The Solar Energy Fraud

[raykeller]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html

August 14, 2017
The Solar Energy Fraud
By Norman Rogers

Solar energy is not always a fraud. If you live off the electric grid, and
you have a reasonable amount of sunshine, solar power, backed up by
batteries, can be a good option for getting a modest amount of electricity.
It will not be cheap electricity.

Solar is good for powering equipment in remote locations. It is excellent
for powering spacecraft. It is good for direct heating of swimming pools.
Passive solar in the form of buildings designed to utilize sunshine for
warmth and light can save energy.

But, do not think that it is advisable to put solar electricity panels on
your roof. Do not think that it is a good idea for your local utility to
build large solar generating farms. Political influence has created
subsidies and mandates that prop up the solar industry. The money is
extracted from taxpayers and utility customers. The solar industry positions
itself as doing a public service by preventing climate change. Even if you
believe the climate change theories, the solar industry is a negligible
force against climate change.

Utility scale solar in the sunniest climates can generate electricity for
about 7 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh). Outside of the sunny south the cost
is about 9 cents per KWh. Most of the cost is capital cost, amortized over
the life of the plant. Government subsides often cut the price in half for
users of solar electricity.

Residential rooftop solar, under the best conditions, may generate
electricity for about 15 cents per KWh. Usually the cost will be
considerably higher. Not everyoneā?Ts roof faces south and not everyone
lives in a sunny climate.

A fundamental error is to suppose that if solar could generate electricity
at a cost equal to conventional generators it would be competitive. The
leading type of conventional generator is combined cycle natural gas. These
plants can generate electricity at a cost approaching 3.6 cents per KWh, or
2 to 3 times cheaper than solar. In order to be competitive, solar has to
generate power not just cheaper than the alternative, but, as will be
explained, cheaper than the fuel consumed by the alternative.

Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night. It stops
working if a cloud passes in front of the sun. Yuma, Arizona, is the
sunniest city in the U.S. Even in Yuma, there are 50 cloudy days and 365
dark nights a year.

Adding solar to the electric grid does not displace conventional generating
plants. Those plants are still there. They just work a little less, sitting
idle when solar is working. The only money solar saves is the fuel that
would have been consumed by the plants that are idle because solar is
generating electricity. Natural gas plants, or coal plants, consume 2-3
cents worth of fuel per KWh. Nuclear plants consume 0.4 cent per KWh and
hydro plants donā?Tt use fuel. As a practical matter, to be competitive,Ā
solar has to compete with natural gas plants, the dominant alternative to
solar. Unless the total cost of utility-scale solar is about 3 cents per
KWh, instead of 7 to 9 cents, it is not going to be competitive with gas.
The less-efficient gas plants consume about 3 cents worth of fuel per KWh of
electricity produced.

Residential rooftop solar electricity costs 15 cents, and usually
considerably more, per KWh. The electricity generated displaces power from
the grid. If the solar power generated exceeds household consumption, the
electricity is exported into the grid. Some electric meters may actually run
backwards if electricity is being exported. In other cases the metering will
measure both grid and solar electricity and payments will be made according
to a prearranged formula.

If markets were not distorted by political influence, rooftop solar would
hardly ever be competitive. But political subsidies and artificially high
electricity prices make rooftop solar competitive in many places. For
example, in California, many owners of large homes are charged over 40 cents
per KWh in certain ā?otiers.ā?¯. These politically inspired rates make solar
competitive for those owners of large houses.

Just as in utility scale installations, the true value of rooftop solar
electricity is the cost of fuel consumption avoided when the solar is
operating. The result is that the utility is often effectively forced to pay
retail rates, typically about 13 cents per KWh, for electricity whose true
value is about 3 cents per KWh. The owner of the rooftop solar also loses
money unless his retail rate is in excess of the 15-cent, or more, cost per
KWh.

The organization, Environment America, has published a report: Shining
Rewards The Value of Rooftop Solar Power for Consumers and Society. This
report reviews 11 other reports by solar advocates and utilities that
attempt to calculate the value of rooftop solar to society. The 11 reports
assign a value from a low of 3.5 cents per KWh to a high of 33 cents per
KWh. This wide variation in the value of solar surely indicates that solid
accounting methodology is absent. All the reports by advocates of rooftop
solar found that the value of the electricity to society was greater than
the current retail price of electricity. The three reports from utilities
found the opposite.

How do the advocates of solar assign a value to society? It is a rather
nebulous idea that rooftop solar has a value separate and greater than its
actual economic value. A favorite trick is assigning a social value to CO2
emissions avoided. This is a highly speculative and subjective benefit.
Another trick is to assume that new grid investment can be avoided or
deferred because the solar is present. But on cloudy days, to say nothing of
night, solar is not present, so how can investment in grid infrastructure be
avoided?

The point of these studies is to make a case that the economic waste of
solar is justified. Once one starts claiming that a dubious climate disaster
awaits us 100 years in the future if we donā?Tt follow the dictates of green
ideology, the door is opened to justifying any green foolishness one can
imagine.

There is a cult, inspired by computer models of the Earthā?Ts atmosphere,
that believes that if we donā?Tt swear off CO2, we will be struck down by a
climate disaster. The exact nature of the climate disaster keeps shifting.
It was global warming and that morphed into extreme weather. Global warming
did not work out because the globe stopped warming 18 years ago. Extreme
weather is a better disaster, because nature is always providing extreme
weather that can be blamed on CO2. The recent California drought that turned
into the California flood is a perfect example.

If the believers in the climate cult were logical, they would be promoting
nuclear power. Nuclear power is reliable, does not emit CO2, and has great
prospects for technological advance. Some of the cultists are promoting
nuclear power, but most have an anti-nuclear phobia left over from the
anti-nuclear power movement of the 1970s and '80s. Most of the cultists are
promoting solar and wind power, even though these forms of power can never
dominate the power grid and provide reliable and economic electricity.

[Winston Smith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, raykeller@looser_losers.com wrote:

>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html

>Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night.

Nuclear plants don't work while they are down to change fuel rods?

>It stops
>working if a cloud passes in front of the sun. Yuma, Arizona, is the
>sunniest city in the U.S. Even in Yuma, there are 50 cloudy days and 365
>dark nights a year.

You really crank your AC and run a ton of lights at 3 am do you? In
most places, solar output matches peak-load. You build the solar
capacity to supply the difference between day and night. It's very
costly to build a conventional plant sized for the peak day load and
then let it sit at low capacity all night. The plant costs money
whether you are running it or not.

>Adding solar to the electric grid does not displace conventional generating
>plants. Those plants are still there. They just work a little less, sitting
>idle when solar is working. The only money solar saves is the fuel that
>would have been consumed by the plants that are idle because solar is
>generating electricity.

The generators have a life time. Any time they are not running is time
before they have to be replaced.

>Natural gas plants, or coal plants, consume 2-3
>cents worth of fuel per KWh.

How much when you factor in the disastrous effects on the aquifers
from fracking?

>Nuclear plants consume 0.4 cent per KWh

How much when you factor in the never ending problem of what to do
with spent fuel rods?

>and hydro plants donâ?Tt use fuel.

There you go. Build lots of dams and electricity will be flat out free
for everyone. Ray-o-nomics.

>Residential rooftop solar electricity costs 15 cents, and usually
>considerably more, per KWh.

Mostly sold by small time dealers. They mark up the equipment
unconscionably and then prohibit you from having storage so they get
to be the broker between you and the grid forever. If you sell your
house, you have to find a buyer willing to accept the deal you made
with the solar guy. Do you think there might be a better model?

>If markets were not distorted by political influence, rooftop solar would
>hardly ever be competitive.

True, the solar con-men could not make their sale without tax breaks
and controls on what the utility must pay for your energy. As with all
good flim-flam schemes, those breaks will go away as soon as they get
big enough to hurt government income and the homeowner will find
themselves at the short end of a life time contract. Do you think
there might be a better model?

>But political subsidies and artificially high
>electricity prices make rooftop solar competitive in many places. For
>example, in California, many owners of large homes are charged over 40 cents

>per KWh in certain â?otiers.â??. These politically inspired rates make solar

>competitive for those owners of large houses.

Sometimes the power companies say it's cheaper than building new
conventional plants. See above re: base and peak load.

The flaw in this pitch is that your old technologies are only cheaper
as long as they are already existing and you don't have to build new
ones. How long since a new nuclear plant went up?

The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
hole in your analysis.

A cost of a new conventional plant and a new solar plant is what you
need to compare. The framework is how to supply new energy to an
expanding market. Do that and your "fuel only - the plant is paid for
and free" analysis collapses.

Heck the local water company will pay me handsomely to remove a swamp
cooler and replace it with refrigeration. They are flat out against
the wall finding new water sources to supply a growing population.

>Just as in utility scale installations, the true value of rooftop solar
>electricity is the cost of fuel consumption avoided when the solar is
>operating. The result is that the utility is often effectively forced to pay
>retail rates, typically about 13 cents per KWh, for electricity whose true
>value is about 3 cents per KWh. The owner of the rooftop solar also loses
>money unless his retail rate is in excess of the 15-cent, or more, cost per
>KWh.

If the value is 3 cents, why doesn't the power company charge me that.
It's ludicrous to pretend production cost is only fuel and then go on
to pretend production cost is the same as retail. You compare
operating cost of existing systems with installation cost of new
systems. You have very liberal ideas on the economics of commerce.

>The 11 reports
>assign a value from a low of 3.5 cents per KWh to a high of 33 cents per
>KWh. This wide variation in the value of solar surely indicates that solid
>accounting methodology is absent.

Or different service areas, with different solar insolation, and
different peak-solar to peak-demand timing, and different regional
fuel costs. All costs are equal to everyone ??? Another liberal idea.

>All the reports by advocates of rooftop
>solar found that the value of the electricity to society was greater than
>the current retail price of electricity. The three reports from utilities
>found the opposite.

Wow. The salesman told me his Gizmodic-7 was the best and Brand X was
junk. That's a surprise.

>How do the advocates of solar assign a value to society?

Here we go off the liberal deep end. Nothing to do with dollars and
cents, nothing to do with cost and markets. Ray wants to build a
better society.

[de chucka]

On 15/08/2017 8:08 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, raykeller@looser_losers.com wrote:

Is Norm still working for the Heartland Institute?

Oh wait
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/norman-rogers

[Trevor Wilson]

> considerably higher. Not everyoneâ?Ts roof faces south and not everyone

> lives in a sunny climate.
>
> A fundamental error is to suppose that if solar could generate electricity
> at a cost equal to conventional generators it would be competitive. The
> leading type of conventional generator is combined cycle natural gas. These
> plants can generate electricity at a cost approaching 3.6 cents per KWh, or
> 2 to 3 times cheaper than solar. In order to be competitive, solar has to
> generate power not just cheaper than the alternative, but, as will be
> explained, cheaper than the fuel consumed by the alternative.
>
> Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night. It stops
> working if a cloud passes in front of the sun. Yuma, Arizona, is the
> sunniest city in the U.S. Even in Yuma, there are 50 cloudy days and 365
> dark nights a year.
>
> Adding solar to the electric grid does not displace conventional generating
> plants. Those plants are still there. They just work a little less, sitting
> idle when solar is working. The only money solar saves is the fuel that
> would have been consumed by the plants that are idle because solar is
> generating electricity. Natural gas plants, or coal plants, consume 2-3
> cents worth of fuel per KWh. Nuclear plants consume 0.4 cent per KWh and

> hydro plants donâ?Tt use fuel. As a practical matter, to be competitive,Â

> solar has to compete with natural gas plants, the dominant alternative to
> solar. Unless the total cost of utility-scale solar is about 3 cents per
> KWh, instead of 7 to 9 cents, it is not going to be competitive with gas.
> The less-efficient gas plants consume about 3 cents worth of fuel per KWh of
> electricity produced.
>
> Residential rooftop solar electricity costs 15 cents, and usually
> considerably more, per KWh. The electricity generated displaces power from
> the grid. If the solar power generated exceeds household consumption, the
> electricity is exported into the grid. Some electric meters may actually run
> backwards if electricity is being exported. In other cases the metering will
> measure both grid and solar electricity and payments will be made according
> to a prearranged formula.
>
> If markets were not distorted by political influence, rooftop solar would
> hardly ever be competitive. But political subsidies and artificially high
> electricity prices make rooftop solar competitive in many places. For
> example, in California, many owners of large homes are charged over 40 cents

> per KWh in certain â?otiers.â? . These politically inspired rates make solar

> awaits us 100 years in the future if we donâ?Tt follow the dictates of green

> ideology, the door is opened to justifying any green foolishness one can
> imagine.
>

> There is a cult, inspired by computer models of the Earthâ?Ts atmosphere,
> that believes that if we donâ?Tt swear off CO2, we will be struck down by a

> climate disaster. The exact nature of the climate disaster keeps shifting.
> It was global warming and that morphed into extreme weather. Global warming
> did not work out because the globe stopped warming 18 years ago. Extreme
> weather is a better disaster, because nature is always providing extreme
> weather that can be blamed on CO2. The recent California drought that turned
> into the California flood is a perfect example.
>
> If the believers in the climate cult were logical, they would be promoting
> nuclear power. Nuclear power is reliable, does not emit CO2, and has great
> prospects for technological advance. Some of the cultists are promoting
> nuclear power, but most have an anti-nuclear phobia left over from the
> anti-nuclear power movement of the 1970s and '80s. Most of the cultists are
> promoting solar and wind power, even though these forms of power can never
> dominate the power grid and provide reliable and economic electricity.
>
>

**The nuclear power cultists have still failed to explain where the high
level waste can be safely secured for up to 20 BILLION years. The US has
been in the nuclear power business for more than 50 years. So far, 2
years' of high level waste has been safely (we hope) buried. Only 48 to
go. Unfortunately, it has taken 50 years to secure 2 years' of waste.

Sorry, but the math doesn't add up. BEFORE the nuclear cultists propose
operating more nukes, they need to show how and where the high level
(and low level) waste can be safely secured against terrorists, Nazi
sympathisers and natural events for up to 20 billion years.

Until then, we need to find other, safer ways to generate electricity.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Winston Smith]

Norm ???

[Trevor Wilson]

**The author.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Winston Smith]

Great. Who and what is he? How does he relate to this thread subject?

If someone has a point to make, please do me the courtesy of doing it
directly and in simple English.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Here is the first part of the first post in this thread:

"
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html

August 14, 2017
The Solar Energy Fraud
By Norman Rogers

Solar energy is not always a fraud. If you live off the electric grid, and
you have a reasonable amount of sunshine, solar power, backed up by
batteries, can be a good option for getting a modest amount of electricity.
It will not be cheap electricity."

The article by Norman Rogers is the central subject of this thread.
Norman Rogers is a paid spruiker for The Heartland Institute, a
denialist organisation, funded by big tobacco, big coal and big oil.

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/norman-rogers


Clear now?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[de chucka]

He's the author of the article in the OP

[Scout]

"Winston Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:o554pc9jcmvq2uj36...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, raykeller@looser_losers.com wrote:
>
>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
>>Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night.
>
> Nuclear plants don't work while they are down to change fuel rods?

Do nuclear plants change fuel rods once a day?

Oh, and must nuclear plants have multiple reactors, and they aren't going to
take more than one off-line at a time for regular maintenance.

[Scout]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:eveoqv...@mid.individual.net...

Then allow me.

The simple answer is you don't. Instead you reprocess it to extract the
transuranic elements, which get recycled into new reactor fuel.

What you have left is only hazardous for about 250-300 years. Which isn't
perfect, but it's certainly a number we can work with.

Oh, the reason we don't do this now?

Salt II, where the US made a treaty to not reprocess expended fuel rods in
the assumption that it would reduce nuclear weapon proliferation and numbers
being stockpiled.

Needless to say the only signatory to that treaty that still obeys that
stipulation is the US. All other nuclear powers engage in some level of
reprocessing for their nuclear wastes.

Oh, and the reason reprocessing was banned is because due to the technology
involved you end up with weapons grade material during the process. As it is
they are spending tons of money attempting to come up with a process to
either extract or burn up these elements WITHOUT getting such high
concentrations at any point during the processing. Now if we were setting up
a plant for say Iraq, I could see that as an issue. However, the US already
has and will have however many nuclear weapons it chooses to have and as
such it makes no sense for us not to use the existing technology.

>The US has been in the nuclear power business for more than 50 years. So
>far, 2 years' of high level waste has been safely (we hope) buried. Only 48
>to go. Unfortunately, it has taken 50 years to secure 2 years' of waste.

Which is all the better reason to reactivate the US National Reclaimation
Plant and Reprocess the wastes we already have. Which also means we don't
have to do as much mining for uranium to make fresh fuel rods from.

A win/win anyway you look at it.

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:00:13 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>Clear now?

Got it. Thanks.

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:43:59 +1000, de chucka wrote:

>He's the author of the article in the OP

Got it. Thanks.

[ads]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, "raykeller"

<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
>
> August 14, 2017
>The Solar Energy Fraud
>By Norman Rogers
>
>Solar energy is not always a fraud. If you live off the electric grid, and
>you have a reasonable amount of sunshine, solar power, backed up by
>batteries, can be a good option for getting a modest amount of electricity.
>It will not be cheap electricity.
>

You need to build a small solar system of your own. Say something to
run a security system with 4 wi-fi cameras, a router and a laptop to
monitor the cameras and alert on motion. Use a 12 volt battery bank
to power a pure sine wave inverter (unless all the devices run on 12
volts DC). This system, including inverter losses, uses about 61
watts or 6.85 amps per hour on 12 volts. That's about 150 amp hors
per day. You need a battery bank that will get you through say 3 days
of no sun, so that's a minimum of 450AH. But you don't want to
discharge the batteries more than 50% so you need to at least double
that - 900AH of battery power and add some cushion to still have power
as the batteries age, so make that 1100AH (bigger is better). Now you
need to know how many hours of useful sun you get in the winter (worst
case days). In central Alabama in winter, you will need 2300 watts
of solar panels to recharge the use on 3 cloudy days in 1 sunny day.
The cost of this system will be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000
(unless you're good at finding bargains). The equipment for solar
power is not cheap.

The panels typically have a guarantee of 90% of rated power for 10
years and 80% of rated power for 25 years. That's your estimated
equipment replacement time frame. The cost of a solar plant needs to
include that replacement planning.

[mike]

On 8/14/2017 3:08 PM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, raykeller@looser_losers.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
>> Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night.
>
> Nuclear plants don't work while they are down to change fuel rods?
>
>> It stops
>> working if a cloud passes in front of the sun. Yuma, Arizona, is the
>> sunniest city in the U.S. Even in Yuma, there are 50 cloudy days and 365
>> dark nights a year.
>
> You really crank your AC and run a ton of lights at 3 am do you? In
> most places, solar output matches peak-load. You build the solar
> capacity to supply the difference between day and night. It's very
> costly to build a conventional plant sized for the peak day load and
> then let it sit at low capacity all night. The plant costs money
> whether you are running it or not.

Your solar system costs money 12 hours of darkness every day and
runs inefficiently for about half of the remaining 12 hours,
unless it's cloudy or winter.

>
>> Adding solar to the electric grid does not displace conventional generating
>> plants. Those plants are still there. They just work a little less, sitting
>> idle when solar is working.

And you still pay depreciation and insurance and salaries and business
costs and distribution maintenance and new installations and and and
whether you generate electricity not.


If you're willing to have rolling power outages because the grid can't
supply
the peak load on cloudy days, solar may be just the thing for you.
Go live in a third-world country for a while and see how you like it.

The only money solar saves is the fuel that
>> would have been consumed by the plants that are idle because solar is
>> generating electricity.
>
> The generators have a life time. Any time they are not running is time
> before they have to be replaced.
>
>> Natural gas plants, or coal plants, consume 2-3
>> cents worth of fuel per KWh.
>
> How much when you factor in the disastrous effects on the aquifers
> from fracking?
>
>> Nuclear plants consume 0.4 cent per KWh
>
> How much when you factor in the never ending problem of what to do
> with spent fuel rods?

What do you do with the waste from solar cell production?
Or battery replacement?
>
>> and hydro plants donā?Tt use fuel.

>
> There you go. Build lots of dams and electricity will be flat out free
> for everyone. Ray-o-nomics.

First thing you have to do is kill off all the tree huggers that
want to decommission dams.

>
>> Residential rooftop solar electricity costs 15 cents, and usually
>> considerably more, per KWh.
>
> Mostly sold by small time dealers. They mark up the equipment
> unconscionably and then prohibit you from having storage so they get
> to be the broker between you and the grid forever. If you sell your
> house, you have to find a buyer willing to accept the deal you made
> with the solar guy. Do you think there might be a better model?
>
>> If markets were not distorted by political influence, rooftop solar would
>> hardly ever be competitive.
>
> True, the solar con-men could not make their sale without tax breaks
> and controls on what the utility must pay for your energy. As with all
> good flim-flam schemes, those breaks will go away as soon as they get
> big enough to hurt government income and the homeowner will find
> themselves at the short end of a life time contract. Do you think
> there might be a better model?

I'm listening...

>
>> But political subsidies and artificially high
>> electricity prices make rooftop solar competitive in many places. For
>> example, in California, many owners of large homes are charged over 40 cents

>> per KWh in certain ā?otiers.ā??. These politically inspired rates make solar

>> competitive for those owners of large houses.
>
> Sometimes the power companies say it's cheaper than building new
> conventional plants. See above re: base and peak load.
>
> The flaw in this pitch is that your old technologies are only cheaper
> as long as they are already existing and you don't have to build new
> ones. How long since a new nuclear plant went up?
>
> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
> hole in your analysis.

Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...

I don't think we have any rational options other than some form of nuclear
for the long term. AS long as we're not investing in making nuclear
safer and reigning in regulatory blockages, we're losing ground.
"Just say no..." is not a reasonable strategy.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

>>
>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>> hole in your analysis.
>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...

What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.

I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not
so good.

Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at
least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they
have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of
the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes.
The fucking north side. With a moderately steep roof. Who the hell
benefits from that? Sure isnt the home owner. And when you ask the
home owner how big the battery bank is...they look at you blankly and
say..."batteries"? When I ask them..how do you store your
power...they say..."store?".

There were a number of tax advantages to installing what turned out to
be largely worthless (to the home owner) solar..but most of them have
expired and folks are now dealing with leaking roofs and solar arrays
that might make the house look "cool and green"...but serve absolutely
zero purpose.

Its been an interesting scam of sorts around here..and the few that
will talk about it..look both ways before commenting.

This is very interesting...considering most of our power is generated
locally via gas fired generation plants..using natural gas from our
very big local oilfields.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jim Wilkins]

<ads> wrote in message
news:1e95pc5hei7op59su...@4ax.com...

I'm good at finding bargains and building / fixing electronics so my
solar backup system cost around $500, but I can't recommend it to
anyone else or buy identical spare parts.

Which pure sine inverter did you choose and how much idle power does
it waste? Mine draws 1 Amp at 24V with no load. It's big enough to
start my refrigerator compressor which draws 12A for the first 300mS.

-jsw

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:03:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

>Which pure sine inverter did you choose and how much idle power does
>it waste? Mine draws 1 Amp at 24V with no load. It's big enough to
>start my refrigerator compressor which draws 12A for the first 300mS.

There are inverters that monitor their output load and only start up
if there is a demand. Any monitoring circuitry will draw some power
but it can be radically less than 1 Amp.

Similar deal with a "tracking" charge controller. (Tracks maximum
power point, not the mechanical movement of the sun.)

I've heard it said the circuit consumes more power than it frees up
out of the PV panel but I have trouble believing that's true. Anyone
have some straight up info?

[mike]

On 8/15/2017 10:03 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:03:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>
>> Which pure sine inverter did you choose and how much idle power does
>> it waste? Mine draws 1 Amp at 24V with no load. It's big enough to
>> start my refrigerator compressor which draws 12A for the first 300mS.
>
> There are inverters that monitor their output load and only start up
> if there is a demand. Any monitoring circuitry will draw some power
> but it can be radically less than 1 Amp.

Sounds good on paper, but add up all the hours when your demand is zero.
I expect most will find the answer is zero. You'd have to have double
wiring and split the load into permanent and transient loads with the
permanent stuff on a low power inverter.

>
> Similar deal with a "tracking" charge controller. (Tracks maximum
> power point, not the mechanical movement of the sun.)

You can accurately predict the trajectory of an asteroid a zillion
miles out in space. Tracking the sun ain't a serious issue.

>
> I've heard it said the circuit consumes more power than it frees up
> out of the PV panel but I have trouble believing that's true. Anyone
> have some straight up info?
>
>

I helped some hams design mountain-top solar systems.
The prototype worked great, but they decided that raising
the panels off the roof and hanging them off a mechanical
movement system stuck up in the air was an invitation for
a wind storm to destroy it.
You can get significantly more power by tracking the sun,
but most people wouldn't like the "wind sail" on their roof.

Once you're invested in the system, a couple more panels
is cheaper than the mechanical system and maintenance of same.

Solar power is not a set and forget system.
Shit happens...specifically,
bird shit. And mildew. And tree branches. And wind damage.
And vandalism.
For all that, what do you get?
You get to be smug about saving the planet
as you drive your SUV two blocks to the bar.
I get to pay for your system thru my taxes and your subsidies.
I get to pay more for my electricity because you're using the grid
as storage. Rolling blackouts are guaranteed once the percentage
of power supplied by erratic unreliable sources gets high.

Rooftop solar is like having a flower garden that requires
continuous attention...or a hot mess girlfriend. Given only two
choices, I'd take the hot mess.

Or I could ride my bicycle to the store, forgo the 80" TV running
24/7, turn off the lights, etc. Reduced consumption is far more
effective than increased generation.

Solar is great if you're out of reach of the grid and have your
own storage.
Solar is rarely effective unless you get someone else, me, to pay
for your system and storage.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>> hole in your analysis.
>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>
>
>What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>mentioned.....

Oh no, No, NO ! They don't WANT that mentioned !

The things are NOT "green", as you mentioned, and
cost a LOT of money per watt delivered. Real-world
lifetime is MAYbe 20 years. The add-on stuff required
for it to be a *useful* power system ... the DC inverters
and especially BATTERIES ... zoom the price up even
more. Plan to sell back to the utility grid ? Tack on
even more up-front money.

The weakest point in the plan is the batteries ... definitely
NOT "green" and relatively short-lived. If you're stupid enough
to put 300 pounds of lithium-ion batteries in your hall closet
expect to be abruptly incinerated at any random moment.
Lead-acid sucks. Nickel-iron doesn't suck quite as bad but
they're expensive and hard to get. Ni-Cads are anti-'green',
expensive and tend to have lifespan issues. I've yet to see
a practical home flywheel-storage system ... and you'd
have to bury it in a little bunker just in case the wheel
ever let go.

Frankly, nobody should expect to EVER make back their
investment in solar-PV power. It's a greenie gimmick at
this point in the tech curve. Unless you live somewhere
where it's solar or NOTHING ... skip it.

Over TIME, the PV cells WILL get better ... higher
efficiency, lower cost, longer lifespans. Some of
the electronics will get cheaper too. COULD be
that better batteries will appear ... the old guy who
invented lithium-ion says he has something new,
much better and explosion-proof too. We'll see.

There's also a trend for most everything to use
less electricity - LED lights, more power-friendly
appliances. The two biggies that WON'T follow
that trend though are AC/Heat and hot water
heaters ... you're basically talking 'raw energy
volume exchange' there.

Now solar CAN be used economically and effectively
for pre-warming water. A shitload of BTUs go into
heating water and keeping it hot. HERE you can
actually save money and energy ... solar-thermal
systems are simple and cheap. There IS such
a thing as heat-powered refrigeration too ... look
up 'natural gas refrigerators'. In theory solar heat
could be used to cover SOME of your global-
warming-related bill.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700
typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>> hole in your analysis.
>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>
>
>What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>
>I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not
>so good.
>
>Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at
>least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they
>have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of
>the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes.
>The fucking north side. With a moderately steep roof. Who the hell
>benefits from that? Sure isnt the home owner. And when you ask the
>home owner how big the battery bank is...they look at you blankly and
>say..."batteries"? When I ask them..how do you store your
>power...they say..."store?".

Read an article recently on the actual cost of a Tesla Solar Tiled
Roof. Great idea, but the savings come at the back end, while the up
front costs - roof and battery pack, are estimated to be on the order
of $60,000.
Granted, that might come down if production can be scaled up
(remember how cell phones used to be hugely expensive?) - but that is
not the same as saying that it will be competitive as a roof.
>
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 16/08/2017 6:31 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>>> hole in your analysis.
>>> Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>>
>>
>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>> mentioned.....
>
>
> Oh no, No, NO ! They don't WANT that mentioned !

**Nonsense. Let's compare apples with apples. If you want to compare how
much it costs to make PV cells from the raw materials, then feel free to
do so. When comparing to other energy generation systems, you should do
exactly the same. With coal, you need to factor in the mine, the
construction and de-commissioning of the power station, the pollution
produced, etc, etc.

>
> The things are NOT "green", as you mentioned, and
> cost a LOT of money per watt delivered. Real-world
> lifetime is MAYbe 20 years. The add-on stuff required
> for it to be a *useful* power system ... the DC inverters
> and especially BATTERIES ... zoom the price up even
> more. Plan to sell back to the utility grid ? Tack on
> even more up-front money.
>
> The weakest point in the plan is the batteries ... definitely
> NOT "green" and relatively short-lived. If you're stupid enough
> to put 300 pounds of lithium-ion batteries in your hall closet
> expect to be abruptly incinerated at any random moment.
> Lead-acid sucks. Nickel-iron doesn't suck quite as bad but
> they're expensive and hard to get. Ni-Cads are anti-'green',
> expensive and tend to have lifespan issues. I've yet to see
> a practical home flywheel-storage system ... and you'd
> have to bury it in a little bunker just in case the wheel
> ever let go.

**All true enough, which is why alumnium batteries look like the way to go.

>
> Frankly, nobody should expect to EVER make back their
> investment in solar-PV power. It's a greenie gimmick at
> this point in the tech curve. Unless you live somewhere
> where it's solar or NOTHING ... skip it.
>
> Over TIME, the PV cells WILL get better ... higher
> efficiency, lower cost, longer lifespans. Some of
> the electronics will get cheaper too. COULD be
> that better batteries will appear ... the old guy who
> invented lithium-ion says he has something new,
> much better and explosion-proof too. We'll see.

**Aluminium batteries have been demonstrated. After production wrinkles
have been sorted, lithium batteries will be a distant memory.

>
> There's also a trend for most everything to use
> less electricity - LED lights, more power-friendly
> appliances. The two biggies that WON'T follow
> that trend though are AC/Heat and hot water
> heaters ... you're basically talking 'raw energy
> volume exchange' there.

**Nonsense. In the past decade we have seen EER and COP figures for A/C
rise from approximately 1:1 to around 4:1 (IOW: 1,000 Watts of
electricity in = 4,000 Watts of heat out). This has been due to improved
refrigerants and so-called 'inverter technology'. Inverter technology
dispenses with old style AC motors and uses DC motors, along with AC-DC
inverters, which allow almost infinitely controllable motors and,
importantly, soft start to be employed. Any A/C system older than 10
years is likely to use old technology and can be substantially improved
upon. Refrigerators are now using similar technology. Pool motors are a
major problem, as they are not generally inverter style motors and the
gains are much lower anyway. Heat pumps are now regularly in use for hot
water systems too.

>
> Now solar CAN be used economically and effectively
> for pre-warming water. A shitload of BTUs go into
> heating water and keeping it hot. HERE you can
> actually save money and energy ... solar-thermal
> systems are simple and cheap. There IS such
> a thing as heat-powered refrigeration too ... look
> up 'natural gas refrigerators'. In theory solar heat
> could be used to cover SOME of your global-
> warming-related bill.

**Of course. And much more if the will is there.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

Just saying no to solar is not reasonable either. We need to invest
the type of funds into renewable energy systems, solar included, that
we have invested in nuclear systems before we can reasonably say that
nuclear is better. Certainly using the solar energy from the past, as
we are doing now when we burn fossil fuels, is not any kind of
reasonable long term strategy. And so far we have proved that we are
not willing to make the investments to make nuclear plants and the
associated waste they produce safe for the long term. And the hazards
from radioactive waste aren't just the radiation. A lot of the waste
is extremely poisonous just by itself, nevermind the extra risk of
radiation poisoning.
Eric

[ads]

My system is totally out of my pocket and is a "solar generator" that
gives me the cushion of not going out in the dark or a thunderstorm to
start a gasoline powered generator. Most (certainly not all) of the
outages here are less than 8 hours. My system can run the fridge,
freezer, Uverse router, a laptop and a TV for 8 hours. If there's a
longer outahe, I can start the generator. If the grid id to be down
for days (not unusual after a tornado) I can drop back to a small
fridge, a few LED lights, 12 volt fans (summer or winter, as needed)
and charging cell phones if the service is up.

The batteries are sealed, low self-discharge, high discharge amps AGMs
designed for a corporate data center UPS. I have 6 of them, rated at
90AH each so the bank rating is 549AH. In the interest of extending
battery life, they won't be discharged below 50% (the batteries are
rated for 80% discharge).

Why would I build it? Consider it an investment in learning about
solar power.

[ads]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:03:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

I have 2 PSW inverters, both from Reliable Power. A 500 watt (tested
to 440 watts because that's the biggest work light I have) and a 2000
watt, tested to 1750 watts (heat gun). The 500 watt unit idles at
about 550ma and the idle current becomes a don't care around 100
watts. Below that, it's 90% efficient for the AC load plus the idle
current. The 2000 watt unit idles at 1.16 amps and is about 85%
efficient (plus idle current) below 100 watts. At 100 watts and
above, the idle current becomes don't care and it's 90% efficient to
about 500 watts and 85% efficient to a little over 1000 watts. It
drops to about 80% at 1750 watts.

In the normal case of using the solar generator to avoid going out in
the rain to start a gas generator, I use the 2000 watt inverter. If I
were in a long term grid down situation, I would use the smaller
inverter as the fridge and freezer would only be in use if I had gas
for the bigger generator.

One solution to high idle current is to control the inverter remotely.
RF remote controls are under $5 from banggood.com and others. Just
wire the relay NO contacts across the front panel switch and the
"idle" cirrent drops to the 15-20ma of the remote receiver.

[Jim Wilkins]

<ads> wrote in message
news:h9p6pcdo95ml7nsht...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:52:28 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>On 8/15/2017 10:03 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:03:39 -0400, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
>>>

> ...

> The batteries are sealed, low self-discharge, high discharge amps
> AGMs
> designed for a corporate data center UPS. I have 6 of them, rated
> at
> 90AH each so the bank rating is 549AH. In the interest of extending
> battery life, they won't be discharged below 50% (the batteries are
> rated for 80% discharge).
>
> Why would I build it? Consider it an investment in learning about
> solar power.

http://www.power-thru.com/documents/The%20Truth%20About%20Batteries%20-%20POWERTHRU%20White%20Paper.pdf
"Recent industry experience indicates that a 4 to 7 year VRLA battery
life is more likely,
regardless of cell size or warranty claims."

This morning I found a shorted cell in one of my test sample 12V 7A
VRLAs when giving them the periodic top-off charge. They were swapped
out of EXIT lights on schedule and I've been using my solar system to
test how well manufacturers' recommended maintenance procedures extend
their life.

The wet cell battery in my truck is 15 years old and still provides
more current than the starter needs. I've really had better luck
extending the lives of wet cells.
-jsw

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:52:28 -0700, mike wrote:
>On 8/15/2017 10:03 AM, Winston Smith wrote:

>>a "tracking" charge controller. (Tracks maximum
>> power point, not the mechanical movement of the sun.)

>You can accurately predict the trajectory of an asteroid a zillion
>miles out in space. Tracking the sun ain't a serious issue.

You misunderstand me. NOT mechanical tracing of the sun. MPPT is an
electronic circuit that Tracks the Maximum Power Point of the PV panel
at the moment. Basically it presents a load to the PV where the
maximum V*I is produced at the conditions of the moment and presents a
charging source that has the ideal V and I point to charge the battery
at the moment.

A form of switching regulator that functions in effect as a DC
transformer.

>I helped some hams design mountain-top solar systems.
>The prototype worked great, but they decided that raising
>the panels off the roof and hanging them off a mechanical
>movement system stuck up in the air was an invitation for
>a wind storm to destroy it.
>You can get significantly more power by tracking the sun,
>but most people wouldn't like the "wind sail" on their roof.
>
>Once you're invested in the system, a couple more panels
>is cheaper than the mechanical system and maintenance of same.

See above. I'm not asking about mechanical tracking. Granted, that's a
bag of worms.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message

news:np47pc9h3ar799qno...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:52:28 -0700, mike wrote:
>>On 8/15/2017 10:03 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
>
>>>a "tracking" charge controller. (Tracks maximum
>>> power point, not the mechanical movement of the sun.)
>
>>You can accurately predict the trajectory of an asteroid a zillion
>>miles out in space. Tracking the sun ain't a serious issue.
>
> You misunderstand me. NOT mechanical tracing of the sun. MPPT is an
> electronic circuit that Tracks the Maximum Power Point of the PV
> panel
> at the moment. Basically it presents a load to the PV where the
> maximum V*I is produced at the conditions of the moment and presents
> a
> charging source that has the ideal V and I point to charge the
> battery
> at the moment.
>
> A form of switching regulator that functions in effect as a DC
> transformer.
>

Using a large rheostat and a DC Volt/Amp/Wattmeter I found that the
power output doesn't vary much on either side of the MPP; the current
rises as the load pulls the voltage lower. A panel's whose MPP was 17V
would give 90% of max power at 16V and 18V. That supports the advice
that a much cheaper PWM controller is good enough below 200W.

-jsw

[Winston Smith]

True enough for the present discussion. But with a conventional charge
controller the batteries' needs at the moment set the loading on the
PV. That is often far from the MPP.

[Scout]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01g5pcta126qjrr71...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>> hole in your analysis.
>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>
>
> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
> mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green.

He never said they were green.

[Scout]

"ads" wrote in message news:1e95pc5hei7op59su...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
>>
>> August 14, 2017
>>The Solar Energy Fraud
>>By Norman Rogers
>>
>>Solar energy is not always a fraud. If you live off the electric grid, and
>>you have a reasonable amount of sunshine, solar power, backed up by
>>batteries, can be a good option for getting a modest amount of
>>electricity.
>>It will not be cheap electricity.
>>
>
> You need to build a small solar system of your own. Say something to
> run a security system with 4 wi-fi cameras, a router and a laptop to
> monitor the cameras and alert on motion. Use a 12 volt battery bank
> to power a pure sine wave inverter (unless all the devices run on 12
> volts DC).

Sorry, but switching the AC only to convert it yet again to DC is a poor use
of your power. Multiple conversion loses.

All these devices will run on DC, if you can run them with 12VDC then set up
a single 12V bank with a single 12V charging system and you're good to go.

If however, you need voltages above 12VDC then set your battery bank up as
two 12V banks, Those devices that need more than 12VDC will run from the
whole 24V bank using a suitable DC/DC converter for each voltage needed,
these regularly run over 90%-95% efficiency. (Note these are NOT voltage
regulators which simply waste the excess power as heat. )

A double pole double throw switch of adequate size will allow you to switch
the 12VDC load to either 12VDC bank without impacting charging or the 24V
items.

However your solar panels will also need to be configured in two banks of
12V each with it's own regulator and each charging one 12V bank. If you make
sure the regulators have enough capacity you can switch the panels between
the regulators allowing you to put all your solar capacity on the remaining
bank once the other is fully charged, or otherwise use this to balance the
charge of the two banks.

Further you will need to consider wire gauge carefully, as too small you
will drop to much voltage and waste too much power, to large and the wiring
cost can be significant.

Last note, you generally do not want to draw your batteries below 50% charge
if you expect maximum life from them, and they must be deep cycle batteries
and preferably dedicated deep cycle, not deep cycle/starting. My advice
would be to stick to 6V deep cycle since they are typically optimized
specifically for deep cycle operation maximizing their performance in this
area. 12V on the other hand are very often dual purpose and thus less
optimized for the task of purely deep cycle operation.

I also wouldn't ignore adding a wind turbine or two because they will often
be charging when the sun isn't out and helps insure battery levels remain
high. Those for sail boats are often pretty durable, long lasting and
reasonably priced.

If you must have 120VAC, then a full sine converter is really your only
option, but generally it's going to be hard on your batteries and it will
waste significant power just being turned on even if you aren't feeding a
load. So should be avoided if possible.

> This system, including inverter losses, uses about 61
> watts or 6.85 amps per hour on 12 volts. That's about 150 amp hors
> per day. You need a battery bank that will get you through say 3 days
> of no sun, so that's a minimum of 450AH. But you don't want to
> discharge the batteries more than 50% so you need to at least double
> that - 900AH of battery power and add some cushion to still have power
> as the batteries age, so make that 1100AH (bigger is better). Now you
> need to know how many hours of useful sun you get in the winter (worst
> case days). In central Alabama in winter, you will need 2300 watts
> of solar panels to recharge the use on 3 cloudy days in 1 sunny day.
> The cost of this system will be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000
> (unless you're good at finding bargains). The equipment for solar
> power is not cheap.
>
> The panels typically have a guarantee of 90% of rated power for 10
> years and 80% of rated power for 25 years. That's your estimated
> equipment replacement time frame. The cost of a solar plant needs to
> include that replacement planning.

As well as loses due to things just happening.

[Scout]

"mike" <ham...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:omvfm7$tks$1...@dont-email.me...

Heck, let's be honest, most people could save far more and be a lot greener
just by adding insulation. Since heating and cooling costs are among the
largest energy demand of any home.

[Gunner Asch]

I didnt indicate that he had.

However...the buzzword in the solar biz..is "its gotta be good..its
Green!!!"

[Scout]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ede7pcl3a42c615ls...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:26:32 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:01g5pcta126qjrr71...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>>>> hole in your analysis.
>>>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>> mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green.
>>
>>He never said they were green.
>
> I didnt indicate that he had.
>
> However...the buzzword in the solar biz..is "its gotta be good..its
> Green!!!"

Must be why solar panels are black then......

:-)

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:19:57 -0700

typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:26:32 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:01g5pcta126qjrr71...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>>>> hole in your analysis.
>>>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>> mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green.
>>
>>He never said they were green.
>
>I didnt indicate that he had.
>
>However...the buzzword in the solar biz..is "its gotta be good..its
>Green!!!"

So is copper arsenate. Green.

[Red Prepper]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:14:07 -0400, "Scout"

And why are my black neighbors known as the Greens?

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message

news:3pb7pc58n0kbir683...@4ax.com...

When I bought an HF "45 Watt" kit I measured 32 Watts into the
batteries, the rest was lost in controller diode and MOSFET voltage
drops and the mismatch between the 12V batteries and the 17V MPP.

However an additional $100 spent on 100W of (used) panels gave me a
considerably better return than adding a $100 MPPT controller to
recover the lost ~13W. The controller could make sense if I intended
to add more panels and batteries and go to daily cycling. I don't
because by my estimate the cost in battery life exceeds the savings in
electricity.

For an emergency backup system where the panels float and equalize the
batteries to prolong their lives a PWM or linear regulator controller
is adequate, since the batteries rarely need the full current the
panels can provide. An adjustable linear regulator is more useful to
experiment with. I still need a generator to recharge the batteries on
overcast winter days (or weeks) and can run it briefly in the morning
and as necessary to make up what the panel can't provide.

I built a variac+transformer raw power supply for experimenting and
added a tap to connect solar panels to the capacitor. As with all
solar battery systems be sure they can handle or prevent backfeeding
to the panels. I had to replace a shorted protection diode in my HF
controller.

When the panels produce enough current to raise the cap voltage above
the rectifier output the supply draws only 3 Watts from the wall
outlet. If a cloud dims the sun the supply smoothly reverts to AC
power. It drives this efficient switching regulator which acts almost
like an MPPT controller:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DPS5015-LCD-Constant-Voltage-Current-Step-down-Programmable-Power-Supply-Module-/122179589051

On a cloudless day the regulator can be manually adjusted for maximum
power from the panels but it can be trapped in a low power state if
the panel output drops and it pulls their voltage down too far to
recover, unless the AC is on.

Presumably if the power is out and the generator running I'll be
present to watch everything so it doesn't need to be fully automatic
like a commercial battery charger. I have a mix of purchased products
that can be left unattended and higher-performing homebrews that need
an operator. I wouldn't sell them so I mention the possibilities for
those who can design their own.
-jsw

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:14:07 -0400, "Scout"

<me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ede7pcl3a42c615ls...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:26:32 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:01g5pcta126qjrr71...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>>>>> hole in your analysis.
>>>>>Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>>> mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green.
>>>
>>>He never said they were green.
>>
>> I didnt indicate that he had.
>>
>> However...the buzzword in the solar biz..is "its gotta be good..its
>> Green!!!"
>
>Must be why solar panels are black then......
>
>:-)

(Grin)

[ads]

I have a wet cell (Group 24 from Advance Auto) that has a 2004
manufacture date. It's been in the basement and used for testing
DC-AC inverters and the like. It gets charged every couple of months
and whenever used. I also use it to jumpstart various vehicles when
needed.
This battery was a great deal as it was a 2-year-old freebie on
Freecycle.

The used 12HX330 AGM batteries were $35 each and their scrap value is
$22. If they last until the next change-out, I can replace them for a
similar cost.

[Jim Wilkins]

<ads> wrote in message
news:i6s9pcds1l24685to...@4ax.com...

Yes, do-it-yourself solar makes you the project manager, engineer,
technician, operator and purchasing agent, which is fine if you
understand it all and have the time and motivation.

[rangerssuck]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 5:16:49 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 6:31 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
> >>>> hole in your analysis.
> >>> Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
> >> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
> >> mentioned.....
> >
> >
> > Oh no, No, NO ! They don't WANT that mentioned !
>
> **Nonsense. Let's compare apples with apples. If you want to compare how
> much it costs to make PV cells from the raw materials, then feel free to
> do so. When comparing to other energy generation systems, you should do
> exactly the same. With coal, you need to factor in the mine, the
> construction and de-commissioning of the power station, the pollution
> produced, etc, etc.

Fully agree. For an interesting look at this sort of analysis, take a look at "I, Pencil" at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil .

It's something of an eye-opener in was to look at real costs.

Next time someone tells you they made an apple pie from scratch, ask them to show you how they made the apples.

[rbowman]

On 08/16/2017 05:29 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
> And why are my black neighbors known as the Greens?

Ah, a Green-Black coalition...

[rbowman]

On 08/16/2017 07:58 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> Yes, do-it-yourself solar makes you the project manager, engineer,
> technician, operator and purchasing agent, which is fine if you
> understand it all and have the time and motivation.

I have a very small (1 panel) solar setup in Arizona. It was an used
ARCO panel, a car battery, and I built the shunt controller from Radio
Shack parts. I still figured in was very expensive per KWH but the
nearest grid power was a mile away.

It worked well although in December if it was overcast I had to decide
if I wanted to listen to the radio or run the computer.

[PaxPerPoten]

That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out.
Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit.
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:24:25 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 8/16/2017 10:29 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 08/16/2017 05:29 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>> And why are my black neighbors known as the Greens?
>>
>> Ah, a Green-Black coalition...
>
>That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out.
>Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit.
>>

Crom knows there are enough Reds demonstrating.....

[Jim Wilkins]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:evkhgg...@mid.individual.net...

I'd count the expense as the cost of education. You will be ready if
used electric vehicle batteries become cheap enough to make solar
electricity practical.

[raykeller]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:78gapcpdog2f8988d...@4ax.com...

Keep in mind that the greens are watermellons---green on the outside, commie
red on the inside

[rbowman]

There is a big solar farm just south of Ajo, AZ. I wonder if they'd miss
a few panels :) I gauge the lack of interest in solar by the number of
panels powering billboards, outhouses, meteorological stations, radar
warning signs and so forth that don't grow legs and walk off. If you're
going to try to steal high tension cables for the scrap copper why not
go after the low hanging fruit?

[rbowman]

On 08/16/2017 11:24 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 10:29 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 08/16/2017 05:29 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>> And why are my black neighbors known as the Greens?
>>
>> Ah, a Green-Black coalition...
>
> That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out.
> Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit.

It was just on the radio that they are going to take down a Confederate
monument in Helena. Since we're a little light on former slaves it was
the Natives that protested. I can't wait for them to get on a role.
We'll have to take down every monument except those for Sitting Bull.

[rbowman]

On 08/17/2017 01:09 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:24:25 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2017 10:29 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2017 05:29 AM, Red Prepper wrote:
>>>> And why are my black neighbors known as the Greens?
>>>
>>> Ah, a Green-Black coalition...
>>
>> That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out.
>> Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit.
>>>
>
> Crom knows there are enough Reds demonstrating.....

"Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S. A. marschiert, mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit"

Last time around the Rotfront and Reaktion didn't do well in the short
term.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:03:00 -0600, rbowman wrote:

>It was just on the radio that they are going to take down a Confederate
>monument in Helena. Since we're a little light on former slaves it was
>the Natives that protested. I can't wait for them to get on a role.
>We'll have to take down every monument except those for Sitting Bull.

Weren't the Indians a buch of terrorists? <grin>

Aridzona's Republican governor said he wasn't much interested in
taking down monuments in this state. We have other issues that need
attention more. Left went nuts.

[Just Wondering]

Perhaps, or perhaps people who care enough about puttering with solar
energy are more peaceful, law abiding critters than the lowlifes who
think stealing copper for a living is acceptable, that the mindsets of
the two groups tend to be mutually exclusive?

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:55:15 PM UTC-4, raykeller wrote:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
>
> August 14, 2017
> The Solar Energy Fraud

"First Solar earned $0.64 per share, blowing past the $0.04 per share estimate"

Technology Sector Update for 07/28/2017
Nasdaq-Jul 28, 2017

-- http://www.nasdaq.com/article/technology-sector-update-for-07282017-fslratenmstr-cm823527

[Neon John]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:30:29 -0700, et...@whidbey.com wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

>>I don't think we have any rational options other than some form of nuclear
>>for the long term. AS long as we're not investing in making nuclear
>>safer and reigning in regulatory blockages, we're losing ground.
>>"Just say no..." is not a reasonable strategy.

You're correct that nuclear power is the only viable long term
reliable and proven energy source. as far as making it safer, you
should surf around the net. Use a search term "intrinsically safe".

Several designs are ready to go, stopped only by the obama blockade
against anything nuclear power in general. Last time I looked on the
NRC site, over 100 advanced reactor designs had license applications
filed. Hopefully the Trump administration will fix things.

>Just saying no to solar is not reasonable either. We need to invest
>the type of funds into renewable energy systems, solar included, that
>we have invested in nuclear systems before we can reasonably say that
>nuclear is better.

What's this socialist "WE" crap, coming from an armchair quarterback?

As far as tossing good money after bad, I present to you hot fusion.
Always been just around the corner, yet nothing works. Same with
solar. No amount of money is going to make an eagle out of this
turkey.

>Certainly using the solar energy from the past, as
>we are doing now when we burn fossil fuels, is not any kind of
>reasonable long term strategy. And so far we have proved that we are
>not willing to make the investments to make nuclear plants and the
>associated waste they produce safe for the long term. And the hazards
>from radioactive waste aren't just the radiation. A lot of the waste
>is extremely poisonous just by itself, nevermind the extra risk of
>radiation poisoning.

Hmmm, I'm interested in this chemical toxicity that you speak of, from
waste that is not so highly radioactive that the radiation wouldn't
get you first. I spent a career as a nuclear engineer and nobody ever
told me anything about that.

Perhaps you should get out on the web more before you make another so
ill-informed post as this. Present day nuclear plants are as near to
perfection as one could reasonably get using 50s technology. ALL of
the new designs ready to come online are intrinsically safe.

Spent fuel is not waste to be disposed of. It is a valuable commodity
that will be burned in fast burner reactors. These are intrinsically
safe reactors that take spent LWR fuel and burn it as its own fuel.
The end result is a tiny amount of short lived isotopes that quickly
decay away. Plus all the valuable non-radioactive fission products
such as gold, platinum, iridium and other metals in that atomic mass
range.

You might start your learning experience at TransAtomic

http://www.transatomicpower.com/

This company, backed by Robert Allen's billions, has a system ready to
go, pending licensing. That should happen without much delay under
the Trump administration. Do note in your studies that TransAtomics'
reactor is fueled for life (40 years). So no refueling outages,
something that seems to have you so wound up.

Once you've started your education with the facts about current
nuclear developments, come back here and explain again to us how solar
could have even a theoretical advantage over nuclear. Assume full
output from sun-up to sundown. Assume 100% efficiency. A solar panel
still makes zero power at night. All the while nuclear just keeps on
truckin' 24/7.

John

John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[rbowman]

We'll see if that brave stand lasts as long as the holdout over Martin
Lucifer Koon Day.

[rbowman]

The copper thieves aren't rewiring their hovels or repairing the
plumbing with the fixtures they steal; they're selling them. If they
connect the dots... When I bought my panel I was told it was an ARCO
takeoff when they did their periodic maintenance. I have no reason to
disbelieve that but I certainly didn't check the panel's provenance.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:15:29 PM UTC-4, Neon John wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:30:29 -0700, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >>I don't think we have any rational options other than some form of nuclear
> >>for the long term. AS long as we're not investing in making nuclear
> >>safer and reigning in regulatory blockages, we're losing ground.
> >>"Just say no..." is not a reasonable strategy.
>
> You're correct that nuclear power is the only viable long term
> reliable and proven energy source. as far as making it safer, you
> should surf around the net. Use a search term "intrinsically safe".
>
> Several designs are ready to go, stopped only by the obama blockade
> against anything nuclear power in general. Last time I looked on the
> NRC site, over 100 advanced reactor designs had license applications
> filed. Hopefully the Trump administration will fix things.
>
> >Just saying no to solar is not reasonable either. We need to invest
> >the type of funds into renewable energy systems, solar included, that
> >we have invested in nuclear systems before we can reasonably say that
> >nuclear is better.
>
> What's this socialist "WE" crap, coming from an armchair quarterback?

'WE' includes the scientific community along with every elected-official. Not just you oil salesmen.

[Born To Be Wild]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that

>mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.

JFC you are stupid. Your silly statement/question is easy to look up,
AND I remember setting you straight on the subject at least a decade
ago. Anyway, you don't have any money and never will, so it's a moot
point for you.

>Now Ive seen many of
>the installatioins...a shit ton of pranels on the north sides of homes.
>The fucking north side.

Sounds like another of your ridiculous lies, like your multiple
laughably wrong claims about your elevation.

Hey, how's the cull coming? Do I have time to finish my vacation? LOL

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:06:05 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Not a lot of Communists floating around loose these days..except for
here in the US.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:56 -0700, Born To Be Wild <BT...@ER.net>
wrote:

Notice he avoids the topic and goes for the insult? It simply shows
he knows shit about the subject and is simply a self loving dink of
the lowest sort.

LOL!!

[Attaboy Luther!]

On 8/20/2017 12:02 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:56 -0700, Born To Be Wild <BT...@ER.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>> mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>>> sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>>
>> JFC you are stupid. Your silly statement/question is easy to look up,
>> AND I remember setting you straight on the subject at least a decade
>> ago. Anyway, you don't have any money and never will, so it's a moot
>> point for you.
>>
>>> Now Ive seen many of
>>> the installatioins...a shit ton of pranels on the north sides of homes.
>>> The fucking north side.
>>
>> Sounds like another of your ridiculous lies, like your multiple
>> laughably wrong claims about your elevation.
>>
>> Hey, how's the cull coming? Do I have time to finish my vacation? LOL
>
>
> Notice he avoids the topic and goes for the insult?

Why should he engage you on the topic when you're a documented liar,
Wieber? You lied multiple times about your elevation, just as you lied
about how long you were a cop and how many arrests of "drug dealers" you
made.

[Attaboy Luther!]

On 8/15/2017 2:44 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>

>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>> hole in your analysis.
>> Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>
>

> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
> mentioned.

Who cares? You'll never have money for one.

> ....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
> sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>

> I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not
> so good.
>
> Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at
> least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they
> have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of
> the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes.
> The fucking north side.

No, you haven't.

[dPdmWx⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛xkegUE]

> Wieber? You lied multiple times abolyut your elevation, just as you lied

> about how long you were a cop and how many arrests of "drug dealers" you
> made.

Wieber might be lying about everything else, but everyone says Gunner
does a great job manning his glory-hole booth. Gunner boasts he is so
smooth because he has lost all his teeth to crystal meth.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:56 -0700, Born To Be Wild <BT...@ER.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>>sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>
>JFC you are stupid. Your silly statement/question is easy to look up,

And the answer is...where?

Adhominum is your only ability? Of course it is.

[rbowman]

On 08/20/2017 03:50 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> Not a lot of Communists floating around loose these days..except for
> here in the US.

Feel free to substitute 'Schwarzer Block' for 'Rotfront'. Probably have
to something with 'Reacktion' to get the meter to scan.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On 08/17/2017 01:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

Those copper breakers are OK. Any steel and chrome or platinum coatings are good.

[Born To Be Wild]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:02:30 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:56 -0700, Born To Be Wild <BT...@ER.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:44:42 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>>delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>>mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>>>sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>>
>>JFC you are stupid. Your silly statement/question is easy to look up,
>>AND I remember setting you straight on the subject at least a decade
>>ago. Anyway, you don't have any money and never will, so it's a moot
>>point for you.
>>
>>>Now Ive seen many of
>>>the installatioins...a shit ton of pranels on the north sides of homes.
>>>The fucking north side.
>>
>>Sounds like another of your ridiculous lies, like your multiple
>>laughably wrong claims about your elevation.
>>
>>Hey, how's the cull coming? Do I have time to finish my vacation? LOL
>
>
>Notice he avoids the topic and goes for the insult?

What, do you imagine I'll try to set your ill-considered opinions
straight... again?! I learned a long time ago that you are
unredeemable.

> It simply shows
>he knows shit about the subject and is simply a self loving dink of
>the lowest sort.

I take it that you don't remember being spoon-fed the most basic facts
about PV, off-grid living, etc. What a shock that you would either
forget, or pretend to forget. You're too busy doling out silly lies,
right? Same reason you're broke and have no hope.

Too bad you didn't wake up a few decades ago and apply yourself. Then
it might have been you riding cross country for 3 weeks, instead of
sitting there making up stupid solar and motorcycle stories that
nobody believes.

[rangerssuck]

I wouldn't count on Trump helping out the nuclear industry much. He's got his sights set on ripping coal out of the earth, to the point where he just canceled the studies concerning health effects of coal mining wastes on the surrounding population.

He promised those coal miners jobs, and by god, they're going to get their jobs even if it kills their families.

[Harvey Weirman]

On 8/15/2017 2:44 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>

>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>> hole in your analysis.
>> Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>
>

> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that

> mentioned.

Who cares? You'll never have money for one.

> ....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
> sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>

> I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not
> so good.
>
> Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at
> least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they

> have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of
> the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes.
> The fucking north side.

No, you haven't.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:15:56 -0800, Harvey Weirman <h...@phill.con>
wrote:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=google+maps+bakersfield+ca&qs=AS&pq=google+maps+bakers&sk=AS1&sc=8-18&cvid=80C7116DE82D44DDBAE62B7EF3F49A9A&FORM=QBRE&sp=2

Feel free to zoom in and check for yourself. If the nursing staff
will let you.

[Harvey Weirman]

On 2/4/2018 4:16 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 09:15:56 -0800, Harvey Weirman <h...@phill.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/2017 2:44 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:32:22 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a
>>>>> hole in your analysis.
>>>> Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the
>>> delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that
>>> mentioned.
>>
>> Who cares? You'll never have money for one.
>>
>>> ....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood
>>> sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
>>>
>>> I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not
>>> so good.
>>>
>>> Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at
>>> least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they
>>> have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of
>>> the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes.
>>> The fucking north side.
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=google+maps+bakersfield+ca&qs=AS&pq=google+maps+bakers&sk=AS1&sc=8-18&cvid=80C7116DE82D44DDBAE62B7EF3F49A9A&FORM=QBRE&sp=2

<chuckle> A map of Bakersfield - cute. No photos of houses with solar
panels on the north side of the house. Not that anyone expected there
would be.

You haven't seen any houses with solar panels on the north sides of the
house. Glad we have that settled.

No "cull", no "list", no "those who keep the list", no "264mph
motorcycle ride", and no "solar panels on the north side of the house."
All bullshit, every word of it.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 07:44:12 -0800, Harvey Weirman <h...@phill.con>

Snicker...I thought you werent able to figure out the controls and
zoom down to "up close" and review the various houses the solar
companies have put the panels on the north sides of the roofs.

And I was correct. You ARE butt stupid. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure you arent one of the morons working for those Ripoff solar
companies? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Laughlaughlaughlaughlaugh!!!

[Harvey Weirman]

You didn't see any houses with solar panels on the north side of the
house. That's settled.

You always get caught lying, and always *easily* caught.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:01:51 -0800, Harvey Weirman <h...@phill.con>

So again you couldnt figure out how to use the program and couldnt go
low enough to look for cells on the north ends of the houses.

No one here is surprised in the slightest bit. You never could pour
piss out of your boots.

[Harvey Weirman]

There are no solar panels on the north sides of any houses, liar.
There' no "program" <chortle> at that map site, you stupid cunt-hair.
Just give us an address, bitch. Give us an address of a north-facing
house with solar panels on the north side. Google will fill in the
rest...and prove that you are lying, *AGAIN*.

You got caught lying *again*, pendejo. Too funny! You always lie, and
you always get caught.

[Tom Sr]

What was in your search at Bing, you dumb syphilitic dole-scrounging
dumpster-diving bitch? Oh, this: "google maps bakersfield ca"

Not one fucking thing there about "solar panels on north side".

There's a good reason for that, you dumb cunt whom I could flatten (with
one hand tied behind my back): You've never *seen* any.

You're such a dumb cunt, Wieber. All Wiebers are cunts. Your mother,
who died of syphilis, was a cunt. You're a cunt.

Why don't you come find me, Wieber, you bitch pussy syphilitic cunt? We
know why you won't, bitch pussy: because you're a fucking bitch pussy
cunt, and because you don't have any money for gasoline, harf harf harf
harf!

HIV+ faggots on Selma Ave in Hollywood wipe their asses with your face,
you squat-to-piss impotent dumb bitch.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:16:51 -0800, Tom Sr <ho...@hummel.fruit-rabbits>
wrote:

So you cant figure out how to zoom in and look at the roofs to see how
the solar panels are set up then.

As I stated before..thats hardly surprising. You are one of the
dumbest fuckers posting on Usenet Ive ever seen. And Ive seen some
dumb fuckers.

[Harvey Weirman]

None are on the north side. You agree. You were just fucking off.

[goodsoldi...@google.com]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:09:35 -0800, Harvey Weirman <h...@phill.con>

However; The second item on the page he referenced was a advert for
"Bakersfield Bail Bond - Bail bond kern county".

Maybe he got confused about Solar Power and Bail Bonds.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

[Harvey Weirman]

Here's what we know: Wieber has seen no houses with solar panels on the
north side of the house. He posted a link to a map of Bakersfield...a
fucking map. There are no "tools" at that site that allow anyone to
find houses with solar panels. Wieber was fucking off again.

Wieber has seen no houses with solar panels on the north side of the house.

[gallaxial]

rb> >
rb> > That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out.
rb> > Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit.
rb>
rb> It was just on the radio that they are going to take down a
rb> Confederate
rb> monument in Helena. Since we're a little light on former slaves it
rb> was
rb> the Natives that protested. I can't wait for them to get on a
rb> role.
rb> We'll have to take down every monument except those for Sitting
rb> Bull.
rb>

Nothign to do With the Topic

[whit3rd]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:08:21 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **The nuclear power cultists have still failed to explain where the high
> level waste can be safely secured for up to 20 BILLION years.

Nonsense. The 'high level waste' is tiny tonnage per year, and we know
of subduction zones that will keep it out of contact with the biosphere.
No isotopes that need 20 billion years to decay can be called 'high level',
compared to (for instance) the natural uranium we find everywhere (a few
million years halflife),

Some isotopes of concern might last thousands of years, but we routinely avoid arsenic,
lead, etc. toxins in the rocks, which NEVER decay to become safe.

The US has
> been in the nuclear power business for more than 50 years. So far, 2
> years' of high level waste has been safely (we hope) buried. Only 48 to
> go. Unfortunately, it has taken 50 years to secure 2 years' of waste.

It has taken 50 years of pointless discussions, led by innumerates
and naysayers with law degrees, to produce zero agreement. There
are real hazards related to early war-effort programs that didn't
even pretend to have a long-term plan, we're still cleaning those up,
but the 'power business' has been relatively benign by comparison;
they do, however, fund folk to counter naysayers with law degrees,
which explains the ire of (for instance) innumerates.