Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:13:01 AM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/busin...day/index.html Easy to watch, quick. Make a difference Janet US In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels. Have you ever done a life-time analysis of a solar panel? a) Impact of mining the materials going into the panel. b) Transporting those materials for refining and processing. c) Transporting the refined materials to the assembly factory. d) Assembly into panels and testing. e) Transportation to the installation point. f) Installation and materials required to do so - as above. g) Service life (return on first-costs) (approximately 20 years). h) Removal and restoration of the installation site. g) Disposition of the removed materials. In the US, the average cost per KW of actual capacity is about $3,000 before tax credits, and not counting the cost of land, if needed. The average solar panel is about 40% efficient at the equator and assuming 100% sunny days - this is not solar efficiency, but actual production-to-nameplate numbers. So, in North America, that drops to about 25%. The average cost per KWH, nationwide is about $0.1319. But to make the panels 'look better', let's use $0.14. So, a panel with a nameplate of 1,000 watts (1kw) will make 6,000 watts per day of actual power, on average. Or, $0.84 per day. Average of $25.55 per month. Or, $306.60 per year. On a straight-line payback (no time-value of money included), the first-cost will be paid back in 9.8 years. We still have not counted the cost of proper disposition. And we have carefully elided on the environmental impact in their manufacture. What makes solar panels 'practical' as a primary generator of electric power is that the various governments have bamboozled their taxpaying constituents into subsidizing their use for no discernible return. If one wishes to be 'off the grid', then solar power is a perfectly legitimate option. But it should in no way be subsidized with tax revenue. Properly managed, nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that the political will to manage it properly does not yet exist. Properly managed, wind power is vastly cheaper and vastly cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that not every site is amenable to wind. Then, there is tidal power. Not cheap, but once the plant is built, it will last pretty much indefinitely. Solar power is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the General Public since Madoff and/or Enron. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:20:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-5, wrote: In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels. Have you ever done a life-time analysis of a solar panel? a) Impact of mining the materials going into the panel. b) Transporting those materials for refining and processing. c) Transporting the refined materials to the assembly factory. d) Assembly into panels and testing. e) Transportation to the installation point. f) Installation and materials required to do so - as above. g) Service life (return on first-costs) (approximately 20 years). h) Removal and restoration of the installation site. g) Disposition of the removed materials. In the US, the average cost per KW of actual capacity is about $3,000 before tax credits, and not counting the cost of land, if needed. The average solar panel is about 40% efficient at the equator and assuming 100% sunny days - this is not solar efficiency, but actual production-to-nameplate numbers. So, in North America, that drops to about 25%. The average cost per KWH, nationwide is about $0.1319. But to make the panels 'look better', let's use $0.14. So, a panel with a nameplate of 1,000 watts (1kw) will make 6,000 watts per day of actual power, on average. Or, $0.84 per day. Average of $25.55 per month. Or, $306.60 per year. On a straight-line payback (no time-value of money included), the first-cost will be paid back in 9.8 years. We still have not counted the cost of proper disposition. And we have carefully elided on the environmental impact in their manufacture. What makes solar panels 'practical' as a primary generator of electric power is that the various governments have bamboozled their taxpaying constituents into subsidizing their use for no discernible return. If one wishes to be 'off the grid', then solar power is a perfectly legitimate option. But it should in no way be subsidized with tax revenue. Properly managed, nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that the political will to manage it properly does not yet exist. Properly managed, wind power is vastly cheaper and vastly cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that not every site is amenable to wind. Then, there is tidal power. Not cheap, but once the plant is built, it will last pretty much indefinitely. Solar power is one of the greatest frauds You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. --------------------------------------- Solar Delivers During New England Heatwave [imagine how its going in Death Valley] PV Magazine July 25, 2018 -- https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/07/...land-heatwave/ |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
May I (re)acquaint you with "The Bellman's Proof"?
What you say many (three) times does not make it true. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 3:26:39 PM UTC-5, wrote:
May I (re)acquaint you with "The Bellman's Proof"? What you say many (three) times does not make it true. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Hooey. Meanwhile, solar use is going to double. Look at what CNBC says: "More than 2 gigawatts (GW) of photovoltaic solar capacity was installed in the U.S. during the second quarter of 2018, according to a recent report from Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). While this represents a 9 percent year-on-year decrease, the U.S. is still expected to more than double its photovoltaic capacity over the next five years." From California To Texas, These Are The US States Leading The Way In Solar CNBC - Sept 18, 2018 --https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/the-us-states-leading-the-way-in-solar.html |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Clearly you do not understand what I am writing, as clearly you conflate increasing use of solar panels with that increase being cost-effective and efficient. Without subsidies, Solar Panels are neither. There are installations in Canada that are producing power at C$0.80 per KWH - when Hydro-Quebec is making power at C$0.07 per KWH. Why? Because Solar is a feel-good option that is visible and impressive, while giving the illusion of being pollution-free - which it also is not.
Rather than spouting garbage and displaying your ignorance, why not investigate the actual costs of a Utility-Scale solar installation - which includes: Panels. Mounting Systems. Grid-Tie Inverter Systems. Step-up transformers. Land. Include the cost of raw materials, production, transportation, and ultimate disposal of all of the above, and the restoration of the underlying land to some useful condition. You will begin to see *why* C$0.80 is a relative bargain based on a 20-year lifespan. And that rate is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers. The situation is no better here in the US, but I am absolutely certain about the Canadian numbers as I had a direct hand in the construction of three Utility-Scale plants in Canada. And where I learned all about the ripping off of the taxpayers and the politics involved. I left that company in short order upon gaining that knowledge. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 8:22:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Clearly you do not understand what I am writing, as clearly you conflate increasing use of solar panels with that increase being cost-effective and efficient. Without subsidies, Solar Panels are neither. There are installations in Canada that are producing power at C$0.80 per KWH - when Hydro-Quebec is making power at C$0.07 per KWH. Why? Because Solar is a feel-good option that is visible and impressive, while giving the illusion of being pollution-free - which it also is not. Rather than spouting garbage and displaying your ignorance, why not investigate the actual costs of a Utility-Scale solar installation - which includes: Panels. Mounting Systems. Grid-Tie Inverter Systems. Step-up transformers. Land. Include the cost of raw materials, production, transportation, and ultimate disposal of all of the above, and the restoration of the underlying land to some useful condition. You will begin to see *why* C$0.80 is a relative bargain based on a 20-year lifespan. And that rate is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers. The situation is no better here in the US, but I am absolutely certain about the Canadian numbers as I had a direct hand in the construction of three Utility-Scale plants in Canada. And where I learned all about the ripping off of the taxpayers and the politics involved. I left that company in short order upon gaining that knowledge. You initial claim is that solar is a fraud. Yet, you yourself have already claimed that a solar investment is returned in 9.8 years, meanwhile an expert site says that its only 8 years: =============================== "If your cost of installing solar is $20,000 and your system is going to save you $2,500 a year on foregone energy bills, your solar panel payback or break-even point will be 8 years ($20,000/$2,500 = 8). Energy Sage - May 26, 2019 -- https://news.energysage.com/understa...ayback-period/ |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards.
|
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards. The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Do the math, if you can. US $20,000 gets you 6.6 KW of "nameplate", exclusive of land. Make it 7.
7 x 6,000 = 42 KWH per day. 42 X $0.14 = $5.88. Assume 'perfect' sun every day. Making 365 x 5.88 = $2,146.20 = 9.32 years before payback on a straight-line calculation. Which carefully avoids the concept of Time-Value of Money. On a monthly basis, that comes to $178.85. If you borrow money at 3.5% (unlikely for a solar project with $0 residual value), that would come in at $115.99 per month. Given an actual payback (time-value of money) of 62.86 per month, or 26 years, 7 months. Roughly six (6) years beyond the useful life of the installation. Had you invested that same $20,000 at that same 3.5% for that same 20 years, on the assumption that you have that much cash lying around, you would have $39,795.78 in 20 years. NOTE: None of the above counts any sort of maintenance. Such as cutting the grass, scrub or whatever underneath the panels, cleaning the panels - which needs to be done. Snow removal if relevant. Bad days, rain, clouds, nor any other adverse conditions. Equipment servicing - Grid-Tie inverters need regular servicing and certification. And so forth. One last myth: Appreciation of property - 20,000 watts of panels will take 67 panels at 300 watts per each (optimistic). Each panel is 2 square meters - very roughly 10 square feet. 670 square feet is, again, very roughly 26 feet square. Not one helluva lot of land to appreciate. And an installation that small will hardly generate the material discounts that a Utility-Scale installation will command. But, for you, we are ignoring the hard truths, while looking only at the raw, optimistic numbers. Solar, without subsidies is a bad deal. Full stop. Solar with subsidies is a bad deal for the taxpayers. Full stop. Solar, with or without subsidies is a bad deal for the Planet. Full stop. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes. There is that. There is the false assumption of $2,500 in avoided utility bills - possible in some parts of the US with good sun, no snow, and dry-but-dust-free weather. Oh, and the service life of 35 years. Sure. All good. And, of course, EnergySage wants to sell you solar panels on commission from local installers. Naturally, their figures will be highly optimistic. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:09:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Do the math, if you can. US $20,000 gets you 6.6 KW of "nameplate", exclusive of land. Make it 7. 7 x 6,000 = 42 KWH per day. 42 X $0.14 = $5.88. Assume 'perfect' sun every day. Making 365 x 5.88 = $2,146.20 = 9.32 years before payback on a straight-line calculation. Which carefully avoids the concept of Time-Value of Money. On a monthly basis, that comes to $178..85. If you borrow money at 3.5% (unlikely for a solar project with $0 residual value), that would come in at $115.99 per month. Given an actual payback (time-value of money) of 62.86 per month, or 26 years, 7 months. Roughly six (6) years beyond the useful life of the installation. Had you invested that same $20,000 at that same 3.5% for that same 20 years, on the assumption that you have that much cash lying around, you would have $39,795.78 in 20 years. NOTE: None of the above counts any sort of maintenance. Such as cutting the grass, scrub or whatever underneath the panels, cleaning the panels - which needs to be done. Snow removal if relevant. Bad days, rain, clouds, nor any other adverse conditions. Equipment servicing - Grid-Tie inverters need regular servicing and certification. And so forth. One last myth: Appreciation of property - 20,000 watts of panels will take 67 panels at 300 watts per each (optimistic). Each panel is 2 square meters - very roughly 10 square feet. 670 square feet is, again, very roughly 26 feet square. Not one helluva lot of land to appreciate. And an installation that small will hardly generate the material discounts that a Utility-Scale installation will command. But, for you, we are ignoring the hard truths, while looking only at the raw, optimistic numbers. Solar, without subsidies is a bad deal. Full stop. Solar with subsidies is a bad deal for the taxpayers. Full stop. Solar, with or without subsidies is a bad deal for the Planet. Full stop. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Correction, 18 square feet per panel, so roughly 35 feet square of land. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:14:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote: The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes. There is that. There is the false assumption of $2,500 in avoided utility bills - possible in some parts of the US with good sun, no snow, and dry-but-dust-free weather. Oh, and the service life of 35 years. Sure. All good. And, of course, EnergySage wants to sell you solar panels on commission from local installers. Naturally, their figures will be highly optimistic. The whole point here is that you're assuming that you're on your property for longer than eight years. All costs are figured up to the industry recognized eight-year break-even point. So, your assumption of other costs that you are claiming (or that you could recoup from government subsidies to you - something that you strangely don't mention) is included in that 8- year time period. So if you don't plan on staying past 8 years, don't install - even though even your resale value will increase. |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-5, wrote: Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards. The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes. "Property tax exemptions allow businesses and homeowners to exclude the added value of a solar system from the valuation of their property for taxation purposes. An exemption makes it more economically feasible for a taxpayer to install a solar system on a residential or commercial property." Solar Tax Exemptions Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) https://www.seia.org/initiatives/solar-tax-exemptions |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Yikes!
Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. Schiller When will you understand that there is no effective payback on Solar unless: a) You have a 'free' source of original funding. b) There are no peripheral costs to the installation. Why: a) TVM at 3.5% makes the linear payback over 26 years at $0.14/KWH in 2020 dollars. That is beyond the expected service life (80% of nameplate) of a solar panel. 3.5% is an optimistic interest rate for a project of this type. b) The lifetime cost of a solar panel exceeds the amount of energy it produces. Again, from production of raw materials to disposition of the exhausted panel. c) Government subsidies are an outright theft of taxpayer money. Perhaps not as egregious as the F35 fighter, but close enough. I choose not to steal from you via a subsidy for an already marginal system. Or are you OK with me picking your pocket? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
|
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 10:24:11 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Yikes! Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. Schiller When will you understand that there is no effective payback on Solar unless: a) You have a 'free' source of original funding. b) There are no peripheral costs to the installation. Why: a) TVM at 3.5% makes the linear payback over 26 years at $0.14/KWH in 2020 dollars. That is beyond the expected service life (80% of nameplate) of a solar panel. 3.5% is an optimistic interest rate for a project of this type. b) The lifetime cost of a solar panel exceeds the amount of energy it produces. Again, from production of raw materials to disposition of the exhausted panel. c) Government subsidies are an outright theft of taxpayer money. Perhaps not as egregious as the F35 fighter, but close enough. I choose not to steal from you via a subsidy for an already marginal system. Or are you OK with me picking your pocket? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA He convince this person that they aren't recouping after the first 8 years: "At 8 years, I have recouped the actual cost of the installation/purchase, so the next 8 years are 'free', in a manner of speaking. " Quora - How does solar panel wear out? -- https://tch861725.tch.www.quora.com/...panel-wear-out |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
I am beginning to believe that you have made a recent commitment to Solar Panels. And, therefore, are required to convince yourself of their efficacy despite all evidence to the contrary.
a) An 8-year payback is achievable, sure. With a subsidy. Who pays that subsidy is the issue. b) An 8 - 11 year payback is achievable without a subsidy, sure. Assuming the time-value of the invested money is 0, and inflation is 0. c) And, assuming a) & b), there is no maintenance of any nature required. Which, of course, is not the case. One more point not yet mentioned: The typical life-span of a grid-tie inverter is about 10 years, with the outside being 20 years. A 6KW inverter, installed, will be about $2,000. We are also ignoring battery storage, and an uplink transformer as we are assuming a single residential installation, not a Utility Scale installation (much cheaper per watt). Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.
|
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story. Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, wrote: Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story. Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum. The headlines say that coal is MORE inefficient than wind or solar: "Climate Change: Coal Now More Expensive Than Wind, Solar Energy" USAToday - June 4, 2019 -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gy/1277637001/ |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Efficiency is not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the actual lifetime cost of Solar as compared to the actual return over that lifetime.
No one in this discussion has actually mentioned coal (or any other fossil fuel) as I read it. Nuclear and Wind power have been mentioned. Wind is limited by and to appropriate locations, but as to cost and efficiency, it is a the top of the list. Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., wrote:
... Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/y84-166 Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious descendants in the far off future...or current idiots. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....article/shield John :-#)# |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson
wrote: On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., wrote: ... Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/y84-166 Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious descendants in the far off future...or current idiots. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....article/shield John :-#)# John, Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers? There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east. The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Efficiency is not what is under discussion. Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money). |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:49:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, wrote: Efficiency is not what is under discussion. Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money). Only if those "solar people" are not paying the actual lifetime costs of the installation. When will you "get" that basic fact? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On 2020/01/08 11:41 a.m., Chuck wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson wrote: On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., wrote: ... Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/y84-166 Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious descendants in the far off future...or current idiots. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....article/shield John :-#)# John, Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers? There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east. The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck I think those stacks were added back in the 60s...and I remember reading about the devastation that the people of Sudbury enjoyed from their main employer. In some respects it was only fair to ship the pollution further as both Canadians and Americans had the benefit of "The Big Nickle" and both should pay the price. And (as far as I know) Inco was forced to clean up their act because of all that pollution because it turned out that the rest of Canada and the US didn't care for all that crap! John :-#)# |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 4:44:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:49:34 PM UTC-5, wrote: On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, wrote: Efficiency is not what is under discussion. Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money). Only if those "solar people" are not paying the actual lifetime costs of the installation. When will you "get" that basic fact? After eight years, everything is profit. Whether "lifetime" or not. This is well-known within the solar power industry. You do not "get" this basic fact. |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:24:03 -0800, John Robertson
wrote: On 2020/01/08 11:41 a.m., Chuck wrote: On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson wrote: On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., wrote: ... Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so: https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/y84-166 Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious descendants in the far off future...or current idiots. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....article/shield John :-#)# John, Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers? There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east. The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck I think those stacks were added back in the 60s...and I remember reading about the devastation that the people of Sudbury enjoyed from their main employer. In some respects it was only fair to ship the pollution further as both Canadians and Americans had the benefit of "The Big Nickle" and both should pay the price. And (as far as I know) Inco was forced to clean up their act because of all that pollution because it turned out that the rest of Canada and the US didn't care for all that crap! John :-#)# John, The chimney went into operation in 1972. I was there in 72 just before it went live. I went through 3 years later and there were already green shoots appearing out of cracks in the bedrock. |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Last attempt here. Parameters:
a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer. b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days. c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com. d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included. e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000. f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890. A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years. The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269. The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process. Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826. Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628. Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion. Do the math, if you have the capacity. Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On 2020/01/10 11:25 a.m., wrote:
Last attempt here. Parameters: a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer. b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days. c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com. d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included. e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000. f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890. A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years. The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269. The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process. Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826. Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628. Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion. Do the math, if you have the capacity. Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Adding in maintenance costs to the system: So many electrical connections, some will fail. Inverters will die - capacitors most likely suspects... Costs to remove snow and clean periodically. Extra insurance... https://www.powerfromsunlight.com/op...-panel-system/ John :-#)# |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On 1/13/20 11:40 AM, John Robertson wrote:
(4 legs good...) All climate is equal. Some climate is more equal. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:18:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens. Doch. "Im Vergleich zu Kohle ist Solarenergie auch für Investoren weit attraktiver." |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.
Useful when 'the grid' is not available. Useful in outer space where sunlight is available. Useful in some other extreme situations. But as a utility-scale option, it is pretty wretched. And as a residential option, it is outright theft if subsidized. And, as an industry, the Solar Industry is no better than it should be, about as honest as the average politician, about as ethical as the average evangelical preacher. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Watch this: video Amazon energy saving
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:19:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else. Agreed. BEFORE the 8 year break-even period is up. (A lot like a mortgage. Its HATED until you pay it off) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[OT] Netflix, Amazon Prime, Amazon Fire etc. | UK diy | |||
Energy Saving -Saving our Climate | UK diy | |||
Energy Saving -Saving our Climate | Home Repair | |||
Energy Saving -Saving our Climate | UK diy | |||
What is Amazon thinking? Yet another Amazon post | Woodworking |