On Oct 21, 5:41*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:
-snip-
* *However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

* * * * * * * * * *Andy in Eureka, Texas

That must explain why Walmart, (a publically traded company that is
LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the best interest of shareholders
financial interests) is doing it all over the place. If it didn't have
a demonstrable ROI, they couldn't do it. They are responsible and
legally bound to the shareholders.

How do they turn a profit on the 100s of millions they give to
charities each year? * * *I think they are earning good will with
their solar installs- not ROI.

Aw c'mon! They write off all those good works on their taxes. That
leaves you and me to pick up the tab.


In the long run that is a good thing because maybe, someday, solar
will be a viable option. *But that time isn't here yet.

Nor will it come until there is heavy money poured into research. WITH government participation! If the whores in Congress and the gutless p***k in the White House would promote this the way Kennedy pushed humans reaching the moon, something might get done.
But don't hold your breath. Big Oil and its corporate fellow-criminals
still run the country.

HB