During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.

Sounds like if you invested $10,000 in panels, you could use the $3
you save per month in electrity, to buy a roof rake.

j/k

tom @ www.BlankHelp.com






---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

---MIKE--- wrote:
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


Somebody did it locally - we have much less snow - and discussions
indicated a payback period of 20+ years. Don't think that counted
maintenance or putting the money in the bank and collecting interest.
I think it is a stupid idea to install solar panels today but strongly
recommend all environmentalists get them to start the ball rolling
Frank

There are different types of solar panels.
One type converts sunlight to electricity, at whatever efficiency--I think
they're up to 15-20% now?

The other type simply captures the sun's heat, w/ much higher efficiency
(theoretically near-100%) using stuff like "selective surfaces", which get
super-hot in the sun.
These, being hot, would not be affected by snow, and could proly provide
most of your winter heat--assuming enough sun.

The ideal array would then be some *ratio* of solar electric to solar heat
square footage, which would vary with latitude--mostly solar electric in the
south, mostly solar heat in the north.

HD is now hawking solar electric panels, $25K-50K installed.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

"Tom The Great" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.

Sounds like if you invested $10,000 in panels, you could use the $3
you save per month in electrity, to buy a roof rake.

Some friends of mine claim they basically pay nothing for
their electricity. This is in NW Washington State. I believe
they said they paid about $16,000 for their system. They
are careful about their usage it seemed.

Bob

"Tom The Great" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.

Sounds like if you invested $10,000 in panels, you could use the $3
you save per month in electrity, to buy a roof rake.

Also, some utilities pay a really good rate for electricity you produce.

Bob

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% conversion efficiency, it would take a solar collector the size
of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 sq miles) to provide electricity just
for California. Then, too, there is the initial cost and on-going
maintenance. Plus Angelinos would be living in the dark.

That said, solar collectors for modest projects - such as water heating -
MAY be cost effective. Solar water heaters are cheap and easy to construct.
Their only drawback is a 55-gallon drum sitting atop your house.

Industy can't be run on solar, but houses sure can.
I think it's more like 900 W at the earths surface. At 50% conversion, for
a 30' x 40' house, that's about 250 Amp service!!
Yeah, weather dependent, but dats why God invented batteries and, more
recently, inverters.
Clearly will need backup, but the sun provides incredible juice.
You can do the math and show that a relatively narrow belt of solar cells
around the globe could supply several times the whole world's supply of
juice.
A strip of solar panels 1 meter wide encircling the equator would provide
about 6 million KW. A strip 1 mile wide would yield 10 billion KW. etc.
At any given time.
More or less.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% conversion efficiency, it would take a solar collector the
size of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 sq miles) to provide electricity
just for California. Then, too, there is the initial cost and on-going
maintenance. Plus Angelinos would be living in the dark.

That said, solar collectors for modest projects - such as water heating -
MAY be cost effective. Solar water heaters are cheap and easy to
construct. Their only drawback is a 55-gallon drum sitting atop your
house.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:58:14 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote:

Industy can't be run on solar, but houses sure can.
I think it's more like 900 W at the earths surface. At 50% conversion, for
a 30' x 40' house, that's about 250 Amp service!!
Yeah, weather dependent, but dats why God invented batteries and, more
recently, inverters.
Clearly will need backup, but the sun provides incredible juice.
You can do the math and show that a relatively narrow belt of solar cells
around the globe could supply several times the whole world's supply of
juice.
A strip of solar panels 1 meter wide encircling the equator would provide
about 6 million KW. A strip 1 mile wide would yield 10 billion KW. etc.
At any given time.
More or less.


The average available solar energy in continental USA is more like 300
watts/meter. Given conversion efficiencies the amount of electrical
power that can be generated is more like 50watts per square meter at
best.

Using batteries and inverters introduce a whole raft of other
inefficiencies. Not to mention the environmental problems of building
and maintaining banks of batteries. And for those long periods ,in
some places where there is little sunshine, backup base load
generators have to be kept on line.

All the equations for realistic solar power generation, in many parts
of the world just do not work. OTOH in some parts of the world it is a
possibility.

Certainly, if every house were roofed with collectors, it would eliminate
the need for new generation capability. Grid tied systems eliminate the
need for batteries. When it's sunny where you are, the surplus can be
sent elsewhere and vise-versa. In hot areas, the time of highest demand
is the time of greatest production.

When they figure out how to mass produce cells cheaply, they will get
very popular. That's the only thing holding them back. It will happen.

Bob

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in
message ...
Industy can't be run on solar, but houses sure can.
I think it's more like 900 W at the earths surface. At 50% conversion,
for
a 30' x 40' house, that's about 250 Amp service!!
Yeah, weather dependent, but dats why God invented batteries and, more
recently, inverters.
Clearly will need backup, but the sun provides incredible juice.
You can do the math and show that a relatively narrow belt of solar cells
around the globe could supply several times the whole world's supply of
juice.
A strip of solar panels 1 meter wide encircling the equator would provide
about 6 million KW. A strip 1 mile wide would yield 10 billion KW. etc.
At any given time.
More or less.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% conversion efficiency, it would take a solar collector the
size of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 sq miles) to provide
electricity
just for California. Then, too, there is the initial cost and on-going
maintenance. Plus Angelinos would be living in the dark.

That said, solar collectors for modest projects - such as water
heating -
MAY be cost effective. Solar water heaters are cheap and easy to
construct. Their only drawback is a 55-gallon drum sitting atop your
house.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in
message ...
There are different types of solar panels.
One type converts sunlight to electricity, at whatever efficiency--I think
they're up to 15-20% now?

The other type simply captures the sun's heat, w/ much higher efficiency
(theoretically near-100%) using stuff like "selective surfaces", which get
super-hot in the sun.
These, being hot, would not be affected by snow, and could proly provide
most of your winter heat--assuming enough sun.

My BIL had a set of panels like that 15 years ago. Worked pretty good, then
they broke and the company he got them from was out of business. I chose
not to question him about it any further, so I don't know why someone else
couldn't have fixed them.

Much of the world gets their hot water from solar heaters. Except us of
course, cause we're rich.

So I was off by a factor of 10.... or so.
Still, a lot of energy is available.
If the Big Oil lobbyists are ever kicked out of DC, mebbe things will
progress faster.
Or when Big Oil gets into solar cells.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Avery" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:58:14 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote:

Industy can't be run on solar, but houses sure can.
I think it's more like 900 W at the earths surface. At 50% conversion,
for
a 30' x 40' house, that's about 250 Amp service!!
Yeah, weather dependent, but dats why God invented batteries and, more
recently, inverters.
Clearly will need backup, but the sun provides incredible juice.
You can do the math and show that a relatively narrow belt of solar cells
around the globe could supply several times the whole world's supply of
juice.
A strip of solar panels 1 meter wide encircling the equator would provide
about 6 million KW. A strip 1 mile wide would yield 10 billion KW. etc.
At any given time.
More or less.


The average available solar energy in continental USA is more like 300
watts/meter. Given conversion efficiencies the amount of electrical
power that can be generated is more like 50watts per square meter at
best.

Using batteries and inverters introduce a whole raft of other
inefficiencies. Not to mention the environmental problems of building
and maintaining banks of batteries. And for those long periods ,in
some places where there is little sunshine, backup base load
generators have to be kept on line.

All the equations for realistic solar power generation, in many parts
of the world just do not work. OTOH in some parts of the world it is a
possibility.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in
message ...
So I was off by a factor of 10.... or so.
Still, a lot of energy is available.
If the Big Oil lobbyists are ever kicked out of DC, mebbe things will
progress faster.
Or when Big Oil gets into solar cells.
--

It doesn't matter whether Big Oil gets into solar cells or whether a law is
passed in D.C. or whether the world is run by those in Patik-print dresses.
There is no way sufficient solar energy can be captured or stored to make a
positive difference in our energy needs. It is a physical impossibility.

Of course being physically impossible won't stop the politicians. Look what
happened in Hawaii recently when the state government imposed price controls
on gasoline. Governments LOVE to tinker with the general marketplace.
(Taxes, quotas, price controls, tariffs, etc. The general marketplace always
wins.)

We CAN exist with a high-percentage of our energy needs coming from solar
power if we're willing to change our lifestyle, i.e., reduce our consumption
dramatically. But that's solving the wrong problem. Somehow, giving up air
conditioning, communications, and eating anything from farther away than the
next county is just not acceptable - that's the way they live in Darfur.

Remember, it was "BIG OIL" in the personification of John D. Rockefeller
that brought the price of Kerosene down from $3.00 per gallon to five cents
(in only three years). Of course this put the whale-oil people out of
business, but we did have light.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:52:44 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


"Tom The Great" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.

Sounds like if you invested $10,000 in panels, you could use the $3
you save per month in electrity, to buy a roof rake.

Some friends of mine claim they basically pay nothing for
their electricity. This is in NW Washington State. I believe
they said they paid about $16,000 for their system. They
are careful about their usage it seemed.

Bob



I don't know the life expectancy of panels, but having a house with
only $100/month electric bill, it would take me 13 years for 100%
payback with a $0 monthly bill. So would I be robing Peter{electric
company} to pay Paul {solar panel installer}?

tom @ www.Consolidated-Loans.info

Bob F wrote:
Certainly, if every house were roofed with collectors, it would eliminate
the need for new generation capability. Grid tied systems eliminate the
need for batteries. When it's sunny where you are, the surplus can be
sent elsewhere and vise-versa. In hot areas, the time of highest demand
is the time of greatest production.

When they figure out how to mass produce cells cheaply, they will get
very popular. That's the only thing holding them back. It will happen.

Bob

That is exactly the problem. Until someone figures out how to get the
cost down, they make no economic sense. Here in the socialist state
of NJ, they put a tax on every electric users bill to raise money to
fund solar. So, last time I checked, you can get a medium sytem of
about 6KW, which actually costs $50K, for about 20K, because the other
poor saps are paying the rest. Then promoters of this crap, like BP,
proceed to do some more bogus math to justify it. They claim you can
save another $500 a year or so, because the interest to finance it is
tax deductible, if secured by a mortgage. But they completely ignore
the fact even if the mortgage interest is tax deductible, it only
reduces the cost of borrowing the money, which they never factor in.

And after all this, they tell you it will reduce your electric bill by
50%. Big deal. If you had to actually incur the true cost of paying
for this, which of course, in the end the citizens as a whole do, it
would make no sense at all. If you borrowed $50K at 7% interest, it
would cost $3500 a year. And if you had a $300 a month electric bill,
which is pretty damn high, it would save you a whopping, $1800 a year.
In other words, the system would never pay for itself, without even
factoring in how long it would last, what it might cost to repair, etc.

And of course we just had a big scandel with the $100Mil that is
sitting in a public fund that was raised to support this. Turns out
there were no financial controls on it, no control over who could spend
the money, or tracking what it went for. And it appears some of it
went to pay former employees of the state BPU, who became "consultants"
to work on special projects.








"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in
message ...
Industy can't be run on solar, but houses sure can.
I think it's more like 900 W at the earths surface. At 50% conversion,
for
a 30' x 40' house, that's about 250 Amp service!!
Yeah, weather dependent, but dats why God invented batteries and, more
recently, inverters.
Clearly will need backup, but the sun provides incredible juice.
You can do the math and show that a relatively narrow belt of solar cells
around the globe could supply several times the whole world's supply of
juice.
A strip of solar panels 1 meter wide encircling the equator would provide
about 6 million KW. A strip 1 mile wide would yield 10 billion KW. etc.
At any given time.
More or less.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% conversion efficiency, it would take a solar collector the
size of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 sq miles) to provide
electricity
just for California. Then, too, there is the initial cost and on-going
maintenance. Plus Angelinos would be living in the dark.

That said, solar collectors for modest projects - such as water
heating -
MAY be cost effective. Solar water heaters are cheap and easy to
construct. Their only drawback is a 55-gallon drum sitting atop your
house.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.




If you're that far north, you want the panels mounted steeper
than your roof probably is, anyway. Between that, the
fact that they're glass-smooth, and that they're generally
warmer than a roof would be, I doubt you'd have all THAT
much trouble with snow-built up. But if you don't like
that, whats wrong with a roof-mounted windmill?

On 12 Nov 2006 13:18:12 -0800, "Frank" wrote:


---MIKE--- wrote:
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


Somebody did it locally - we have much less snow - and discussions
indicated a payback period of 20+ years. Don't think that counted
maintenance or putting the money in the bank and collecting interest.
I think it is a stupid idea to install solar panels today but strongly
recommend all environmentalists get them to start the ball rolling


If you use photovoltaic shingles, instead of special-purpose
panels, you get to subtract that cost of re-reroofing from
your capital expense.
http://www.oksolar.com/roof/

And somewhere I saw solar panels that stood in for the
entire roof-decking, but I can't find them now.

Than you have to keep the panels clean so they can use what sunlight
falls upon them. Many homeowners don't like washing windows so I doubt
you will see many on there roofs washing the solar panels.
In A Popular Science I read recently there was A wind generator for
the home. It cost around 20K installed as I remember. It seems A more
viable alternative than solar panels in the generation of electricity
and at least you don't have to clean it!

H.R.
"Where, exactly, am I going and why am I in this hand basket?"

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...

Excellent point: How long DO solar electric panels last??
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Tom The Great" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:52:44 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:


"Tom The Great" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:09:58 -0500,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.

Sounds like if you invested $10,000 in panels, you could use the $3
you save per month in electrity, to buy a roof rake.

Some friends of mine claim they basically pay nothing for
their electricity. This is in NW Washington State. I believe
they said they paid about $16,000 for their system. They
are careful about their usage it seemed.

Bob



I don't know the life expectancy of panels, but having a house with
only $100/month electric bill, it would take me 13 years for 100%
payback with a $0 monthly bill. So would I be robing Peter{electric
company} to pay Paul {solar panel installer}?

tom @ www.Consolidated-Loans.info

wrote in message
ps.com...

That is exactly the problem. Until someone figures out how to get the
cost down, they make no economic sense. Here in the socialist state
of NJ, they put a tax on every electric users bill to raise money to
fund solar. So, last time I checked, you can get a medium sytem of
about 6KW, which actually costs $50K, for about 20K, because the other
poor saps are paying the rest. . . . .

-----------------------------------

I'm in the socialist state of NJ (actually SJ) and I'm one of those poor
saps that pays the electric tax to help fund these systems for others. But,
honestly, I don't mind doing it and I think it is a good idea. Of course,
that funding system is like a pyramid scheme that initially works for those
who get in early then has diminishing and then nonexistent returns. My
thinking is that the more funding that can go into alternative energy
sources now, the larger the pool of people using those systems will be, and
eventually the overall cost of the systems will come down. And I do think
that by funding these things now we will eventually become less dependent on
non-renewable sources of energy such as oil, coal, and gas.

That is exactly the problem. Until someone figures out how to get the
cost down, they make no economic sense. Here in the socialist state
of NJ, they put a tax on every electric users bill to raise money to
fund solar. So, last time I checked, you can get a medium sytem of
about 6KW, which actually costs $50K, for about 20K, because the other
poor saps are paying the rest. Then promoters of this crap, like BP,
proceed to do some more bogus math to justify it. They claim you can
save another $500 a year or so, because the interest to finance it is
tax deductible, if secured by a mortgage. But they completely ignore
the fact even if the mortgage interest is tax deductible, it only
reduces the cost of borrowing the money, which they never factor in.

Lord Have Mercy, on folks in NJ. I like to tell them that DE was wise
in putting a river between us This is another example of today's
"political science". People must remember that the government does not
manufacture anything but paperwork.

Frank

BETA-32 wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

That is exactly the problem. Until someone figures out how to get the
cost down, they make no economic sense. Here in the socialist state
of NJ, they put a tax on every electric users bill to raise money to
fund solar. So, last time I checked, you can get a medium sytem of
about 6KW, which actually costs $50K, for about 20K, because the other
poor saps are paying the rest. . . . .

-----------------------------------

I'm in the socialist state of NJ (actually SJ) and I'm one of those poor
saps that pays the electric tax to help fund these systems for others. But,
honestly, I don't mind doing it and I think it is a good idea. Of course,
that funding system is like a pyramid scheme that initially works for those
who get in early then has diminishing and then nonexistent returns. My
thinking is that the more funding that can go into alternative energy
sources now, the larger the pool of people using those systems will be, and
eventually the overall cost of the systems will come down. And I do think
that by funding these things now we will eventually become less dependent on
non-renewable sources of energy such as oil, coal, and gas.



And that's why we continue to get ripped off by the politicians in this
state. Cause guys like you like to hand over money to the politicians
and then have them decide when and if to give it back to you. This is
a huge economic mistake and is a gross misallocation of resources.
Instead of letting the free market work, politicians, who can't even
run the parts of this state they supposed to run efficiently, now think
they know more about energy than the free market. That $100mil is
gone right out of the consumers pocket, right down a rathole. All they
are doing is giiving a $20 or $30K subsidy to a small number of people
that won;t even make a 1% difference in the states energy usage.

The new Mercedes E320 diesel gets 40MPG, and has lower CO2 emissions
than a gas engine. How about we set up another NJ fund, take money
from the citizens and give $30K to anyone who want to buy one of these
so they can get if for less than half price. That a good idea too?

According to Bob F :

Some friends of mine claim they basically pay nothing for
their electricity. This is in NW Washington State. I believe
they said they paid about $16,000 for their system. They
are careful about their usage it seemed.

More than careful methinks. Going off-grid with solar electric
means that they have to be _extremely_ miserly with electric
power. Things like 12V lighting systems, propane powered fridges,
etc.

You can't go off grid if you're into standard consumer appliances.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:41:06 -0600, wrote:

..........
and at least you don't have to clean it!

But once a day you have to pick up all of the dead songbirds.

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:

Excellent point: How long DO solar electric panels last??
--

Quite a long time. I believe most of the major manufacturers of PVs have
something around 25 year warrantees. If they warranty them for 25 years
I'd expect real world life with modest care in an average environment to
be 40 years or better.

Pete C.

Karl S wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:41:06 -0600, wrote:

.........
and at least you don't have to clean it!

But once a day you have to pick up all of the dead songbirds.

More like once a year you'll have to pick up the dead songbird
(singular).

Don't buy into the ignorant NIMBY propaganda.

Pete C.

Goedjn wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...


You mean no problems other than solar is not even close to economically
feasible? If it were that simple, you think utilities would still be
using nukes, oil, gas and coal instead?

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

Where are you going to get:
- 9.6hours per day * 365 days
- 40% efficiency
- 4,000 sq. KM.
- The money to manufacture the above

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...

What's it cost to make the cells? How much energy? What about the
distribution system to where the consumers are?

--
Keith

In article , karlsch@-
no-spam-ak.net says...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:41:06 -0600, wrote:

.........
and at least you don't have to clean it!

But once a day you have to pick up all of the dead songbirds.

Songbirds aren't as tough to clean up as the hawks. ;-)

--
Keith

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:35:42 -0500, krw wrote:

In article , karlsch@-
no-spam-ak.net says...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:41:06 -0600, wrote:

.........
and at least you don't have to clean it!

But once a day you have to pick up all of the dead songbirds.

Songbirds aren't as tough to clean up as the hawks. ;-)

The real problem is when the Ninth Federal District Court gets wind of
this...
--
Oren

"Well, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it happens constantly."

First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Solar heating makes sense in some areas, but mostly where there is plenty of
sun and little need for heat. Seems to me, water power from both rivers
and oceans would make sense as well as windmills. It will take more
research to be more practical, but there is an unlimited supply of ocean
waves.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Bob F :

Some friends of mine claim they basically pay nothing for
their electricity. This is in NW Washington State. I believe
they said they paid about $16,000 for their system. They
are careful about their usage it seemed.

More than careful methinks. Going off-grid with solar electric
means that they have to be _extremely_ miserly with electric
power. Things like 12V lighting systems, propane powered fridges,
etc.

You can't go off grid if you're into standard consumer appliances.

They are not off-grid. They do have two meters, and net billing.

Bob

Not to mention that the manfacture of solar cells is considered to be one of
the "filthiest" industrial processes around--on par w/ most chemical mfr'g
plants.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

Where are you going to get:
- 9.6hours per day * 365 days
- 40% efficiency
- 4,000 sq. KM.
- The money to manufacture the above

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...

What's it cost to make the cells? How much energy? What about the
distribution system to where the consumers are?

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Not to mention that the manfacture of solar cells is considered to be one of
the "filthiest" industrial processes around--on par w/ most chemical mfr'g
plants.

Ah, come on! THere is no reason to pile on! THe idiot thinks he
has all the answers, let him put his money where is mouth is!

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:35:42 -0500, krw wrote:

In article , karlsch@-
no-spam-ak.net says...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:41:06 -0600, wrote:

.........
and at least you don't have to clean it!

But once a day you have to pick up all of the dead songbirds.

Songbirds aren't as tough to clean up as the hawks. ;-)

The real problem is when the Ninth Federal District Court gets wind of
this...

Well, you got me there! The Ninth-Circus is far to the left of
Nancy Pelosi. ...&deity. help us.

--
Keith

Not A problem! My neighbors cats will take care of any dead bird clean
up.
Now all I gotta do is sucker the good tax payers of Minnesota into
paying for the thing and I can hear the cash register bells ringing now!

Good Luck!
H.R.
"A liberal is someone who feels A great debt to his fellow man,A debt
which he proposes to pay off with your money"
G. Gordon Liddy

On 13 Nov 2006 11:21:42 -0800, wrote:


Goedjn wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:58:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
During the congressional debates there was a lot of talk about
alternative energy sources. They discussed wind power and roof mounted
solar panels. Where I live, the roof is covered with a foot (or more)
of snow during most of the winter. Solar panels would be useless.


First, we can't run this country (or much of anything) off of sunbeams.
There are 745 watts/sq meter of solar energy that falls on the earth's
surface. At noon. At the equator. With no clouds. The only way to increase
that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.



The numbers from he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
look like somewhere on the order of 4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year, or an average
of 456,621,000 watts.

At 750 watts, 40% of the time, at 40% efficiency,
you'd get 0.12 killowats per meter.
That only requires around 4,000 square kilometers.

I don't see the problem. find a chunk of desert
40 miles square, and go to town...


You mean no problems other than solar is not even close to economically
feasible? If it were that simple, you think utilities would still be
using nukes, oil, gas and coal instead?


1) Yes. For a while.
But more importantly
2) I misspoke myself. I should have said:
There are a lot of problems with
solar power, but "there's not enough
solar energy per square meter to meet the
nation's needs" isn't one of them.

What a frightening thought: golf-ball sized hail over solar collectors!!!
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:54:49 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Quite a long time. I believe most of the major manufacturers of PVs have
something around 25 year warrantees. If they warranty them for 25 years
I'd expect real world life with modest care in an average environment to
be 40 years or better.


When they actually get 25 years of experience with the current
technology I would believe that. I also doubt the warranty covers
anything but total failure. Your problem is these things start losing
efficiency over time so your 10kw array may only be giving you 3 or 4
kw after a while. The warranty doesn't do anything for a lightning
strike, hail or a wind blown debris.

wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:54:49 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Quite a long time. I believe most of the major manufacturers of PVs have
something around 25 year warrantees. If they warranty them for 25 years
I'd expect real world life with modest care in an average environment to
be 40 years or better.

When they actually get 25 years of experience with the current
technology I would believe that. I also doubt the warranty covers
anything but total failure. Your problem is these things start losing
efficiency over time so your 10kw array may only be giving you 3 or 4
kw after a while. The warranty doesn't do anything for a lightning
strike, hail or a wind blown debris.

The warranty I looked at specifically indicated the amount of power
production guaranteed at the 25 yr mark. I think it was something like
80% of rated capacity.

As for experience, they do indeed have in excess of 25 years of real
world experience since the basic technology hasn't really changed much
at all. The accelerated testing chambers they use also do a good job.

Pete C.