Going Green = Stupid Investment

The New York Times Sunday online edition, had a picture of the newly renovated Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Oregon. This 18 story federal building was made "Green". It even has nearly 20 stories of plants growing on one side, that will bloom in the spring and summer when you want shade and go away in the winter when you want the sun. How cute, it has the latest in green innovations to be a "High Performance Green Building", at a cost of $133 million dollars.

Caren Auchman, spokeswoman for the General Services Administration (G.S.A.), the federal government’s property manager, said "The idea is that the cost savings are in the energy efficiency." The NY Times notes that according to the Obama administration the renovations will dramatically reduce the building's energy use, saying that it will save $280 thousand a year in energy costs. Personally I think that saving the tax payers $280K a year is cool.

“It’s going to be an amazing building,” Auchman said. It should receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certification. Automatically adjusting lighting systems, including reflectors, will cut lighting use 50 percent. Rainwater reuse and low-flow plumbing fixtures will reduce water use by 68 percent. A roof-top solar array will generate up to 15 percent of the building’s energy use, and vegetated fins on the building will help reduce heat gain in summer but allow light to come in during the winter.

I looked at the numbers, and considered them the same way I would if I'm upgrading my home to be more energy efficient, much smaller scale but still a valid comparison. I have some very small scale experience with this. This year I put in a tank-less water heater, because it saves $35 per month in electricity, and cost $800 to put in, the payoff is less than 2 years, and the life expectancy is around 20 years, so it's an excellent green investment.

Looking at this "High Performance Green Building" we see: $133,000,000 renovation vs. $280,000 annual energy savings. Some simple math and we see that the return on investment takes about 480 years. Wow! In a mere 480 years the "High Performance Green Building" will start to save money.

How can anybody ever justify this? It's like retrofitting solar panels on your house. The reason very few people do so is because it is a very stupid financial decision. I considered it for my house; I use 12KW of electricity on average every month, so to take my small house off the power grid it using photovoltaic cells, batteries, inverters, and all the other ancillary components will cost about $75,000 dollars to have the system installed. The maintenance costs that would average around $1000 per year, this is for batteries, electrician to do maintenance, etc. Yes there are government programs to help pay for part of the installation but that doesn’t change the cost whether I pay it all or get you the taxpayer to help me pay for it. My current electric bill averages $150 per month. It would take me around 40 years to recover my installation, but since the solar system has an expected life span about 30 years, I can never catch up. When I take the cost of the retrofit to my house and annual maintenance into account, by going green I would pay $350 per month for electricity. That’s 233% more for less reliable energy, and requiring me to come up with $75K dollars at one time. A stupid financial decision.

Boasting about saving $280K per year in energy costs by renovating the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building into a "High Performance Green Building" at a cost of $133 million is the typical cost-benefit analysis promoted by Obama, Al Gore, and the left in the name of “environmental responsibility”.