The current issue (I think it's the current issue) of The Economist has a special report about modern day Nomadism which is the word they use to describe people who work from anywhere wirelessly not even with laptops, just smart phones.WiFi and gadgets are doing away with the need to have offices allowing for people to be anywhere and not only get the job done but have a better quality of life. This is not telecommuting because telecommuters are stuck at home where as the Nomads can go anywhere.
It seemed as though one of the conclusions was that everyone will be able work and live this way.
Maybe I am adding 1+1 and getting 11 on that conclusion but obviously being a wireless Nomad does not lend itself to everyone, certainly not half the population and I am not sure about even 10% but is it is interesting relative to the recent post about moving to a foreign country.
If you can be a wireless Nomad then you could move to a place like Punta del Este, Uruguay (first picture) or Valparaiso, Chile (second picture) and get the benefits of those places while also getting the benefits of working in the Unites States.
Just for the record I am not going anywhere but as I said in the first post about the topic it is intellectually interesting to ponder. Part of it of course is that the entire topic plays on people's sense of fear of the future of the country. It's a reasonable question to ask. Things like deficits and trade imbalances have not really mattered but what if they do at some point in the future? What if the dollar gives up the status of world reserve currency? What will happen if the US is ever forced to update the infrastructure faster than is financially feasible? It's ok to wonder about this stuff.
In that vein buying a $50,000 farm house, as a hedge, on the outskirts of a bigger city in central Chile or the outskirts of Montevideo might not be the single craziest thing you ever do.
Given the playing on people's fear aspect of this I had a thought about solar. I think solar energy is vitally important for the future. I still think the landscape for the solar stocks will look much different in five years than it does today but the technology will be very important.
There was an article in Barron's over the weekend about the economic viability of thin film solar improving in the next few years but I think the marketing ploy for solar, until it does become cheaper, should be to play on people's fear of grid failure, either from mechanical breakdown or because oil/gas/coal becomes too expensive (these don't have to be realistic, the point is people's fear).
From what I have read, paying for the equipment needed to go solar would take many years of no electric bill before it would pay for itself. We have looked into it and with an average $60 bill per month it would never pay off for us--until it gets cheaper. So the idea would be for the solar companies to really hit on grid failure because there comes a balance of money spent versus peace of mind of knowing you'd have electricity if the grid failed. It appeals to the little survivalist in all of us.
Do solar companies already do this?
Even if this post isn't interesting the links to The Economist and Barron's are.
8 comments:
It appears to me that the major solar companies and their installers are running away from self-contained, off-grid systems and pushing "Net Metering" systems. This is probably due to the lower capital cost, i.e. no battery bank or inverter. Unfortunately (as I understand it), when the grid goes down you not only don't have power, you also don't get credits for supplying power to the grid during the down-time. A solar water heater might make more economic sense, but it's difficult to estimate the monthly savings, at least for me.
Everyone can't work at home. There's often a need for "touch labor." I work for an IT outsourcing company and have to argue with people up the ladder about this all the time.
What the percentage is, I don't know.
Using ROI/payback analysis is not the correct approach.
Consider a new home development in Phoenix or Las Vegas: what is the ROI of a Viking stove? of upgraded tile or window treatments? a pool?
The "solar industry" has done a horrible marketing job since solar is not even offered as an option let alone become a building standard.
And there is no aisle in Home Depot to buy solar equipment.
The point being, if solar was built into the house, the material cost ($25K?) would be transparent to the buyer as is the balance of the electrical components (the cost of wiring, panels, switches, meters etc).
Quick: what is the ROI on your fridge?
Sean, it would appear you know much more about this than me, I can only tell you where I am coming from.
Being a laymen i think of it in terms of money spent up front to potentially not have an electric bill.
How many electric bills before I am financially ahead.
I must a have a fridge, i don't make a monthly payment to run the fridge it is embedded in the electric bill.
the most likely benefit of a new fridge might be a slight bit of efficiency, and any aesthetic pleasure i might derive from a fancy fridge.
probably flawed thinking but probably very common too.
I find it hard to justify installing solar power on cost benefits because I don't know if the system will last long enough to be a benefit, or self-sufficiency because I live in a small town with larger towns 20 minutes drive away. A combination of the two benefits makes me slightly more likely to consider solar power (but more likely wind as the house is next to open fields and thus it's almost always windy here). I think it's more likely I'll consider installing when the government decides to significantly help with the cost, or when everyone else is doing it and there are mainstream tv shows about it. Depressing maybe, but true.
The consideration of sloar is very much a regional decision. I live in Florida, in an all electric home, modest(2000 sft), and the electric bill is in excess of $200 per month during the peak summer months. Insulation is optimized, and the thermostat is managed. The other fear factor for Florida is loss of power from Hurricane damage. During the last storm season of relevance several years ago, the power for some areas was out for two weeks in the city areas, and longer in rural locations. I have held off due to the considerations you have mentioned, unknown longevity and the breakeven for return is hard to estimate without defined maintenace expense. Cost effective thin film technology( Nanotechnology Systems or Solar in California I believe) may change the picture in a couple of years. I wish I had a $60 power bill...... My water and garbage are more than that.
Sam
it's $60 because the cabin is small, we use propane for water heater, dryer and central heating when we don't have a fire going. water has to be delivered $100 per month (up from $90 two months ago). garbage is $180 per year (we drive it to dumpster 1.5 miles away.
Interesting thread. The savings of going solar are completely dependent on the state one lives in.
California and Oregon have two of the best rebates
in the country. We had a small farm in Oregon before moving to Arizona, and I put in a 3KW system...
total cost to me for a 22k system (net metering/real time) was 6k. The panels were guaranteed for 25 yrs
and there are practically no moving parts to break down. It saved about 1/3 on our totally electric home.
Same system in Arizona costs about 9-10K, but given our much greater sun exposure would probably cover close to half our electric bill. The
break-even point for us would be at about 8 years. After
that we get 17 years of guaranteed free electricity.
The real kicker is that electricity is guaranteed to go up, so the relative savings of a solar system are
also guaranteed. It is a beautiful sight to see the
meter spinning backward, knowing that you are earning electricity credit from the utility.
I plan to install one here as soon as the state ups
the rebate, which makes so much sense on so many levels in the southwest.
Scoot
Post a Comment