trader_4
Sat, 13
May 2017 15:42:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Again, no one said you can't buy a battery bank, only that it adds
significantly to the cost and has other disadvantages.

You asked about the cost. I answered.

Then he's the exceptional case and absent some compelling need for
solar, or the inability to use a calculator, nuts.

No. He has more money than he knows what to do with, actually.

What percent of the residential installs do you think have battery
banks?

I'd have no way of knowing. I don't install the systems all over the
country. I could only give you stats for this area, and, we're not
the only ones doing the installs here, so even those stats wouldn't
account for all systems with or without them.

Show us some write ups about all the ones being installed
for the masses that have battery banks. Are a small,
insignificant percentage doing it, typically for special reasons,
sure. The vast majority of installs going in today, no.

I'd have no reliable way of looking up said stats. I don't think you
could, either.

But so far, from everything I've seen, from everything you've
submitted as evidence, I have yet to see one that will power the
house with the grid down, unless it has a battery bank.

Not entirely correct, and, slightly dishonest of you to claim such.
You either skimmed the part about the controllers, or, you didn't,
but aren't wanting to discuss that aspect. Which is it?

Except of course that it's unlikely that many people are going to
want a battery bank, the cost and other issues that come with it.
Battery options have been available, but people are already
shelling out big bucks for the basic solar capability.

I never said it was a cheap option to go solar for a realistic
expectation of power. I've said several times, it'll be YEARS before
you see any possible return on your investment, tax credits or not.

Funny how you post something that is exactly in line with what
we've been telling you

No, it's not inline with what you've been telling me. You've made
your assumptions based on what the power companies in your locale are
doing. Which doesn't apply across the entire United States.

And in most cases, they are buying it because they are Forced
by govt to buy it and they are paying inflated rates for it.

Show me the stats to support this. Not what you think, not what your
power company provides, but, some real stats, that federally claim
power company will pay such and such per kilowatt returned to the
grid.


So whats going on in Tennessee? Well, not much. Nothing in
fact. Tennessee has absolutely no renewables portfolio, no targets
€“ nothing.

Correct. So your federally mandated claims applies here, how?

So, right there, they admit that exactly what we said is true.

How's that? It states that Tennessee isn't under any mandate to pay
such and such amount to the owner for his power. You claimed
otherwise. Wheres your proof? I shared mine. Are you trying to move
the goalposts again, or, otherwise change the topic of discussion?

buy from. So, while TN isn't doing it, clearly these solar
promoters say they need to, to make solar happen. And on top of
that, you also have federal subsidies, in the form of tax credits,
and that is available in TN.

He's not taking advantage of them, and TN isn't playing ball with
your previous claim that the power company has to pay him a specific
amount for his power, which according to you, would have been more
than they can charge/otherwise source it elsewhere. Ie: you claimed
they were taking a loss on his array, and, you as well as others had
to make up the difference. But, you're wrong. You don't have a dog in
the race, infact. You're paying NOTHING for what he's doing, as I
said, originally.

He's taking a loss, and, he'll continue to eat it for years to
come because he didn't take advantage of any tax credits, loans,
etc. He paid cash for the entire system. he wanted it, he didn't
care if it made him money. To put it simply, the guy has more
cash than he has economic sense.

Bingo. Absent those subsidies, he'll never break even.

Well, in theory, he will, given enough time has passed and he lives
long enough. But, that wasn't his intention to begin with. I don't
think he could sell his monster size RV at a profit, either. it
started losing value the moment he drove it off the lot. but, it's
his, outright, as his the house, as is the solar array. Unless of
course, he doesn't pay his property taxes, then, well, you should
know how that goes. Or, maybe your state is different in that
respect. But, here, if you don't pay your taxes and enough time goes
by (I think it's two years now), they will come and auction your
house for the back taxes owed on it. YOUR house isn't really yours
here.


Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true
cost and viability of solar.

I didn't claim that solar worked for everyone. I said it's a useful
source of energy if you have the means to harness it. He does, so...

How is he paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure if he's
not using and paying for any electricity? His neighbor, with a
$150 a month electric bill, he's paying for it.

He used* grid power at night time, when the pv array can't generate
enough power. During the day, the PV array makes enough juice to make
up for the previous 'losses' it sustained. So, he gets a tiny check
back, instead of a bill. He's paying for the infrastructure same as
his neighbor, a good ways down the road. he's just not having to pay
as much because he's not using as much. What he is using is being
placed back onto the grid during the daytime, more than offsetting
his costs as far as the power bill is concerned. He isn't getting a
special rate, he's just not using as much from the grid as his
neighbor.

* I've been informed as of yesterday that a battery bank has finally
been installed, so, he'll ONLY be using the grid in the event the
banks go down and the PV array isn't able to provide power.

He's NOT taking advantage of ANY. So, no, you're not paying for
it. None of you are.


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid
infrastructure that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small
subsidy.

They aren't paying any more than he is. He's using alternate power,
so...He's able to keep costs down in that regard. His neighbors have
the same choice, pending they could afford it. That's on them, not
him, if they cannot.

But what one unusual case is doing is irrelevant to the
big picture.

I wasn't discussing the 'big picture'. You and Mike? were.

And in the big picture, do you deny that solar is
receiving big subsidies? EG, federal tax credits, state credits in
some cases, utilities being forced to buy solar electric at
inflated rates?

Some utilities are being forced, but, not here. Otherwise, I agree.
If you have a problem with the rate your power company is being
'forced' to pay another for generated power, you should take that up
with those responsible for creating and passing those laws. I'm sure
your power company would appreciate it. And, others in your state as
well.


That doesn't change the fact that it is in most places. Or the
fact that your own link says that TN needs to start doing the
same.

That's because the individuals who are promoting solar would very
much like for TN power to be forced to pay an inflated rate for it.
It's good for THEIR bottom line. TN hasn't drank the koolaid (so
far), so it hasn't happened, here. Yet.

If solar is competitive without state assistance, why does
your own link point to the other states and say that TN needs to
do it too?

See above. They have a vested interest in it. A financial interest in
it. Solar rigs are expensive, so, anything they can do to give you
the impression it's not as expensive as it really is works to their
favor.

How is it my problem or fault that they have no means of storing
excess power for a rainy day?


No one said it was your fault. Good grief.

So why did you even bring that up? I'm not responsible for a power
companies lack of investing in gear able to store excess power when
it's available, to be used later. That's lack of foresight on them.

The problem is the rest of us are paying for it,
that it's totally economically unviable on it's own.

The rest of you are not paying a damn dime for his setup. He
didn't opt for any credits, loans, subsidies, nothing.


He's the exceptional case.

Always a condition for you to try and wiggle out of what you wrote,
eh? And you label me a troll...

You happened to come across one guy
who apparently has no taxable income, so he can't take advantage
of the federal credits.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said, he isn't taking advantage of
the credits.

And you happen to live in state that isn't subsidizing solar.

Correct.

And a guy who doesn't care that he's losing money on the whole
thing.

You're writing about a guy who buys a new RV, drives it out of state,
once or twice, gets another one, does the same thing. Leaving the
prior ones to rott. His backyard had four of them at last count. He
just doesn't care. Like I said, more money than he has economic
sense.


Wrong. What everyone said here from the beginning was that
without a battery bank

Actually, no, that's not what 'everyone' here said. Battery banks
didn't even come up until I mentioned them. You both claimed that
without grid power, it was dead in the water. And, that's not true.

Taken out of context. YOU claimed that he has power without the
grid, without a battery bank, with the sun shining. Sure, if he
has batteries then he will have power. I and Mike acknowledged
that from the beginning.

You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post, you
both claimed that without the grid, no power would be available. I
brought up the battery bank. Not either of you. Further, you both
seem to be of the mistaken impression it won't run without the grid
being 'hot' for safety, but, that's obviously NOT true either. It
will. And, it won't backfeed onto the grid if the grid is down,
either. It has an interlock to prevent that, same as a generator.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.