Who says solar power is too expensive?
April 16, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Cost Cutting, Green Investing, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, News, Technology
Yes, there are plenty of skeptics who dismiss the business case for renewable energy, but the switch to solar power is paying off big time for those with plenty of sunny southern weather.
Proof: Three California wineries have slashed their electric power bills and chalked up greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction credits.
The savings posted by these vineyards are impressive. J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines has installed the industry’s largest solar power system, which has cut its energy bill by $216,000 in the first year of operation.
This burnishes their green business image as well. They get credit for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the predominant GHG, by the equivalent to planting 512 acres of trees or not driving 96 million miles. Their story is here.
EOS Estate Winery virtually eliminated its electric bill because it now relies exclusively on solar power. Click here for the EOS story and to see their solar arrays in action.
And, there’s more proof. Clautiere Vineyard, owned by Claudine Blackwell and Terry Brady, has cut its electric bill by 80% by switching to solar power. Click here to see where they installed their solar panels.
The couple has passionately rejuvenated and transformed a local ranch into a place of vibrant color and energy. This small winery in California’s Central Coast region is reducing its electric bill by 80% with a 30 kWp photovoltaic system.
The solar systems for the vineyards were created by Conergy USA, a renewable energy supplier who claims to install 10% of world’s solar power systems.
Tags: Cost Cutting, green business, greenhouse gas, renewable energy, solar
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
You neglect to say how much they spent and will they ever recorer their investment. Any publicly owner business mamagement that makes unprofitable investments with shareholders dollars on unrelable/unproven technology should be removed. How private individuals wish to waste their money is their business but the rest of us should not be subsidising it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Yes, solar can be expensive to initiate. But you will help a lot with the environment, and you will recover your investment over time. Some things people never seem to consider when speaking of alternative energy is that once you have made the investment, with a huge rebate from government incentives, you still have the equipment and apparatus which is actually an asset, and the government bought part of it for you. Your net worth just went up. In addition, having a way to produce electricity for yourself is a great way to protect yourself or your business from future increases in costs, not to mention having this capability should the grid go down for some reason in your area. How much would that electricity be worth then? Are there any vital functions that require electricity in your business or home?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
We have done careful analysis and while I personally have used solar hot water for over 40 years photovoltaic panels for my water and sewer district simply is not cost effective. We are a coastal climate with much fog, and systems here are only about 52% effective. With a government rebate of only 21% the sytems will never pay off and quite possibly will go upside down as their efficiency wanes over the decades. This will only work with tax incentives, accelerated depreciation and very large rebates of over 50%. Just because it tickles your political interest is hardly justification for indebting our customers to decades of debt over a political itch.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Obviously a “coastal climate with much fog” is not the most appropriate place for a solar power operation. Perhaps a sunny climate would be better and therefore much more cost effective. It is, after all, “solar power” not “fog power”.
Yes, many people have jumped on the solar power bandwagon just for political reasons but if you do not take into account the local environment when making renewable energy decisions then you run the risk of looking like an idiot. Who would use a waterwheel in the middle of the desert with no running water in sight? No one. Hydropower doesn’t work in a water deprived desert, just like solar power doesn’t work in a sun deprived area. The trick is to find the best match for your particular environment. Perhaps wind power would be better for a coastal area?
July 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Any article like this should include the anticipated time to recover the investment cost via utility savings. Not including that bit of information reduces stories like this to the level of “infomercials”.
There is no doubt that each of these companies determined this information before making the plunge. The author should have asked the question of each of them. Then it would have been news instead of hype.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Tom, most of the details you’re looking for are in the links I provided in the story.
You do have to dig around a bit, but each company seems very pleased with the savings gained by getting off the grid.
For example, EOS Estate Winery says its solar system “is costing us less to fund per month than it would cost to pay our energy [bill] without the system. For companies paying higher rates, like EOS, the credits and rebates make using solar a sort of no-brainer.”
Yes, these things are expensive, but for those do all the homework, it can work.
–tom guay, editor greenerworking.com
August 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Charles,
It is people like you who only consider the money factor who will ultimately kill our planet…. The whole point or the most important question is which option is better for our ENVIRONMENT not which is less or more expensive. I think we need more people ethically mature….