# Financials: What Your Systems Cost



## DUMF (Jan 17, 2017)

Few of your solar ( PV, etc..), boilers, Hubris' ( a.k.a. "Prius'"), mini-splits, ground source heat pumps, and other "green" "renewables" have actual costs listed of the systems. Amortization estimates, life expectancy, and operating efficiencies are rarely included in descriptions. These systems are expensive initially. For "tax credits" you need a minimum income which many in the north country of N.H. for example, do not have. 
Also, what is the actual energy cost of manufacture ( e.g. silicon ) of the called renewables ?
We need details.
Why is our firewood not considered part of renewables and green ?


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 17, 2017)

My Air Source Heat Pump system cost $13k installed in 2008, got Central air and retrofit ductwork and a 200A panel in the deal.  Central Air by itself was quoted at $9k, so I see the ASHP as a $4k upcharge.

ASHP died after 6.5 years due to bad ice storm and my own ill-fated experiments.    Replacement compressor (outdoor unit) was $5k installed (in February 2015).  I'm leaving it alone and expecting 10 years of service life.  Operating costs are equivalent to ~$2.25 per gallon oil at $0.15/kWh PA wind electricity.

Installed new 80 gallon AOSmith HPWH, $4k installed, less $300 utility rebate.  Now 4 years old, cumulative savings about $3k in oil.

Removed oil boiler and HW system for $500.

2013 Leaf S+QC, 36 month lease, 5/2014-5/2017.  Total cost of lease: $10k, plus increase of ~$3k on insurance relative to earlier beater and about $1000 worth of wind power at $0.15/kWh.  $7500 fed rebate to dealer is reflected in my cost, but not my taxes.  We will have driven about 23,000 miles (would've been more but we were away about 7 mos total out of the 36).  Total cost per mile, including insurance up charge: $0.61/mile.  Maybe $0.20/mile or $4k greater than the beater it replaced.

Carbon savings:
EV Offset about 10 tons of CO2 emission, so our cost is $400/ton.  We got a nicer car for our $$
Boiler used 1,350 gallons of #2 oil for heat and HW in 2006, corresponding to 16 tons CO2 annual emission.  If you say my amortized cost of the equipment is $2k/year, that is $125/ton saved.  We got a more comfortable house for our $$.

I think firewood is green, when burned clean under proper weather conditions.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 17, 2017)

DUMF said:


> Also, what is the actual energy cost of manufacture ( e.g. silicon ) of the called renewables ?



The energy to make and install a PV system is equivalent to what the systems make in 1.5 to 2 years, with typical US (or China) solar resource.  This number has been improving over time (due to improved manufacturing methods that also reduce price), so older studies have higher numbers that are obsolete.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 17, 2017)

NH does allow thermal RECS to be generated and sold for wood fired heating systems. Few private owners go to the hassle of getting their system enrolled, but many of the hospital and institutional wood boilers do. Practically only hydronic systems would be capable of generating RECs as its relatively easy and low cost to buy a reasonable accuracy BTU meter for water. Its much harder to come up with a system to measure hot air based systems and just about impossible to come up with something that could calculate radiant contribution.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 18, 2017)

Our wood stove, primary house heat source throughout northern MN cold winters, with the Class A chimney, cost about $2,000 in 1990, self-installed. Based on 1990 energy prices, the alternative option of electric heat would have cost about $1,200/year. Wood comes from our forest land.

The Tarm wood gasification boiler in the shop, including all plumbing and 1000 gallon hot water storage, also self-installed, cost about $10,000 in 2007. Based on current energy prices, the alternative option of electric heat would cost about $3,000/year. Wood comes from our forest land.

Our 12.3kW PV system, installed in two stages (2013 and 2015), cost $38,900 after the federal tax credit. It produces annual electricity with a current value equivalent to a 5-6% tax free rate of return, and total kWh produced meet 100+% of our household electrical kWh usage. Benefits, among others, include:
•   Investment, not a cost – produces 5% to 6% tax-free return from day one
•   Leaves a visible legacy for family and future generations
•   Better secures retirement: reduces/ eliminates cost of electricity
•   Does the “right thing” – is sustainable, preserves and protects the environment
•   Produces a breath of fresh air for everyone

I regard firewood harvested from sustainably managed woodlands to be very renewable and very green. Importantly, harvesting and burning wood for fuel releases 0 fossil carbon and 0 fossil CO2, as all carbon in wood is part of ambient carbon. Also, sustainably managed woodlands provide  verdant areas for wild life habitat, recreation and tourism, hunting, natural environment aesthetics, control of invasive species, healthy forests, and a vibrant wood based local economy (loggers, firewood cutters, truckers, mills and processing plants, etc.).


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 18, 2017)

I wish the state of Massachusetts agreed with your reasoning on Biomass. A former governor, Bill Weld's supporters did not want biomass power plants in their backyard (the Berkshires, where the rich folks have their summer places) so the governor had a study commissioned to support a foregone conclusion that biomass power was not renewable and a net carbon producer.  Even the authors of the study came out after the initial report was issued and admitted that the conclusions of the study were for a very specific scenario that should not have been used to make policy as it didn't apply to the biomass power plants operating scenario.

On a different but related note, a new investor just started operating two closed down biomass power plants in Maine. The name of the firm is "Stored Solar" which is what biomass really is. Photosynthesis, effectively turns the CO2 in the air into wood which when burned produces power and CO2. Unfortunately the efficiency of photosynthesis is pretty low as sun to algae developers keep running into but growing trees don't require many resources so a effectively free conversion process can work especially when they utilize waste from other higher value operations. Unlike wind and solar, its a lot easier to have woodpile full of chips than a container full of wind or sunshine.  

Vermont has two existing biomass power plants one in Burlington and one in East Ryegate and would support new plant but local opposition have stymied a couple of projects. Instead they are hooked up to Hydro Quebec a rather infamous supplier of "brown" hydro.  Massachusetts is scrambling to do the same deal to replace biomass renewable and betting big on off shore wind despite its rather high cost.

NH has several wood fired power plants although cheap natural gas generation is driving them out of business. Maine has the same story. Unfortunately there is a major shortage in natural gas capacity so when it gets cold out the gas plants cant run as the choice is heat homes of generate power. The biomass plant make money during those times but not enough to carry them through the majority of times that there is enough natural gas.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 18, 2017)

"The name of the firm is "Stored Solar" which is what biomass really is." Important to remember that coal, natural gas and petroleum also are "stored solar," but the store is in fossil form which adds to ambient carbon when combusted, unlike wood, which is ambient carbon and returns to ambient carbon when combusted. 

Another important factor with trees is that harvesting and combusting only uses the above ground carbon in the tree, while the below ground carbon in the roots remains stored carbon in the soil. Then new tree growth starts the process over again. Each life cycle continues to store carbon in the soil and reduce atmospheric CO2.. 

One more important factor is that an old forest is rapidly losing carbon to the atmosphere through the rotting process -- think punky wood. Wood burners know that punky wood has little heat value, that being so because the carbon already has been released into the atmosphere. A young, growing forest is rapidly removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it. Sustainable forestry assures wise use of the mature trees and regrowth of new trees.

With a little bit of thought we all could agree that forest land is considerably under-valued. The value of the use for wood product can be easily determined, but often the value of the forest land is pretty much limited to its wood production value. Then, when a "higher" development use is identified, the forest land is converted. What is often not valued, or at least considerably under-valued, is the environmental and other values of forest land identified in my post above. Forest land excels at removing carbon and producing oxygen = clean air for all living things. It excels at clean water through holding rain water in the soil, preventing erosion, silting of creeks, rivers and lakes, and containment of nutrients and contaminants in the soil rather than washing these into and polluting the water supply. Also, by holding water in the soil, the forest aids replenishment of aquifers with clean water. Appropriate valuation of all of these likely would raise the monetary value of forest land by many times. In fact, deforestation, both in huge areas in some parts of the world and in the many small tracts in our communities and states which when combined equal huge tracts in the US, is perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest, cause of climate change and global warming.


----------



## DUMF (Jan 20, 2017)

jebatty said:


> With a little bit of thought we all could agree that forest land is considerably under-valued. The value of the use for wood product can be easily determined, but often* the value of the forest land is pretty much limited to its wood production value.* Then, when a "higher" development use is identified, the forest land is converted. What is often not valued, or at least considerably under-valued, is the environmental and other values of forest land identified in my post above. Forest land excels at removing carbon and producing oxygen = clean air for all living things. It excels at clean water through holding rain water in the soil, preventing erosion, silting of creeks, rivers and lakes, and containment of nutrients and contaminants in the soil rather than washing these into and polluting the water supply. Also, by holding water in the soil, the forest aids replenishment of aquifers with clean water. Appropriate valuation of all of these likely would raise the monetary value of forest land by many times. *In fact, deforestation, both in huge areas in some parts of the world and in the many small tracts in our communities and states which when combined equal huge tracts in the US, is perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest, cause of climate change and global warming*.



Unfortunately the causes of climate change and warming are scientifically *NOT* deforestation. There is universal agreement in science that it is fossil fuel use: in order of effect internationally -- shipping ( #2 oil , how the world receives most consumables) , power plants, air travel, urban development, vehicles.
The facts is that in North America at least we have MORE forested areas than pre WWII. Easily fact checked with the recent Forest Survey done periodically. As a practical check, look at the generational old historical pics of your town; no trees.
For many of us using our woodlands for ALL our heating, the value of the production of trees for firewood and other products,  is also quite subjective; think aesthetic, the pleasure of managing a large woodlot, exercise, skills, our enjoyment of intimacy with the natural world without the compulsion of universal electronic devices 24/7.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 20, 2017)

A slight nuance between "cause" and "contribute." Regardless DUMF, I will *HAVE* to disagree with your opinion that deforestation does not cause climate change.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


----------



## DUMF (Jan 20, 2017)

jebatty said:


> A slight nuance between "cause" and "contribute." Regardless DUMF, I will *HAVE* to disagree with your opinion that deforestation does not cause climate change.
> 
> http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/



A factor, but if you read carefully those articles, deforestation is NOT one of the major CAUSALS of climate change. 
ASSuming is not a valid point. You want to be right, fine. Science has the proof of the causes of warming and change as I listed. It is not opinion.
Are you a denier ?


----------



## jebatty (Jan 20, 2017)

Please cite your sources?


----------



## DUMF (Jan 20, 2017)

jebatty said:


> Please cite your sources?



You are kidding. Unbelievable ! 
But, no. Look 'em up.


----------



## DUMF (Jan 20, 2017)

DUMF said:


> Unfortunately the causes of climate change and warming are scientifically *NOT* deforestation. There is universal agreement in science that it is *fossil fuel use*: in order of effect internationally -- *shipping* ( #2 oil , how the world receives most consumables) , *power plants*, *air travel*, *urban development*,* vehicles*.
> The facts is that in North America at least we have MORE forested areas than pre WWII. Easily fact checked with the recent Forest Survey done periodically. As a practical check, look at the generational old historical pics of your town; no trees.
> For many of us using our woodlands for ALL our heating, the value of the production of trees for firewood and other products,  is also quite subjective; think aesthetic, the pleasure of managing a large woodlot, exercise, skills, our enjoyment of intimacy with the natural world without the compulsion of universal electronic devices 24/7.



...repeat.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 20, 2017)

It didn't take a careful read. The very first sentence of scientific american article says deforestation adds more carbon than all cars/trucks on the road worldwide. 15% vs 14%.  I have no idea if that's true but that's what it says.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2017)

I always thought the order of things from highest sectors to lowest sectors (at least in the US) was electricity generation, private light vehicles, agriculture, air travel, shipping and stuff, with the first three being close to each other, and the last three being close to each other. 

 Land use (which includes deforestation) is hard to estimate, still a source of disagreement, and some sources would put it up with light vehicles, and others would put it down with air travel.

I am sure the rankings are different overseas. Perhaps that is the source of the disagreement.  It is clear that deforestation in much of the US is negative.


----------



## DUMF (Jan 21, 2017)

jatoxico said:


> It didn't take a careful read. The very first sentence of scientific american article says deforestation adds more carbon than all cars/trucks on the road worldwide. 15% vs 14%.  I have no idea if that's true but that's what it says.



Deforestation cannot add carbon. This is silly.
There seems to be a need for either being right or a confirmational bias of looking at internet information that only confirms pre existing opinions.
The science based on verified sources is easily fact checked but *not* on magazine articles written by journalists with a pre-article agenda, is that the most CO2 emissions result from shipping, then in order of emissions as was said in my post. Simply checked if you do due diligence and not from a couple of articles.
So just stop for a second and think: where and how do most of our consumables ship ? What is the total emissions from the 10's of thousands of tonnage of shipping that those "green" renewables, and the electronic toys we are all dependent on ? Think bunker #2 fuel oil.
While we are at this, how much power plant energy does the web, your internet, your smartfons use ? What is the energy cost of the silicon that moves those devices ? Ain't free. Near us in Essex Junction, Vermont was at one time the largest chip manufacturing facility in the world. It's energy cost was enormous compared with the usage of a rural state like VT. 
Reason please.


----------



## jebatty (Jan 21, 2017)

Why are you unwilling to cite your sources? Are there none? Did you also overlook my initial premise that wood is very green, especially with sustainable forestry practices rather than cut, burn and convert to non-forest uses.


----------



## DBoon (Jan 21, 2017)

I'm with jebatty - if you can't cite your sources and you simply imply that (your) common-sense has the right answer, then this is just your opinion, and we can choose to value it as much or as little as we wish.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2017)

A little googling finds an alarmist, poorly written article:

https://www.transportenvironment.or...-making-it-elephant-climate-negotiations-room

that cites this study:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/569964/IPOL_STU(2015)569964_EN.pdf

This report says that maritime transport and aviation may become _in the future_ dominant sources of CO2 emissions....if their current rate of growth is extrapolated to 2050, and all the other sectors decarbonize.

Yawn.

The numbers:  Human CO2 emissions last year were 35 billion MTs of CO2, and the equivalent of another 10 billion MTs in the form of GHGs.

The report above says global aviation released 500 million MTs, or a little over *1*% of the total GHG equivalent.

Maritime shipping released close to 1billion MT, or about *2*% of the total.

Source for numbers:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/print_global-ghg-emissions-2014.pdf

This report also says that land use and forestry lead to about 2 billion MT equivalent, or *4*%.  Also FF production and use (for electricity and propulsion) is *75*% of that total.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2017)

DUMF said:


> While we are at this, how much power plant energy does the web, your internet, your smartfons use ? What is the energy cost of the silicon that moves those devices ?



Not much.  Try to compare the power consumption of an iPad or smart phone to a CRT or plasma TV from 10 or 20 years ago.  I knew a lot of people that would turn on 5 CRT TVs first thing in the morning, and leave them blaring all day.  People are watching a lot less TV today...isn't that a savings...and current LED backlit TV use a tiny fraction of the power.  Modern refrigerators use a fraction of those years ago.  ON and on.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck (Jan 21, 2017)

Hippies...


----------



## DUMF (Jan 21, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Not much.  Try to compare the power consumption of an iPad or smart phone to a CRT or plasma TV from 10 or 20 years ago.  I knew a lot of people that would turn on 5 CRT TVs first thing in the morning, and leave them blaring all day.  People are watching a lot less TV today...isn't that a savings...and current LED backlit TV use a tiny fraction of the power.  Modern refrigerators use a fraction of those years ago.  ON and on.



Double unbelievable. We ain't talking about the devices' power consumption buckie.
It's the energy to----
1. Make the devices ( e.g. chips, silicon, etc...) .....and, more significant ( please read carefully ).....
2.The energy that powers the WWW, cells, the internet ( it don't come from Oz ).


----------



## Circus (Jan 21, 2017)

DUMF said:


> Double unbelievable. We ain't talking about the devices' power consumption buckie.
> It's the energy to----
> 1. Make the devices ( e.g. chips, silicon, etc...) .....and, more significant ( please read carefully ).....
> .



from NREL       2004                   



Average car equals 1000-1500 gal of gas to build. So unless you have a sow of a gas guzzler, don't buy a new car only for better gas mileage (carbon).


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2017)

Not really clear why you think it takes a lot of energy to make silicon or integrated circuits.

As for the internet energy usage, let me google that for you...

in 2013 the internet (transmission and server farms) used 91 billion killowatt hours.

According to the EIA, this is 2.4% of total US electricity use.

While this sounds like a lot, it is equivalent to about 6% of the commercial sector usage. As a comparison, e-commerce sales are about 8% of total US retail sales now.  So some of that internet activity is displacing electricity use by juice-sucking retail, which the US has vastly more square footage of per capita than other countries.

Alternatively, with 100 million houses in the US, this is 911 kWh per household per year, or 104 W continuous, equivalent per household.  About the same as the second fridge in your basement from the 80s.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2017)

Circus said:


> from NREL
> View attachment 193214



Consistent with recent thread on PV payback:

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...ar-pv-is-now-a-net-good-for-the-earth.159423/


----------

