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

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Anthony Matonak wrote:

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.

In fact, we had one of these installed around 1980, just after the
Feds started the rebate program and my late wife's dad died, leaving
her a bunch'o'bucks. It worked _very_ well indeed until June 2002,
when it died catastrophically, leaking water in a proprietary fitting,
just after we got back from Canada. It gave yeoman service up to then,
and if I could find someone with the parts, I'd put it back in service
again. It was _really_ nice to have 300 gallons of hot water _and_
forced-air heating to all the rooms in the house. Now we're back to a
floor furnace.

The only thing I had to do in all those 20+ years was install a switch
to sense loss of water pressure and turn off the recirc pump for the
silicone oil, so that it wouldn't overheat and decompose because it
didn't see cool water in the heat exchanger. After a little bit of cut
and try, the plumber and I got that working just fine.

Oh, and we did actually wear out (water flow around a bend in a tube
finally wore through the tube wall) a heat exchanger, but that was
replaced under warranty.

I miss it.

--
Mike Andrews

Tired old sysadmin

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Anthony Matonak wrote:

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.

In fact, we had one of these installed around 1980, just after the
Feds started the rebate program and my late wife's dad died, leaving
her a bunch'o'bucks. It worked _very_ well indeed until June 2002,
when it died catastrophically, leaking water in a proprietary fitting,
just after we got back from Canada. It gave yeoman service up to then,
and if I could find someone with the parts, I'd put it back in service
again. It was _really_ nice to have 300 gallons of hot water _and_
forced-air heating to all the rooms in the house. Now we're back to a
floor furnace.

The only thing I had to do in all those 20+ years was install a switch
to sense loss of water pressure and turn off the recirc pump for the
silicone oil, so that it wouldn't overheat and decompose because it
didn't see cool water in the heat exchanger. After a little bit of cut
and try, the plumber and I got that working just fine.

Oh, and we did actually wear out (water flow around a bend in a tube
finally wore through the tube wall) a heat exchanger, but that was
replaced under warranty.

I miss it.

--
Mike Andrews

Tired old sysadmin

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP

So now you saying solar thermal has no pay back ? ... please ... solar
thermal is about 5x better than solar PV in payback times.

The cost is about 1700.00 (US) for a system that will replace about 90% of
domestic hot-water needs , and in my last house , lowered my electric usage
by about 45 dollars a month.

There are many web-references to the 3-4 year break even ... instead of
picking on my grammar , spend some time to get your facts right and use
Google for references instead of your obvious fact-less opinions of solar
thermal and solar electric.






"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...

SNIP

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.

I think that the figures that you gave might be optimum, but not
realistic, when other things are considered. Like dirt and snow can
seriously reduce the solar output. So some maintenance has to be done.
And there are other factors, intangibles, that have to be considered,
such as breakdown on the electronics. When that happens, the owner may
have to make a tough decision to spend a lot of money to repair, or just
leave it unrepaired and disconnect it. Don't say that's not going to
happen! Most of the solar heater panels I've seen are not working after
a few years. It's a just matter of entropy. Things just get ignored
and turn to dust, and no one bothers with them anymore.

BTW, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs
work.
[snip]

So now you saying solar thermal has no pay back ? ... please ... solar
thermal is about 5x better than solar PV in payback times.

The cost is about 1700.00 (US) for a system that will replace about 90% of
domestic hot-water needs , and in my last house , lowered my electric usage
by about 45 dollars a month.

There are many web-references to the 3-4 year break even ... instead of
picking on my grammar , spend some time to get your facts right and use
Google for references instead of your obvious fact-less opinions of solar
thermal and solar electric.






"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...

SNIP

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.

I think that the figures that you gave might be optimum, but not
realistic, when other things are considered. Like dirt and snow can
seriously reduce the solar output. So some maintenance has to be done.
And there are other factors, intangibles, that have to be considered,
such as breakdown on the electronics. When that happens, the owner may
have to make a tough decision to spend a lot of money to repair, or just
leave it unrepaired and disconnect it. Don't say that's not going to
happen! Most of the solar heater panels I've seen are not working after
a few years. It's a just matter of entropy. Things just get ignored
and turn to dust, and no one bothers with them anymore.

BTW, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs
work.
[snip]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP

Your figures are off, and are unrealistic. You said money
halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today
and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2.
And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K
mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of
$72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at
the high end already, and won't see the same kind of
percentage increases that people starting out will see.
It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making
$72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now.
If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely
older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the
payback, if it does come.

What is needed to make solar economically viable for the
masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or
a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided
power. That does not mean that there are no individual
cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor
does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid.
But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the
people who can connect to the grid. The number of
people who are grid connected and are economically ahead
with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who
clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year
payback period - and that's without considering mortgage,
degradation, maintenance etc. over time.

Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking
even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial
move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due
to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but
still an asinine financial move, unless you have some
idea of when the break-even point will be. In most
cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off
playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have
a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run
the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation.

I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy,
or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay
it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California
is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him
about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his
entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of
everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability
and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good
info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites,
I recommend taking a look.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP

Your figures are off, and are unrealistic. You said money
halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today
and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2.
And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K
mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of
$72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at
the high end already, and won't see the same kind of
percentage increases that people starting out will see.
It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making
$72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now.
If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely
older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the
payback, if it does come.

What is needed to make solar economically viable for the
masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or
a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided
power. That does not mean that there are no individual
cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor
does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid.
But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the
people who can connect to the grid. The number of
people who are grid connected and are economically ahead
with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who
clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year
payback period - and that's without considering mortgage,
degradation, maintenance etc. over time.

Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking
even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial
move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due
to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but
still an asinine financial move, unless you have some
idea of when the break-even point will be. In most
cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off
playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have
a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run
the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation.

I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy,
or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay
it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California
is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him
about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his
entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of
everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability
and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good
info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites,
I recommend taking a look.

On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:14:24 GMT) it happened
wrote in :



Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP

Your figures are off,
Of cause they are, it was late...

and are unrealistic.
Not so sure about that, having lives to much more then 50
You said money
halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today
and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2.
And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K
mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of
$72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at
the high end already, and won't see the same kind of
percentage increases that people starting out will see.
Well, the director of ING bank gave himself a 40% raise
form 100000 to 140000 Euro (multyiply a bit for dolars)
this year, IN ONE YEAR, because he said he really deserved it.


It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making
$72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now.
True, more like 310000


If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely
older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the
payback, if it does come.
And usually they have option too.....

What is needed to make solar economically viable for the
masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or
a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided
power.
That last thing will never happen.
I agree the solar cells need to be mass-produced and then
will become cheaper.
Recent research now found a way to double the efficiency to
35 % or more, but these are not in production.

That does not mean that there are no individual
cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor
does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid.
Here in teh Netherlands where i am, you could get the
solar installation almost for free, because of government grants,
so many people did it that the gov ran out of the allocated budget,
and is now drastically reducing subsidizing solar power.

But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the
people who can connect to the grid. The number of
people who are grid connected and are economically ahead
with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who
clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year
payback period - and that's without considering mortgage,
degradation, maintenance etc. over time.
If you get it 4 free, payback starts immediatly.
Problem is that in teh old electricity meters the meter
would run backards, and you got a lot for a kWh into the grid.
Now the power companies fixed that by using electronic meters that
will not run backwars.. clever!, but you can become a 'certified
electricity supplier' or something (I am not, just what I did read),
for 250 Euro or so a year, and then ge t7 Eurocent for a kWh so no
good deal, only costs money.
The solution is IMO to ge tsome large lead acid batteries, keep thse
warm somehow (does not work if -10 C), and use those to cover night
and non-sunny times.
And disconnect from the grid altogether.
For sci.electronics.design, 25 old car batteries gives 300 V DC at
100 A/h, big H bridge and make a nice 50 Hz sine at 240 V..
Maybe I am dreaming.
Unfortunatly there is not a lot of sun here...



Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking
even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial
move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due
Perhaps not.

to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but
still an asinine financial move, unless you have some
idea of when the break-even point will be. In most
cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off
playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have
a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run
the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation.
I was for getting some RTGs... but the radiation....
These could both serve for heating and electricity generation
for 25 years.

I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy,
or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay
it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California
is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him
about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his
entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of
everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability
and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good
info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites,
I recommend taking a look.
I have been to the Guppy site...
I like real data.
Good stuff.
JP