Information and demonstration programs are a way to be pro-environment without regulation. Many of these were started in the Bush eras. The argument is that something will be demonstrated, but what needs to be demonstrated? The photo electric effect was discovered in the 1880′s. Photocells have been used in science class experiments for many years. I have a calculator powered by a photocell that cost less than $10.

I believe most people in Ann Arbor believe solar power is possible. Hopefully in a few years it will also be cost effective.

I know Ms. Bobrin was a godsend, lobbying the way she did, for the Giant Urinal Artwork at the new Courts-Police Building. Sorry, when you have public official like that using their office and energy for such priorities while infrastructure is an oncoming train wreck, it’s hard to take her seriously. We need someone else in that office to lobby for real needs.

PV systems are perhaps the last investment to be made in any building (especially existing ones), after all other efforts to reduce electricity use, some of which are related to natural gas use, such as the fan on a furnace. Others, like insulation, which we tend to think of in terms of reducing heating costs, also help to reduce cooling costs (that is, electricity for air conditioning) in warm weather. (Note, not just summer. It’s been a warm spring already.) Lighting and appliances, including controls like dimmers and timers are important too. That may all be fairly common knowledge, but it gets to the final step in which a PV system makes most sense if combined with a geo-exchange (geothermal) heating and cooling system that leverages the earth’s heat capacity to make efficient use of electricity. (Even though PV systems in our area would be connected to the grid, the value of site coordination of technologies is important because of the line losses I mention below.) Public funds invested in PV without at least educating the recipients about these basic components of an energy efficiency and conservation strategy would be truly wasted, and we can’t afford that. (My understanding is that the PACE [Property Assessed Clean Energy] program that the city is developing would include such appropriate education and prerequisites.)

Also, in terms of environmental impact, the reduction in CO2 emissions (to focus on just one concern) per dollar invested is trickier, in part because most water is currently heated by either natural gas or electricity generated by coal and/or nuclear (with some natural gas use in newer plants, though few are currently in operation in Michigan.) Natural gas produces about half the CO2 emissions as does coal. Electricity from coal also suffers transmission losses between the plant and the consumer site, making it even less efficient (that is, producing more emissions per gallon of water heated.) For those reasons, the commissioners might want to consider focusing the county’s investment on solar water heaters for residents or others who are currently using electric water heaters.

I encourage the commissioners to put it back to staff if and when they don’t provide such analysis. It’s important, and the commissioners don’t have the necessary expertise. I also encourage them to look more deeply at the social equity aspects of such questions. The fact that a program for low income residents exists and is utilized isn’t sufficient in that regard.