info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
363 views
Skip to first unread message
bruce2...@gmail.com
Dec 20, 2019, 1:39:51 PM12/20/19
to
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:13:01 AM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/business/amazon-cardboard-box-prime-day/index.html
> Easy to watch, quick. Make a difference
>
> Janet US
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/business/amazon-cardboard-box-prime-day/index.html
> Easy to watch, quick. Make a difference
>
> Janet US
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 20, 2019, 2:20:26 PM12/20/19
to
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
Have you ever done a life-time analysis of a solar panel?
> In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
a) Impact of mining the materials going into the panel.
b) Transporting those materials for refining and processing.
c) Transporting the refined materials to the assembly factory.
d) Assembly into panels and testing.
e) Transportation to the installation point.
f) Installation and materials required to do so - as above.
g) Service life (return on first-costs) (approximately 20 years).
h) Removal and restoration of the installation site.
g) Disposition of the removed materials.
In the US, the average cost per KW of actual capacity is about $3,000 before tax credits, and not counting the cost of land, if needed.
The average solar panel is about 40% efficient at the equator and assuming 100% sunny days - this is not solar efficiency, but actual production-to-nameplate numbers. So, in North America, that drops to about 25%. The average cost per KWH, nationwide is about $0.1319. But to make the panels 'look better', let's use $0.14.
So, a panel with a nameplate of 1,000 watts (1kw) will make 6,000 watts per day of actual power, on average. Or, $0.84 per day. Average of $25.55 per month. Or, $306.60 per year.
On a straight-line payback (no time-value of money included), the first-cost will be paid back in 9.8 years. We still have not counted the cost of proper disposition. And we have carefully elided on the environmental impact in their manufacture.
What makes solar panels 'practical' as a primary generator of electric power is that the various governments have bamboozled their taxpaying constituents into subsidizing their use for no discernible return. If one wishes to be 'off the grid', then solar power is a perfectly legitimate option. But it should in no way be subsidized with tax revenue.
Properly managed, nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that the political will to manage it properly does not yet exist.
Properly managed, wind power is vastly cheaper and vastly cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that not every site is amenable to wind.
Then, there is tidal power. Not cheap, but once the plant is built, it will last pretty much indefinitely.
Solar power is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the General Public since Madoff and/or Enron.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
bruce2...@gmail.com
Dec 27, 2019, 9:34:29 AM12/27/19
to
---------------------------------------
Solar Delivers During New England Heatwave [imagine how its going in Death Valley]
PV Magazine
July 25, 2018
-- https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/07/25/heavy-lifting-by-behind-the-meter-solar-power-in-new-england-heatwave/
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 27, 2019, 3:26:39 PM12/27/19
to
May I (re)acquaint you with "The Bellman's Proof"?
What you say many (three) times does not make it true.
What you say many (three) times does not make it true.
John Robertson
Dec 27, 2019, 4:09:10 PM12/27/19
to
taxpayers to subsidize Chinese production of solar panels!
John :-#)#
bruce2...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2019, 5:03:52 PM12/28/19
to
Meanwhile, solar use is going to double. Look at what CNBC says:
"More than 2 gigawatts (GW) of photovoltaic solar capacity was installed in the U.S. during the second quarter of 2018, according to a recent report from Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
While this represents a 9 percent year-on-year decrease, the U.S. is still expected to more than double its photovoltaic capacity over the next five years."
From California To Texas, These Are The US States Leading The Way In Solar
CNBC - Sept 18, 2018
--https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/the-us-states-leading-the-way-in-solar.html
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 29, 2019, 8:22:47 AM12/29/19
to
Clearly you do not understand what I am writing, as clearly you conflate increasing use of solar panels with that increase being cost-effective and efficient. Without subsidies, Solar Panels are neither. There are installations in Canada that are producing power at C$0.80 per KWH - when Hydro-Quebec is making power at C$0.07 per KWH. Why? Because Solar is a feel-good option that is visible and impressive, while giving the illusion of being pollution-free - which it also is not.
Rather than spouting garbage and displaying your ignorance, why not investigate the actual costs of a Utility-Scale solar installation - which includes:
Panels.
Mounting Systems.
Grid-Tie Inverter Systems.
Step-up transformers.
Land.
Include the cost of raw materials, production, transportation, and ultimate disposal of all of the above, and the restoration of the underlying land to some useful condition.
You will begin to see *why* C$0.80 is a relative bargain based on a 20-year lifespan. And that rate is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers.
The situation is no better here in the US, but I am absolutely certain about the Canadian numbers as I had a direct hand in the construction of three Utility-Scale plants in Canada. And where I learned all about the ripping off of the taxpayers and the politics involved. I left that company in short order upon gaining that knowledge.
Rather than spouting garbage and displaying your ignorance, why not investigate the actual costs of a Utility-Scale solar installation - which includes:
Panels.
Mounting Systems.
Grid-Tie Inverter Systems.
Step-up transformers.
Land.
Include the cost of raw materials, production, transportation, and ultimate disposal of all of the above, and the restoration of the underlying land to some useful condition.
You will begin to see *why* C$0.80 is a relative bargain based on a 20-year lifespan. And that rate is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers.
The situation is no better here in the US, but I am absolutely certain about the Canadian numbers as I had a direct hand in the construction of three Utility-Scale plants in Canada. And where I learned all about the ripping off of the taxpayers and the politics involved. I left that company in short order upon gaining that knowledge.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2019, 10:55:02 AM12/31/19
to
===============================
"If your cost of installing solar is $20,000 and your system is going to save you $2,500 a year on foregone energy bills, your solar panel payback or “break-even point” will be 8 years ($20,000/$2,500 = 8).
Energy Sage - May 26, 2019
-- https://news.energysage.com/understanding-your-solar-panel-payback-period/
bruce2...@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2019, 10:56:43 AM12/31/19
to
Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards.
Michael Terrell
Dec 31, 2019, 12:05:03 PM12/31/19
to
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards.
The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
> Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards.
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2019, 12:09:25 PM12/31/19
to
Do the math, if you can. US $20,000 gets you 6.6 KW of "nameplate", exclusive of land. Make it 7.
7 x 6,000 = 42 KWH per day.
42 X $0.14 = $5.88.
Assume 'perfect' sun every day. Making 365 x 5.88 = $2,146.20 = 9.32 years before payback on a straight-line calculation. Which carefully avoids the concept of Time-Value of Money. On a monthly basis, that comes to $178.85. If you borrow money at 3.5% (unlikely for a solar project with $0 residual value), that would come in at $115.99 per month. Given an actual payback (time-value of money) of 62.86 per month, or 26 years, 7 months. Roughly six (6) years beyond the useful life of the installation.
Had you invested that same $20,000 at that same 3.5% for that same 20 years, on the assumption that you have that much cash lying around, you would have $39,795.78 in 20 years.
NOTE: None of the above counts any sort of maintenance. Such as cutting the grass, scrub or whatever underneath the panels, cleaning the panels - which needs to be done. Snow removal if relevant. Bad days, rain, clouds, nor any other adverse conditions. Equipment servicing - Grid-Tie inverters need regular servicing and certification. And so forth.
One last myth: Appreciation of property - 20,000 watts of panels will take 67 panels at 300 watts per each (optimistic). Each panel is 2 square meters - very roughly 10 square feet. 670 square feet is, again, very roughly 26 feet square. Not one helluva lot of land to appreciate. And an installation that small will hardly generate the material discounts that a Utility-Scale installation will command. But, for you, we are ignoring the hard truths, while looking only at the raw, optimistic numbers.
Solar, without subsidies is a bad deal. Full stop.
Solar with subsidies is a bad deal for the taxpayers. Full stop.
Solar, with or without subsidies is a bad deal for the Planet. Full stop.
7 x 6,000 = 42 KWH per day.
42 X $0.14 = $5.88.
Assume 'perfect' sun every day. Making 365 x 5.88 = $2,146.20 = 9.32 years before payback on a straight-line calculation. Which carefully avoids the concept of Time-Value of Money. On a monthly basis, that comes to $178.85. If you borrow money at 3.5% (unlikely for a solar project with $0 residual value), that would come in at $115.99 per month. Given an actual payback (time-value of money) of 62.86 per month, or 26 years, 7 months. Roughly six (6) years beyond the useful life of the installation.
Had you invested that same $20,000 at that same 3.5% for that same 20 years, on the assumption that you have that much cash lying around, you would have $39,795.78 in 20 years.
NOTE: None of the above counts any sort of maintenance. Such as cutting the grass, scrub or whatever underneath the panels, cleaning the panels - which needs to be done. Snow removal if relevant. Bad days, rain, clouds, nor any other adverse conditions. Equipment servicing - Grid-Tie inverters need regular servicing and certification. And so forth.
One last myth: Appreciation of property - 20,000 watts of panels will take 67 panels at 300 watts per each (optimistic). Each panel is 2 square meters - very roughly 10 square feet. 670 square feet is, again, very roughly 26 feet square. Not one helluva lot of land to appreciate. And an installation that small will hardly generate the material discounts that a Utility-Scale installation will command. But, for you, we are ignoring the hard truths, while looking only at the raw, optimistic numbers.
Solar, without subsidies is a bad deal. Full stop.
Solar with subsidies is a bad deal for the taxpayers. Full stop.
Solar, with or without subsidies is a bad deal for the Planet. Full stop.
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2019, 12:14:12 PM12/31/19
to
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
>
> The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
There is that. There is the false assumption of $2,500 in avoided utility bills - possible in some parts of the US with good sun, no snow, and dry-but-dust-free weather. Oh, and the service life of 35 years. Sure. All good.
>
> The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
And, of course, EnergySage wants to sell you solar panels on commission from local installers. Naturally, their figures will be highly optimistic.
peterw...@gmail.com
Dec 31, 2019, 12:17:01 PM12/31/19
to
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 2, 2020, 9:53:47 AM1/2/20
to
So if you don't plan on staying past 8 years, don't install - even though even your resale value will increase.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 2, 2020, 9:55:41 AM1/2/20
to
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
Solar Tax Exemptions
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-tax-exemptions
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 2, 2020, 10:24:11 AM1/2/20
to
Yikes!
Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
Schiller
When will you understand that there is no effective payback on Solar unless:
a) You have a 'free' source of original funding.
b) There are no peripheral costs to the installation.
Why:
a) TVM at 3.5% makes the linear payback over 26 years at $0.14/KWH in 2020 dollars. That is beyond the expected service life (80% of nameplate) of a solar panel. 3.5% is an optimistic interest rate for a project of this type.
b) The lifetime cost of a solar panel exceeds the amount of energy it produces. Again, from production of raw materials to disposition of the exhausted panel.
c) Government subsidies are an outright theft of taxpayer money. Perhaps not as egregious as the F35 fighter, but close enough.
I choose not to steal from you via a subsidy for an already marginal system. Or are you OK with me picking your pocket?
Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
Schiller
When will you understand that there is no effective payback on Solar unless:
a) You have a 'free' source of original funding.
b) There are no peripheral costs to the installation.
Why:
a) TVM at 3.5% makes the linear payback over 26 years at $0.14/KWH in 2020 dollars. That is beyond the expected service life (80% of nameplate) of a solar panel. 3.5% is an optimistic interest rate for a project of this type.
b) The lifetime cost of a solar panel exceeds the amount of energy it produces. Again, from production of raw materials to disposition of the exhausted panel.
c) Government subsidies are an outright theft of taxpayer money. Perhaps not as egregious as the F35 fighter, but close enough.
I choose not to steal from you via a subsidy for an already marginal system. Or are you OK with me picking your pocket?
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 2, 2020, 10:33:00 AM1/2/20
to
So, just for laughs, I followed one of those links for "free Solar"
Went though the calculations and such.
Then found out I needed to pay $3500 up front.
Perhaps I missed the part about free.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
Went though the calculations and such.
Then found out I needed to pay $3500 up front.
Perhaps I missed the part about free.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 3, 2020, 9:44:38 AM1/3/20
to
"At 8 years, I have recouped the actual cost of the installation/purchase, so the next 8 years are 'free', in a manner of speaking. "
Quora - How does solar panel wear out?
-- https://tch861725.tch.www.quora.com/How-does-solar-panel-wear-out
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 3, 2020, 9:58:09 AM1/3/20
to
I am beginning to believe that you have made a recent commitment to Solar Panels. And, therefore, are required to convince yourself of their efficacy despite all evidence to the contrary.
a) An 8-year payback is achievable, sure. With a subsidy. Who pays that subsidy is the issue.
b) An 8 - 11 year payback is achievable without a subsidy, sure. Assuming the time-value of the invested money is 0, and inflation is 0.
c) And, assuming a) & b), there is no maintenance of any nature required. Which, of course, is not the case.
One more point not yet mentioned: The typical life-span of a grid-tie inverter is about 10 years, with the outside being 20 years. A 6KW inverter, installed, will be about $2,000. We are also ignoring battery storage, and an uplink transformer as we are assuming a single residential installation, not a Utility Scale installation (much cheaper per watt).
a) An 8-year payback is achievable, sure. With a subsidy. Who pays that subsidy is the issue.
b) An 8 - 11 year payback is achievable without a subsidy, sure. Assuming the time-value of the invested money is 0, and inflation is 0.
c) And, assuming a) & b), there is no maintenance of any nature required. Which, of course, is not the case.
One more point not yet mentioned: The typical life-span of a grid-tie inverter is about 10 years, with the outside being 20 years. A 6KW inverter, installed, will be about $2,000. We are also ignoring battery storage, and an uplink transformer as we are assuming a single residential installation, not a Utility Scale installation (much cheaper per watt).
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 6, 2020, 9:43:23 AM1/6/20
to
Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 6, 2020, 9:53:43 AM1/6/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum.
> Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 8, 2020, 7:54:31 AM1/8/20
to
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
>
> Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum.
The headlines say that coal is MORE inefficient than wind or solar:
> On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
>
> Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum.
"Climate Change: Coal Now More Expensive Than Wind, Solar Energy"
USAToday - June 4, 2019
-- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/04/climate-change-coal-now-more-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 8, 2020, 11:50:56 AM1/8/20
to
Efficiency is not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the actual lifetime cost of Solar as compared to the actual return over that lifetime.
No one in this discussion has actually mentioned coal (or any other fossil fuel) as I read it.
Nuclear and Wind power have been mentioned.
Wind is limited by and to appropriate locations, but as to cost and efficiency, it is a the top of the list.
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.
No one in this discussion has actually mentioned coal (or any other fossil fuel) as I read it.
Nuclear and Wind power have been mentioned.
Wind is limited by and to appropriate locations, but as to cost and efficiency, it is a the top of the list.
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.
John Robertson
Jan 8, 2020, 1:45:27 PM1/8/20
to
On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., pf...@aol.com wrote:
> ...
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166
Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield
John :-#)#
> ...
> Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
>
The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
>
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166
Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield
John :-#)#
Chuck
Jan 8, 2020, 2:40:39 PM1/8/20
to
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
wrote:
John,
Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers?
There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no
trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I
wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east.
The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such
ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes
drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck
wrote:
Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers?
There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no
trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I
wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east.
The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such
ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes
drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 8, 2020, 3:49:34 PM1/8/20
to
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Efficiency is not what is under discussion.
Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money).
> Efficiency is not what is under discussion.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 8, 2020, 4:44:04 PM1/8/20
to
John Robertson
Jan 8, 2020, 5:24:11 PM1/8/20
to
about the devastation that the people of Sudbury enjoyed from their main
employer.
In some respects it was only fair to ship the pollution further as both
Canadians and Americans had the benefit of "The Big Nickle" and both
should pay the price. And (as far as I know) Inco was forced to clean up
their act because of all that pollution because it turned out that the
rest of Canada and the US didn't care for all that crap!
John :-#)#
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 9, 2020, 9:46:02 AM1/9/20
to
This is well-known within the solar power industry. You do not "get" this basic fact.
Chuck
Jan 9, 2020, 12:17:35 PM1/9/20
to
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:24:03 -0800, John Robertson <sp...@flippers.com>
John,
The chimney went into operation in 1972. I was there in 72 just before
it went live. I went through 3 years later and there were already
green shoots appearing out of cracks in the bedrock.
The chimney went into operation in 1972. I was there in 72 just before
it went live. I went through 3 years later and there were already
green shoots appearing out of cracks in the bedrock.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 10, 2020, 2:25:11 PM1/10/20
to
Last attempt here. Parameters:
a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.
A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.
The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process.
Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826.
Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.
Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.
Do the math, if you have the capacity.
Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.
a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.
A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.
The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process.
Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826.
Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.
Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.
Do the math, if you have the capacity.
Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.
John Robertson
Jan 10, 2020, 3:43:37 PM1/10/20
to
So many electrical connections, some will fail.
Inverters will die - capacitors most likely suspects...
Costs to remove snow and clean periodically.
Extra insurance...
https://www.powerfromsunlight.com/operational-costs-solar-panel-system/
John :-#)#
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 13, 2020, 9:57:05 AM1/13/20
to
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Last attempt here. Parameters:
Yes, parameters as decided by the solar industry. Not you. And which costs are included in their well-cited 8-year estimate. Not yours.
> Last attempt here. Parameters:
> a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
> b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
> c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
> d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
> e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
> f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.
>
> A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
> The total
> cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.
>
> The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases
> of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197.
> At the end of the 20 year process.
> Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826.
>
> Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.
>
> Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.
>
> Do the math, if you have the capacity.
> Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 13, 2020, 10:18:38 AM1/13/20
to
Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens.
John Robertson
Jan 13, 2020, 12:40:43 PM1/13/20
to
On 2020/01/13 6:57 a.m., bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
>> Last attempt here. Parameters:
>
> Yes, parameters as decided by the solar industry. Not you. And which costs are included in their well-cited 8-year estimate. Not yours.
>
>> a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
>
> The solar industry determines this. Not you.
>
>> b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
>> c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
>
> The solar industry determines this.
>
>> d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
>> e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
>> f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.
>>
>> A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
>> The total
>> cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.
>>
>> The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases
>> of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197.
>> At the end of the 20 year process.
>
> The solar industry has determined this. Not you.
>
>> Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826..
> On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
>> Last attempt here. Parameters:
>
> Yes, parameters as decided by the solar industry. Not you. And which costs are included in their well-cited 8-year estimate. Not yours.
>
>> a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
>
> The solar industry determines this. Not you.
>
>> b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
>> c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
>
> The solar industry determines this.
>
>> d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
>> e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
>> f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.
>>
>> A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
>> The total
>> cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.
>>
>> The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases
>> of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197.
>> At the end of the 20 year process.
>
> The solar industry has determined this. Not you.
>
>>
>> Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.
>>
>> Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.
>>
>> Do the math, if you have the capacity.
>
> The solar industry has determined this. You're simply tryjng to re-invent the wheel.
>
>> Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.
>
> Because the solar industry has determined it in their eight-year estimate. After which solar operators make money.
>
Sounds just like the Climate Alarmists to me. They define the parameters
>> Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.
>>
>> Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.
>>
>> Do the math, if you have the capacity.
>
> The solar industry has determined this. You're simply tryjng to re-invent the wheel.
>
>> Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.
>
> Because the solar industry has determined it in their eight-year estimate. After which solar operators make money.
>
and you can't debate them because the "Science is Proven" when NO
science is ever proven, only what appears to currently fit the current
hypothesis best is assumed to be accurate.
The hypothesis apparently being that Nature is Good and Humans are Bad.
(4 legs good...)
John ;-#)#
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 13, 2020, 1:16:35 PM1/13/20
to
On 1/13/20 11:40 AM, John Robertson wrote:
> (4 legs good...)
All climate is equal.
Some climate is more equal.
> (4 legs good...)
All climate is equal.
Some climate is more equal.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 13, 2020, 1:53:13 PM1/13/20
to
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:18:38 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens.
Doch. "Im Vergleich zu Kohle ist Solarenergie auch für Investoren weit attraktiver."
> Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens.
peterw...@gmail.com
Jan 13, 2020, 2:19:23 PM1/13/20
to
There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.
Useful when 'the grid' is not available.
Useful in outer space where sunlight is available.
Useful in some other extreme situations.
But as a utility-scale option, it is pretty wretched.
And as a residential option, it is outright theft if subsidized.
And, as an industry, the Solar Industry is no better than it should be, about as honest as the average politician, about as ethical as the average evangelical preacher.
Useful when 'the grid' is not available.
Useful in outer space where sunlight is available.
Useful in some other extreme situations.
But as a utility-scale option, it is pretty wretched.
And as a residential option, it is outright theft if subsidized.
And, as an industry, the Solar Industry is no better than it should be, about as honest as the average politician, about as ethical as the average evangelical preacher.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 14, 2020, 9:40:59 AM1/14/20
to
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:19:23 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.
Agreed. BEFORE the 8 year break-even period is up.
> There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.
(A lot like a mortgage. Its HATED until you pay it off)
Trevor Guilday
Jul 6, 2022, 11:19:32 AM7/6/22
to
I just found this company that talks about free solar panels for Connecticut homeowners.
https://ecogenamerica.com/free-solar-panels-connecticut/
Do you know if any other states provide free solar?
https://ecogenamerica.com/free-solar-panels-connecticut/
Do you know if any other states provide free solar?
KenW
Jul 6, 2022, 11:34:48 AM7/6/22
to
by Demon-crats.
KenW
Peter W.
Jul 6, 2022, 1:26:51 PM7/6/22
to
Despite the politically idiotic reply from Ken, residential scale solar is generally a bad idea:
a) It is NOT free. Just for giggles, I responded to such an ad for Pennsylvania. That "Free" installation would have cost me $35,000 at 2.5% interest over 20 years. The shill explained very carefully to me that "Free" meant "No Money Down".
b) Most of these ads claim that it increases the value of the house it is on, dollar-for-dollar. So, I asked my insurance agent about that. His statement: It does increase your value over the first 8 - 10 years, by about half the installed value. But it will increase your premium by about 20% to as much as 35%.
c) It is a depreciating asset, with, essentially NO value after roughly 20 years. I am unclear on the tax implications of that (there may be some).
d) After that roughly 20 years, it becomes an increasing liability - as it reaches the end-of-service life, removal and disposal is a cost.
e) Single grid-tie inverters (one inverter for the entire array) have a general service-life in a residential application of about 10-12 years. At which point, they must be replaced. Micro-inverters (one on each panel) about 1/2 to 1/3 of that.
f) Only the tax subsidy makes it practical and brings the 'payback' into the under-12-year range. And that subsidy comes at the expense of other taxpayers.
g) At no point in the shill was any sort of maintenance mentioned. Keep in mind that a solar panel consists of many cells. These cells are connected in a series-parallel arrangement such that if any one cell in a group is compromised - snow, leaves, dirt, bird-poop (yes, bird poop), that entire group is off-line. Here in Pennsylvania, maintenance would entail leaf removal quite often, in our neighborhood anyway.
h) Generation figures are generally based on ideal conditions - that is full sunlight, at the equator, with the panels at a clean right-angle to the sun. North of the Tropic of Cancer, summer levels gradually increase as one goes north - with winter levels decreasing. And solar angles change as well.
i) Of course, the sun does not shine at night. For an additional $15,000, I could have had a battery array (Tesla) to store power as-needed. With, roughly, a 10-year system life.
j) These are just the obvious issues.
So, if you are ever approached by a solar sales person - and are into a bit of sadism - state that you are VERY interested, but you would like the individual to present the "Full LIFETIME Cost" of the installation, to include:
1. The source and cost of the panels, including the cost of transportation FOB the jobsite.
2. The cost of cleaning up the mining wastes and disposal of that material.
3. The cost of the racking and mounting system as above.
4. The cost of a new roof (if the existing roof is more than 10 years old, or unsuitable for solar panels).
5. The cost of the inverter(s) as above. And the guaranteed minimum service-life for the inverters.
6. The cost of installation and tying into the grid.
7. The expected service life of the system.
8. The (presumably) guaranteed minimum generation over that time.
10. The cost of removal and proper disposition, to include an allowance for roof repairs (and there will be those costs).
All of the above in 2022 dollars, of course.
Now do a "Time-Value-Of-Money calculation on that total over 20 years, use 4% for inflation (interest rate). Using that $35,000 estimated cost, were I to put that in a bank at 4%, it would be worth $76,689.31 in 20 years. If I made $200/month deposits to a savings account at 2.5%, it would be worth $62,839.86.
Questions to ask yourself:
* Is the cost of the system spread over 20 years anticipated to be more, or less, than my electric-only energy bill? You are replacing one cost with another - so it is best to know what that cost is, in reality.
* There is a cost to be connected to the grid in any case. How much is that cost?
* Which would you rather have in 20 years? A lump of cash, or a lump of nearly-expired solar panels?
a) It is NOT free. Just for giggles, I responded to such an ad for Pennsylvania. That "Free" installation would have cost me $35,000 at 2.5% interest over 20 years. The shill explained very carefully to me that "Free" meant "No Money Down".
b) Most of these ads claim that it increases the value of the house it is on, dollar-for-dollar. So, I asked my insurance agent about that. His statement: It does increase your value over the first 8 - 10 years, by about half the installed value. But it will increase your premium by about 20% to as much as 35%.
c) It is a depreciating asset, with, essentially NO value after roughly 20 years. I am unclear on the tax implications of that (there may be some).
d) After that roughly 20 years, it becomes an increasing liability - as it reaches the end-of-service life, removal and disposal is a cost.
e) Single grid-tie inverters (one inverter for the entire array) have a general service-life in a residential application of about 10-12 years. At which point, they must be replaced. Micro-inverters (one on each panel) about 1/2 to 1/3 of that.
f) Only the tax subsidy makes it practical and brings the 'payback' into the under-12-year range. And that subsidy comes at the expense of other taxpayers.
g) At no point in the shill was any sort of maintenance mentioned. Keep in mind that a solar panel consists of many cells. These cells are connected in a series-parallel arrangement such that if any one cell in a group is compromised - snow, leaves, dirt, bird-poop (yes, bird poop), that entire group is off-line. Here in Pennsylvania, maintenance would entail leaf removal quite often, in our neighborhood anyway.
h) Generation figures are generally based on ideal conditions - that is full sunlight, at the equator, with the panels at a clean right-angle to the sun. North of the Tropic of Cancer, summer levels gradually increase as one goes north - with winter levels decreasing. And solar angles change as well.
i) Of course, the sun does not shine at night. For an additional $15,000, I could have had a battery array (Tesla) to store power as-needed. With, roughly, a 10-year system life.
j) These are just the obvious issues.
So, if you are ever approached by a solar sales person - and are into a bit of sadism - state that you are VERY interested, but you would like the individual to present the "Full LIFETIME Cost" of the installation, to include:
1. The source and cost of the panels, including the cost of transportation FOB the jobsite.
2. The cost of cleaning up the mining wastes and disposal of that material.
3. The cost of the racking and mounting system as above.
4. The cost of a new roof (if the existing roof is more than 10 years old, or unsuitable for solar panels).
5. The cost of the inverter(s) as above. And the guaranteed minimum service-life for the inverters.
6. The cost of installation and tying into the grid.
7. The expected service life of the system.
8. The (presumably) guaranteed minimum generation over that time.
10. The cost of removal and proper disposition, to include an allowance for roof repairs (and there will be those costs).
All of the above in 2022 dollars, of course.
Now do a "Time-Value-Of-Money calculation on that total over 20 years, use 4% for inflation (interest rate). Using that $35,000 estimated cost, were I to put that in a bank at 4%, it would be worth $76,689.31 in 20 years. If I made $200/month deposits to a savings account at 2.5%, it would be worth $62,839.86.
Questions to ask yourself:
* Is the cost of the system spread over 20 years anticipated to be more, or less, than my electric-only energy bill? You are replacing one cost with another - so it is best to know what that cost is, in reality.
* There is a cost to be connected to the grid in any case. How much is that cost?
* Which would you rather have in 20 years? A lump of cash, or a lump of nearly-expired solar panels?
KenW
Jul 6, 2022, 2:39:48 PM7/6/22
to
My Daughter installed solar here in Colorado. Never asked what it
cost, but cost was spread over years. It did save plenty on electric
though. She moved to Florida.!
KenW
cost, but cost was spread over years. It did save plenty on electric
though. She moved to Florida.!
KenW
Peter W.
Jul 6, 2022, 3:49:05 PM7/6/22
to
There are several states I would never live in, in no particular order:
Oregon People
California Climate & People
Florida People & Climate
Arizona Climate
New Mexico Climate
Mississippi/Alabama/South Carolina/Tennessee People
There are several I have lived in, and would again.
New York
Texas (Austin area)
Rhode Island
Michigan
Illinois
And there are several I have visited, and would live in - some parts, anyway:
Any New England state.
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Colorado
To the he rest, I am indifferent. I have visited all but two (North Dakota and Hawaii).
But, of all of them, Pennsylvania does have, to my way of thinking, generally good people, generally a good climate, exceedingly good healthcare, good tax structure - for me, anyway, and an excellent educational infrastructure from pre-school through higher education. Which is, also in my mind, the single most critical indicator of generally good and thoughtful government. An uneducated population is useless in this world at every level. When a simple device such as a ditch-witch has GPS and self-guiding capabilities, and when Broccoli pickers have sensor-equipped drones pointing to the ripest plants.
KenW
Jul 6, 2022, 6:14:54 PM7/6/22
to
>But, of all of them, Pennsylvania does have, to my way of thinking, generally good people, generally a good climate, exceedingly good healthcare, good tax structure - for me, anyway, and an excellent educational infrastructure from pre-school through higher education. Which is, also in my mind, the single most critical indicator of generally good and thoughtful government. An uneducated population is useless in this world at every level. When a simple device such as a ditch-witch has GPS and self-guiding capabilities, and when Broccoli pickers have sensor-equipped drones pointing to the ripest plants.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Melrose Park, PA
out one time, it was 104f with very low humidity. That would have been
a killer in NJ. That was the main reason I retired here.
KenW
whit3rd
Jul 7, 2022, 4:13:45 PM7/7/22
to
On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:26:51 AM UTC-7, Peter W. wrote:
> Despite the politically idiotic reply from Ken, residential scale solar is generally a bad idea:
>
> a) It is NOT free. ... "Free" meant "No Money Down".
> Despite the politically idiotic reply from Ken, residential scale solar is generally a bad idea:
>
> b) Most of these ads claim that it increases the value of the house it is on...
> c) It is a depreciating asset, with, essentially NO value after roughly 20 years. I am unclear on the tax implications of that (there may be some).
> d) After that roughly 20 years, it becomes an increasing liability - as it reaches the end-of-service life, removal and disposal is a cost.
> e) Single grid-tie inverters (one inverter for the entire array) have a general service-life in a residential application of about 10-12 years. At which point, they must be replaced. Micro-inverters (one on each panel) about 1/2 to 1/3 of that.
> f) Only the tax subsidy makes it practical and brings the 'payback' into the under-12-year range. And that subsidy comes at the expense of other taxpayers.
> g) At no point in the shill was any sort of maintenance mentioned.
> d) After that roughly 20 years, it becomes an increasing liability - as it reaches the end-of-service life, removal and disposal is a cost.
> e) Single grid-tie inverters (one inverter for the entire array) have a general service-life in a residential application of about 10-12 years. At which point, they must be replaced. Micro-inverters (one on each panel) about 1/2 to 1/3 of that.
> f) Only the tax subsidy makes it practical and brings the 'payback' into the under-12-year range. And that subsidy comes at the expense of other taxpayers.
> g) At no point in the shill was any sort of maintenance mentioned.
> h) Generation figures are generally based on ideal conditions - that is full sunlight, at the equator, with the panels at a clean right-angle to the sun. North of the Tropic of Cancer, summer levels gradually increase as one goes north - with winter levels decreasing. And solar angles change as well.
The other points are sound, but the insolation is well-tabulated for most geographic regions, and
that is NOT an uncertainty, unless climate change is an important modulation.
> * Is the cost of the system spread over 20 years anticipated to be more, or less, than my electric-only energy bill? You are replacing one cost with another - so it is best to know what that cost is, in reality.
twenty years, the fact that burying CO2 waste must be considered means that the effective cost of coal
might have to be quintupled...
Peter W.
Jul 8, 2022, 7:25:21 AM7/8/22
to
> Here, there is a problem: if you want to know the electric-only energy bill's expected cost in
> twenty years, the fact that burying CO2 waste must be considered means that the effective cost of coal
> might have to be quintupled...
All that you write is true - as far as it goes. But, there are other options than coal. Writing just for ourselves and our two houses:
> twenty years, the fact that burying CO2 waste must be considered means that the effective cost of coal
> might have to be quintupled...
a) We purchase our power from a consortium that uses, exclusively, wind and (planned) cycled hydro power. Cycled hydro power - pump the water up the hill at night when power is cheap, run it down during the day when it is not. Our 'generation' portion (that power) is $0.0644 per KWH, locked for three years from 1/1/2022. It is mostly from the Rocky Ridge Wind Farm in central PA, and two other nearby. The cycled hydro is in the permitting stage - will it be built? Not sure, not relevant. What is relevant: No coal involved.
b) Agreed on the cost of coal - and "quintupled" is probably conservative if one considered actual, legitimate restoration of the land after extraction.
c) My cynicism towards solar is based on being involved with the installation of a total of 20 MW of solar power across four farms in Canada and Vermont - these were utility-sized installation using SOTA technology and materials for the times (2014/15/16). The Canadian installations broke even at CDN $0.78/KWH based on a 20 year life. The Vermont installation broke even at US$0.57 KWH - both guaranteed by the local Utility contracted to purchase the power.
Now, using your numbers at 5X - and, I think legitimately, lets extend that to the total cost of coal-generation today - which, in this region is about $0.055/KWH. That would come to $0.275. It would take a 10-fold increase to reach the (actual) cost of solar power at the utility level.
As you are, if I remember correctly, in the Pacific Northwest - your region is particularly unhappy for reliable solar.
As we are in the Mid-Atlantic region, our solar angles are reasonable - but in a heavily treed township, and in a forested area for our summer house, leaf clutter is a serious issue. On the other hand - Pennsylvania has some of the best wind conditions in the greater region, and seems to be exploiting them. Other issues, as many throw 'birds' at wind-power:
1. How many tons of mercury do coal plants make? And the effect on all life, not just birds is?
2. Larger, slower turbines confuse birds far less than smaller, faster ones - such that the Hawk Mountain Raptor Conservancy was (and is) involved in designing wind installations in the region.
And so forth.
Were it up to me, nuclear power - using, again, the latest technology, and sized well (as in US Navy-sized) would be the way to go. Oh, nuclear waste, is it? Let me see: There are something like 1,500 underground test sites in Nevada - each one of which will be fatally radioactive for the distant future. From Wiki: The radius r (in feet) of the cavity is proportional to the cube root of the yield y (in kilotons), r = 55 * {\displaystyle {\sqrt[{3}]{y}}}{\sqrt[ {3}]{y}}; an 8 kiloton explosion will create a cavity with radius of 110 feet (34 m).
There is enough capacity there for all the waste generated here in the US since day-1 and for hundreds of years to come. The issue is, of course, getting it there.
legg
Jul 8, 2022, 10:18:50 AM7/8/22
to
;-)
RL
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jul 8, 2022, 10:46:46 AM7/8/22
to
On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 10:19:40 -0400, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>Hell, buddy, we just install the damn things . . . . .
No if it's an obvious fraud or spam.
>Hell, buddy, we just install the damn things . . . . .
--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
Peter W.
Jul 8, 2022, 1:00:19 PM7/8/22
to
> No if it's an obvious fraud or spam.
Let's be a bit careful about "Fraud" - although prima-facia, I agree on 'Spam' as a good descriptive of the emails.
You will be given very artful language in the presentation.
You will be given very optimistic figures - however, the fine print will describe how they were derived.
You *will not* be given the various subtle requirements in the presentation - such as the age, type, or condition of the roof required and/or the substrate (sheathing & rafter-spacing for example, or that slate roofs (common around here) are not suitable for solar panels).
You *will not* be given any sort of maintenance implications.
You *will not* be given service-life expectancies of the peripherals (inverters, battery-banks, if any and similar).
So, absolutely not fraud- by-commission.
However, if you ask after all/some of the above, and continue to get the same artful language, NOW you are in fraud-by-omission territory.
So, the installer is typically a third-party contractor at arm's length to the end-user with the Shill handling the process. In our case, the Shill was none-other than the Sierra Club, and when I called them on the process, they immediately stated that they were working with a "Partner" and received a commission for every referral. We quit them at that moment. Between the Nature Conservancy, Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (we have been to their facility in Kenya), Audubon, and several other more honest organizations, we have no need for a blatant Shill.
legg
Jul 9, 2022, 10:00:39 AM7/9/22
to
On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:46:44 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 10:19:40 -0400, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>
>>Hell, buddy, we just install the damn things . . . . .
>
>No if it's an obvious fraud or spam.
Just saying, it's the buyer's responsibility to figure
<st...@easynn.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 10:19:40 -0400, legg <le...@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>
>>Hell, buddy, we just install the damn things . . . . .
>
>No if it's an obvious fraud or spam.
that and anything else, out.
It's a lot simpler in the medium term - speculation on long
term trends are pointless if the materials at hand are toy
quality and your budget is going to get crapped on every
five years or so, by clowns in office, overseas.
RL
Peter W.
Jul 9, 2022, 11:00:39 AM7/9/22
to
> >No if it's an obvious fraud or spam.
> Just saying, it's the buyer's responsibility to figure
> that and anything else, out.
a) The average consumer knows less about solar than he/she knows about the US Constitution.
> Just saying, it's the buyer's responsibility to figure
> that and anything else, out.
b) The average sales person in the Solar Industry, based on personal experience, has the ethics of the typical congress member, and the morals of the typical Evangelical preacher.
True, "Caveat Emptor" is applicable. At the same time, the Solar Industry, and its Shills owes the average consumer honest and complete answers to specific questions. Certainly no less than that. What is clear, however, from the advertising out there is that those 'honest answers' are thin on the ground.
Ali J
Oct 24, 2022, 4:40:00 AM10/24/22
to
Beyond reducing your utility bill, the tax credits are amazing, standing at 26% federal, in addition to much more from States and even some local financial incentives. Not only that but it provides American jobs that CAN'T be outsourced.
Peter W.
Oct 24, 2022, 7:11:12 AM10/24/22
to
Latest proposal we had from a 'legitimate' solar installer (September) would cost us $32,000 up front, $22,400 after subsidies, and have an 11year, 4 month payback. Not my numbers. The installer offered, what he described as 'very generous' financing at 3.2%. That comes it at $218.37 per month for ten years, or a total of $26,204.40. Extending the payback to just over 13 years. Again, not my numbers, but those provided by the installer. This for a 10KW roof-mounted installation. Not including any related roof repairs. Yes, we have enough roof facing south to accommodate this level of installation.
At this moment, we have a locked in contract with a renewable provider for our electric power at $0.0630 KWH for the next three years, with four (4) three-year options at a capped rise of 8% every three years. Our present monthly electric bill (annual average/12) is $140/month. Let's use the rate after the third option $152.28. We will pay our local utility to transport the power in any case one way or the other, but somewhat less for the power we consume on-site - which will not be transported. So, let's look at a blended rate of $0.10/KWH, vs. the $0.14 we are paying now for both generation and transport. And let's use 20% of our present consumption. So, we will still be paying the power company $37/month for small use, and connection fees. So, our average savings will be, in reality, very roughly $120/month. Factor inflation, make that $200/month.
$26,204.40/200 = 131 months, several days. So, a better number is about an 11 year payback. Better than 'promised' by a few months. What we have not calculated:
a) Any roof repairs - minimal in our case as the roof is only three years old with a 30-year NDL warranty.
b) Increase in our homeowner's insurance - per our agent (Farmers), that would come to about $400/year.
c) Maintenance & repair (M&R) - life of a single grid-tie inverter is about 10 years, and the cost would be about $3,500 installed. Micro-Inverters (panel mounted) have about a 6-year life and require removal of the panel to repair. Not cheap. Does not include snow and leaf removal. Solar panels are series-mounted cells, so if one cell goes 'dark' the entire string goes dark.
d) Eventual removal, disposal, and roof repair at end-of-life.
Or, I can have power delivered from the Rocky Ridge wind farm in central PA at a reasonable cost. And have someone else worry about it.
And, take that same $218.37 and put it into an annuity at 4.2% - what they are paying these days - and have $37,208 in the bank after that same 11 years.
We are pretty efficient for a 4,200 s.f. three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890. We use splits (SEER 25) for heating and cooling, central heat is a 97% efficient boiler, and there are thermostatic valves on the radiators. So, we can keep the house at a reasonable 58 - 60F in the winter, and eight rooms have splits in them which we may set at any temperature we like.
And, at no time did we steal from other taxpayers.
At this moment, we have a locked in contract with a renewable provider for our electric power at $0.0630 KWH for the next three years, with four (4) three-year options at a capped rise of 8% every three years. Our present monthly electric bill (annual average/12) is $140/month. Let's use the rate after the third option $152.28. We will pay our local utility to transport the power in any case one way or the other, but somewhat less for the power we consume on-site - which will not be transported. So, let's look at a blended rate of $0.10/KWH, vs. the $0.14 we are paying now for both generation and transport. And let's use 20% of our present consumption. So, we will still be paying the power company $37/month for small use, and connection fees. So, our average savings will be, in reality, very roughly $120/month. Factor inflation, make that $200/month.
$26,204.40/200 = 131 months, several days. So, a better number is about an 11 year payback. Better than 'promised' by a few months. What we have not calculated:
a) Any roof repairs - minimal in our case as the roof is only three years old with a 30-year NDL warranty.
b) Increase in our homeowner's insurance - per our agent (Farmers), that would come to about $400/year.
c) Maintenance & repair (M&R) - life of a single grid-tie inverter is about 10 years, and the cost would be about $3,500 installed. Micro-Inverters (panel mounted) have about a 6-year life and require removal of the panel to repair. Not cheap. Does not include snow and leaf removal. Solar panels are series-mounted cells, so if one cell goes 'dark' the entire string goes dark.
d) Eventual removal, disposal, and roof repair at end-of-life.
Or, I can have power delivered from the Rocky Ridge wind farm in central PA at a reasonable cost. And have someone else worry about it.
And, take that same $218.37 and put it into an annuity at 4.2% - what they are paying these days - and have $37,208 in the bank after that same 11 years.
We are pretty efficient for a 4,200 s.f. three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890. We use splits (SEER 25) for heating and cooling, central heat is a 97% efficient boiler, and there are thermostatic valves on the radiators. So, we can keep the house at a reasonable 58 - 60F in the winter, and eight rooms have splits in them which we may set at any temperature we like.
And, at no time did we steal from other taxpayers.
Peter W.
Oct 24, 2022, 12:09:05 PM10/24/22
to
Fascinating that you should link to a Canadian website registered just in June of 2022, and updated just today. And, per my protection software, also a phishing site.
Peter W.
Oct 24, 2022, 12:11:18 PM10/24/22
to
bruce bowser
Oct 30, 2022, 6:49:05 PM10/30/22
to
Peter,
solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
Jeff Layman
Oct 31, 2022, 4:47:01 AM10/31/22
to
On 30/10/2022 22:49, bruce bowser wrote:
> Peter,
> solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
Unless battery storage is improved and expanded exponentially, that
> Peter,
> solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
would only work with a world-wide grid. Wind power is not predictable or
reliable, and in winter when you most need it you can get cols when no
wind blows for days. So you have a world-wide grid to link vast solar
arrays on both sides of the globe to ensure that power is available
everywhere day and night.
It would be similar to the gas pipeline "grid" we have at present in
Europe. That's working well with Russian gas, isn't it?...
--
Jeff
Peter W.
Oct 31, 2022, 7:09:56 AM10/31/22
to
On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 4:47:01 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 30/10/2022 22:49, bruce bowser wrote:
> > Peter,
> > solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
> On 30/10/2022 22:49, bruce bowser wrote:
> > Peter,
> > solar and wind are growing, the rest are dead (or they just don't know it, yet)
Schiller
Both wind and solar require pretty large footprints to make power at utility quantities.
Wind requires roughly one acre per megawatt - this assuming that the other open land required for clearances may also be used for farming or other similar purposes - just not housing, public buildings or schools.
A solar farm requires between five (5) and ten (10) acres per megawatt depending on location. Use 7.5.
Nuclear power requires very roughly 10% of the footprint of solar, but the plants produce far more power per acre, so the footprints for a large nuclear plant seem large - but they are not.
There is enough nuclear fuel on the planet *right now* to last very nearly 1,000 years at present levels of consumption. Put another way, present technology uses about 9.5% of the energy in the fuel. Using presently available processes and technologies, that may be extended to well over 50%.
There are over 1,500 boreholes in Nevada, alone that will be radioactive for the next 30,000 years or so. One (1) of the larger ones is capable of holding all the nuclear waste generated from all nuclear power plants world-wide. There are 1,500 of them, once again. In Nevada, alone. Once again.
93 US-based nuclear plants produce 19% of the total power used in the US.
Electricity consumption in the United States totaled 3,930 terawatt hours in 2021. Of that, 746.7 terawatt-hours were generated by nuclear plants.
One (1) Terawatt = One Million (1,000,000) megawatts.
So, vastly oversimplified, the standing capacity for power generation must be 1/24th of 1/365th of total consumption.
That comes to 85,240 MW for nuclear.
That comes to 448,639 MW entirely.
490 nuclear plants using present-day technology would do it, at an average of 100 acres each, or 49,000 acres.
That comes to 3,364,726 acres for solar.
That comes to 4.3 Rhode Islands. Very nearly four times that in actual practice, as last I looked the sun does not shine at night, weather still happens, and above the tropics, seasonal variations are an issue.
As to wind, those locations where it is practical are limited such that it is doubtful that, for instance, whether any of several interior US states would have sufficient capacity, and areas where there are regular high winds, deep cold or other conditions would also be limited.
Any nuclear ship or submarine will demonstrate the portability of nuclear power.
Trevor Guilday
Jan 24, 2023, 4:46:12 PM1/24/23
to
On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-4, Peter W. wrote:
> Not to pile it on or anything:
>
> https://ecogenamerica.com/cost-of-solar-panels-in-pa/
Thanks for sharing Peter. I read through a lot of great articles on EcoGen America that helped me understand solar.
> Not to pile it on or anything:
>
> https://ecogenamerica.com/cost-of-solar-panels-in-pa/
I live in Texas so I found this information about free solar panels in Texas very interesting: https://ecogenamerica.com/free-solar-in-texas/
Haven't decided to install solar panels on my house yet, but thinking about doing it soon!
Peter W.
Jan 25, 2023, 9:53:26 AM1/25/23
to
You can save thousands of dollars from solar energy acquisition through different solar incentives in Texas. Therefore, understanding the Solar Tax Breaks and Texas Solar Incentives is crucial. Although Texas has no statewide solar tax credit or solar rebate program, you can cut costs on solar panel installation through the following programs: Texas Net Metering Programs, Texas Solar Rebate Programs, Texans Federal Solar Tax Credits, and Transitioning to Solar Energy in Texas.
According to different reports, solar panel installation could range from $11,730 to $15,870. However, you can save thousands of dollars from solar energy acquisition through different solar incentives in Texas.
Peter W.
Jan 25, 2023, 9:57:33 AM1/25/23
to
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 4:46:12 PM UTC-5, Trevor Guilday wrote:
Trevor Guilday
Apr 6, 2023, 11:04:21 AM4/6/23
to
"...The average cost of a 6KW solar energy system in Texas is $16,620 before incentives and $12,899 after applying Texas solar incentives."
I may go with the zero-down option but I've been told there are drawbacks to that option.
Peter W.
Apr 6, 2023, 1:01:30 PM4/6/23
to
> "...The average cost of a 6KW solar energy system in Texas is $16,620 before incentives and $12,899 after applying Texas solar incentives."
>
> I may go with the zero-down option but I've been told there are drawbacks to that option.
OK: We use about 650 KWH/month, at an average cost of $16.5/KWH.
>
> I may go with the zero-down option but I've been told there are drawbacks to that option.
Solar Panels are about 280% efficient - per day from rated output. So a 6,000 (6kw) installation will make 16.8 KW (per day).
Which comes to 504 KWH/month.
Assuming 100% cost avoidance - that is no maintenance, interest, financing and so forth, at our rates, we will save $83.16/month.
That comes to $998 per year.
$16,620/998 = 16.65 years of payback.
Texas cost-of-power, on average is $0.14/kwh. Increasing the payback to 19.63 years.
Now, assuming you see fit to take the state & Federal subsidies - that is have other taxpayers cover some of your costs, the payback becomes 13 and 17 years respectively.
0 new messages