Leaderboard

If it makes commercial sense, businesses would be investing in it. The higher the ROI, the more gets invested until the point of diminishing return turns the ROI. Several of the incentives around the nation to entice getting more efficient lighting or HVAC has been driven by private local monopoly power companies. They determined the cost of adding generation capacity, and the cost of the money was cheaper to help the customers be more efficient than adding additional capacity. In TN the TVA is the electric power generation pseudo government agency and local distribution is local companies, but rates are basically TVA dictated cost + local distribution costs (and profit, expenses, etc). TVA has a power buy back program, basically they will purchase 'green power' for a bit more than they sell it to you, because they have a mandate to have x% green power and they haven't met that. They have a fair amount of nuke, hydro, some solar, some wind, some 'methane' power (methane digester at sewage plants near Memphis I think), but mostly coal. They shut down building nuke plants years ago (remember, in the '70s or so when nukes were bad?), but are not restarting those projects (some of which were fairly far along) but are starting new nuke projects at different locations. If it made economic sense in $/kwh for the power companies, including TVA, they would be coating our freeways with solar cells (or other waste land that has no other economic use). It seems like the best use of solar is for 'off grid' where there is a significant cost of connecting to the grid. I am not totally opposed to Govt 'investing' in technology. NASA has generated so many spin offs that have generated MUCH more economic activity than it cost us to fund NASA over the years (much medical research, materials like Teflon, many epoxies, ceramics, and so much more). But basic research where the probability of ROI starts 30 to 50 or more years out, IMHO, is reasonable for government research monies. 10 to 30 years companies like the OLD AT&T, IBM, etc could afford to do, many companies can and do afford research in the 5-10 years realm, and even this forum/industry group is doing and funding R&D in the 3-5 year realm! Having people invest individually requires a pretty high ROI. It makes economic sense for individuals to change out high use light bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent or LED. I remember my Dad's in the '60s changing from incandescent to fluorescent in the engineering areas (Bell Helicopter, large areas of engineers and draftsmen ... and they replaced all the fluorescent bulbs every 2 years. The quality of light for the professionals effected productivity thus the bottom line.. I worked for a company (large oil) that did not want to consider a ROI on projects that didn't pay off 100% in 6 months for internal projects, or 18 months for outside projects. (Sometimes their methods of computation were pretty esoteric and didn't make sense to common folk like me, but they were consistent and still found plenty to invest in.) Most of us would love to invest in projects like that with a high probability of payout. Solar doesn't meet even a relaxed 18 month ROI let alone what companies need to get to invest their capital. So why do it? Governments are doing it because constituents (solar industry, tree huggers, etc) drive it, and the public isn't arguing because they have some desire for it (just not enough to invest THEIR money). Personally, I would like to feel assured I would get a 5 year ROI (20%/years) to put solar on my house. That is where I see my threshold for this kind of investment is. That includes a 5% sinking fund because most solar equipment is shipped with a 20 year life and will have to be replaced every 20 years as the expected life span (or be able to financially even if you don't do it). Again, just my perspective.