On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:11:38 -0700) it happened Anthony Matonak
wrote in :

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

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Oh, if that was the point then it's already been decided. Right now,
solar PV is not economical or profitable except in niche applications
not connected to the grid. Tomorrow... who knows? It does seem to be
getting cheaper all the time.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the question of "Is the
profitable use of solar PV limited to big mega-corporations?"
I like it that the Dutch solar car went cross Australia in 3 days or so
with an average of over 100 km/h last year.
Now here is a very sensible application in a suitable 'solar' climate.
Those photocells were the same as used by the European Space Agency.
I would love to have a few square meters of those to play with.
JP

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:07:26 GMT) it happened "Fred B.
McGalliard" wrote in
:


"Clifford Heath" wrote in message
...
Roger Gt wrote:
The Indians would war on their Neighbors for anything they wanted.
Kill anyone who resisted and sell prisoners into slavery.

Thanks, I wondered where the USA learnt to do that.
Made a fine art of it now, haven't they?

I wish. If they are making a profit in war, why is our debt load increasing
so fast?
And now that debt is so high, money is scarce so interest rates will go up.
Your house may become very expensive, thank Bush and clowns.
JP

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:07:26 GMT) it happened "Fred B.
McGalliard" wrote in
:


"Clifford Heath" wrote in message
...
Roger Gt wrote:
The Indians would war on their Neighbors for anything they wanted.
Kill anyone who resisted and sell prisoners into slavery.

Thanks, I wondered where the USA learnt to do that.
Made a fine art of it now, haven't they?

I wish. If they are making a profit in war, why is our debt load increasing
so fast?
And now that debt is so high, money is scarce so interest rates will go up.
Your house may become very expensive, thank Bush and clowns.
JP

"James Beck" wrote in message
k.net...
....

No, my favorite one was the "Blood for Oil" screamers.
Since we aren't getting the oil and our prices are now on the rise the
same group is now claiming that it was all a plot to raise oil prices so
"they" could reap huge profits. See how no matter what happens there is
still something to bitch about and it is always "their" fault. Sort of
like the Y2K hysteria.

Well, Jim, my favorite is the fact the oil companies are reaping super
profits and able to claim it has something to do with a minor adjustment in
the price of foreign oil. Certainly nothing they are doing to adjust their
company profits. Really! Ignore the man behind the curtain. Yeah, sure!

"James Beck" wrote in message
k.net...
....

No, my favorite one was the "Blood for Oil" screamers.
Since we aren't getting the oil and our prices are now on the rise the
same group is now claiming that it was all a plot to raise oil prices so
"they" could reap huge profits. See how no matter what happens there is
still something to bitch about and it is always "their" fault. Sort of
like the Y2K hysteria.

Well, Jim, my favorite is the fact the oil companies are reaping super
profits and able to claim it has something to do with a minor adjustment in
the price of foreign oil. Certainly nothing they are doing to adjust their
company profits. Really! Ignore the man behind the curtain. Yeah, sure!

in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

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.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

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.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

"Dave Cole" wrote in message
...
in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the
Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

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.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

I did not write the above please be careful of your snips.

Charles

"Dave Cole" wrote in message
...
in article , Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the
Dark
Remover" at wrote on 4/15/04 13:19:

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.


And this becomes your decision or business exactly how?
DC

I did not write the above please be careful of your snips.

Charles

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...

Sourcing INTO the power grid is also supported in Arizona. Apparently
there are a few customers here who produce more than their own
consumption and get PAID every month. (Not difficult at all if you
own at least an acre of property.)

How do they regulate the current they draw? I mean since the capacity
will vary.


--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-