|
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message ... 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. Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get proper nutrition. That's the problem. [snip] Anthony |
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message ... 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. Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get proper nutrition. That's the problem. [snip] Anthony |
"Solar Guppy" wrote in message ... 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] Facts are facts. I simply stated a fact. First off, that the solar water heater that I have experience with, and that's a *fact*. And secondly, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs work. Fact. |
"Solar Guppy" wrote in message ... 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] Facts are facts. I simply stated a fact. First off, that the solar water heater that I have experience with, and that's a *fact*. And secondly, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs work. Fact. |
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message ... [snip] 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. Well, the question is, did the gov't get what it wanted, with the subsidies that it did hand out? In other words, did it hand out 100 million Quatloos worth of subsidies, and get back _more_ than 100 million in benefits, such as reduction in the amount of non-renewable energy usage, etc. If so, then it seems to me that the program served its purpose and should be continued, and even broadened. But then politics.. But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the people who can connect to the grid. The number of [snip] Unfortunatly there is not a lot of sun here... Yes, that's another factor that should be considered in the overall plan. less sun, less energy from your investment! Longer payback. [snip] But for most people who run the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation. Well, if it was a win situation, then more of them would be installed. I guess the proof of this statement is that few of them are installed in urban areas, where most people live. [snip] JP |
"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message ... [snip] 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. Well, the question is, did the gov't get what it wanted, with the subsidies that it did hand out? In other words, did it hand out 100 million Quatloos worth of subsidies, and get back _more_ than 100 million in benefits, such as reduction in the amount of non-renewable energy usage, etc. If so, then it seems to me that the program served its purpose and should be continued, and even broadened. But then politics.. But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the people who can connect to the grid. The number of [snip] Unfortunatly there is not a lot of sun here... Yes, that's another factor that should be considered in the overall plan. less sun, less energy from your investment! Longer payback. [snip] But for most people who run the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation. Well, if it was a win situation, then more of them would be installed. I guess the proof of this statement is that few of them are installed in urban areas, where most people live. [snip] JP |
"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
... .... Although I understand the reasoning behind it, it's quite ironic how many people out there who live within an arguably quite reasonable bikable distance to their place of employment instead drive to work and then drive to a fitness club afterwards to work out. :-) Although I am all for people using their cars as much as they want so long as fuel taxes or whatever more or less make up for the impact to the environment, but unfortunately it's hard to translate that impact into monetary terms. Yeah, like how many dollars in gas tax have to go into a politician's pocket to save 1 acre of spotted owl habitat? Is that how that works? Thanks, Rich |
"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
... .... Although I understand the reasoning behind it, it's quite ironic how many people out there who live within an arguably quite reasonable bikable distance to their place of employment instead drive to work and then drive to a fitness club afterwards to work out. :-) Although I am all for people using their cars as much as they want so long as fuel taxes or whatever more or less make up for the impact to the environment, but unfortunately it's hard to translate that impact into monetary terms. Yeah, like how many dollars in gas tax have to go into a politician's pocket to save 1 acre of spotted owl habitat? Is that how that works? Thanks, Rich |
Please then state your facts .. did your landlord share this with you ?
what was the cost ? , what amount of hot water does or did the system produce ? how many years has it produced hot water ? and how about some simple numbers to back-up your claim it didn't have an economical payback ... http://www3.sympatico.ca/hipett/ho****er.htm 3-4 year payback http://www.solagen.com/water-heating.htm 1-3 year payback http://www.environment.act.gov.au/Fi...temsreport.pdf 4-6 years (in AU dollars) http://www.ecs-solar.com/solarho****er_faq.htm 3-4 year based on 600-700 year savings http://www.solardev.com/hot-water-types.php 4-7 years http://www.uneptie.org/energy/act/re...cs/thermal.PDF 4 - 14 years (I guess you can pay to much for anything) http://www.sixriverssolar.com/solar_water_heating.htm 4 -8 years Every hear of Google ? most of the above links are a bit outdated , and if today's electric/Natural gas prices were used , payback for a self installed system would be in the 2-3 year range. (based on a 1600.00 kit , that I having bought and installed , replacing 600.00 year in electricity.) I bought and installed and used this system for 2.5 years ... what are your numbers NOSPAM ? "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. SNIP AGAIN Facts are facts. I simply stated a fact. First off, that the solar water heater that I have experience with, and that's a *fact*. And secondly, your followup is not easily readable, misuse of commas, etc. Needs work. Fact. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com