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

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.


While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly,

I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar
panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year
lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense
from an environmental standpoint.

mike



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.

That said, there are many things you can do that are quite affordable.
First, you could conserve energy. Replace old appliances with more
efficient ones, insulate your home better, weather-strip, storm windows,
compact fluorescent lights, activate the power saving on your computer,
use xeriscaping and all that lot. If you are a typical homeowners then
conservation alone could be as effective as putting up a $30,000 solar
panel setup.

Then you could buy more affordable renewable energy equipment such as
solar water heaters, air heaters, ovens, stoves and the like. You could
also change your diet to include less animal products. Raising animals
to produce food takes many times more resources (which often means
energy) as plants alone require.

There are also many alternatives to a Prius. One option would be to
get a diesel powered car and use biodiesel or get it converted to
run on straight vegetable oil. Another option is to buy an electric
car. Currently the only ones available are "city cars" which turn
out to be glorified golf carts but they are suitable for very local
driving and can sometimes work as a second car. Some folks have even
had great success with bicycles of various flavors. If you simply
must have a hybrid vehicle then a much wider selection of them should
be available within the next 10 to 15 years.

Anthony




--
Return address is VALID.
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
Toshiba & Compaq LiIon Batteries, Test Equipment
Honda CB-125S $800 in PDX
Yaesu FTV901R Transverter, 30pS pulser
Tektronix Concept Books, spot welding head...
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/

mike wrote:
I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar
panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year
lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense
from an environmental standpoint.

My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no
longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on
where you end up installing the panels!

An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to
see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its
life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously
the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since
all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't
free!

mike wrote:
I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar
panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year
lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense
from an environmental standpoint.

My understanding is that improvements in the efficiency of the panels has no
longer made that true... although of course to some degree it depends on
where you end up installing the panels!

An easy way to determine whether or not the statement could be true is to
see whether or not the cost of the energy produced by the panel over its
life -- using regular market rates -- exceeds its cost. If so, obviously
the panel must be producing more energy than was requried to build it, since
all the labor and materials the manufacturer put into the panel weren't
free!

"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.

"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.

And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? is that what you paid or
just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction ..

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

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)

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

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.

And what does a 2 kWh system cost 15,000 mean ? is that what you paid or
just some made up numbers like your 16kWr per day which is pure fiction ..

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

The current issue of home power magazine directly answers this ...
www.home-power.com

It is a myth (your understanding) , panels recoup there cost in about 2-3
years and will last much longer than 25 years. The 25 years , is the
manufactures warranty for 80% power generation .... The panels will last
until they suffer physically damage, the silicon will deliver power well
past our or our children's life times ...


"mike" wrote in message ...
I once read that it takes more energy to make, deliver, install a solar
panel than the total energy you get out of it over it's 20 year
lifetime. If that's true, (small scale PV) solar makes little sense
from an environmental standpoint.

mike