With big bucks like this to be made, no wonder Al Gore wants to get in on this whole sweet carbon credit deal!
A $21.50 transaction, and one company’s first $4.30 in revenue, could revolutionize “going green” for homeowners. Now, you can start pocketing some cash — even if it isn’t much, for the energy you conserve.
My Emissions Exchange has brokered what they are calling the first-ever sale of a personal carbon credit. The sellers, Tami and Randy Wilson of Harrisburg, Pa., expect a $17.20 PayPal payment soon. The broker will pocket a 20% commission, it’s first profit. “We don’t make money until credits are created and sold,” said Paul Herrgesell, project manager of My Emissions Exchange.
All the Wilsons had to do, in order to earn that $17.20, was invest $58,000 in a new solar power system for their home. While that might sound like extraordinary financial folly, consider this: A federal tax credit will cover nearly $18,000, and a Pennsylvania rebate check has already arrived for another $18,000. They could net as much as $2,700 in the first year selling renewable energy certificates, which they can continue to sell annually for as long as anyone will buy them. They expect to recoup their investment within six years. At that point, they’ll be spending nothing on electricity (they had spent $80-$120 a month) and they’ll still be earning money from their renewable energy certificates, which power companies buy to meet government mandates.
I’m still not getting it. I’m all for saving money, but this smacks of ‘indulgences’ that Luther got mad at the catholic church for.
If people are selling energy why don’t they just say that?
There is some funny math in the wild assumptions but makes for good reading.
I believe you’re describing a contrived energy credit pyramid scheme of sorts. I’ll check back in about a year to see if a cottage industry arises.
Is this on FOX yet? Our one source for news and entertainment?
I could give a crap about carbon credits. Those are some killer tax credits… I wish my state would get on board.
Why are some taxpayers funding others to build solar systems that generate income? Is thar new solar-power income taxed?
When I was a kid in the late ’80s and early ’90s, my dad wanted to get off the grid – he was in municipal financing and had connections with many cities.
He got into a battle with the state of CA and the city we were in because they wouldn’t allow him to get off the grid without PAYING a huge (6 figure) tax fee that made the break-even point impractical.
Now, it’s the opposite where you GET PAID to go off the grid.
Makes no sense to see this 180˚ switch. Obviously the gov’t didn’t have their carbon exchange and “green” bs mantra ready at that time and wanted to “convince-via-taxation” my dad to stay ON the grid until they had their pocket-lining carbon exchange ready.
How’s that for an “inconvenient truth”?
#2 ya know, you’re right. it does read like some pyramid ‘make $$ right now’ scheme.
I went and read the article, waiting for it to start making sense.
I’ll look for the update how they did in 2010!
#4, of course it is. All income is taxed. Oh, you might have meant: “are they reporting their income?” Well, I don’t know.
#5, this isn’t about getting “off the grid.” These systems are most definitely “on the grid” … all excess power is sent back “up the wire.”
Most states have laws requiring utilities to accept this power (with certain limitations, of course) Google “Net Metering Laws” for more info.
#2 FTW, The people who get in on the ground floor (i.e. Algore) will make money on this scam. Latecomers will beat the bushes looking for buyers of their credits.
Let’s do some math:
Imagine 1,000,000 California homeowners (who haven’t got sub-prime mortgages) decide to do the same thing.
So they spend $58 billion (good stimulus).
Then CA gives them $18K each ($18 billion) and the Feds give them another $18K.
Result: CA goes bankrupt, and the Feds add another $18billion on their tab with China.
But, power consumption (from the grid) drops dramatically and the price of electricity drops accordingly. This is good. Right up until everyone realizes they can keep their A/C running all year now that they have solar power.
They might find they’ve been ‘had’ with this scheme. PV’s are being developed now, that are way less polluting to produce and will give 80% efficiency. Say that they are commercially feasible in 5 years, that 58K system will be worth 0… in fact will be a liability on their home.
Have they factored in removal and disposal of an antiquated system, and the loss of their $22,000 out of pocket investment? Add to that the huge risk that personal carbon credits will be worth anything as the market becomes saturated with them, or the credits scheme doesn’t last for any number or reasons.
#11 Skeptic
“Say that they are commercially feasible in 5 years,”
Just like the next Duke Nukem. I have watch for the past 30 years that it will be commercially feasible in 5 years. But it never is, so I’ll wait until it really here.
#10 Chuck
They would be better off building more Nuke Power plants.
#11, show me a link, to any study, anywhere, that shows a PV panel (or even a single cell) that provides 80% efficiency.
And why would the system suddenly be valueless? It’s still providing energy. Infrastructure doesn’t become worthless just because better technology exists and is implemented.
#13 i think he was exaggerating a bit with 0 value in 5 years, but follow basic accounting principles – as the equipment age, operational/maintenance cost goes up and value of equipment depreciates. Not sure if the tax credit given is really just to cover the depreciation, which it seems to do. A car loses about 65% of its value in 5 years, basic depreciation. They also assume that they will have no maintenance cost for this equipment over the next six years. From my understanding they will most likely use batteries to store the energy absorbed from the sun, battery lifetime is also a problem.
So what do homeless people get who aren’t using any fossil fuels? Oh, how silly of me. They get nothing.
I’m sure the Amish will get the same thing.
Our government will do anything to help out the Bernie Maddoffs of the world.
First The term in PA is Solar Renewable Energy Certificates. The main driver is a requirement by the state that mandates 3% of the power produced in the state must come from a renewable source. Unlike CA no producer in PA has put in a utility sized system so they buy the credits from small systems.
The couple to get these certificates must be hooked to the grid, they are not “Off Grid” like many wrongfully assume.
The income they make is definitely taxable, 1099 misc. income.
The best part about this trend in PA is the reason many are installing solar. It is not for the greeness but rather they want to send a message to the power companies to pound sand for raising rates on them
#17 Captin Kevin
“It is not for the greeness but rather they want to send a message to the power companies to pound sand for raising rates on them”
Unfortunately, this is because of government regulations. Power companies finely realized that they can make more money has government regs make it more expensive to operate. Since most a regulated by state boards and can get certain percentage profit. So as cost go up so do profits. Also most utilities are in bed with the regulators anyway.
Other words the utilities have no incentive to build extra power plants than they ones they have to. So the keep supply close to demand needs. So there in no surplus of power which would lower cost.