Green Economy

Apparently, when liberals are talking about a green economy, they mean other people's cash

In a press release announcing the competition, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is quoted as saying, "The Solar Decathlon collegiate teams are showing how clean energy products and efficient building design can help families and businesses reduce energy use and save money...The event challenges talented students to become pioneers of clean energy technology and helps ensure that out nation remains competitive in the workforce of tomorrow."

Chu has reason to be hopeful that the competition pays off: The Department of Energy gives a $100,000 grant to each team just to participate in the Solar Decathlon, in addition to all the other costs of hosting and producing the competition. (Some of the other costs are offset by the myriad sponsors--from Lowe's to Pepco.)

This year, that $100k grant for each school will amount to just over 2 million dollars. This does NOT include the union labor used to prep, and set up the houses on the national mall. This money is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the other boondoggles we spend money on and the premise is not bad. If we can create affordable housing that is electrically neutral, I'm for it. The reasons I support it is as a cost issue, not environmental. If we invest in the research now to create a more cost efficient house then you free up money to spend on other things which will actually stimulate an economy. More disposable income means a more robust America. The key word here is affordable.

When I asked how much the house cost, Villegas was again slow to reveal the details. "Not one of the cheap ones," she said, saying that since it was built in New York City it had to meet the city's strict codes. "I can't say the price tag because we're still negotiating with the affordability people." One element of the competition is to be able to build affordable green energy housing.

Finally, Villegas conceded the price tag came to about $450,000, "which is just parts" since CCNY students did all the labor. Another student from the same team, Yinery Baez, also a fifth year architecture student, said that $500,000 is a more accurate figure, but that they believe the price could be dropped to about $300,000 if it were ever to be mass produced.

$500,000 for materials alone!?!?!! Then she says so nonchalantly that it could go down to 300K. What do you get for 500 large? 600-700 square feet of single level living space. Thats right, they can't be built on top of each other because you need the flat roofs for solar panels so you have to cover more space creating a larger "footprint". Again, this is always the problem with liberal and progressive thinking. Don't confuse them with the facts or the consequences of something, just reward them for the effort. Quick hand them their participation trophy and send them on their way.

The best part? I wondered what happened to the houses after the competition. I mean these are supposed to be the houses of the future, are they being used? Are they actually being tested in a real world environment? On the DOE website you can read about how many of the houses are in storage or have been placed on campuses and used as student housing. Mind you, they all have been hooked up to the electrical grid so they can "Sell back excess power to the electrical company".

If you want innovation, push these schools to spend ONLY the 100k, then they would actually have to come up with something that pushes the boundaries and moves us forward. It only saves money if in the long run the savings of using the new products outweighs the initial costs. Allowing them to spend unlimited monies does nothing but support poor business models like Solyndra.