Based on the 42,000 megawatt hour estimate, Robinson calculates the plant will produce $2.52 million worth of electricity per year – which means it would take 60 years for the plant to pay for its construction costs, or 36 years if the numbers were recalculated with peak power cost scales.
"These estimates of years to recover cost do not include maintenance and other expenses," Robinson writes.
And, what will Floridian's return on investment be? I am sure it won't cost them much to "go green" right? I mean, what will it cost them for this power?
"Florida Power and Light brags that this new solar plant will power 3,000 homes," Robinson writes. "This is $50,000 per home – for which the home gets 38 kilowatt hours per day. That 38 kilowatt hours is enough to power one ordinary one-room electric space heater."
It will cost each of the only 3,000 homes $50,000 dollars for that unreliable SOLAR energy to operate a few hours a day.
MMMMMMMMMM Green Living.
[Update:] I happen to see this and this just again shows how the cost of "green" living is no where cost effective or efficient. Let's compare the cost of a solar array to nuclear power:
Using 6 cents, [the current cost of electricity generation in Oregon] ($150 million) ÷ ($2.52 million per year) = 60 years. At 10 cents, ($150 million) ÷ ($4.2 million per year) = 36 years. Moreover, these are ordinary consumer prices. Industry uses large amounts of less expensive "off peak" power – power generated when public use is lower, such as at night. These estimates of years to recover cost do not include maintenance and other expenses.
The Palo Verde nuclear-power station – long ago fully paid for by power generated during its first few years of operation – currently produces electricity at a cost of 1.65 cents per kilowatt hour. At this price, the Florida array would require 214 years to pay its costs of construction – if it were in competition with nuclear power that is available whether or not the sun is shining.
Let's see, which is more reasonable, effective, efficient and cost-effective? Six cents or 1.65 cents??
[Update 2:] Think of this. For the cost of these last few "stimulus" bills and "recovery" acts, we could have started construction on 50 nuclear power plants. Now THAT would have led to thousands of jobs created for each plant, the increase in the reliability of energy supplies, and the DRASTIC reduction in the price of power.
Battery-powered cars would be much cheaper to operate as it would be very cheap and cost-effective at that point since it would be cheaper to have charging stations installed all over the place.
You greens should be behind nuclear power as it is nearly carbon neutral.