Users who Dugg This
quickdigger
5219 Followers
Victor Barrera
11005 Followers
AngelWardriver
11953 Followers
ext99k KOSTA
3680 Followers
HotHardware.com
7859 Followers
QuatroCrazyNov 18, 2010
Im gonna have to get into the green construction buisness
tbazettNov 19, 2010
Some people realize that DRILL BABY DRILL simply isn't sustainable.
sungilaNov 19, 2010
as well it should. building green is the smartest way to manage our resources.
JewstinNov 19, 2010
hmm sounds like some of Obama's ideas might actualy be working out
killer2021Nov 19, 2010
Probably because green construction is at the point where it makes sense to use. Installing those extra insulated/reflective windows will save loads of money on cooling costs, especially for high-rise construction.
ano233Nov 19, 2010
While green tech may help the environment and get the energy companies out of your pocket I don't know whether it saves you any money. Even with gov subsidies green tech usually costs far more than standard construction. And while "added home value" has its advantages, it also means higher taxes, which may offset any heating/cooling savings. One example I have heard is in relation to wind turbines, in most states I believe they go on your property taxes like any fixed structure would (barn, pool, etc), and in states which do not provide for a "wind turbine credit" or exemption of the wind turbine from your taxes it can actually cost more to have the wind turbine than to just run off the power grid, even ignoring the cost of the turbine. Complete BS I know but the situation does seem to exist.
JewstinNov 19, 2010
i know in canada that if your generating power, the power industry, which is government run, buys any excess power that you use.
scamper22Nov 19, 2010
he's not talking about that. he is talking about your property taxes... which even in Canada keep going up and up.
Let's say you install green roofing or a wind turbine... and because of that the value of your property jumps from 300k to 500k. The increase in your property taxes might be $1500.00 / year (random guess). Which most likely offsets any savings you gain from electricity sales back to the utility.
I don't know how much a wind turbine affects property values, so I can't say if its true or not... but that's the just of what he's saying.
There's almost never a free lunch with the government. It always takes much more than it gives.
ano233Nov 20, 2010
I suppose I did forget about that, it should of course factor in where applicable. But as Scamper22 was saying my primary point was the property tax increases. Luckily my state has a quick/dirty property tax calculator that can give me some pretty good numbers. Lets assume that you have two identical houses, save one is a "green" house and one is a standard home. The green house cost $200,000 to build, the standard cost $150,000 to build. I think those are some reasonable numbers (note while the actual cost to the homeowner to build the house may only be $180,000 with subsidies/credits I do not believe those wold factor into the property taxes). The green home will cost an extra $1,293 in taxes each year ($5,172/$3,879). The question is whether the cost savings/grid payback will offset that. It should also be notes that I think less than half of utilities in the US pay back customers for power they add to the grid. I think all of them have to let their meters "run backwards" but if it goes into the negatives a majority don't have to pay you anything if your cumulative power consumption is negative.
enantiodromiaNov 19, 2010
I've been saying this for the last two years. While many are boohoo'ing about their jobs moving over seas, many new jobs are just now being created.
You can either wait for your manufacturing job to never come back from China, or you can take a 6-8 week course and get qualified to start a new career in an explosive growth industry.
davidnivenNov 19, 2010
Yeah, thanks mostly to government grants and contracts (i.e. your money). Anything can soar in a recession if you pump enough money into it.
ano233Nov 19, 2010
All thanks to government subsidies (our tax dollars). Don't get me wrong I wish most green tech success. But it needs to stand on its own without being propped up by money from our pockets. Of course this goes for all industries, oil, electricity, agriculture, etc. At most subsidization MAY be useful to help an industry to the point where economies of scale come into play, but only if it can be done quickly (5 years?) & relatively fairly.
JewstinNov 19, 2010
industries dont usualy move foward unless tax money (your money my money) or investments are made into the industry. while ya i disagree that tax money shoudnt be used for alot of investments, because it drowns out other investments. perhaps this one the government should invest in, germany has spent the last ten years investing in it, and there doing very well right now, and would be doing even better if they didnt have greece and ireland to deal with
scamper22Nov 19, 2010
really?
Why is it that in industries where the government is not always meddling, progress just seems to happen.
Google gets started even in the face of a Microsoft behemoth.
And Germany BTW is scaling back its solar industries... realizing the wasted investment. Not to mention, China will still dominate the manufacturing as it is cheaper.
One of the things most people fail to realize is that companies are always spending R&D money. There is no shortage of R&D money in solar, wind, batteries... Where it gets sketchy is when the government starts subsidizing the deployment of such technologies that are not yet commercially viable.
What it really means is you spend $50 billion(random number) on inefficient non viable technology today... instead of waiting 7 years for it to be viable and then spend the $50 billion.
Even hybrid cars are not a good idea right now. They're getting there... but it won't escape reality. When the technology is there, then it will make sense to deploy it and people will buy it because it has value.
If the government wants to invest in R&D and tax credits... wonderful. But they should really stay out of the subsidy game. It tends to be a wasted investment more often than not.
JewstinNov 19, 2010
thats good point, but what about for products that benifits everyone, like education, health care and infrastruture do you really think that these projects should be left to business instead of government to?
scamper22Nov 19, 2010
That's another topic that has little to do with subsidizing technology before its time.
Infrastructure is good for investment as it is a monopoly... and people tend to feel uncomfortable with a private sector monopoly.
There is no reason healthcare and education should be government run. It creates a monopoly... and monopolies tend to be self-serving as opposed to serving thee people (teacher unions, AMA...)
If I go to school X, it doesn't prevent you from going to school Y.
The government should hand out a voucher and let people get their own healthcare. Non-profits like the mayo clinic and most other big health centers would thrive. heck, that should happen today. Let the government try and run the schools and hospitals... but give the rest of us a per capita voucher.
I think it makes more sense for the government to run the telecom lines (not services) than it does for the government to be running healthcare and education.
In short... it makes more sense for the government to be AT&T then it does for the government to run education.
JewstinNov 20, 2010
not a bad point, i do agree that more power needs to be given to the teachers union and AMA but i think it should be in the form of perhaps paying teachers better, so that the industry its self will attract some of the best in the brightest. Private schools cover the people who dont want there kids in public school, i think countrys are perfectly fine with both systems in place, besides that at least in america with government if you dont like the monopoly you can always vote them out.
As far as Government run health care system goes i have to go with the government run system. Im from Canada and the general belief here is that health care shouldnt be there for profit, its there to help the people, Its not free for us by anymeans, but it does serve a better portion of the population. for instance right now im in school, i pay next to nothing for health care, when i was working two years back however and i was making 70,000 a year i was paying $24 a month. are systems not perfect because you do have the wait times to deal with. But the wait time is more of based on how badly you need help. some guy bleeding to death is gonna get attention alot sooner then someone with the common cold.
readmymindNov 21, 2010
Government has a constitutional and ethical duty to concern itself with the general health and welfare of the population. Private enterprise doesn't. As such, health care, protection from crime, and our overall safety absolutely fall under the obligation of government. Also, doing so doesn't make it "government run." That's a loaded term used only to try and demonize government systems. Canadian doctors don't work for the government. The Canadian government doesn't own all the country's hospitals. Governments exist for the people and by the people, and as much as private entities resent things that stand in their way of making huge profits, governments are a necessary thing in modern societies. Few things are more important than health care. It should not be left of to the private sector, which has few interests except making money.
ameliagreerNov 19, 2010
It's nice to see that green buildings are not only good for the environment, it's good for the economy too.
giyadNov 19, 2010
this title is all wrong... its not despite the recession, its thanks to the recession
gnixon70Nov 19, 2010
A lot of it's being substituted. no doubt, so for now the numbers are skewed. But if they actually try to develop some of these technologies, then there might be some hope for the industry.
But right now it's like using lighter fluid to start a fire using green wood. the lighter fluid being the the subsidies and the green wood being the industry. If the fluid dries up before the wood can catch fire and burn on it's own, then it'll burn out.
On the other hand, if the wood never catches, and you keep pouring fluid to keep the fire going, sooner or later, you'll run out of fluid.
angelo3Nov 19, 2010
This is great news for environmental and indoor air quality industries.
readmymindNov 21, 2010
I hope a hankering for the almighty dollars isn't the only reason for the trend.
Closed AccountDec 6, 2010
Good news!
annreaganskyDec 7, 2010
It's nice to see that green buildings are not only good for the environment, it's good for the economy too.
annreaganskyDec 7, 2010
I hope a hankering for the almighty dollars isn't the only reason for the trend.