Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message

And the cost of the equipment is????

Substantial, but it's a long term "green" investment that would probably
generate revenue from selling emissions credits.

What credits? It would not cover the cost or needs of our operation let
alone allow for selling credits. Many of our products save energy yet we
get no credit for anything by doing that either. That brings up another
point. Starting later this year (EPA regulations) we must use our boilers
to oxidize what would otherwise be a VOC emission so we could not go 100%
solar even if it was practical.

That brings up another government mandated folly. We are installing
$400,000 in equipment to do this. The EPA says the payback is in 10 years
if we run a full capacity 365/24. Fact is, we only need this particular
equipment days 6 hours a day to support the rest of the plant. But they
still base their figures on 365 because we "could" run 8760 hours a year
even thought they'd never issue a permit to do so or we could ever need it.
.

That 6hr/day could align nicely with the 2nd/3rd shift when you'd have
to run the fossil fuel boilers anyway. You'd still be cutting some 33%
of both your fuel consumption and your emissions. Again, you are the
only one saying 100% solar, I have consistently said ~33% solar. What
would 33% of your annual oil/gas consumption amount to in $? Probably a
hefty chunk of change towards building the daytime solar boiler.