"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
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

I don't blame you for being paranoid about WW3, if you're from Holland.
History has treated those countries poorly during the last WWs. But
then, who cares if there's a WW3? I'm more concerned about the next big
earthquake. Some scientists are predicting a big 6.something earthquake
in the Southern Calif. desert before Sept. I hope so, 'cause some of
these immigrants might consider going back to their point of
origination.

"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.