Dieselgate: The GM version

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
None of that answered my question.
Ok...... I'll rephrase....

The issue with wind and solar isn't necessarily 'storage' it's the ability to utilize an intermittent source of energy. Electric vehicles are on demand-demand. The charging of electric vehicles can be planned to utilize solar and wind resources when they are available. Instead of matching supply with demand utilities also use thousands of electric vehicles to match demand to supply...
 
Last edited:

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
BOLD is mine. One interesting method is to store the energy in a huge flywheel. Problem if that flywheel ever broke loose...
.

Good point, I forgot about flywheels. There must be a lot of ways to store energy. I don't think a runaway flywheel would be much worse than a dam failure or nuclear plant meltdown.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
My feeling is that wind and solar work best as a point-of-use source of power, and not always best suited to be connected to the grid unless there is a wide enough span of the items that the peaks and valleys of power generation is mitigated.

Our current grid technology was set up from the onset to make use of a seemingly limitless ability to generate massive amounts of electricity and the twist of a knob. Whether it is coal, natural gas, propane, or nuclear, they all essentially do the same ancient thing: they boil water to make steam to spin a steam turbine.

So the speed/load necessary to spin said turbine(s) is easily adjusted by variation of the steam allowed to act on the mechanism. But the boiler is making steam...boiling water (and thus burning/exploiting its fuel) all the time. It is then necessary to have these type of stations on stand by to carry the load of the wind or solar power during these peaks and valleys.

Grid managers do not like wind and solar for this very reason. It is easy to regulate the voltage and phasing of a grid, even from many miles away, when you have a nice big power plant with a huge and constant and ready to go ability at your fingertips. But you cannot easily control the sunshine or especially the wind.

What we need is a better way to mix and match the energy production facilities of all types so that they can augment one another more seamlessly or we'll keep having a battle over this topic.

I always felt that air conditioning of a building, which is needed MOST during the day, and the demand is needed much more when the sun is shining the most, would make perfect sense for point-of-use solar arrays. But that seems to be something that is not really employed very much. Cost seems to be the most common reason.

Our shop owner built us a brand new building a couple years ago, and he decided to air condition it (thankfully), but did not bother to pursue both ground sourced heat pumps and solar augmentation due to cost. When I asked, he said it would take a decade to recoup the cost, and he could invest that same money in other things that would eclipse any cost savings anyway.

I do not necessarily agree with that decision, but it was not mine to make. The point is, though, so long as it is "cheap" to be dirty and inefficient, people are largely going to continue to do so. :eek:
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
I think oilhammer nailed it- most people won't shift to renewable sources and efficient systems until it is in their short term financial interests to do so. Fortunately, the costs for solar have been dropping steadily, and now the ROI can be as little as 4 years. (Maybe even less in areas with exorbitant electric rates). If I had a bazillion dollars, I'd be buying up all the land around here that does not have grid service- it is currently available at a fraction of the price that land with grid access brings. That will change as the populous wises up to renewables like solar.
 

john.jackson9213

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Location
Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI
1996 B4V
I think oilhammer nailed it- most people won't shift to renewable sources and efficient systems until it is in their short term financial interests to do so. Fortunately, the costs for solar have been dropping steadily, and now the ROI can be as little as 4 years. (Maybe even less in areas with exorbitant electric rates).
<snip>
An HOA in San Diego where I own some property is considering a solar electric installation to handle common area electricity needs. The cost is $425K and the payback time is 9 years.

When I looked at solar for my own home about 18 months ago, the payback period was 9 years (without tax credits) and just over 6 years with tax credits. Anita did not want to invest in solar because we are in our late 60's and she would rather spend the cash traveling today. Unfortunately, she may have made the right call. She is currently being treated for cancer. Her prognosis is excellent. But it is something to think about.

Frankly, I know of no place where a 4 year pay back - even with tax credits is possible. California has some of the most generous incentives in the nation to do Solar. San Diego has the highest electric rates in California. And it is still a 9 year payback.

For the HOA above, the 9 year payback makes a ton of sense and I will be supporting the $425K investment. Just wish they would go for recycled water in the common area, but the membership does not seem interested in making that investment - even give a quicker payback than 9 years!

Bottom line: Solar is more "popular" that using recycled water.

Years ago, I was able to bring a recycled water project to another HOA that has saved over $250K in 15 years and cost almost nothing after city of San Diego Water Department rebates of $70K for the installation. Even without the Rebates, payback was under 6 years. With the rebates, pay back was Day 1.
 
Last edited:

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
An HOA in San Diego where I own some property is considering a solar electric installation to handle common area electricity needs. The cost is $425K and the payback time is 9 years.

When I looked at solar for my own home about 18 months ago, the payback period was 9 years (without tax credits) and just over 6 years with tax credits. Anita did not want to invest in solar because we are in our late 60's and she would rather spend the cash traveling today.

Frankly, I know of no place where a 4 year pay back - even with tax credits is possible. California has some of the most generous incentives in the nation to do Solar. San Diego has the highest electric rates in California. And it is still a 9 year payback.

For the HOA above, the 9 year payback makes a ton of sense and I will be supporting the $425K investment. Just wish they would go for recycled water in the common area, but the membership does not seem interested in making that investment - even give a quicker payback than 9 years!

Bottom line: Solar is more "popular" that using recycled water.

Years ago, I was able to bring a recycled water project to another HOA that has saved over $250K in 15 years and cost almost nothing after city of San Diego Water Department rebates of $70K for the installation. Even without the Rebates, payback was under 6 years. With the rebates, pay back was Day 1.
Yeah, 4 year ROI is probably overly optimistic. The numbers I crunched for my own 10-16 kw array I plan to install later this summer were showing a 4.5-5 year payback. But that is without hiring anything out. And using bargain basement panels. I agree that even at 9 years or 12 years payback period, it still is a great investment.
 

rotarykid

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Location
Piedmont of N.C. & the plains of Colorado
TDI
1997 Passat TDI White,99.5 Blue Jetta TDI
My feeling is that wind and solar work best as a point-of-use source of power, and not always best suited to be connected to the grid unless there is a wide enough span of the items that the peaks and valleys of power generation is mitigated.
Our current grid technology was set up from the onset to make use of a seemingly limitless ability to generate massive amounts of electricity and the twist of a knob. Whether it is coal, natural gas, propane, or nuclear, they all essentially do the same ancient thing: they boil water to make steam to spin a steam turbine.
So the speed/load necessary to spin said turbine(s) is easily adjusted by variation of the steam allowed to act on the mechanism. But the boiler is making steam...boiling water (and thus burning/exploiting its fuel) all the time. It is then necessary to have these type of stations on stand by to carry the load of the wind or solar power during these peaks and valleys.
Grid managers do not like wind and solar for this very reason. It is easy to regulate the voltage and phasing of a grid, even from many miles away, when you have a nice big power plant with a huge and constant and ready to go ability at your fingertips. But you cannot easily control the sunshine or especially the wind.
What we need is a better way to mix and match the energy production facilities of all types so that they can augment one another more seamlessly or we'll keep having a battle over this topic.
I always felt that air conditioning of a building, which is needed MOST during the day, and the demand is needed much more when the sun is shining the most, would make perfect sense for point-of-use solar arrays. But that seems to be something that is not really employed very much. Cost seems to be the most common reason.
Our shop owner built us a brand new building a couple years ago, and he decided to air condition it (thankfully), but did not bother to pursue both ground sourced heat pumps and solar augmentation due to cost. When I asked, he said it would take a decade to recoup the cost, and he could invest that same money in other things that would eclipse any cost savings anyway.
I do not necessarily agree with that decision, but it was not mine to make. The point is, though, so long as it is "cheap" to be dirty and inefficient, people are largely going to continue to do so. :eek:

then throw in the fact today that many of these great payback deals for spare power your panels on the roof produce are going to less favorable offerings now across much of the US.....

Many of the newest installations of these home panels no longer receive the benefit of being paid to the owner for the spare power they add to the grid....

In fact, in many places today where this is going away, the power sellers are saying the power you give their system is now being taken as payment for them allowing you to hook your system to their grid....

You loose that payback, then how long does it take to reep a benefit which pays for the panels installations in the first place...???...
 

rotarykid

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Location
Piedmont of N.C. & the plains of Colorado
TDI
1997 Passat TDI White,99.5 Blue Jetta TDI
And how about we talk about the added fossil fuel burning production that has been added to the CA grid.....

I mentioned this earlier, but oilhammer hit the nail on the head so to speak on this.....we today have a load dependent system which requires on-call production when load increases show up....

what CA has done is take real load capable production out like the shutdown of nuke station which could have for decades to come fill real needed grid requirements....

What CARB has stupidly done is they are replacing it with jet turbine production which like the wind is not production available for real-time continued load requirements.....

And what is misrepresented by the charts showing the adding of for short term use only load pickup requirements is when someone tries to use jet turbine production for anything other than quick short term fast load picks up.....is maintenance costs skyrocket to the point this type of production becomes unusable at all....
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
Yeah, it's disappointing that many states are looking to get rid of net metering. This is the last year that residential solar installs in Maine will get 100% the value of power put into the grid in credits. After this year they are phasing out net metering over 15 years. Installs done this year are guaranteed full net metering credit for the next 15 years. Carpe diem!
 

\/\/0J0

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Location
Knoxville, TN
TDI
Sadly, none anymore
How about my buddy out in Arizona with solar panels installed on his property? The electric company charges him MORE because he's not buying his whole share from them--penalized for trying to save money and utilize natural resources.

Sent from my mobile look-at device
 

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
Folks it because backfeeding solar into the grid is destructive to it. Remember, you cannot store electricity on a large scale. The utility company has to deal with wildly fluctuating grid loads.

Its a fundamental problem.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
Actually, solar installations are good for the grid. They help decentralize the grid- cutting transmission losses. There just isn't enough solar generation at present to cause any problems for the grid. The real issue is that utilities don't like people being able to make their own power.
 

\/\/0J0

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Location
Knoxville, TN
TDI
Sadly, none anymore
I'm not sure how providing more energy to the grid is destructive, provided it's in phase and at close to the same voltage. If there's an overabundance of amperage available, well... that's a good thing. A load will only draw the amperage that it needs. The grid already has more current capacity than is required. If it didn't, you'd see large scale brownouts and equipment failure, all the way from that which is generating and transmitting the power, down to the end user equipment consuming said power.
The wildly fluctuating loads are a problem and if these sources, albeit sporadic and unreliable (from the elco perspective), can help to lessen the demand on the grid, they are at least mildly helpful.
I agree with turbobrick in that the utilities provider doesn't want you taking away from their bottom line.

Sent from my mobile look-at device
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
I agree with turbobrick in that the utilities provider doesn't want you taking away from their bottom line.
Just to remind all how a utility views customers and I mention this earlier. The water utility asked (forced) us to conserve and use less water....we did, and now the utility is raising rates across the board since they didn't anticipate the large revenue drop from conservation by us customers.
 

tadawson

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Location
Lewisville, TX
TDI
2013 Passat TDI SEL, 2015 Passat TDI SEL
I'm not sure how providing more energy to the grid is destructive, provided it's in phase and at close to the same voltage. If there's an overabundance of amperage available, well... that's a good thing. A load will only draw the amperage that it needs. The grid already has more current capacity than is required. If it didn't, you'd see large scale brownouts and equipment failure, all the way from that which is generating and transmitting the power, down to the end user equipment consuming said power.
The wildly fluctuating loads are a problem and if these sources, albeit sporadic and unreliable (from the elco perspective), can help to lessen the demand on the grid, they are at least mildly helpful.
I agree with turbobrick in that the utilities provider doesn't want you taking away from their bottom line.

Sent from my mobile look-at device
A load will only draw what it needs, true . . . but a large generator with a relatively fixed input power (hydro, ng, steam, whatever) cannot react instantly to changes in load . . . load is down, power input is the same, gen overspeeds, and mayhem results (and large generators only work in relatively small ranges of thier capacity . . .). The utilities manage the grid partly by being able to predict load, and take generators on and off line accordingly. This makes it a lot harder . . . not impossible, but if the utility needs to do more work to make less, well, the result should be obvious . . .
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
;)
How about my buddy out in Arizona with solar panels installed on his property? The electric company charges him MORE because he's not buying his whole share from them--penalized for trying to save money and utilize natural resources.

Sent from my mobile look-at device
That is awful. That would prompt me to get battery storage and say goodbye to the grid.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
Folks it because backfeeding solar into the grid is destructive to it. Remember, you cannot store electricity on a large scale. The utility company has to deal with wildly fluctuating grid loads.

Its a fundamental problem.
I have a 80kWh battery sitting in my driveway now that usually has ~30kWh of capacity available. With typical usage another 1GWh worth of 'storage' will ship next year. ~2GWh+ the year after that. Using EVs for load control is the fundamental solution.
 

Mike_04GolfTDI

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Location
Richmond, BC, Canada
TDI
Mine: 2019 Golf R DSG, Wife's: 2015 Golf Comfortline TDI
I have a 80kWh battery sitting in my driveway now that usually has ~30kWh of capacity available. With typical usage another 1GWh worth of 'storage' will ship next year. ~2GWh+ the year after that. Using EVs for load control is the fundamental solution.
Once that technology becomes mainstream, do you think all the taxes we currently pay on fuel will instead be applied to batteries?

If people suspect that is coming, I think it would deter them from switching to EVs. (Knowing they aren't going to save much money)

Our local municipal government is looking into "mobility pricing" which is a way to tax people based on how far they drive. They aren't admitting it, but I assume they're studying this in preparation for a switch to EVs, as people won't be buying gasoline.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
If people suspect that is coming, I think it would deter them from switching to EVs. (Knowing they aren't going to save much money)
Electricity is still ~70% cheaper per mile than diesel. Using an EV for load control would further reduce the cost of fuel. Even with a 'use tax' EVs will still be significantly cheaper...
 

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
I have a 80kWh battery sitting in my driveway now that usually has ~30kWh of capacity available. With typical usage another 1GWh worth of 'storage' will ship next year. ~2GWh+ the year after that. Using EVs for load control is the fundamental solution.
What happens if its cloudy, no EV charging? Not really a solution IMO.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
What happens if its cloudy, no EV charging? Not really a solution IMO.
If it's cloudy then there isn't surplus generation to store... If charging is needed then we use fossil fuel generation to make up the difference just like we do now...
 

rotarykid

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Location
Piedmont of N.C. & the plains of Colorado
TDI
1997 Passat TDI White,99.5 Blue Jetta TDI
Just to remind all how a utility views customers and I mention this earlier. The water utility asked (forced) us to conserve and use less water....we did, and now the utility is raising rates across the board since they didn't anticipate the large revenue drop from conservation by us customers.

the exact same thing happened with Denver water a decade ago.....win-win that quickly turns into a loose-loose for all....Denver water has gone up on rates pretty much every year since....

the same thing happened with Excel Energy claiming users started saving energy so they came to the regulators saying they must raise rates to pay for the power they generate with us using less.....

Now we have this BS tiered rating in the summer which even though when approved they claimed would only affect businesses who use large amounts of power....

....that was a blatant lie that has caused my summer bills to go up ~300 % with normal for the last three decades using....
 

Mike_04GolfTDI

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Location
Richmond, BC, Canada
TDI
Mine: 2019 Golf R DSG, Wife's: 2015 Golf Comfortline TDI
If it's cloudy then there isn't surplus generation to store... If charging is needed then we use fossil fuel generation to make up the difference just like we do now...
I've often thought that, since we're going to burn up all the fossil fuels anyway, it would actually be best to use them for electricity generation in stationary power plants.

To fit in a car, emissions control equipment can only be a certain size. In a power plant, it can be as big as needed because it doesn't have to move. Therefore, I assume stationary fuel burning equipment can be made to operate more cleanly than mobile equipment.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
I've often thought that, since we're going to burn up all the fossil fuels anyway, it would actually be best to use them for electricity generation in stationary power plants.
To fit in a car, emissions control equipment can only be a certain size. In a power plant, it can be as big as needed because it doesn't have to move. Therefore, I assume stationary fuel burning equipment can be made to operate more cleanly than mobile equipment.
Yep... also less of the surplus wind and solar won't go to waste...
 

Oilerlord

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Location
Edmonton, Canada
TDI
2012 JSW TDI w/DSG. 700 Mile Club. 2008 BMW X3 "Beatrice", 2004 BMW 330Xi, 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric
Yeah, 4 year ROI is probably overly optimistic. The numbers I crunched for my own 10-16 kw array I plan to install later this summer were showing a 4.5-5 year payback. But that is without hiring anything out. And using bargain basement panels. I agree that even at 9 years or 12 years payback period, it still is a great investment.
Depends how you define "investment".

My 9.2kW project came in at $19K (CDN) - only because I sourced and bought most of the equipment on my own, designed the system, and put in a lot of sweat equity. Turnkey solutions were being quoted starting at $4.00 per watt / $36K. No home-solar rebates or subsidies are available where I live.

Electricity is cheap in Alberta. 4 cents per kWh base / ~8 cents net after taxes & fees. While it may be considered an investment in the environment, there are much better financial investments available than installing solar.

Most professional private money managers can provide an annual average 12% ROI so for that reason, it's usually financially irresponsible for an HOA to install solar. They have bigger responsibilities such as managing a reserve fund for building maintenance. We own property in Arizona. Solar came up in one HOA meeting. While the board recognized the environmental positives, and a future financial payback, the reality of current expenses made it a non-starter.
 

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
If it's cloudy then there isn't surplus generation to store... If charging is needed then we use fossil fuel generation to make up the difference just like we do now...
AGAIN there is the problem, you cannot just use the grid when you feel like it and not be upsetting the balance. Big power plants don't turn on and off at the flick of a switch. If everyone one day started using the grid and stopped the next day there would be a major problem regulating the power. I guess everyone could just get gas generators but that is about as inefficient as it gets.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
A load will only draw what it needs, true . . . but a large generator with a relatively fixed input power (hydro, ng, steam, whatever) cannot react instantly to changes in load . . . load is down, power input is the same, gen overspeeds, and mayhem results (and large generators only work in relatively small ranges of thier capacity . . .). The utilities manage the grid partly by being able to predict load, and take generators on and off line accordingly. This makes it a lot harder . . . not impossible, but if the utility needs to do more work to make less, well, the result should be obvious . . .
At least in Charlotte, Duke Power's hydro stations are only used for peak demand. It can be hard for them to generate enough power in the middle of the summer when we've been in droughts because the lake levels are too low to get enough out of the hydro generators. It's a double whammy since the nuclear plants are also effected by low and warm lake waters. Harder to keep the reactors cool when your intake pipes are just below surface and pulling 80F water.
 

Oilerlord

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Location
Edmonton, Canada
TDI
2012 JSW TDI w/DSG. 700 Mile Club. 2008 BMW X3 "Beatrice", 2004 BMW 330Xi, 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric
If it's cloudy then there isn't surplus generation to store... If charging is needed then we use fossil fuel generation
Damn, I just spilled coffee all over my keyboard....what was that again??
 

Oilerlord

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Location
Edmonton, Canada
TDI
2012 JSW TDI w/DSG. 700 Mile Club. 2008 BMW X3 "Beatrice", 2004 BMW 330Xi, 2014 Mercedes B-Class Electric
AGAIN there is the problem, you cannot just use the grid when you feel like it and not be upsetting the balance. Big power plants don't turn on and off at the flick of a switch. If everyone one day started using the grid and stopped the next day there would be a major problem regulating the power. I guess everyone could just get gas generators but that is about as inefficient as it gets.
But the solution is so simple....you just don't get it :)

<insert fun-fact "science" graphic that makes me look smart and others look stupid here>

There are around 260 million cars in the US. The buyer and taxpayer share the $40K purchase for a Chevy Bolt with 60kWh battery + $20K in solar because that's just pocket change anyone can afford. You then spend another $13K to install a couple of 14 kWh Tesla Powerwalls to store daytime solar energy so you can charge your EV at night. The $73,000 per household solution of solar + EV + Powerwalls thus balances the grid. Of course the batteries don't last forever, so in a few years - you just replace the EV and Powerwalls in perpetuity. Easy peazy.

If you live in an apartment building where a solar installation isn't feasible, you install it anyway - regardless of cost, if the building is shaded, or the roof faces North. What part of this don't you understand?

If you're going on a road trip longer than the 238 mile range the Bolt has, and DC fast charging isn't available, you just buy a second ICE car, or rent one. So simple.

What... what evidence will it take to convince the cynics that wind and solar are not just economically viable but much cheaper than fossil fuels?
 

john.jackson9213

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Location
Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI
1996 B4V
Depends how you define "investment".

My 9.2kW project came in at $19K (CDN) - only because I sourced and bought most of the equipment on my own, designed the system, and put in a lot of sweat equity. Turnkey solutions were being quoted starting at $4.00 per watt / $36K. No home-solar rebates or subsidies are available where I live.

Electricity is cheap in Alberta. 4 cents per kWh base / ~8 cents net after taxes & fees. While it may be considered an investment in the environment, there are much better financial investments available than installing solar.

Most professional private money managers can provide an annual average 12% ROI so for that reason, it's usually financially irresponsible for an HOA to install solar. They have bigger responsibilities such as managing a reserve fund for building maintenance. We own property in Arizona. Solar came up in one HOA meeting. While the board recognized the environmental positives, and a future financial payback, the reality of current expenses made it a non-starter.
Bold portion is mine. I agree that most HOA reserve funds are not where they need to be and most HOA's run on as cheap as possible current budget. I have been an HOA board member and know most members only think of today and have a very optimistic view of down the road.
This particular HOA is large and very well funded. That gives the board the ability to look at the long term and make reasonable choices like spend current cash on long term payback items.
 
Top