"Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...
Charles W. Johnson Jr. wrote:

[snip]

While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared to
25!

[snip]

Surprisingly enough some SUV owners actually need the SUV at the time of
purchase, I personally drove through snow 70cm deep on a regular basis
prior
to my recent job change. Just because the people in southern California
don't need it doesn't mean no one does.

Charles

Surprisingly enough, many of those people who bought a big Ford
Expedition or GM Yukon could have got by with a lot smaller, and hence a
lot more economical SUV. ALso, there are vans, too, with a much better
gas mileage. Surprisingly enough, it's not about whether or not it's a
SUV or a truck or whatever, it's whether or not it's a gas guzzler.

A van with 4X4 or allwheel drive and ground clearance is an SUV.
Gas mileage becomes secondary if every time you try to move you get stuck.
The small SUV hold a family of 5 uncomfortably the larger hold a family of
seven, mom, dad, grandma and grandpa + 2 or more kids comfortably plus will
pull that 30'+ mobile home they camp in. Again not everyone lives in
Southern California where you can't do anything fun least you violate some
environmentalists dream.

Personally I bought the smallest vehicle I felt could do the job I needed it
to. That turned out to be a V6 that get about 25mpg highway.

Charles

Solar Guppy wrote:

And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ?

What it says. You buy (not build) a complete
2 kW system for $15,000. See below

is that what you paid or

No. There was a long thread in alt.engineering.electrical
discussing this - it's the price mentioned by a guy in
Maine for a commercial system. There's a guy off grid in
California who built his own, like you did. His cost for
solar + inverter, not including batteries & DC instrumentation,
was about 10K for 4 kW. See the site for details:
http://www.electronconnection.com/Media/OurSystem.pdf

just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction ..

Not "pure fiction". I clearly labeled it an assumption,
which is WAY different than "pure fiction". Here's
the quote, since you may have missed the first word:
"Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour,
that solar system would give me 16 kWh. "


I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ...

I don't doubt that. Your write up lends credence to
the much higher cost of a commercial system vs a
do-it-yourself system. You indicated it was very
labor intensive to build the first one, taking over
5 months of your spare time. A first time builder
would go well over the 6 days labor you cited on your
second build. In any event, the labor cost would be
borne in the purchase price of a commercial system.


www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in
the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being
delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check
out the solar deals sections for links
http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples.

My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical
rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in
the least year , more increases to come for sure)

Your average proves that my assumption is way too
high. Perhaps that's what you meant by "pure fiction".
Anyway, your 6 kW system produces 24kWhr/day in
Florida - I would expect lower if it was installed
here (in NY). And it means best case, a 2kW system
here would produce about 1/3 that or about 1/2 what
I assumed. That doubles the "payback" time - which
would never happen with the 2kW system at $15,000
here.



24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real
system , My real rates NO REBATES ...

And at $17,000 for the system, your mortgage cost
assuming 25 years, 7% will be over $36,000. Therefore,
your *real* payback is 36000/2.88 = 12500 (days) = 34.25
years. That assumes your system requires no replacement
parts, no regular maintenance costs, and does not degrade
over time, for the full 34 + years.


Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50%
materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 =
7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in
CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates
are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a
typical afternoon TOU rate) ....





wrote in message
...


"Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote:

Joel Kolstad wrote:
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
wrote:

My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process
lose
reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area
and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a
higher
capacity overall.


The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a
better
charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point
controllers')
can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger
panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on
small
systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile,
now,
and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have
this
functionality.

Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting
people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot
blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every
home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co.
She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we
could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well,
I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new
Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after
submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their
waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think
they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to
make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is
_not_ cheap.


Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time,
if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to
spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid,
solar can become very attractive.)

A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran
the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13
cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming
an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that
solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or
$2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback,
if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system.
Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

Solar Guppy wrote:

And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ?

What it says. You buy (not build) a complete
2 kW system for $15,000. See below

is that what you paid or

No. There was a long thread in alt.engineering.electrical
discussing this - it's the price mentioned by a guy in
Maine for a commercial system. There's a guy off grid in
California who built his own, like you did. His cost for
solar + inverter, not including batteries & DC instrumentation,
was about 10K for 4 kW. See the site for details:
http://www.electronconnection.com/Media/OurSystem.pdf

just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction ..

Not "pure fiction". I clearly labeled it an assumption,
which is WAY different than "pure fiction". Here's
the quote, since you may have missed the first word:
"Assuming an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour,
that solar system would give me 16 kWh. "


I built my 6 kWh system for 17K ...

I don't doubt that. Your write up lends credence to
the much higher cost of a commercial system vs a
do-it-yourself system. You indicated it was very
labor intensive to build the first one, taking over
5 months of your spare time. A first time builder
would go well over the 6 days labor you cited on your
second build. In any event, the labor cost would be
borne in the purchase price of a commercial system.


www.solar-guppy.com , you can see my invoices and the system installed in
the photo gallery. Also under real-time status you can see the energy being
delivered ... , anyone can buy the parts today for a similar amount , check
out the solar deals sections for links
http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=12 as examples.

My average per day is about 24kWr/day so far (3 months) , my electrical
rate is now 12 cents kWr (they have raised the rates about 2 cents kWh in
the least year , more increases to come for sure)

Your average proves that my assumption is way too
high. Perhaps that's what you meant by "pure fiction".
Anyway, your 6 kW system produces 24kWhr/day in
Florida - I would expect lower if it was installed
here (in NY). And it means best case, a 2kW system
here would produce about 1/3 that or about 1/2 what
I assumed. That doubles the "payback" time - which
would never happen with the 2kW system at $15,000
here.



24 * .12 = 2.88 .. 17,000 / 2.88 = 5902 (days) = 16.17 years My , Real
system , My real rates NO REBATES ...

And at $17,000 for the system, your mortgage cost
assuming 25 years, 7% will be over $36,000. Therefore,
your *real* payback is 36000/2.88 = 12500 (days) = 34.25
years. That assumes your system requires no replacement
parts, no regular maintenance costs, and does not degrade
over time, for the full 34 + years.


Do the same thing in California , where 65 % of the cost is covered (50%
materials , 15% state-tax rebate) and the payback is reduced to 17k * .45 =
7650 ... 7650 / 2.88 2656 (days) = 7.27 years .. its actually much better in
CA than this since the rates can be TOU (time of use) , the typical CA rates
are .15 - .25 kWhr ... putting the payback at 3.49 years at 25 cents kWh ( a
typical afternoon TOU rate) ....





wrote in message
...


"Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\"" wrote:

Joel Kolstad wrote:
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
wrote:

My attitude is that rather than try to do this (and in the process
lose
reliability), it's better to go supersize on the cells, add more area
and overall capacity to get you thru the cloudy days, and have a
higher
capacity overall.


The argument usually goes that getting, say, 10-20% more power from a
better
charge controller (one of these so-called 'maximum power point
controllers')
can be cheaper (in additional expenditures) than getting 10-20% larger
panels. It's sometimes difficult to show, though, particularly on
small
systems -- but MPPT controllers have been getting cheaper for awhile,
now,
and I expect that eventually all but the cheapest/smallest will have
this
functionality.

Last nite (Tue, 9pm) I watched a prog on PBS that was about getting
people to use more renewable resources, hosted by Cameron Diaz (hot
blonde movie star), who drives a Prius. They talked about getting every
home to have a solar panel, and selling power back to the utility co.
She also said that if everyone in the U.S. drove a hybrid vehicle, we
could completely eliminate oil shipments from the middle east. Well,
I'd go out and buy a Prius, but one of the guys at work has had his new
Prius since xmas and it took him 4 months or so to get it after
submitting a $500 earnest check to several dealerships to get on their
waiting list. They say they're trying to make more of them, but I think
they really don't want the prices to fall, since they're expensive to
make. In any case I'd like more solar power, but the initial outlay is
_not_ cheap.


Nor does it pay for itself in any reasonable time,
if at all, if you are grid connected. (If you need to
spend a huge amount to get connected to the grid,
solar can become very attractive.)

A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran
the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13
cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming
an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that
solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or
$2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback,
if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system.
Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened
wrote in :
A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran
the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13
cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming
an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that
solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or
$2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback,
if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system.
Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from
the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there
still is a grid during and after WW3 that is.
JP

Use Solar Guppy's measured numbers and show us how
to take into account what you have in mind. I don't
know how to do it - I can't figure out what the
rates will be N, N+1, N+2 etc years from now.

But while you are talking about things "you have to
take into account": you have to take into account
the fact that most homes are not "solar friendly".
By that I mean that they can't get a full days sun
on the solar panels, due to neighbors trees, hills,
the house orientation on the lot, size of the lot,
etc. You have to take into account maintenance
costs for the solar system - it is totally unrealistic
to assume that the initial cost of the solar system
installation is all you will pay during the life
of the system. You also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened
wrote in :
A guy in Florida quoted 48 years pay back time. I ran
the numbers for my home - over 40 years, and I pay 13
cents per kwh. A 2 kW system costs $15000. Assuming
an average of 8 hours per day of 2kW per hour, that
solar system would give me 16 kWh. I pay 16*.13 or
$2.08 for 16 kWh. Works out to 19+ years for payback,
if you don't count on mortgage payments for the system.
Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from
the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there
still is a grid during and after WW3 that is.
JP

Use Solar Guppy's measured numbers and show us how
to take into account what you have in mind. I don't
know how to do it - I can't figure out what the
rates will be N, N+1, N+2 etc years from now.

But while you are talking about things "you have to
take into account": you have to take into account
the fact that most homes are not "solar friendly".
By that I mean that they can't get a full days sun
on the solar panels, due to neighbors trees, hills,
the house orientation on the lot, size of the lot,
etc. You have to take into account maintenance
costs for the solar system - it is totally unrealistic
to assume that the initial cost of the solar system
installation is all you will pay during the life
of the system. You also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to
overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared
to 25!

The definition of "little" can vary.
Would you consider 5 MPG a "little" ?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
Shows the Prius at 60/51 mpg with a couple of VW's in the 38/46 range.
This is only 1.6/1.1 times and not double, especially when considering
highway driving instead of city driving. This means you can purchase
a vehicle with good fuel efficiency without buying a Prius or even
a hybrid.

Most people have a passenger car typical of a Toyota Camry, typically a
6Cyl auto trans that gets mileage in the mid 20s. (you can select yours
here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)

But the percentage of people driving passenger cars is dwindling, more
and more are driving SUVs and trucks. Those get even worse mileage.
One of my coworkers bought a new Toyota Highlander 4WD which is based on
the Camry and it gets even less (she says less than 20) than her 2 year
old 2WD highlander. Another coworker gets less than 20 MPG on a Chevy
Tahoe SUV.

So the Prius gets even _better_ than double the average vehicle MPG.
The Honda hybrids do even better.

Looking at the difference between the hybrids and SUVs, it's more like 3
to 1 better mileage, and that's mothing to sneeze at!

[snip]

You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could
[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

[snip]

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to
overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared
to 25!

The definition of "little" can vary.
Would you consider 5 MPG a "little" ?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
Shows the Prius at 60/51 mpg with a couple of VW's in the 38/46 range.
This is only 1.6/1.1 times and not double, especially when considering
highway driving instead of city driving. This means you can purchase
a vehicle with good fuel efficiency without buying a Prius or even
a hybrid.

Most people have a passenger car typical of a Toyota Camry, typically a
6Cyl auto trans that gets mileage in the mid 20s. (you can select yours
here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)

But the percentage of people driving passenger cars is dwindling, more
and more are driving SUVs and trucks. Those get even worse mileage.
One of my coworkers bought a new Toyota Highlander 4WD which is based on
the Camry and it gets even less (she says less than 20) than her 2 year
old 2WD highlander. Another coworker gets less than 20 MPG on a Chevy
Tahoe SUV.

So the Prius gets even _better_ than double the average vehicle MPG.
The Honda hybrids do even better.

Looking at the difference between the hybrids and SUVs, it's more like 3
to 1 better mileage, and that's mothing to sneeze at!

[snip]

You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could
[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

[snip]

Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very
low.

You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way
of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the
most common, method in use.

Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very
low.

You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way
of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the
most common, method in use.

Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
....
My apt. owner put solar water heater panels on the roof more than ten
years ago, and I don't think they've been cost effective. The
neighborhood vandals threw rocks at one and broke it, so they had to pur
chicken wire over the panels to prevent damage. The cats used the foam
pipe insulation to sharpen their claws, so it's gone for about two feet
up from the roof. The controller and storage tanks are not working as
they should, so I would guess that the system needs repair. All in all,
even with the rebates, it wasn't as good as it was made out to be.
....

In the 80's there were a lot of government rebate programs to promote
the use of solar water heaters. This gave rise to many installers who
existed simply to exploit the rebates and as a result they installed
shoddy equipment and gave buyers unrealistic expectations. Once the
government rebates dried up these predatory companies disappeared
and their warranties along with them. This is why there was such a glut
of broken down solar water heaters and people completely dissatisfied
with the entire idea. This doesn't mean that they can't be cost
effective. I've seen many solar water heaters that have been in
continuous use for 20+ years with only minimal maintenance and the
owners of these appear to be satisfied.

Anthony