Does the end justify the means?
We can apply that question to so many various topics but I would like to see how the Library’s new photo voltaic system (solar panel array) holds up to the scrutiny.
The system is costing taxpayers $676,100to purchase and install and will take 45-70 years to break even if the savings pencil out to $10,000 to $15,000 per year as suggested by city engineering staff. The problem is that the warranty is only good for 25 years leaving taxpayers exposed for an addition 20 to 45 years!
The cost does not include routine maintenance to clean the panels which is necessary to maintain efficient production of electricity.
In the end, we will spend much more replacing outdated panels and repairing antiquated technology than we will save by using these panels. I’m all for sensible environmental policies but this policy just isn't sensible, it’s downright wasteful.
Shouldn't we be seeking to SAVE taxpayers money rather than subsidize the solar industry?
So, does the end justify the means?
Something else I have often wondered but never researched is how much greenhouse gas will be produced manufacturing these panels and will that pollution reach 100% mitigation by using these panels for 25 years?