On Apr 23, 7:01*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:





On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup..

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agree with you on all the above. Here in NJ, the money to subsidize
solar comes from a tax levied on electric bills. So, the tree
huggers
have what amounts to a tax that hits the poor almost as much as
it hits the middle class or even upper income households. Then
to top it off, they set up the program so that it's one of the
stupidest
I've ever seen. They take the money and hand it out quarterly.
You have to fill out a COMPLETE application, which includes
loads of data on the solar installation that only the contractor
actually doing the work can supply, together with a signed
contract, etc. Then, you are supposed to get a grant of about
$10K or so for your home system.

The problem is that they don;t have enough money in the fund.
So what happens? The people who happen to get their
applications in first, get their full amount. When it runs out
the rest get zippo. And even worse, they don't stay in the
process for the next quarter, they just lose out and get
zippo. Great way to run a program.....

Another way to look at what you are saying is to ask the
question: Would we get better results by taking
the money now being used on installation subsidies and
using it instead for
more research to find a cost effective technology
breakthrough? And another good question to ask is
why have all kinds of other technologies, even more
complex, eg flat screen TVs, make it to market without
govt subsidizing people to buy them?