Outsourcing Solar Roofs
Posted by Glenn on October 28, 2006 - 9:20am in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: alternative energy, new york, new york city, oil, peak oil, solar power [list all tags]
GM's new outsourced solar roof
Based on much of what I've read and heard lately about renewable energy sources, I am becoming much more positive about Solar. While it's very small right now, Solar power is one of the few renewables that can scale to meet a large proportion of our energy needs. It is one of the few area that I can envision technology getting better and less expensive over time, unlike the physical limitations of biomass derived energy.
The major barriers for many residential and commercial buildings to place solar on their sun drenched roofs is the upfront costs. People and businesses have budgets for buying the electricity they need, but rarely do they have the resources to make a large upfront investment in something that will take years or decades to pay back. Creative financing and outsourcing to specialized firms is the answer. That's what GM decided to do:
Since June, the roof of G.M.'s parts warehouse in Cucamonga, Calif., has been host to a photovoltaic array with the ability to generate as much as 1.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity a year. The installation, which G.M. expects will provide half of the building's electricity, cost G.M. nothing.A solar developer called Developing Energy Efficient Roof Systems -- commonly called Deers -- bought the equipment with money it raised from private financiers. Deers and its investors own the cells; G.M. signed a long-term contract to purchase the solar-generated electricity from them, at a discount to the prevailing rate for electricity in the region.
But this is not just using the current economics to make the deals work, there is an eye to the future where energy costs are expected to increase:
Companies must also persuade their own managements -- or in the case of leased buildings, their landlords -- to allow the installations. And, of course, the economics only make sense to people who think that prices for conventional energy will keep rising."We have an incentive to make sure the systems work well, because that's how we make our money," said Jigar Shah, who founded SunEdison in 2003 and is generally thought to have pioneered the solar services model. "But let's face it, we are putting a hole in their roof, so they have to trust we can do it properly. And if you think electricity rates will go down, these long-term contracts don't look good."
and carbon might be taxed and carbon credits traded:
Other factors are involved as well. The parties generally negotiate who will retain potential credits for reducing carbon emissions. When the developers and their backers keep the carbon abatement credits, they generally plan to sell them to companies that might otherwise have trouble complying with rules planned in California and expected elsewhere aimed at limiting global warming.The electricity users could do that, too, but some of them might also use the credits to offset emissions from other parts of their operations.
But the same logic underpins all of the deals: The electricity users get a clean, reliable source of energy. The developers and their backers get an equally reliable return on their investment -- which can be as high as $6,000 per kilowatt hour of capacity -- as well as the tax credits and rebates that California and other states offer for renewable energy projects.
Which means that some of this is speculative, but if they are right that energy prices will continue to rise and carbon will become a taxed or traded commodity, they have a long term asset that will deliver positive cash flow and a cleaner environmental image.
As a result many other businesses are getting interested in this roof outsourcing concept as a no upfront cost, zero-risk way to put solar on their roofs.
"The energy is clean, and the fixed-price agreement doesn't fluctuate," Ms. McDonnell of Whole Foods said. "Seeing whether solar would work is now on our check list for every one of our new stores."
This is the model that NYC should embrace for creating more solar roofs. Stimulate local businesses to provide the engineering and financial know-how to building owners interested in allowing solar on their roofs in exchange for long term rooftop leases and fixed electrical prices.
I've been looking at the Mall and Warehouse rooftops around here thinking about exactly this plan. I'm glad it's started!
As a landlord, I've looked into Solar Hot Water, and hope to get it soon, but have been wondering about a tax implication. In Maine, we do have a rebate program for SDHW, but if I was installing a system for our one, and the two additional apartments, wouldn't I also be eligible for a 66% business expense deduction or amortization on the equipment? A tax preparer was sceptical, but how could this not be a valid business expense?
Bob
Does a big tax writeoff in the form of a 5 or 10 year (??) amortized property count on top of the standard (In this case, Maine) State and Federal rebates, incentives?
Otherwise, it's a lot rougher to get moving on a $10-30K investment.
Anybody out there know the tax ins/outs about this?
Bob
and Accelerated Depreciation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Solar Electric Systems:
Federal Income Tax Credit - 30% of the Total Installed System Cost. ($2000.00 cap)
California Energy Rebate is currently $2.60 per watt. Jan 1, 2007 the Ca Solar Initiative takes effect, giving the PUC control over all rebates with a starting rate of $2.50 per watt. This will be funded by all utility users and will be reduced about 10% each year until 2017.
CEC and PUC Rebates are considered taxable income by the IRS but not by California.
Newly constructed active solar systems are exempt from California Property Taxes.
Solar water heating, except for pools and spas, is eligible for a separate 30% Federal Tax Credit. ($2000.00 cap)
Download the Seia Tax Manual for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Photovoltaic Systems:
Federal Investment Tax Credit - 30% of the Total Installed System Cost. (CEC and PUC rebates are considered taxable income by the IRS but not by California)
California Energy Commission Rebate is currently $2.60 per rated watt for systems up to 30kW. For larger systems the PUC rebate is now $2.50 per watt.
Accelerated 5 year Depreciation on the Total Cost of the System less 1/2 of the Tax Credit.( or 85% of the System Cost)
Newly constructed active solar systems are exempt from California Property Taxes.
Download the Seia Tax Manual for more information. We strongly suggest you contact a tax professional to minimize your net system costs.
http://www.zapsucker.com/taxtips.htm
That makes sense to me. I hope it makes sense to my accountant, who thought it was too much to ask to get depreciation on anything that had already gotten a Tax Credit. But I keep thinking 'It is a business expense, right?' (or 2/3 of it, in our case) It just seems that with alt energy, you get into a mentality that says 'this is different from other kinds of expenses, and doesn't count.'
So that means a $13k (estimate we got for sdhw, 3apt) installation is getting an immediate tax credit of $3,900 , (leaving $9,100 ) and over 5yrs, 85%, or $11,050 x 2/3 = $7,359 gets amortised/depreciated. Of course, there's a Maine SDHW rebate that comes off the front end, too, and I have to see if these can all work with each other.
I draw mice and build camera gear.. this stuff is a little alien to me.
Bob
I have seen some solar insolation maps, and if I recall correctly the Northeast had relatively low insolation compared to the rest of the country. Does anyone know if there is enough insolation there to make solar worthwhile? Are there any businesses or homeowners who have had success in use of solar?
Actually, New England/Northeast has a pretty favorable insolation, compared with our neighbors around the great lakes and the Northwest.
August (NREL Map from 1961-1990 data)
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi
January
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi
We're about 1/3 below the Broiling Southwest, but don't show up much worse off than Atlanta or Houston. Here on the Southern Maine coast, I think we're sunnier, but I don't have any maps that prove it. Add to that, PV yields better current in colder air, and the North gets another little shot in the arm.
Bob Fiske
I was sent a map showing Germany and U.S. side by side, but it is too small to make out details. If I can get the original source, I will post it.
Even in overcast conditions, those panels are 'makin money'.. (if your electronics are smart enought to use it).. and I fully suspect that the panels that live in cloudier towns will be up there that much longer, too.
I was in Westphalia as an exchange student, 1983, and I don't really even remember much direct sunlight. But every sunset was lovely, with the Sun as a distinct, Orange ball that looked like it was painted onto the gray sky.
"All's for the best in this Best of all possible worlds, of which I might say Westphalia is the center"
-Dr. Pangloss, Candide
..and while I have the libretto in hand.. (OT alert..!)
(Our men are brave. The war is over, but we still have six divisions of artillery ready to start another war. It's been a long and bloody war, but if men didn't fight they would never know the benefits of peace, and if they didn't know the benefits of peace they would never know the benefits of war. You see, it all works out for the best.)
Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the 'Really, very good'.. even on the equator, PV is not ever perfect, and it's not cheap. It's just a good way of getting some watts. No moving parts, long lifespan, not 'terribly' complicated. You can just connect a panel to a couple batteries with paperclips, if that's all you've got, and it will charge, assuming they are somewhat matched up.
Best to you,
Bob
'He's so contrary, if I heard he fell into the river, I'd look for the body upstream'
I have a 2.28 kw grid tie system in Southern Maine. After all the State and Federal rebates the system cost around $12,000. My theoretical payback was around 24 years. I will update the estimmate after I have a year's data. This is not a good return but I believe electricity rates are going to go up sharply making it look good in the future. And I'd rather spend my money on this than on a fancy car. The downside with a grid tie system is you don't have backup when the power goes out. To prevent islanding the systems are required to go off line in a blackout. But adding batteries and additional electronics to the system for backup really kills the economics. Plus you have to replace the batteries every 5+ years. It is expensive ($2k) and a hassle because the batteries my installer uses weigh 150 pounds each. I asked my installer about the NiMh batteries new for commercial backup. He believes these will be available for home use within 3 years and cost about $5k for a home sized bank plus a new $3k inverter / charger. Very expensive when you think about it but they would last a very long time. If the electric grid becomes as unreliable as some are predicting the cost may be worth the insurance. Hope this helps.
I think your thinking about solar is mostly clouded by a failure to inform yourself about the facts. There is no easier way to keep oneself in the dark than to believe in ones own "imachinations" rather than reading a good textbook on the subject.
:-)
It is probably a good idea to be open to all possibilities and evaluate each one on its merits.
*smaller/more fuel efficient/human powered personal transportation
*less leisure transportation
*more efficient appliances
*change of behavior towards use of appliances
*rise of mass transportation
*change in building practices (eg, superinsulation)
*change in zoning practices (eg New Urbanism, mixed use, higher density)
*Reduction and elimination of population growth
*the rise of home gardening in the suburbs
*A population shift away from hostile environments
*Business getting smart about easy convervation measures, (eg excessive lighting, 24/7 computers, 24/7 AC)
Very little of this is achievable by fiat - there has to be high energy prices pulling people towards it as well.
The death of meat as a staple food.
More efficient community-based utilities like hot water where feasable.
Thermally adaptive building and HVAC processes (eg thermal-mass incorporation, waste heat capitalization, solar water heating, windcatchers)
More local food.
This is basic 'paleo diet' stuff. Google Loren Cordain, paleo diet. Amongst the other readings, look for an article titled 'Cereal Grains: Humanity's double-edged sword.'
Any planet where people eat grains and not meat (i.e. the current one) is a planet that people were not meant to live on.
The tiger does not live in a cage, and the human being does not live on bread, at all. That is nature, and all else is a perversion.
Yes, one can live a perverted life ... but that is another question entirely.
You may justify abstention from meat on 'moral' grounds, but not on natural (evolutionary) grounds. To abstain from meat is therefore the ultimate moral choice...
Vegetables
Nuts
Takes up 3 of the 5 bars at the top of the Paleo Diet site.
I never suggested that one abstain from meat on natural grounds - I find it curious that you would read that into my post. I suggested that reducing the 'it isn't actually a meal[just a side dish!] without some form of beef, pork, or chicken' belief that pervades American culture is a key form of conservation. In an agriculture crunch, it's not going to be quite so justifiable to spend 9000 calories of highly-subsidized corn on 1000 calories of beef. Which is what we currently do with 80% of our grain harvest. Meat is a necessary part of our diet, but not in the portions consumed now - look at Eastern diets. A fat upper class Bangladeshi eats an order of magnitude less meat.
I don't do morality on the PETA level - they can't present a substantive moral framework, it's all particularly photogenic objections and slippery slopes (so was that bug I just squashed a crime? I know that baby seal being clubbed was bad, but think of the fish you just saved!). I'll eat my steaks for as long as they're affordable, my point is that they won't be.
Hey got some good photos and interview with my neighbor....
The Silicon in PV panels, how do they mine/produce it and what is the process? Also is this (in your opinion) going to be outclassed in a few years by nanosolar? Also everyone talks about stirling engines and concentrators etc, where are they and if they are so good why is nobody selling them?
matt
I am anxious to hear the details. Were you convinced?
On your questions, I just don't know. My old research advisor at Texas A&M, Mark Holtzapple, was always working on Stirling engines. I think he has tried to sell some of his prototypes, but I don't know if he has had success.
Let's restrict ourselves to Stirlings.
And the correct question is: why are they (the masses) not buying them?
Plenty of sellers are out there trying to "sell". (Wow, learned something myself tonight ... that the rhombic guys closed shop.)
Step back and imagine yourself as a drop of gasoline.
You know how you got here, from oil well through refining, trucked to the gas station, pumped into tank of a car, etc.
Now you are sitting in the fuel injector, about to get squirted into the combustion chamber of an ICE engine. All your energy is still there, the teeming chemical bonds between your carbon and hydrogen atoms being fused into the lowest energy state they could find; ... until now.
Whoosh.
You're in. Getting squished. Introduced to a new friend: oxygen atoms. They look so nice and friendly. Ignition. You break yourself up to mate with your new friend. In the frenzy of mating, all this energy is released: heat, pressure are released ... you find yourself pushing against a compliant piston.
Bang.
You're out. Still burning hot. Still full of high pressure. The piston took out only a small part (30%) of your energy as payment in kinetic form. Then the exhaust valve popped open. Now you feel different. You feel used and dirty. It all happened in a split of a second. You are now a cloud of carbon dioxide atoms, and a few more noxious compunds, spreading thin into the atomosphere, diffusing, disappearing. Your energy is entropizing itself out into the ambient.
You feel oh so "used".
It happened too fast. "They" rapidly sucked a small portion (30%) of your energy ... and then threw you out. How inefficient, but yet how super fast. Behind you was another drop, and then another. Boom. Boom. Boom.
Enormous amounts of energy were released rapidly. All so some car can go Zoom Zoom Zoom.
The owner of that car enjoyed the "rush", the surge of fast "power". That's why he bought you. He enjoyed the adrenalin rush. He "valued" it. He paid "money" for the rush.
Had you been a drop of working fluid in a Stirling, they would have kept you circling back and forth, well, almost forever. But the speed of cycling will be so agonizingly slow as heat energy has to diffuse into your body and later seep out. Your human "owner" is unhappy. No more Zoom Zoom Zoom. The energy now comes as drip, drip, drip. Efficient, but slooooooow. He does not "value" slow. How boring. So he does not buy.
So the sellers sit and wait.
One day. One day, they think. The buyers will develop a new "values" system; when the zoom zoom drug is gone.
Just between you and me, here is the straight skinny re stirling and money people
Q- Have they been around a long time with no commercialization?
A -Yes.
C- Very, Very Bad.
Q- Has somebody invested a lot of money trying to commercialize- and failed?
A- Yes.
C- Very, Very, Very Bad! Us money guys don't want none of that kind of opportunity. G'by.
My comment- Very myopic attitude. Sure, stirlings have been around for close to 200 years. So has a whole bunch of stuff been around a long time with no commercialization- think of thermoelectrics, fuel cells. What you have to answer is WHY- and are things different now than then?
The answer is obviously yes, very different, like $60/barrel rather than $ 16/barrel.
Then another one that seems to completely escape people since it is slightly technical. There are two kinds of stirling engine- crank types, that take lubrication, and free piston types that slide on a gas film and/or an aligning spring that don't take lubrication. Crank stirlings don't have long life, and free pistons do. That simple. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Dean Kamen knew about both, made the wrong choice, spent a lot of money, and had to quit, and now must be feeling like a fool.
It happens that right now, the only free pistons are little things used by NASA, but that is a mere accident of history. Free pistons can be made as big as anybody would want- like biomss fired tractor engines, one of my favorites.
Other near term applications that the money people ought to be excited about;
domestic cogen. Why burn gas at 85% availability and get only heat? A thermodynamic atrocity! Get your house electric power as well.
Solar! Look at that big hot spot in the south west. Stick a bunch of stirlings there- way cheaper than PV. (sad to say, the SES people are using cranks, and they crap out. How utterly predictable- and utterly stupid!)
Heat driven heat pumps. Lots of clever ways to use stirlings to do that, with excellent overall efficiency.
And many more.
OK, did my chore. Goin' back to bed.
to wimbi,
EXACTLY.
The CHP (Combined Heat and Power) industry may be one of the most under-funded, undertalked about new growth industries in the world, and soon.
It is already well underway, and is getting the "money people" to take notice.
It mixes well with the ideas fo distributed generation, energy security, flexibility, renewables, and de-regulation.
For a great starting place go to
http://www.distributedenergy.com/de.html
Look at the FREE back issues, and then register for their FREE print magazine. It is EXCELLENT, with a great open mind to wind, solar, Diesel, nat gas, propane and Stirling methods of co-gen CHP.
It was an eye opener to me how far things are already developing.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
I am looking forward to another run of my 1kW free piston tomorrow. The first runs were ok but we found some silly tuning errors of the kind I should have caught but didn't, and got about 500 watts. Oh Boy, next run should be great!
This one is for my wood stove. My house uses about 350 watts electric, steady state.
Good point. With bio fuels, the first steps are the cheapest, as cheap excess capacity is used up (as in used french fry oil that is discarded now). But with scaling, the costs rise as you compete with foodstuffs for energy.
Similiarly, as demand rises for coal, the railroads are overtaxed, excess capacity disappears and prices rise.
But with solar, economies of scale can drive prices down, at least theoretically. Right now, unfortunately, the worldwide shortage of silicon is making PV cells much harder to find. And some of the alternatives to conventional silicon use rare heavy metals which could become bottlenecks.
Let us hope that some of these new PV technologies prove to be both viable and scalable.
Exactly!
And you are right about the bottlenecks. Does anyone have any ideas on how that situation will play out?
Most of the Northeast is in the 3,000-4,000 Watt/hrs per square meter range. West of the Mississippi the average looks to be 5,000 or more. I don't know what is required for viability. I suspect that since the Mars rovers are using solar cells to charge their batteries, even the most overcast areas of the country could produce solar energy. But you will get more bang for the buck in Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern California.
Thanks for the map RR. That sure is a nice sweet spot down in Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico.
And they probably get peak load around the same times that insolation is highest too.
Solar could be the saving grace of the dry southwest.
by the way, the PV ratings are misleading. The current coming off the PV is 17 volt, but the batteries can't take more than 14.1 or so; if you use a MPPT (maximum power point tracker?) controller you can translate some of that voltage to current, but you lose some of it. Plus, the batteries lose a percentage both charging and discharging.
Just something to keep in mind... I still wouldnt' trade it for a power line, even if it was free. I like being independent.
The efficiency is generally defined as the power out divided by the incident power. In essence what fraction of the incident power is converted to electricity. However, that value is for a standard spectrum (no clouds, bright sunny day) and at a constant temperature (usually 25°C).
And, as you imply, if you want to know how much electricity you can expect to get out of your system, you also need to know the efficiency of all the other components, the batteries or other storage device, plus the inverter. All of this is why the efficiency of the cells matter.
You can run the output of a 17-volt PV panel into a 14.1 volt battery, but you'll get less than the rated power that way; P=I*V, and the current increases very little compared to the cut in voltage. That's what power-point trackers do: they take the extra energy from that voltage drop and use it to increase the total current into the batteries.
"Saving" the heat for later in the day was not given much or any consideration in designing the plants. Rather, the plants used allowable natural gas input (25% of total energy input) to supplement solar input during the peak periods and thus maximize "Capacity Payments" by the utility.
Luz also developed two 80 Megawatt solar thermal projects under standard offer 2 contracts which had no such protections. When Luz's inventory of contracts run out in 1990, the company dissolved.
The issue is cost per square meter. When I drive across the scrub brush covered plains, I try to picture them covered with PV panels, and it boggles the mind. Even if the price dropped by an order of magnitude, getting enough power for Americans' insatiable power desires would bankrupt the global economy.
I kind of think the answer is covering structures with PVs, paired with conservation.
"At present levels of efficiency, it would take about 10,000 square miles of solar panels-an area bigger than Vermont- to satisfy all the United States' electricity needs. But the land requirement sounds much more daunting than it is. Open country wouldn't have to be covered. All those panels could fit on less than a quarter of the roofs and pavement space in cities and suburbs."
National Geographic, Aug, 2005
Rat
As I said above, New England 'isn't all that bad' as far as solar goes, and does have the added benefit of getting better performance from the panels it does use, due to the cooler conditions, which lowers the resistance in the PV (all) circuitry, I believe. Panels on Arizonan rooftops could also keep the homes more shaded, which could also help reduce demand. There are some systems which cool the PV panels with a coolant liquid, which is then transferred to preheating the Domestic Hot water supply, benefitting the user in 2 or 3 ways at once! (If you're counting the shade-benefit)
Bob Fiske
Yeah, you noticed that too, huh? :-)
Right behind LA, San Fran and the largest concentration of electric consumption luxury lovers in the world! What a market for solar! And what a chunk of electric power (and with plug hybrid technology, transportation fuel the solar techies are getting ready to pick off...and what a relief on the fuel strain right there....it's getting ready to get interesting....does anyone wonder why the Saudi's keep grumbling about this "green energy" craze that seems to be taking hold....as the military officer in the movie said "we got to get a handle on this or this peace bug could really start to catch on!"
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
This further reinforces my belief that solar and wind power are complimentary and can be beneficially integrated into a combined system. Cloudy wintery days along the New England coast might not generate much solar power, but would really have those wind turbines spinning to the max. Conversely, summer days in the Southwest might not be too windy but would really have solar collectors cooking. I suspect that the area of maximum combined average solar + wind power lies somewhere in the central plains, perhaps in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas panhandle.
It shouldn't be too difficult to optimize a combined system for the proper ratio of solar to wind power. One goal would be to damp out some of the more severe peaks and valleys, particularly those that can last quite a while and play havoc with energy supply, e.g., a week of overcast weather, or those breeze-less summer doldrums.
joule said,
"This further reinforces my belief that solar and wind power are complimentary and can be beneficially integrated into a combined system."
golly damm, now we are startin' to GET IT! It's the confluence, folks, that will overcome most of these little grumbles you keep hearing ("gee, what if the wind don't blow....gee, what if the sun don't shine...", golly gee shiit, what a bunch of whiners...they never ask, gee, what if Saudi buffoons go nuts and blow up the oil production facilities...compare that to the likelyhood of the sun not shinin'...idiots).
Now, let's talk a bit of a really pretty confluence here...take the solar map, take the windmap, take the brownbelt areas around every formerly industrial city large and small, take the sewer gas and the landfills and the agricultural factory farms and processsing plants...mix 1/3 wind, 1/3 sun, and 1/3 renewable methane from waste product and sewer gas...gee, does that start to fill in the "variability" problem a bit....huh, does, it huh, huh?
O.K., fine, your still a bit nervous...o.k.....go down the Ohio and Mississippi River and spot out some good valleys....now, about 12 to 24 manmade lakes, with pumped hydro storage using the wind and solar....and of course, we still have the remaining nukes throughout the region, so instead of building any new ones, we modernize and add units to the ones where they are, since, well, no one exactly seems running scared of the ones already there, but they sure as hell don't want a new one in a suburb full of folks that has NEVER even seen one up close...is it startin' to sound like a plan, huh, is it?
So... up to our azz in renewable, storable energy, and methods to have the single most stable grid and comfortable old farts on the planet...did I miss anything....oh yeah, the small scale distributed generation that will stabalize the grid and make it almost terrorist, storm, natural disaster, and supply interruption proof (with some large propane and methane tanks well scattered throughout the system, all built over that great stable base....distributed power, stability, diversity, and price and market leverage....a case hardened energy system to last the next century...just what I have been pushing from my first days forking this line on TOD and lovin' every minute of it, and now, folks are starting to GET IT! :-)
OPPS, something has to be lacking, it cannot be this good, this easy, where is the fly in the ointment?
Well, there is one problem, sadly. It's not that it won't work technically, or that it is financially undoable (helll, we could have done the whole thing for half the cost of the Gulf War or the Ray Gun defense buildup, and gotten far more in return, and been more powerful than the above would have made us), no, the problem is this: since about 1970 to 1980, we decided that them there egghead intellectuals and technicians were gay weirdos and sure didn't want our brats to be one of them lefty leaning enviro book readin' types....so we didn't bother with the ole' edukashoon system much...in fact, we perty much decided them book learnins is what caused that whole campus radical thing, and that peacenik bug and that global warming crap....and now they talk about peek oil or something like that, and them peekers, who did seem to understand the problem, got so down they decided it was a waste to send juinor to college, better to teach him how to plow with a mule, or harvest turnip greens, or develop a taste for grasshoppers, or some such shiit....so, here's the problem...
WE DIDN'T FREAKIN' TRAIN ANYBODY TO DESIGN, ENGINEER AND BUILD THE BEST FRICKIN' ENERGY SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ALL THE NEEDED CONDITIONS FOR IT!! WE HAVE NO GENERATION OF YOUNG BUILDERS AND TECHNICIANS, WHO COULD BY THE WAY, GET RICH ON THIS, AFFORD THE PLUG HYBRID CAR, THE EARTH BERMED LUXURY HOUSE WITH GROUND COUPLED HEAT PUMP AND SOLAR POWER, AND MAYBE EVEN AN ENERGY EFFICIENT APARTMENT FOR HIS MISTRESS, AND A SAILBOAT WITH A AUXILERY METHANE STIRLING ENGINE FOR ONBOARD POWER....
Noooo, we decided to teach him to live off the land, like Hank Juinor or something, instead of being a dammed bidness man.....
SO NOW TO BUILD THE ENERGY SYSTEM THAT ONLY AMERICAN CONDITIONS CAN PROVIDE, AND DOES NEED, WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE THE MONEY TO A BUNCH OF IMPORT CHINESE AND INDIAN TECHNICIANS....who by the way, will be livin' large in the best neighborhoods and shackin' the upmarket girls....while your boomer doomer son is doing what....smokin' dope in a log cabin by a wood stove, chuckin down beans and turnip greens, waitin' for the crash...
yeah, well, for him the crash is already here...
AMURRICAN IDIOTS.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
(p.s. I have had a very hard week....you will never know how much fun writing that was for me! :-)
"(p.s. I have had a very hard week....you will never know how much fun writing that was for me! :-)"
Gee, I never would have guessed! You should really try to put more feeling into your writing. :-)
One one point I'd have to disagree with you a bit. There is plenty of technical expertise right here in the good 'ol US of A; it's just that much of it is underutilized. Look how many experienced and talented engineers and scientists are engaged in either non-technical or marginally technical jobs because of corporate cut-backs and outsourcing. The limiting thing to implementing some of these alternative energy schemes we've both talked about is the unwillingness and/or inability to mobilize the huge amounts of capital required.
Having said that, I would still have to agree that the public education system in the US is abysmal, and that higher education, to a large extent, has become a very expensive racket.