re: solar?
email to Michelle Maratto and Jay Itkowitz, May 21, 2008:
I agree, it’s a long payback for solar. At least photovoltaic is a much more known commodity than the wind turbines, and I believe the output estimates should be pretty reliable. I am not sure anyone can estimate the payback more precisely than I have previously forwarded - if for no other reason than unknown future electric rates - and I only wish that I was equipped to determine how many Nature Conservancy trees would equal a solar installation on your roof.
Beyond that, my thoughts are these: before I sent money to the Nature Conservancy I would switch my power to ConEdison "solutions" or other "green power". These providers guarantee that your electricity does not come from coal or oil. Usually the sources are hydroelectric and wind farms. This drives the market, which I believe is important, and avoids the money lost to the Nature Conservancy's overhead (perhaps less of a concern). However, even green power suffers "line loss" - about 1/3 is lost to heat in transmission, and large hydroelectric dams and wind farms have their own troubles: having grown up around large hydro projects I can personally attest to the huge environmental impact of such reservoirs - both localized at the reservoir and to the entire region. The near-extinction of the Pacific Salmon is a good example of the latter. I know I am repeating myself here, but in my mind the key is to reduce loads at the point of use. Your AC is a great start, which leaves lighting, appliances, and "plug loads" as the other areas to attack. I know we have discussed fluorescent lighting and you and Andrew both have reservations, but using fluorescent lights is a no-cost way to reduce the energy used by light fixtures approximately 60%. I will leave this to you and Andrew to discuss. These measures cover what I would call the environmental "best practices".
To further reduce your house's energy use you have to try to generate power on-site, with solar or otherwise. The straight payback for on-site generation is less and the altruistic motivation is larger. I would characterize Solar Photovoltaic as moving rapidly from "pioneer" to "mainstream"... but part of your cost clearly still goes towards driving the market, which in turn will bring improvements to the technology, greater profitability, more people interested & able to do the same, etc. I would argue that, if you have money left over after implementing the "best practices" measures, that money would be better spent to try to change the way we live our lives here, rather than in the Amazon - after all it is the first world's demand for natural resources, our un-sustainable "ecological footprint", which is the reason those trees are being cut down in the first place. I hope I have made a convincing argument - personally I believe the key is to reduce our footprint.
Sorry for the long email,
Ryan.