Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to bill
http://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketing
http://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

On Apr 7, 3:39*am, 3ndy wrote:
Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to billhttp://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketinghttp://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

But so many unanswered questions!!!!!!

1) Living where there is sufficient sun? How many days per year?
2) Cost of batteries to store power during day for use at night etc.?
3) First cost of solar cells? Even if at one dollar per watt probably
a first cost of $3000 or so?
If solar cells cost five dollars per watt then $15,000?
4) If self installing; cost of inverter to turn battery electrcity
into usable AC 'mains type' electrcity?
5) other costs, wiring etc.
6) If planning to sell surplus power, produced by solar, back into
local electricity grid; what rate will power utility pay.
7) One estimate; to produce any appreciable amount of power in a
suitable climate ranged upward from $10,000?

A local ad. here showed an 180 watt solar panel selling for $800, on
sale. Since it s frequently cloudy here that might produce, say 90
watts-per hour, during the day, some days. That's not enough to
warrant large expenditures. For each $1000 of outlay, one can buy a
third or more of a year's electricity and that includes heating of
this all-electric four bedroom home in a cool climate with a long
winter.

Contrary opinions welcomed.

On Apr 7, 4:00*am, terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:39*am, 3ndy wrote:

Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to billhttp://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketinghttp://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

But so many unanswered questions!!!!!!

1) Living where there is sufficient sun? How many days per year?
2) Cost of batteries to store power during day for use at night etc.?
3) First cost of solar cells? Even if at one dollar per watt probably
a first cost of $3000 or so?
If solar cells cost five dollars per watt then $15,000?
4) If self installing; cost of inverter to turn battery electrcity
into usable AC 'mains type' electrcity?
5) other costs, wiring etc.
6) If planning to sell surplus power, produced by solar, *back into
local electricity grid; what rate will power utility pay.
7) One estimate; to produce any appreciable amount of power in a
suitable climate ranged upward from $10,000?

A local ad. here showed an 180 watt solar panel selling for $800, on
sale. Since it s frequently cloudy here that might produce, say 90
watts-per hour, during the day, some days. That's not enough to
warrant large expenditures. For each $1000 of outlay, one can buy a
third or more of a year's electricity and that includes heating of
this all-electric four bedroom home in a cool climate with a long
winter.

Contrary opinions welcomed.


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 4:00 am, terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:39 am, 3ndy wrote:

Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to billhttp://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketinghttp://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

But so many unanswered questions!!!!!!

1) Living where there is sufficient sun? How many days per year?
2) Cost of batteries to store power during day for use at night etc.?
3) First cost of solar cells? Even if at one dollar per watt probably
a first cost of $3000 or so?
If solar cells cost five dollars per watt then $15,000?
4) If self installing; cost of inverter to turn battery electrcity
into usable AC 'mains type' electrcity?
5) other costs, wiring etc.
6) If planning to sell surplus power, produced by solar, back into
local electricity grid; what rate will power utility pay.
7) One estimate; to produce any appreciable amount of power in a
suitable climate ranged upward from $10,000?

A local ad. here showed an 180 watt solar panel selling for $800, on
sale. Since it s frequently cloudy here that might produce, say 90
watts-per hour, during the day, some days. That's not enough to
warrant large expenditures. For each $1000 of outlay, one can buy a
third or more of a year's electricity and that includes heating of
this all-electric four bedroom home in a cool climate with a long
winter.

Contrary opinions welcomed.


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective, we'd
all be tripping over each other to get it.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:12:03 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 4:00 am, terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:39 am, 3ndy wrote:

Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to billhttp://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketinghttp://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

But so many unanswered questions!!!!!!

1) Living where there is sufficient sun? How many days per year?
2) Cost of batteries to store power during day for use at night etc.?
3) First cost of solar cells? Even if at one dollar per watt probably
a first cost of $3000 or so?
If solar cells cost five dollars per watt then $15,000?
4) If self installing; cost of inverter to turn battery electrcity
into usable AC 'mains type' electrcity?
5) other costs, wiring etc.
6) If planning to sell surplus power, produced by solar, back into
local electricity grid; what rate will power utility pay.
7) One estimate; to produce any appreciable amount of power in a
suitable climate ranged upward from $10,000?

A local ad. here showed an 180 watt solar panel selling for $800, on
sale. Since it s frequently cloudy here that might produce, say 90
watts-per hour, during the day, some days. That's not enough to
warrant large expenditures. For each $1000 of outlay, one can buy a
third or more of a year's electricity and that includes heating of
this all-electric four bedroom home in a cool climate with a long
winter.

Contrary opinions welcomed.


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective, we'd
all be tripping over each other to get it.


It's very cost effective on my boat!

I'll bet there are lots of other places where it is cost effective.

My point exactly, in the scheme of electrical usage, your boat isn't even on
the meter

RBM wrote:


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd all be tripping over each other to get it.

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq meter. At
the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12 hours of
darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about 1/3 the maximum,
or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would capture, then, (assuming 70%
efficiency of the solar collector) 560 watts, or about 1/2 kw.

That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one computer.
Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or an
average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.

On Apr 7, 10:33*am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:11:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:



RBM wrote:

A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. *This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. * After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. *For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd all be tripping over each other to get it.

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq meter. At

1000W/sq meter

the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12 hours of
darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about 1/3 the maximum,
or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would capture, then, (assuming 70%
efficiency of the solar collector) 560 watts, or about 1/2 kw.

You'd do good at 20% conversion efficiency and 1/3 is optimistic.

That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one computer.
Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or an
average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.

Yet, people somehow are able to do it, even though you say it can't be
done.

Some have no choice (built off grid) and fools live everywhere.

Also take into account that people who do this, are likely very
interested in the subject of alternative energy, and may have taken
other measures to both conserve and produce power. Solar works quite
well for heating water in many places. Another really impressive
technology that DOES have a reasonably good ROI despite high initial
cost, is geo-thermal.

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). It
allows me to go to work every day.

On Apr 7, 12:30*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). *It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

Wonder if solar is too expensive for the W.Va. coal miners ?

On Apr 7, 12:30*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). *It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

Photovoltaics suck for the average home. On the other hand solar
powered water heater and direct heating of your home with solar energy
can be very efficient. One study on using photo cells to power a home
failed miserably. Trees had to be cut away so light could get to the
solar panels. This increased HVAC usage by more than the solar panels
could provide. Im not sure which university performed this test but it
was in Fl. Shouldn't be hard to find if you want to look it up.

Jimmie

On Apr 7, 11:30*am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). *It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

The fact that you would say this, while unsurprising, shows how dumb
you really are.

On Apr 7, 11:33*am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:11:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





RBM wrote:

A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. *This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. * After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. *For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd all be tripping over each other to get it.

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq meter. At
the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12 hours of
darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about 1/3 the maximum,
or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would capture, then, (assuming 70%
efficiency of the solar collector) 560 watts, or about 1/2 kw.

That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one computer.
Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or an
average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.

Yet, people somehow are able to do it, even though you say it can't be
done.

That is true. Something has to be wrong with the math, because you
can indeed buy a sytem in the 6KW range and put it on an average house
roof. It doesn't even cover anywhere near the whole roof, maybe 40%
or so I'd say. 6KW is an order of magnitude more than HB's claimed
1/2 KW.




Also take into account that people who do this, are likely very
interested in the subject of alternative energy, and may have taken
other measures to both conserve and produce power. Solar works quite
well for heating water in many places. Another really impressive
technology that DOES have a reasonably good ROI despite high initial
cost, is geo-thermal.

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The analogy here would be paying $50K for a car that has the same
performance, size, and features as a toyota corolla. There are some
applications where it is cost effective to use solar electric because
there is no grid. But what we're talking about here is the 95%
installed in populated areas with the rest of the taxpayers and future
taxpayers getting stuck with paying the extra $25K bill.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
RBM wrote:


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd all be tripping over each other to get it.

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq meter.
At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12 hours
of darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about 1/3 the
maximum, or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would capture, then,
(assuming 70% efficiency of the solar collector) 560 watts, or about 1/2
kw.

That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one computer.
Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or an
average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.


Methinks you left off a zero: Should be 1200 W/m^2.
Nominal 100 W/sq ft.

Ackshooly, it varies from 900 to 1500 W/m^2, depending on lattitude,
altitude, etc.

Selective-surface collectors can substantially exceed 70% -- good mostly for
HW (heat, domestic), which can be a big % of used juice. Also, these
collectors are proly a lot cheaper than photovoltaics.
You can make pretty good ones DIY, as well.

PV's are up to what, now, 15% efficiency??
And I thought I read somewhere that PV's could be had for about $1/watt???

Also, I wonder what the lifespan of PV's are.
--
EA

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:01:45 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:12:03 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 4:00 am, terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:39 am, 3ndy wrote:

Step by step guides and video.
Cut energy costs to billhttp://gogonai.com/home-solar-generation
enri patuly
Marketinghttp://tinyurl.com/7hou5t

But so many unanswered questions!!!!!!

1) Living where there is sufficient sun? How many days per year?
2) Cost of batteries to store power during day for use at night etc.?
3) First cost of solar cells? Even if at one dollar per watt probably
a first cost of $3000 or so?
If solar cells cost five dollars per watt then $15,000?
4) If self installing; cost of inverter to turn battery electrcity
into usable AC 'mains type' electrcity?
5) other costs, wiring etc.
6) If planning to sell surplus power, produced by solar, back into
local electricity grid; what rate will power utility pay.
7) One estimate; to produce any appreciable amount of power in a
suitable climate ranged upward from $10,000?

A local ad. here showed an 180 watt solar panel selling for $800, on
sale. Since it s frequently cloudy here that might produce, say 90
watts-per hour, during the day, some days. That's not enough to
warrant large expenditures. For each $1000 of outlay, one can buy a
third or more of a year's electricity and that includes heating of
this all-electric four bedroom home in a cool climate with a long
winter.

Contrary opinions welcomed.


A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd
all be tripping over each other to get it.


It's very cost effective on my boat!

I'll bet there are lots of other places where it is cost effective.

My point exactly, in the scheme of electrical usage, your boat isn't even
on
the meter



There are many places where power lines don't reach.

And for those that need real electricity in those locations, God created
diesel generators

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:30 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least
the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

Photovoltaics suck for the average home. On the other hand solar
powered water heater and direct heating of your home with solar energy
can be very efficient. One study on using photo cells to power a home
failed miserably. Trees had to be cut away so light could get to the
solar panels. This increased HVAC usage by more than the solar panels
could provide. Im not sure which university performed this test but it
was in Fl. Shouldn't be hard to find if you want to look it up.

Jimmie

I think you just made that up.

Why, because YOU didn't think of it? You are SUCH an asshole!
Even at 70 psi, you *should* be able to power that bicycle air horn with yer
ass....

"TRUE" or not, jimmie's post raises a very inneresting point about
trees/shade, etc.

Did you google thoroughly to assure yourself that jimmie's assertions were
NOT true?
Or is jerking yourself off *and* typing with the other hand too slow?

PV's *can* be used to effectively power a home, but it's not trivial, and
it's big total $$, not just for the PV's, but for the surrounding
infrastructure -- batteries, inverters, grid tie-ins, wiring, roof
installation, you name it.
Ditto windmills.

Also, ito the green factor, altho PV's would appear to be idyllic, it's not
well known that the manufacture of virtually all solid state stuff is one of
the most chemically insidious processes in manufacturing, definitely
non-green.

Which is why all this stuff is made overseas, where the rivers literally
bubble from pollutants.

--
EA

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:05:07 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:30 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be
a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least
the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

Photovoltaics suck for the average home. On the other hand solar
powered water heater and direct heating of your home with solar energy
can be very efficient. One study on using photo cells to power a home
failed miserably. Trees had to be cut away so light could get to the
solar panels. This increased HVAC usage by more than the solar panels
could provide. Im not sure which university performed this test but it
was in Fl. Shouldn't be hard to find if you want to look it up.

Jimmie

I think you just made that up.

Why, because YOU didn't think of it? You are SUCH an asshole!
Even at 70 psi, you *should* be able to power that bicycle air horn with
yer
ass....

"TRUE" or not, jimmie's post raises a very inneresting point about
trees/shade, etc.

Did you google thoroughly to assure yourself that jimmie's assertions were
NOT true?
Or is jerking yourself off *and* typing with the other hand too slow?

PV's *can* be used to effectively power a home, but it's not trivial, and
it's big total $$, not just for the PV's, but for the surrounding
infrastructure -- batteries, inverters, grid tie-ins, wiring, roof
installation, you name it.
Ditto windmills.

Also, ito the green factor, altho PV's would appear to be idyllic, it's
not
well known that the manufacture of virtually all solid state stuff is one
of
the most chemically insidious processes in manufacturing, definitely
non-green.

Which is why all this stuff is made overseas, where the rivers literally
bubble from pollutants.

Man, are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it up or
google it.

I DO believe it.
YOU are the one asserting that he made it up.
Prove it. Google your salty ass off, provide cites to the contrary.
Asshole.



Jimwit doesn't even remember for sure what he thought he saw
somewhere, yet he states it as if it is some sort of fact. As far as
I'm concerned, he made it up, until he comes up with some evidence
that he didn't.

Typical SaltyAss.
Nevermind that it was a very good point.
Kudos to Jimmie if he DID make it up.... it's more creative insight than
YOU will ever generate in your useless usenet career.
Figger out climb vs. conventional cutting yet?? Which you denied existed,
cuz poor ignerint baby didn't have effing citations spoon fed to him.....
waaaa-waaaaa
--
EA

On Apr 7, 8:19*pm, "Existential Angst"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:05:07 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

On Apr 7, 12:30 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be
a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least
the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

Photovoltaics suck for the average home. On the other hand solar
powered water heater and direct heating of your home with solar energy
can be very efficient. One study on using photo cells to power a home
failed miserably. Trees had to be cut away so light could get to the
solar panels. This increased HVAC usage by more than the solar panels
could provide. Im not sure which university performed this test but it
was in Fl. Shouldn't be hard to find if you want to look it up.

Jimmie

I think you just made that up.

Why, because YOU didn't think of it? *You are SUCH an asshole!
Even at 70 psi, you *should* be able to power that bicycle air horn with
yer
ass....

"TRUE" or not, jimmie's post raises a very inneresting point about
trees/shade, etc.

Did you google thoroughly to assure yourself that jimmie's assertions were
NOT true?
Or is jerking yourself off *and* typing with the other hand too slow?

PV's *can* be used to effectively power a home, but it's not trivial, and
it's big total $$, not just for the PV's, but for the surrounding
infrastructure -- batteries, inverters, grid tie-ins, wiring, roof
installation, you name it.
Ditto windmills.

Also, ito the green factor, altho PV's would appear to be idyllic, it's
not
well known that the manufacture of virtually all solid state stuff is one
of
the most chemically insidious processes in manufacturing, definitely
non-green.

Which is why all this stuff is made overseas, where the rivers literally
bubble from pollutants.

Man, are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it up or
google it.

I DO believe it.
YOU are the one asserting that he made it up.
Prove it. *Google your salty ass off, provide cites to the contrary.
Asshole.



Jimwit doesn't even remember for sure what he thought he saw
somewhere, yet he states it as if it is some sort of fact. As far as
I'm concerned, he made it up, until he comes up with some evidence
that he didn't.

Typical SaltyAss.
Nevermind that it was a very good point.
Kudos to Jimmie if he DID make it up.... *it's more creative insight than
YOU will ever generate in your useless usenet career.
Figger out climb vs. conventional cutting yet?? *Which you denied existed,
cuz poor ignerint baby didn't have effing citations spoon fed to him.....
waaaa-waaaaa
--
EA



Been 3 or 4 years since I saw the thing. I dont really give a rat's
ass if anyone believes me or not. I know none of these posers that
keep saying how great photo voltaic systems are will ever install a
system themselves. I've done enough research to know that its not as
easy to do as the internet ads make it sound. They dont consider that
the first and second largest users of energy in the home is HVAC and
hot water. These can be more efficiently supplemented via solar by
taking a more direct approach leaving out the solar to electrical
conversion all together. I can do better than photocells just by
adding a sun room on the south side of my house to heat in the
winter.

Jimmie

On Apr 7, 5:24*pm, "Existential Angst"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





RBM wrote:

A 6KW system for a home costs about $48K. *This means that it is
totally unviable compared to other electricity generation options.
The only way it becomes viable is for the govt to hand out more money
to get you to install one. * After the gov pays for around half of the
cost, then it can make economic sense for the homeowner. *For the
taxpayers, it's a loser.

In general, people aren't stupid. If solar energy was cost effective,
we'd all be tripping over each other to get it.

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq meter..
At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12 hours
of darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about 1/3 the
maximum, or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would capture, then,
(assuming 70% efficiency of the solar collector) 560 watts, or about 1/2
kw.

That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one computer.
Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or an
average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.

Methinks you left off a zero: *Should be 1200 W/m^2.
Nominal 100 W/sq ft.

Ackshooly, it varies from 900 to 1500 W/m^2, depending on lattitude,
altitude, etc.

Selective-surface collectors can substantially exceed 70% -- good mostly for
HW (heat, domestic), which can be a big % of used juice. *Also, these
collectors are proly a lot cheaper than photovoltaics.
You can make pretty good ones DIY, as well.

PV's are up to what, now, 15% efficiency??
And I thought I read somewhere that PV's could be had for about $1/watt???

If they can be had for that amount, how is it that a typical home
system that generates 6KW costs $50K?






Also, I wonder what the lifespan of PV's are.
--
EA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:24:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 11:30*am, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT), keith
wrote:

On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

Photo-voltaic's don't have to be a complete solution in order to be a
worthwhile proposition. What's the ROI on your car? Is it at least the
most cost efficient car you could possibly own? Is it as cheap as
taking mass transit? If not, then I guess using a car for
transportation isn't economically feasible.

The ROI on my car is quite good, actually (something like 2,500%). *It
allows me to go to work every day.

You just failed basic economics - Very badly.

The fact that you would say this, while unsurprising, shows how dumb
you really are.

Spoken like a true imbecile. Please continue. I'm here for he
entertainment, however low-brow. :-)

I know. I've seen you play with yourself day in and day out, here.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:19:07 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..

Man, are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it up or
google it.


I DO believe it.


I rest my case your honor!


Well, maybe you have rested your case, but you should try making one, first,
and then rest.

Explain why jimmie's assertions are so unbelievable.

Sheeit, you didn't believe climb vs. conventional cutting either, until Ed
H. showed you to be an effing uninformed moron.
Not to mention the approx. 2 million hits on google on the subject, which
didn't seem to impress you, since, well, it came from me.

I sure hope you live by yourself, at least give yer mom a break......
--
EA

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:06:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:19:07 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...

Man, are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it up or
google it.


I DO believe it.


I rest my case your honor!


Well, maybe you have rested your case, but you should try making one,
first,
and then rest.

Explain why jimmie's assertions are so unbelievable.

Sheeit, you didn't believe climb vs. conventional cutting either, until Ed
H. showed you to be an effing uninformed moron.
Not to mention the approx. 2 million hits on google on the subject, which
didn't seem to impress you, since, well, it came from me.

I sure hope you live by yourself, at least give yer mom a break......

I still have no idea what this climb cutting thing is.

Probably the first truthful thing you've said.
But you sure did know a lot about it with fellow asshole Ricodjour in the
Dual Saw thread, didn't you??


Meanwhile, lets review...

I said "Man are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it
up"

...and you replied, "I do believe it"


or to paraphrase:

Salty sez: Boy are you stupid!

EA sez: I believe you!

So you DO live with yer mom... You're STILL in JHS!!
--
EA




I have to admit that at first I didn't really think you were THAT
stupid. I sure do now.

On Apr 7, 2:39*pm, "gnu / linux" wrote:
Wonder if solar is too expensive for the W.Va. coal miners ?

Or the 115 Chinese coal miners rescued recently after 8 DAYS in a
flooding mine? And the 33, or more, being sought! And with their
control of their media one knows that such 'bad' news is not
propaganda!

But while 25 the miners in W.Va. has been mentioned every hour on
every North American network not a word about the Chinese one!

And then later on there'll be a few comments about the 'Poor safety
record' of Chinese mines and few 'tut-tuts' about cheap labour
industry.

While the W.Va mine had ................ what was it, yes probably
higher standards, ............ but 120 safety violations?

Where IS government when really needed? Possibly being lobbied in
Washington or the state capital?

Just a minute let me check on international news on the internet for
the latest on the Chines incident. And I'll post here.

On Apr 8, 12:40*am, terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 2:39*pm, "gnu / linux" wrote:

Wonder if solar is too expensive for the W.Va. coal miners ?

Or the 115 Chinese coal miners rescued recently after 8 DAYS in a
flooding mine? And the 33, or more, being sought! And with their
control of their media one knows that such 'bad' news is not
propaganda!

But while 25 the miners in W.Va. has been mentioned every hour on
every North American network not a word about the Chinese one!

And then later on there'll be a few comments about the 'Poor safety
record' of Chinese mines and few 'tut-tuts' about cheap labour
industry.

While the W.Va mine had *................ what *was it, yes probably
higher standards, ............ but 120 safety violations?

Where IS government when really needed? Possibly being lobbied in
Washington or the state capital?

Just a minute let me check on international news on the internet for
the latest on the Chines incident. And I'll post here.

Roundup: Foreign press lauds China's rescue efforts in coal mine
accident
Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:26 AM

BEIJING, Apr. 7, 2010 (Xinhua News Agency) -- After more than 190
hours of continuous hard work and scientific rescue operation, 115 of
the 153 miners trapped in a flooded mine in northern China have been
pulled out alive.
The rescue operation not only represented a miracle of life, but also
marked an unbelievable achievement in China's history of disaster
relief.

In recent days, the story of the Chinese government's all-out efforts
to save those trapped miners received extensive and positive coverage
in a number of major media organizations in Russia, the United States,
Germany, France and other countries.

Other sources, AP and MSNBC, AL Jazeera (English), France TV etc.

keith wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:33 am, wrote:

It's not just "cost effective," it's generally impossible.

The amount of radiant energy falling on the earth is 120 watts/sq
meter. At

1000W/sq meter

the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, 12
hours of darkness, clouds, and time of day, one would average about
1/3 the maximum, or 40 watts/sq meter. An 1800 sq ft house would
capture, then, (assuming 70% efficiency of the solar collector) 560
watts, or about 1/2 kw.

You'd do good at 20% conversion efficiency and 1/3 is optimistic.


You are correct, my memory was somewhat porous.

Actually, adjusting for daylight/darkness, the average is 342W/m^2. After
applying corrections for latitude (1/3) and cloud cover (1/3), you'd end up
pretty close to my original figure of 40 watts per sq meter.


That's enough for one light bulb (non-CFL), and one TV or one
computer. Forget about the fridge.

You can nibble at the margins, but you can't run this country - or
an average house - off of sunbeams, irrespective of the cost.

Yet, people somehow are able to do it, even though you say it can't
be done.

Some have no choice (built off grid) and fools live everywhere.


Right. SOME people (like the Unibomber and Mexican border-crossers) can live
off of sunbeams, but my claim that trying to do so for the AVERAGE house or
business is doomed - quite simply, it cannot be done.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:33:01 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:06:52 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:19:07 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:u13qr51f41ne9sos0j9k1lekvl6ivs9uim@4ax. com...

Man, are you ever stupid. If you don't believe me, go look it up or
google it.


I DO believe it.


I rest my case your honor!


Well, maybe you have rested your case, but you should try making one,
first,
and then rest.

Explain why jimmie's assertions are so unbelievable.

Sheeit, you didn't believe climb vs. conventional cutting either, until
Ed
H. showed you to be an effing uninformed moron.
Not to mention the approx. 2 million hits on google on the subject,
which
didn't seem to impress you, since, well, it came from me.

I sure hope you live by yourself, at least give yer mom a break......

I still have no idea what this climb cutting thing is.

Probably the first truthful thing you've said.
But you sure did know a lot about it with fellow asshole Ricodjour in the
Dual Saw thread, didn't you??


No. You are very confused.

You are right. That was ****tyTwo.
sigh The problem is, Assholes all start looking/sounding alike after a
while.

You are the one who couldn't grok peak hp, or Sears hp vs. Porter Cable hp.
Same embarrassment as the climb cutting thing.....
--
EA



Salty sez: Boy are you stupid!

EA sez: I believe you!



Q.E.D.

terry wrote:
On Apr 7, 2:39 pm, "gnu / linux" wrote:
Wonder if solar is too expensive for the W.Va. coal miners ?

Or the 115 Chinese coal miners rescued recently after 8 DAYS in a
flooding mine? And the 33, or more, being sought! And with their
control of their media one knows that such 'bad' news is not
propaganda!

But while 25 the miners in W.Va. has been mentioned every hour on
every North American network not a word about the Chinese one!

And then later on there'll be a few comments about the 'Poor safety
record' of Chinese mines and few 'tut-tuts' about cheap labour
industry.

While the W.Va mine had ................ what was it, yes probably
higher standards, ............ but 120 safety violations?

Where IS government when really needed? Possibly being lobbied in
Washington or the state capital?

Just a minute let me check on international news on the internet for
the latest on the Chines incident. And I'll post here.

MSNBC covered it.

Existential Angst wrote:

An equivalent, tho, with simple retractable awning-type ditties above
windows, would be great asset, energy-wise.

I just invented a device that blocks the sun in the summer and not in the
winter. I call it a deciduous tree.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Existential Angst wrote:

An equivalent, tho, with simple retractable awning-type ditties above
windows, would be great asset, energy-wise.

I just invented a device that blocks the sun in the summer and not in the
winter. I call it a deciduous tree.



There is no debate there. The point was the tree's interference with solar
panels.

If that is indeed unresolvable, then awnings -- or somesuch -- would allow
the cake to be eaten with most of the frosting.

--
EA

wrote:
http://gizmodo.com/5104016/dean-kame...y-off-the-grid

Well, yeah. His home is typical of folks who invent the Segway or the
Pop-Tart. Bill Gates probably saves bags of money on air-conditioning by
living inside a mountain.

wrote:

By using less energy, and producing more of it at the point of use,
you CAN save money. You don't have to be Bill Gates to do it, either.
I'm currently looking into installing geo-thermal in my primary
residence. I will use photovoltaic solar to provide the electricity
needed to operate the controls and pumps. So, I will be heating and
cooling that house without any connection to the grid, and no fossil
fuels. I'll be able to keep my house at any temp I want without
worrying about how much energy I'm using to do it. I'll also be able
to heat my hot tub for free, saving an additional $30-$40 a month. The
initial installation will be expensive, but part of it will be offset
by the boiler I won't be replacing. Since I won't be buying any oil,
I'll break even in about 10 years at MOST. More likely about 7 years.
After that, heat and air conditioning will be FREE other than
maintenance, which is pretty minimal on these systems.

What is your geo-thermo source?

wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:15:08 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
http://gizmodo.com/5104016/dean-kame...y-off-the-grid

Well, yeah. His home is typical of folks who invent the Segway or the
Pop-Tart. Bill Gates probably saves bags of money on
air-conditioning by living inside a mountain.



I guess you missed a few things, like the fact that part of getting
off the grid involved figuring out ways to use LESS energy.

There is no single magic bullet. If you have that sort of tunnel
vision, you are doomed to failure and extinction.

By using less energy, and producing more of it at the point of use,
you CAN save money.

Agreed. Some people, however, confuse the goals and the methods. For some,
using less energy is the goal when energy usage is really the MEANS not the
END. If you can accomplish the same goal using less energy, then good on
you!

There are several ways to test the rationale of an hypothesis: One is to
take the tactic to its extreme. If the goal is to find the cheapest on-going
way to watch the Super Bowl on a 52" plasma TV, you might look at wind power
or solar collectors. If the goal is to reduce energy consumption, then the
extreme is the Unibomber's sharck or an Indian wigwam.

Regrettably, extremists have elevated reduced energy usage to the goal. You
find this construct in slogans such as "Eliminate coal-fired power plants
and we'll have cleaner air," implying that the elimination of coal-fired
power plants is the goal and a subsidiary benefit is cleaner air. In my
view, a better way of making a similar claim is "One way to get better air
is to eliminate coal-fired power plants."

In reality, many environmental activists are closet Luddites who want us to
devolve to a hunter-gatherer society. In the above example, they don't want
cleaner air, they want our electricity consumption cut in half. Only then
can we "get back to nature," maintain a simpler life-style, and lead lives
that are short, painful, and brutish.


You don't have to be Bill Gates to do it, either.
I'm currently looking into installing geo-thermal in my primary
residence. I will use photovoltaic solar to provide the electricity
needed to operate the controls and pumps. So, I will be heating and
cooling that house without any connection to the grid, and no fossil
fuels. I'll be able to keep my house at any temp I want without
worrying about how much energy I'm using to do it. I'll also be able
to heat my hot tub for free, saving an additional $30-$40 a month. The
initial installation will be expensive, but part of it will be offset
by the boiler I won't be replacing. Since I won't be buying any oil,
I'll break even in about 10 years at MOST. More likely about 7 years.
After that, heat and air conditioning will be FREE other than
maintenance, which is pretty minimal on these systems.

If you do undertake this salutary plan, it would be really neat to keep a
journal of expenses and savings over time - starting at day one. After a few
years, you should be able to divine a trend and the whole shebang would be
excellent fodder for a magazine article or opinion piece.

I predict is will be a money pit into which you'll have to keep throwing
coins called dear, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by cold, hard,
facts.

Let us know how the project goes.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
http://gizmodo.com/5104016/dean-kame...y-off-the-grid

Well, yeah. His home is typical of folks who invent the Segway or the
Pop-Tart. Bill Gates probably saves bags of money on air-conditioning by
living inside a mountain.


Yeah, not to mention that you rarely get the "real story" on these things,
just the sexy news bytes.
Proly this kamen guy's got a diesel generator tucked away somewhere.

And, most of this stuff is much more effectively done on new construction.

Assuming Salty is not confabulating (again), his eyeballs will likely
explode once he gets all those conversion bills -- not to mention his hissy
fits when the skies are cloudy for weeks.
7 year ROI??? Try 30.
Minimal maintenance???? Heh, but another eyeball explosion.

Take something a simple as thermal windows. I've read summaries of studies
that showed that most often these windows are at best a break even
proposition, because the energy they save just about equals their
replacement cost at the end of their lifetime.
Unless you go the way of Anderson/Pella/Marvin, and then your breakeven
point will proly be 40 years.

Take in-floor radiant heating. Great idear, right? Indeed, it is.
Heh, what happens when one pops a leak?? Or if electric, a shorted element.
Holy Bananas, your ROI on DAT repair bill will proly be 150 years!

Kinda like tryna beat a parking meter:
It wasn't really free parking, as yer "cost" of that free park is actually
the expected probability of a ticket multiplied by the value of the ticket.
Over the long term, the house always wins.

In NYC, if you avoid meters or garage parking, the alternative is hauling
around someone just to watch the car/truck -- which is in fact what
commercial vehicles often do, as one ticket essentially pays for that
person.

Iow, there is no escape from effing NYC parking costs, there is likely no
escape from effing energy costs, with rare exceptions in the case of
talented knowledgeable DIYers. And THEN the cost is likely boucou
time/labor.

Which is likely moot, as proly few municipalities would even allow such a
DIY effort -- sheeit, many places require a licensed plumber to change yer
goddamm water heater -- and worse.

Not badmouthing solar/geo/Green-ness, or the nobility of such efforts, just
saying that a lot has been mis-represented -- mostly via HGTV, whose often
stunning presentations on this stuff omit some nitty-gritty realities, like
the fact that many of these stunning installations are the playthings of
wealthy architects et al, which are proly write-offs way beyond energy tax
credits, ito professional displays of their work. Iow, written off as a
marketing/bidniss expense, etc.

Salty does, miraculously, make a very good point, which was my point in the
Solar/40 hp thread:

This stuff will only be viable if we re-think our lifestyles : endless A/C,
4 kW clothes driers, 250++ hp cars -- and our whole "disposable" zeitgeist.
And the folly of running on a 2 hp treadmill -- goodgawd.....

All of which, given the momentum of our current cultural bent and the
economic corners we have been painted into, will never cease -- until we
wind up in work barracks -- solar powered, of course.

--
EA

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:15:08 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
http://gizmodo.com/5104016/dean-kame...y-off-the-grid

Well, yeah. His home is typical of folks who invent the Segway or the
Pop-Tart. Bill Gates probably saves bags of money on
air-conditioning by living inside a mountain.



I guess you missed a few things, like the fact that part of getting
off the grid involved figuring out ways to use LESS energy.

There is no single magic bullet. If you have that sort of tunnel
vision, you are doomed to failure and extinction.

By using less energy, and producing more of it at the point of use,
you CAN save money.

Agreed. Some people, however, confuse the goals and the methods. For some,
using less energy is the goal when energy usage is really the MEANS not
the END. If you can accomplish the same goal using less energy, then good
on you!

There are several ways to test the rationale of an hypothesis: One is to
take the tactic to its extreme. If the goal is to find the cheapest
on-going way to watch the Super Bowl on a 52" plasma TV, you might look at
wind power or solar collectors. If the goal is to reduce energy
consumption, then the extreme is the Unibomber's sharck or an Indian
wigwam.

Regrettably, extremists have elevated reduced energy usage to the goal.
You find this construct in slogans such as "Eliminate coal-fired power
plants and we'll have cleaner air," implying that the elimination of
coal-fired power plants is the goal and a subsidiary benefit is cleaner
air. In my view, a better way of making a similar claim is "One way to get
better air is to eliminate coal-fired power plants."

In reality, many environmental activists are closet Luddites who want us
to devolve to a hunter-gatherer society. In the above example, they don't
want cleaner air, they want our electricity consumption cut in half. Only
then can we "get back to nature," maintain a simpler life-style, and lead
lives that are short, painful, and brutish.

As opposed to long, self-obsessed, and stupid?
Heh, tough choice!!

But good insights, don't disagree with much.

The Q is, What to do?
What to do with 6,000,0000,000++ i-pod-craving assholes??

Don't know, except to just find the biggest air bubble possible, in a
sinking ship.




You don't have to be Bill Gates to do it, either.
I'm currently looking into installing geo-thermal in my primary
residence. I will use photovoltaic solar to provide the electricity
needed to operate the controls and pumps. So, I will be heating and
cooling that house without any connection to the grid, and no fossil
fuels. I'll be able to keep my house at any temp I want without
worrying about how much energy I'm using to do it. I'll also be able
to heat my hot tub for free, saving an additional $30-$40 a month. The
initial installation will be expensive, but part of it will be offset
by the boiler I won't be replacing. Since I won't be buying any oil,
I'll break even in about 10 years at MOST. More likely about 7 years.
After that, heat and air conditioning will be FREE other than
maintenance, which is pretty minimal on these systems.

If you do undertake this salutary plan, it would be really neat to keep a
journal of expenses and savings over time - starting at day one. After a
few years, you should be able to divine a trend and the whole shebang
would be excellent fodder for a magazine article or opinion piece.

I predict is will be a money pit into which you'll have to keep throwing
coins called dear, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise by cold,
hard, facts.

Let us know how the project goes.

Yeah, should be inneresting.
Given Salty's obsession with very selective "citations & facts", his
confabulations will most likely never get off the ground.
And if they ever do un-confabulate themselves, good luck to someone who
can't fathom effing Peak Horsepower.

--
EA

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:49:28 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:



In reality, many environmental activists are closet Luddites who want us
to
devolve to a hunter-gatherer society.


That's not reality. That's unthinking drama queen hysteria on your
part.

Actually, it was a very perceptive observation. Are you waiting for cites?

How bout this cite: What happened to all those assholes in Woodstock, eh?

And, strictly speaking, he said "many", not "most", and not "all".
You did your own poll, to dispute this?

Don't forget to keep dat geo-thermal expense journal, and to keep us posted.
Regards, and sympathies, to yer mom.

--
EA

In article ,
"Existential Angst" wrote:


Actually, it was a very perceptive observation. Are you waiting for cites?

How bout this cite: What happened to all those assholes in Woodstock, eh?
All those day-glo freaks who used to paint their face, they've
joined the human race. Somethings will never change....



--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Apr 10, 11:19*am, wrote: $0.80/ Kwh even
if you use it yourself.

I don't understand how you can sell the power if you use it
yourself? * Here in the US, what you use yourself is free and the
excess is sold back to the system. *

People get the wrong idea that you can sell ALL of the excess you can
generate back to the PoCo. This isnt true. The PoCo doesnt have to and
will not pay you for more than you have used so the best you can do is
break even less the monthly connection charges and other fees they can
dream up. I would be paying for the first $40 worth whether I use it
or not.

Jimmie

On Apr 10, 3:29*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:19*am, wrote: $0.80/ Kwh even
if you use it yourself.



I don't understand how you can sell the power if you use it
yourself? * Here in the US, what you use yourself is free and the
excess is sold back to the system. *

*People get the wrong idea that you can sell ALL of the excess you can
generate back to the PoCo. This isnt true. The PoCo doesnt have to and
will not pay you for more than you have used so the best you can do is
break even less the monthly connection charges and other fees they can
dream up.

That is news to me. You have any reference that supports this? I've
always heard that whatever you don't use goes back to the grid and you
do get paid for it. Why would the power company pay me for the power
I have used? It sounds ass backwards.







I would be paying for the first $40 worth whether I use it
or not.

Jimmie

On Apr 10, 8:29�pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:19�am, wrote: $0.80/ Kwh even
if you use it yourself.



I don't understand how you can sell the power if you use it
yourself? � Here in the US, what you use yourself is free and the
excess is sold back to the system. �

�People get the wrong idea that you can sell ALL of the excess you can
generate back to the PoCo. This isnt true. The PoCo doesnt have to and
will not pay you for more than you have used so the best you can do is
break even less the monthly connection charges and other fees they can
dream up. I would be paying for the first $40 worth whether I use it
or not.

Jimmie

Yes you can. There is an additional payment of �0.23/Kwh for whatever
you export.

On Apr 10, 9:16�pm, wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:29�pm, JIMMIE wrote:

On Apr 10, 11:19�am, wrote: $0.80/ Kwh even
if you use it yourself.

I don't understand how you can sell the power if you use it
yourself? � Here in the US, what you use yourself is free and the
excess is sold back to the system. �

�People get the wrong idea that you can sell ALL of the excess you can
generate back to the PoCo. This isnt true. The PoCo doesnt have to and
will not pay you for more than you have used so the best you can do is
break even less the monthly connection charges and other fees they can
dream up.

That is news to me. �You have any reference that supports this? � I've
always heard that whatever you don't use goes back to the grid and you
do get paid for it. �Why would the power company pay me for the power
I have used? � It sounds ass backwards.



I would be paying for the first $40 worth whether I use it
or not.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Read the post, we're taliking UK here not US.

On Apr 10, 4:16*pm, wrote:
On Apr 10, 3:29*pm, JIMMIE wrote:

On Apr 10, 11:19*am, wrote: $0.80/ Kwh even
if you use it yourself.

I don't understand how you can sell the power if you use it
yourself? * Here in the US, what you use yourself is free and the
excess is sold back to the system. *

*People get the wrong idea that you can sell ALL of the excess you can
generate back to the PoCo. This isnt true. The PoCo doesnt have to and
will not pay you for more than you have used so the best you can do is
break even less the monthly connection charges and other fees they can
dream up.

That is news to me. *You have any reference that supports this? * I've
always heard that whatever you don't use goes back to the grid and you
do get paid for it. *Why would the power company pay me for the power
I have used? * It sounds ass backwards.

I would be paying for the first $40 worth whether I use it
or not.

Jimmie

Best reference is the local poco or whomever you buy your electricity
from. It varies from state to state. Often sales back to the poco is
at a wholesale rate of 1 to 3 cents per Kwh. When you do this you can
sell them as much as you want but you have to install a 'net meter'
that computes your usage from and return to the grid. Otherwise if
you use a plain old meter which will run backwards you can be limited
to the amount that you took out of the grid. For a residential
customer guess which way is best.

Jimmie

Jimmie