Castanet

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#239897

Trying to figure out: “We are really excited to have this opportunity to walk the talk and to show that we feel that solar has a strong business case for individual buildings and not just at a grid scale,” said Tami Rothery, sustainability/alternative energy co-ordinator.

Why would this be a "strong" business case when they received $55,000.00 in grants.
I've been self employed since 1990 and if I had to rely on grants, I would not call my business a "strong" business ( case)

I'd ask Summerland council if no grants were offered, would this still take place?

You got it right.I am not opposed to solar power projects at all. What I am opposed to is being lied to in that they make any kind of economic sense. These Civic projects would never happen without huge taxpayer subsidies so....bullchit to your saving 40% of your electrical energy bill. The truth is the taxpayers are paying 40% of your electrical bill for the next 20 yrs. And worse yet, in ten years they will be coming to the taxpayers to replace 30k worth of storage batteries that were not in the project amortized costing.

twobits wrote:The truth is the taxpayers are paying 40% of your electrical bill for the next 20 yrs

Exactly. If council and clan wants to thump its chest and holler "Look at what we're doing" then at least have the nads to tell the whole story on what you're doing. How does the savings on your Fortis bill stack up against the cheques you're writing for the equipment and upkeep?

We need grants to make things like this happen and to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels.

You think there are not huge subsidies and tax dollars supporting the fossil fuel corporations?

Change has to begin some where. We cannot continue down the same path and keep investing huge dollars in the old way of creating energy.

Fluffy and Twobits:
Your ways of thinking are so outdated on just about every issue I see you discuss. Just how old are you anyways?

We need grants to help us move to more efficient, more effective, more sustainable ways of producing the energy we use.

Unfortunately, that is not what we see here. Instead, we see a move to a less sustainable, more wasteful, and far more expensive way to produce energy.

To suggest grants like this one are akin to "subsidies and tax dollars supporting the fossil fuel corporations" shows a complete lack of understanding as to how grants, subsidies and tax incentives are intended work to the benefit of Canadians.

As to your assumptions about age: With all due respect, with the benefit of the far broader perspective you'll acquire as you grow a little older, you may understand why some of us do not believe in careless, fanciful, costly changes made without full consideration of the larger context and the full consequences of those changes.

Change for the sake of change, change for the sake of an ideology, change to get rid of something we do not understand, change to stick it to corporations, change because we've been told change is good... none of these stack up against change to a better, more effective, more efficient, more sustainable and more humane way of doing things.

Grants for solar panel installations can be used for good change, or they can be used wastefully to fund virtue signalling, depending on location and what they are intended to replace and how efficiently and effectively they can replace it, cradle to grave. It is very difficult for anyone with a broader perspective to see how a solar installation in Summerland can be considered anything but wasteful virtue signalling, funded with taxpayer grants that ought to be put to much better use.

[quote="wanderingchef"]We need grants to make things like this happen and to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels.

You believe the electricity in City hall is produced by fossil fuels?
Nope, try Waneta dam between Nelson and Castelgar.

Hydro power is the cleanest, cheapest, renewable energy source for BC. At city hall, they can stick a plug into the wall and get power to their computers for about 9 cents a KWH, all day and all night.
Ask Summerland council what the cost per KWH would be if they wanted electricity 24/7 from solar panels ? Without subsidies...
These grants should have gone into road reconstruction in Summerland, or I'd even go as far as doing some long term planning to provide infrastructure to industrial land and residential development, west of the town. That will bring their apparent desire to bring residents and jobs to the area. Silly, fluffy ( no offence F ) solar panels that will be covered in snow before long is a waste of taxpayers dollars. City wants them, present a business case and use towns tax dollars.

I'd also be okay with the grant money being put toward a solar installation to provide necessary power in a remote area currently relying on diesel generators and where running powerlines or installing small wind turbines would be too negative an impact.

rustled wrote:I'd also be okay with the grant money being put toward a solar installation to provide necessary power in a remote area currently relying on diesel generators and where running powerlines or installing small wind turbines would be too negative an impact.

Same here, it was discussed ad-nauseam in the Site C thread that alternative sources are great in areas not supplied by the current grid. Windy and solar I believe are fine to off-set diesel gen sets running 24/7. Gen sets will be required at night when no wind is available.

wanderingchef wrote:We need grants to make things like this happen and to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels.

You think there are not huge subsidies and tax dollars supporting the fossil fuel corporations?

Change has to begin some where. We cannot continue down the same path and keep investing huge dollars in the old way of creating energy.

Fluffy and Twobits:
Your ways of thinking are so outdated on just about every issue I see you discuss. Just how old are you anyways?

Old enough to know that these solar panels that are paid for by taxpayers are not displacing fossil fueled electricity generation.
Shall I insult you as a naive young buck that doesn't even understand the power that Summerland uses is Hydro generated?
Do you feel you maybe should have looked at a cost benefit analysis of solar power vs cheap hydro power before you jumped onto the green party train of half truths and mostly bullchit payback periods.

There is only so much water to dam. At some point we NEED to pour resources into developing as many Green energy sources as possible to become more regionally sustainable. Shipping fossil fuels all over the place to fuel energy demands needs to stop at some point.

wanderingchef wrote:There is only so much water to dam. At some point we NEED to pour resources into developing as many Green energy sources as possible to become more regionally sustainable. Shipping fossil fuels all over the place to fuel energy demands needs to stop at some point.

Now getting off topic but care to explain to those in BC that currently and for the next 100 years or more have cheap renewable hydro power at their disposal, why you use the word " WE" ? as in NEED to pour resources..... Go nuclear then . 24/7 365 days a year power generation.

Back on topic, I'm not a fan of using grant money for a project as described in the article. I have yet to see or hear any word from Summerland or any jurisdiction for that matter, that would install these solar panels without grant money. Make a business claim these work cheaper than power at the outlet in the wall.

wanderingchef wrote:There is only so much water to dam. At some point we NEED to pour resources into developing as many Green energy sources as possible to become more regionally sustainable. Shipping fossil fuels all over the place to fuel energy demands needs to stop at some point.

As has been pointed out chef, Summerland derives it's electrical energy from hydroelectric sources, the only way fossil fuel use makes its way into this discussion with any relevance is in how much is used during the manufacture and delivery of the solar installation, and I suspect in that case the scales are tipping against you.

As a business decision, the issue here is the cost of this installation vs the cost of hydroelectric power over the projected lifespan of said installation. And politics being what it is I think it's highly unlikely that it would have gone without mention if the solar route was actually cost efficient compared to what was already in place.

Personally, and I'm thinking like an old guy here, a solar installation that neither saves the taxpayers money nor reduces fossil fuel use is nothing but a "look at me, ain't I sustainable?" project, and is going to carry all the impact of a rainbow sidewalk in its actual effect on the issue being used to support it.

Wow. There is a lot of outdated, poorly informed thoughts being ecpressed on this forum.

Good thing the people in the world who initiate progress don't wait for the armchair critics to get up to speed before they improve their lives. We'd still be using the pony express and curing diseases with blood lettings.

OllyV wrote:Wow. There is a lot of outdated, poorly informed thoughts being ecpressed on this forum.

And we all wait for your business model for solar panels that does not require a taxpayer subsidy. Call us outdated, call us poorly informed. Until you prove to us here that solar is cost efficient, me thinks it is you that have drunk the wine of mistruths.

OllyV wrote:Wow. There is a lot of outdated, poorly informed thoughts being ecpressed on this forum.

Good thing the people in the world who initiate progress don't wait for the armchair critics to get up to speed before they improve their lives. We'd still be using the pony express and curing diseases with blood lettings.

Are you saying that wasteful spending of taxpayer money is justified as long as it has an aura of sustainability?