On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 06:36:08 -0700, "Stu Fields"
wrote:

Having welding, machining, and ceramic equipment, our power bill was getting
out of hand. ( than $200/mo) We recently installed 30- 230w solar panels
and now have watched our power meter go backwards at rates up to 6sec/rev.
In just a few days our panels generated more than 200kwh and one of those
days had cloud cover. Oh and we used the solar installation to also create
a car port. It may take a few years to recover the cost, but just watching
that meter go backwards was worth quite a bit.


A losing deal anyway I figure it around here. PPL just raised their
rates 45% and it's still cheaper to buy it than to make it.

A school district here just spent $2.4 million on solar power, with a
900K grant from the state of PA. That leaves them 1.5M out of pocket,
they say they will make/save 85,000 bucks a year. That gives them a
break even at 17.6 years IF nothing ever needs repair or maintanance
on the whole system. Morons.

I can't find that article, but here's an even better one......on a
planned system.

from www.mcall.com

http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-lett...,5514410.story

The questionable or downright stupid use of tax dollars by area school
districts continues unabated during a period of stretched budgets and
increasing tax rates. The latest is the possible installation of solar
panels by the Nazareth Area School District.

The district proposes spending approximately $5.1 million, including,
according to a Morning Call report, approximately $3.2 million of
local taxpayer dollars, to build two solar plants projected to have a
27-year break-even period. This does not account for maintenance and
repair costs. Given that solar panels lose generating capacity over
time, it is highly likely that there really is no payback at all. If
there is an educational benefit to this project in line with the
mission of the school district, it is hard to understand.

This represents an exorbitant waste of taxpayer money on the state and
local levels. If we wish to strive toward energy efficiency, that is
fine. Let's not do so by expending resources on such an obvious
boondoggle.


Thank You,
Randy

Remove 333 from email address to reply.