On Apr 23, 5:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:07:37 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Apr 23, 8:32*am, harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:01*pm, 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 -

The price will fall in a few years. Like flat screen TVs. *But the
need is now and urgent.
The prices will be competitive with prices on the grid in just a few
years.

Citation please....

*There has to be an element of forsight in something as
important as energy supplies.
You can't just leave things to the "market". We've seen where that
leads lately.

The govt has been applying foresight to the energy situation
since at least the days of Jimmy Carter. *He poured a billion
dollars into a shale oil project that didn't produce one gallon
on oil. * Yet, so far, we have very little to show for all the
money spent.

Funny if govt foresight is required, how is it that we have all
kinds of other high tech solutions coming out of free markets?
Did the govt invent the cell phone? *or develop those flat
screen TVs?

Oh, but the free market did finally develop oil from shale,
when it became economically viable.

These selfish b***s are not interested in anyone but themselves.
Naked capitalism doesn't work, especially the American brand.

Try taking a course in basic economics. *Free markets work
precisely because each participant is trying to make as much
money as they can. *They maximize profits. *And with free
markets, those profits attract MORE participants and
together they compete and drive the price down to the point
where they all are making a reasonable profit. *It seems to
have worked everyplace in the world it has been tried.
By comparison, the countries with the most govt involvement
have had less innovation and less economic growth.

It even worked to drive down the costs of harry's flat screen TVs.



The government is there to govern for everybody not just for the
benifit of the rich. the USA has a welfare system for the wealthy.
They rob the poor to pay the rich- Hide quoted text -

That's precisely the point. *These government subsidies *are* for the rich.
Taking money from one citizen to give it to another is wrong. *Taking it from
the less well off and handing it to the rich, who can afford their own toys,
is even worse.

- Show quoted text -

Where do we apply for this welfate system for the rich? *And
if that is true, why is it that those with the top 1% of all income
in the USA pay 40% of all taxes?

Haven't you heard, every dollar of your income you are allowed to keep is
given to you ("welfare") by the government. *It is theirs. *You are their
property.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Clearly you haven't been following the news.
Some projects have to be gov funded as "the market" is only concerned
about profit.