Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article .com,
"RickR" wrote:

JR you obviously got burned

Not I, said the duck. ...at least, not by solar-heated water!

that doesn't make the whole idea bad.

The whole idea? Of course not.

However, I adamantly reject the idea that there are savings sufficient to pay
back the initial cost of the system, not to mention maintenance.

Look at the Subject line above again. The OP's issue with a PRE-heater system
in need of major repair as well as repair of the structural damage done by the
collector makes removal the ONLY choice *IF* saving money is the goal.

One only has to look around - and pay attention - for a short time to see the
idled, abandoned and eventually removed solar systems to figure it out: The
cost savings are NOT there.

Until cold fusion becomes practical; until the price of a hydrogen fuel cell
falls to within reach of other than the hyper-rich; until alternative energy
is available in quantity equaling what we have now in (mean, evil) oil, gas
and coal, I will remain unimpressed with it.

Save energy? Sure. Save the Earth? Whatever. Save money? No way.

Now, if you want to talk geothermal...
--

JR

Those abandoned / removed solar systems you reference are almost all
ones from the '70s and the earliest experiments with the technology.
Rather like the first automobiles, you don't see many in use today
because the technology has improved greatly and today's models are
vastly more reliable and efficient.

Pete C.