On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:02:51 -0700, "chaniarts" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

if it wasn't for grants/subsidies, they would never pay for themselves as
the payback time is longer than the equipment lifetime.

Particularly in an area with the possibility of hail.

that said, the payback for my system is about 4.5 years at current
electrical rates; there is a planned increase in rates for later this year,
and we've had one every 2 years or so, so the payback time would get a bit
shorter.

As long as they don't drop the subsidies, perhaps. *You're still relying on
the grid as a "battery". *If everyone did this the grid would fail. *IOW, it's
a losing proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Small generating site distributed round the grid help matters by
reducing grid loading.

No, it *hurts* by reducing control. If even a large fraction of the people
did it, the net cash flow would be out; not good for the infrastructure,
either.

The grid tie inverters are required to have an "anti-islanding"
feature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-islanding

Dumbass.

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

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



On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Citation please....

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

On Apr 22, 8:57 pm, wrote:

I have a proposal on my fridge for 2.3KW of solar for $17,250.
They are only really willing to say I will average about 13.8 KWH a
day over a year (5037 KWH a year). I pay 13 cents a KWH so that is
$654.81 a year. That pays back in 26.34 years if it doesn't break or
get blown away by a hurricane

Andy comment:

If you put the 17250 in the bank or investment that pays 4%
interest,
The interest will be over 654 a year , which would pay your bill
without
any risk or trouble, and you would still have the 17250 in the
bank.....

Andy in Eureka, Texas

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





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

On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter.. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Citation please....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

On Apr 23, 5:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:02:51 -0700, "chaniarts" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter..
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

if it wasn't for grants/subsidies, they would never pay for themselves as
the payback time is longer than the equipment lifetime.

Particularly in an area with the possibility of hail.

that said, the payback for my system is about 4.5 years at current
electrical rates; there is a planned increase in rates for later this year,
and we've had one every 2 years or so, so the payback time would get a bit
shorter.

As long as they don't drop the subsidies, perhaps. *You're still relying on
the grid as a "battery". *If everyone did this the grid would fail. *IOW, it's
a losing proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Small generating site distributed round the grid help matters by
reducing grid loading.

No, it *hurts* by reducing control. *If even a large fraction of the people
did it, the net cash flow would be out; not good for the infrastructure,
either.

The grid tie inverters are required to have an "anti-islanding"
feature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-islanding

Dumbass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whats the differnence beween 3Kw into the system and 3Kw out? Both
pose exactly the same control problems.

On Apr 23, 3:52*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*aemeijers wrote:
Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight.

I live in startup company heaven. There are boatloads of investment
capital around here, just waiting to be squandered. I've seen the
startup model over and over again. As soon as OPM (other people's money)
gets involved, the extravagance and waste are boundless. I've seen
50,000 sq. ft. buildings with $50,000,000 worth of equipment in them to
accommodate 6 egocentric engineers, and nary a customer on the horizon.

Real entrepreneurs start their operations in dilapidated barns with
equipment bought at the thrift store, but those guys are all but extinct.

Yes you're right. At one time you could makean earth shattering
discovery in your garden shed with a few tools.
Not any more. You need a team of engineers and$M.

In article ,
" wrote:

Taking money from one citizen to give it to another is wrong.

The alternative is anarchy. Or can you name a government function that
doesn't involve taking from one to give to another?

Picture of solar PV panels.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl...in/photostream

The inverter.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl...in/photostream

My insulated window shutters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl...in/photostream

Andy wrote in news:f735dda9-c01b-45e5-8c2d-
:

If you put the 17250 in the bank or investment that pays 4%
interest,

Since I pay 2.24% on my HELOC, please tell me where I can get 4% on a
savings account ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Andy wrote in news:f735dda9-c01b-45e5-8c2d-
:

If you put the 17250 in the bank or investment that pays 4%
interest,

Since I pay 2.24% on my HELOC, please tell me where I can get 4% on a
savings account ...

A lot of companies pay 4-5 and even 6% of the price of their stock in
dividends. The old Philip Morse is at 5.8% yield, Hospitality Properties
7.1%, Detroit Edison (DTE) 4.5%, heck even McDonald's pays 3.17% (and
before you say anything.. Andy did say "bank OR investment". There are
a couple that are paying dividends of 11% or more, but I don't know if I
would put any money into them (like WWE, for instance.)

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:43:58 -0700, "chaniarts"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Frank wrote in
news:iosdor$und$1@dont- email.me:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of
yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see
the cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)



how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.


meanwhile,the solar cells last only 20 years....,and there's no
accounting for worn out or bad batteries(that last much LESS than 20
years),or failures in the DC-AC inverter.

Plus an added fire hazard.
Oh,and maintenance on the batteries and cleaning of solar panels.

grid tie installations don't have batteries.

The grid is their battery.

solar cells are warranteed for 25 years, inverters for 10, typically

Hopefully.


WHAT sort of "warranty"?
Do they guarantee a minimum power output for a given solar input for up to
25 years? Or does the power output decline with age,from Day One?(As I
believe.) I suspect they're figuring the usual owner will not notice the
decline.(until they get the bill for replacement panels...and are still
paying for the originals!)

WRT inverters,what good does a warranty do when your inverter fails when
you need the power? How long before a replacement is sent?
does the warranty cover the loss of revenue because you're wasting the
power generated by your panel array and can't sell it to the utility,and
have to buy power from the utility or go without?
what if the inverter starts a fire when it blows out? does the warranty
cover that loss? does your homeowner insurance cover that sort of loss?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 5:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:02:51 -0700, "chaniarts" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

if it wasn't for grants/subsidies, they would never pay for themselves as
the payback time is longer than the equipment lifetime.

Particularly in an area with the possibility of hail.

that said, the payback for my system is about 4.5 years at current
electrical rates; there is a planned increase in rates for later this year,
and we've had one every 2 years or so, so the payback time would get a bit
shorter.

As long as they don't drop the subsidies, perhaps. *You're still relying on
the grid as a "battery". *If everyone did this the grid would fail. *IOW, it's
a losing proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Small generating site distributed round the grid help matters by
reducing grid loading.

No, it *hurts* by reducing control. *If even a large fraction of the people
did it, the net cash flow would be out; not good for the infrastructure,
either.

The grid tie inverters are required to have an "anti-islanding"
feature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-islanding

Dumbass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whats the differnence beween 3Kw into the system and 3Kw out? Both
pose exactly the same control problems.

You really are clueless. The sun is pretty well synchronized across a wide
area. Loads aren't.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

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





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

On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Citation please....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

You haven't moved into the 19th century. Profit is a *GOOD* thing.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:47:09 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Taking money from one citizen to give it to another is wrong.

The alternative is anarchy. Or can you name a government function that
doesn't involve taking from one to give to another?

*None* of the legitimate functions of government involve taking from one and
giving to another.

On Apr 22, 2:14*am, harry wrote:
My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

Maybe we will break away and form our own state, free of our lying
b@@@@d politicians.

We would have to sit in the dark at night of course.

They were a bunch of ******s who came to fit it. Clueless. I had to
give them a hard time. *But I am good at this.

I can lie out in the garden now and close my eyes and imagine pound
notes floating down from the sky and being sucked into my roof top
array and transferred to my bank balance,
* * Whatsiss? I see a little cloud drifting over, casting a shadow on
my array/bankbalance.
GO AWAY, GO AWAY!!!

I,m installing a small system, 90watts, harbor freight for $370. That
does not include battery or inverter. It's mostly for 12 Vdc. lighting
and misc.
I mostly want it for a back up for power outages, and perhaps the big
one when all America goes without power after the solar flare.
Need backup food and water for at least 2-3 months. Some gas and
kerosene. Maybe a gun.
Also cb and ham communications, the only things available.

Greg

On Apr 23, 9:20*pm, zek wrote:
On Apr 22, 2:14*am, harry wrote:





My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

Maybe we will break away and form our own state, free of our lying
b@@@@d politicians.

We would have to sit in the dark at night of course.

They were a bunch of ******s who came to fit it. Clueless. I had to
give them a hard time. *But I am good at this.

I can lie out in the garden now and close my eyes and imagine pound
notes floating down from the sky and being sucked into my roof top
array and transferred to my bank balance,
* * Whatsiss? I see a little cloud drifting over, casting a shadow on
my array/bankbalance.
GO AWAY, GO AWAY!!!

I,m installing a small system, 90watts, harbor freight for $370. That
does not include battery or inverter. It's mostly for 12 Vdc. lighting
and misc.
I mostly want it for a back up for power outages, and perhaps the big
one when all America goes without power after the solar flare.
Need backup food and water for at least 2-3 months. Some gas and
kerosene. Maybe a gun.
Also cb and ham communications, the only things available.

Greg

Also picked up this big IBM dc motor at a hamfest. Going to try making
a windmill of some sort.

Greg

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:36:13 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:43:58 -0700, "chaniarts"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Frank wrote in
news:iosdor$und$1@dont- email.me:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of
yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see
the cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)



how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.


meanwhile,the solar cells last only 20 years....,and there's no
accounting for worn out or bad batteries(that last much LESS than 20
years),or failures in the DC-AC inverter.

Plus an added fire hazard.
Oh,and maintenance on the batteries and cleaning of solar panels.

grid tie installations don't have batteries.

The grid is their battery.

solar cells are warranteed for 25 years, inverters for 10, typically

Hopefully.


WHAT sort of "warranty"?
Do they guarantee a minimum power output for a given solar input for up to
25 years? Or does the power output decline with age,from Day One?(As I
believe.) I suspect they're figuring the usual owner will not notice the
decline.(until they get the bill for replacement panels...and are still
paying for the originals!)

Will the company still be in business next year. Are hail storms warranted
against?

WRT inverters,what good does a warranty do when your inverter fails when
you need the power? How long before a replacement is sent?

Since they can't power the house without the grid, the grid will be there in
the interim. If its not, you're SOL even if the PV system is perfect.

does the warranty cover the loss of revenue because you're wasting the
power generated by your panel array and can't sell it to the utility,and
have to buy power from the utility or go without?

Hey, I'd sell that insurance. What a great idea!

what if the inverter starts a fire when it blows out? does the warranty
cover that loss? does your homeowner insurance cover that sort of loss?

Homeowners insurance should cover that, but they might want to know about it
(and charge more if there are significant losses).

On Apr 24, 12:36*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote :





On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:43:58 -0700, "chaniarts"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Frank wrote in
:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of
yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see
the cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

meanwhile,the solar cells last only 20 years....,and there's no
accounting for worn out or bad batteries(that last much LESS than 20
years),or failures in the DC-AC inverter.

Plus an added fire hazard.
Oh,and maintenance on the batteries and cleaning of solar panels.

grid tie installations don't have batteries.

The grid is their battery.

solar cells are warranteed for 25 years, inverters for 10, typically

Hopefully.

WHAT sort of "warranty"?
Do they guarantee a minimum power output for a given solar input for up to
25 years? Or does the power output decline with age,from Day One?(As I
believe.) I suspect they're figuring the usual owner will not notice the
decline.(until they get the bill for replacement panels...and are still
paying for the originals!)

WRT inverters,what good does a warranty do when your inverter fails when
you need the power? How long before a replacement is sent?
does the warranty cover the loss of revenue because you're wasting the
power generated by your panel array and can't sell it to the utility,and
have to buy power from the utility or go without?
what if the inverter starts a fire when it blows out? does the warranty
cover that loss? does your homeowner insurance cover that sort of loss?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The decline in performance of PV panels is declared at 1% per year.
However most panels have in practice declined at much less.

Any electrical gismo can blow up and cause a fire. In the UK the
makers won't be resonsible unless negligence in manufacture/design can
be shown. They have to be mounted on incombustable surfaces.

On Apr 24, 2:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:02:51 -0700, "chaniarts" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

if it wasn't for grants/subsidies, they would never pay for themselves as
the payback time is longer than the equipment lifetime.

Particularly in an area with the possibility of hail.

that said, the payback for my system is about 4.5 years at current
electrical rates; there is a planned increase in rates for later this year,
and we've had one every 2 years or so, so the payback time would get a bit
shorter.

As long as they don't drop the subsidies, perhaps. *You're still relying on
the grid as a "battery". *If everyone did this the grid would fail. *IOW, it's
a losing proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Small generating site distributed round the grid help matters by
reducing grid loading.

No, it *hurts* by reducing control. *If even a large fraction of the people
did it, the net cash flow would be out; not good for the infrastructure,
either.

The grid tie inverters are required to have an "anti-islanding"
feature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-islanding

Dumbass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whats the differnence beween 3Kw into the system and 3Kw out? Both
pose exactly the same control problems.

You really are clueless. *The sun is pretty well synchronized across a wide
area. *Loads aren't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So? That means the input can be predicted so simplifying the problem.

On Apr 24, 2:18*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:07:37 -0700 (PDT), "

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

On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Citation please....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

You haven't moved into the 19th century. *Profit is a *GOOD* thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excessive profit, to the detriment of others, is a bad thing. You
haven't moved OUT of the 19th century.

But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.

On Apr 24, 2:20*am, zek wrote:
On Apr 22, 2:14*am, harry wrote:





My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

Maybe we will break away and form our own state, free of our lying
b@@@@d politicians.

We would have to sit in the dark at night of course.

They were a bunch of ******s who came to fit it. Clueless. I had to
give them a hard time. *But I am good at this.

I can lie out in the garden now and close my eyes and imagine pound
notes floating down from the sky and being sucked into my roof top
array and transferred to my bank balance,
* * Whatsiss? I see a little cloud drifting over, casting a shadow on
my array/bankbalance.
GO AWAY, GO AWAY!!!

I,m installing a small system, 90watts, harbor freight for $370. That
does not include battery or inverter. It's mostly for 12 Vdc. lighting
and misc.
I mostly want it for a back up for power outages, and perhaps the big
one when all America goes without power after the solar flare.
Need backup food and water for at least 2-3 months. Some gas and
kerosene. Maybe a gun.
Also cb and ham communications, the only things available.

Greg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Join the Mormons. They are into this sort of thing.

On Apr 24, 2:27*am, zek wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:20*pm, zek wrote:





On Apr 22, 2:14*am, harry wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday..

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

Maybe we will break away and form our own state, free of our lying
b@@@@d politicians.

We would have to sit in the dark at night of course.

They were a bunch of ******s who came to fit it. Clueless. I had to
give them a hard time. *But I am good at this.

I can lie out in the garden now and close my eyes and imagine pound
notes floating down from the sky and being sucked into my roof top
array and transferred to my bank balance,
* * Whatsiss? I see a little cloud drifting over, casting a shadow on
my array/bankbalance.
GO AWAY, GO AWAY!!!

I,m installing a small system, 90watts, harbor freight for $370. That
does not include battery or inverter. It's mostly for 12 Vdc. lighting
and misc.
I mostly want it for a back up for power outages, and perhaps the big
one when all America goes without power after the solar flare.
Need backup food and water for at least 2-3 months. Some gas and
kerosene. Maybe a gun.
Also cb and ham communications, the only things available.

Greg

Also picked up this big IBM dc motor at a hamfest. Going to try making
a windmill of some sort.

Greg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You would be best to use automobile technolgy. Most of the the
problems are solved if you do.

But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
*or similar? * I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.
http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...united-states/

On Apr 24, 8:43*am, harry wrote:
But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
*or similar? * I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...-virtual-monop...

Even in the case of Microsoft, it's not a monopoly. There are other
operating systems, most notably Apple with the MAC OS and Linux.
You can run those on a computer as well. There are also open
alternatives to the common Microsoft office apps. I expect
being a free thinking anarchist, you're probably using one or more
of those alternatives.

On 4/24/2011 7:43 AM, harry wrote:



But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
or similar? I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.
http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...united-states/

Monsanto....*******s.

Jim

"harry" wrote in message
...



But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
or similar? I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.
http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...united-states/

In this case, the first two companies listed have a monopoly because they
have the best products. I've tried other search engines, but Google works
best for me. Evidently others feel the same was as we are free to choose
and most tend to choose these. I don't know about Monsanto so can't
comment.

" wrote in news:de2db6ae-
:

As an example, in the recent housing bubble,
everyone got the idea that housing was a great investment, that
it could only go up. The government helped, by subsidizing real
estate with huge tax breaks, requiring lenders to make loans
in low income areas regardless of credit worthiness and keeping
interest rates very low.

In response to that, demand for housing increased, causing prices
to rise in response. Exactly how markets behave following the
most basic rules of economics.

Exactly, on the surface. Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and
abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". But
I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most
responsibility. Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform
over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. Therefore,
either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had
"better" regulation than others.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 4/24/2011 9:15 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:snip

I don't know about Monsanto so
can't comment.

http://tinyurl.com/3kyn53j

Jim

In article ,
Han wrote:

Exactly, on the surface. Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and
abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". But
I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most
responsibility. Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform
over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. Therefore,
either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had
"better" regulation than others.

Or some states. I think (at least within the US) some areas had better
personal regulation. The majority of people did not get suckered in
because of their internal regulation more than government regulation.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 4/24/2011 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:55:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Also picked up this big IBM dc motor at a hamfest. Going to try making
a windmill of some sort.

Greg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You would be best to use automobile technolgy. Most of the the
problems are solved if you do.

The unsolved problem with automotive alternators is a horrible
efficiency ratio. With a petrol engine providing massive amounts of
power for a relatively small alternator draw, they do not care much
about how efficient it is. The automotive A/C units have the same
issue.

What is a typical automotive alternator? 80 Amps. Getting 960 watts
from a rotating device the size of a small grapefruit is pretty efficient.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:48:13 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Apr 24, 2:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:02:51 -0700, "chaniarts" wrote:
Frank wrote:
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of *yesterday.

It has *little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. *My home is now a net energy exporter.
(And cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant
and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years
ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to
recoup.

if it wasn't for grants/subsidies, they would never pay for themselves as
the payback time is longer than the equipment lifetime.

Particularly in an area with the possibility of hail.

that said, the payback for my system is about 4.5 years at current
electrical rates; there is a planned increase in rates for later this year,
and we've had one every 2 years or so, so the payback time would get a bit
shorter.

As long as they don't drop the subsidies, perhaps. *You're still relying on
the grid as a "battery". *If everyone did this the grid would fail. *IOW, it's
a losing proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Small generating site distributed round the grid help matters by
reducing grid loading.

No, it *hurts* by reducing control. *If even a large fraction of the people
did it, the net cash flow would be out; not good for the infrastructure,
either.

The grid tie inverters are required to have an "anti-islanding"
feature..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-islanding

Dumbass.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whats the differnence beween 3Kw into the system and 3Kw out? Both
pose exactly the same control problems.

You really are clueless. *The sun is pretty well synchronized across a wide
area. *Loads aren't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So? That means the input can be predicted so simplifying the problem.

Good God, you're clueless. Not only is the load varying but so is the
generation; much of it synchronized, in unpredictable areas, rather than at
random (which is actually *more* predictable).

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:52:08 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Apr 24, 2:18*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:41:51 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:07:37 -0700 (PDT), "

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

On 4/23/2011 1:51 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 23, 12:06 am, *wrote:
On 4/22/2011 1:26 PM, Frank wrote:

On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.

It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the
cash being ratcheted in.
Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)

As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying
several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And
cash importer)

how about some numbers,

how many kW does your system produce peak?
how many kWh do you use a day?
how much did it cost you to install?
what subsidies did you get?
how long will it take you to break even?

Mark

Article in local paper about installing system in a church.
They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and
it would pay for itself in 10 years.

There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago.
Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.

And they wonder why pretty much all the governmental units in US are
broke. 'Free' money from gummint ain't free- they stole it from everyone
else.

Sorry, I'm as much of a tree-hugger and techno-geek as the next guy (and
the two are NOT mutually exclusive), but once something gets past the
proof-of-concept R&D stage, the public seed money should stop. It either
meets cost-benefits on its own, or it doesn't (at least not until
competing tech goes up in price.)

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you wait until you've runout of oil before developing the new
technology?
Is that it?
It's a chicken and egg sitution.

Pay attention when you read, harry. I have no heartburn with seed money
for the R&D phase. I do have heartburn with them spending MY money to
subsidize rich yuppie early adapters installing the just-developed new
technology, thereby supporting startup companies that assume those
taxpayer subsidies as part of their business model for survival. Once
the subsidies go away, most of those startup companies will go belly-up
overnight. Saw it before with liquid-based roof solar panels. Most of
the early installs of those have long since been ripped out. The only
thing I would support subsidizing for end users is set-and-forget simple
technology like insulation and storm windows, and I would only support
that for lower-income folk that would never be able to afford it
otherwise. Cutting $50 or $100 a month off their fuel bills has
immediate and long-term benefits to society, since they now may need
less financial help in other areas, and every slight reduction in fuel
burned results in less pollution and less imported oil. But to help some
rich yuppie who could afford PV panels anyway if they really wanted them
that bad? Not so much. The market pressures to bring unit cost down only
work if the cost to the end user is close to the actual cost of the
product. Until the street price is low enough for Everyman, it will be a
rich person niche product. IMHO, PV for residential use will only become
a significant source of power when the actual (unsubsidized) cost per
Kwh, taken over the entire service life of the system, is competitive
with mains power from the grid. At this point, I think end users can get
a lot more bang for the buck with other lower-tech measures like
insulation and light-pipe skylights (see Solatube), and learned
lifestyle changes like not lighting the whole house like an O.R. 18
hours a day.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

Citation please....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

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

- Show quoted text -

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

You haven't moved into the 19th century. *Profit is a *GOOD* thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excessive profit, to the detriment of others, is a bad thing. You
haven't moved OUT of the 19th century.

Which just shows how far back into the 19th century your brain is.

But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.

Utter nonsense.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:43*am, harry wrote:
But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
*or similar? * I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...-virtual-monop...

Even in the case of Microsoft, it's not a monopoly. There are other
operating systems, most notably Apple with the MAC OS and Linux.
You can run those on a computer as well. There are also open
alternatives to the common Microsoft office apps. I expect
being a free thinking anarchist, you're probably using one or more
of those alternatives.

You can also not run *any* OS. Your choice.

On 4/24/2011 10:36 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:de2db6ae-
:

As an example, in the recent housing bubble,
everyone got the idea that housing was a great investment, that
it could only go up. The government helped, by subsidizing real
estate with huge tax breaks, requiring lenders to make loans
in low income areas regardless of credit worthiness and keeping
interest rates very low.

In response to that, demand for housing increased, causing prices
to rise in response. Exactly how markets behave following the
most basic rules of economics.

Exactly, on the surface. Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and
abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". But
I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most
responsibility. Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform
over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. Therefore,
either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had
"better" regulation than others.


Don't forget the clueless or greedy individuals who signed up for loans
they knew damn well they could not afford. I blame them as much as I
blame the hucksters that invited them into the tent. I could have gotten
paper for twice as much house as I bought, but saw no point in it. And
even with the housing crash, I think I could still sell this place for
as much as I paid for it. No profit, especially once you subtract out
repairs, interest, taxes, etc, but I am far from upside down. 'Blue
collar' houses didn't crash near as bad as McMansions.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:26:06 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 4/24/2011 10:36 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in news:de2db6ae-
:

As an example, in the recent housing bubble,
everyone got the idea that housing was a great investment, that
it could only go up. The government helped, by subsidizing real
estate with huge tax breaks, requiring lenders to make loans
in low income areas regardless of credit worthiness and keeping
interest rates very low.

In response to that, demand for housing increased, causing prices
to rise in response. Exactly how markets behave following the
most basic rules of economics.

Exactly, on the surface. Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and
abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". But
I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most
responsibility. Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform
over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. Therefore,
either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had
"better" regulation than others.


Don't forget the clueless or greedy individuals who signed up for loans
they knew damn well they could not afford. I blame them as much as I
blame the hucksters that invited them into the tent.

Many were worse; no-doc loans with nowhere near the real income needed to
support the payments.

I could have gotten paper for twice as much house as I bought, but saw
no point in it.

I put 50% down. I could *easily* have bought twice the house (and the one we
bought could be considered a McMansion - 2600ft^2). I never took a second on
a house, either. Other than an addition (garage) on our first house I never
pulled any money out of equity. That's just dumb.

And
even with the housing crash, I think I could still sell this place for
as much as I paid for it. No profit, especially once you subtract out
repairs, interest, taxes, etc, but I am far from upside down.

I'd lose some, but I've also paid more off than it's gone down. I'm nowhere
close to the water line.

'Blue collar' houses didn't crash near as bad as McMansions.

It's all about location. Most housing is now below the cost of replacement.
That can't last forever either.

On Apr 24, 11:48*am, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:43*am, harry wrote:
But the worst of all is monopoly, which is what they all strive for
and need to be prevented from.- Hide quoted text -

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA
or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie
utility
*or similar? * I can't think of a single one here in the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill Gates' empire? Springs to mind at once.
Once they get big enough they become unassailable.
But there's a list of them here.http://buylikebuffett.com/finance/3-...-virtual-monop...

Even in the case of Microsoft, it's not a monopoly. * There are other
operating systems, most notably Apple with the MAC OS and Linux.
You can run those on a computer as well. *There are also open
alternatives to the common Microsoft office apps. *I expect
being a free thinking anarchist, you're probably using one or more
of those alternatives.

If you use the DoJ definition of monopoly in US v IBM Microsoft is
certainly a monopoly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That suit was started by Ramsey Clark in the last days of the Johnson
administration. Nuff said..... Years passed in litigation and
technology
changed the market on it's own.

zek wrote:

I,m installing a small system, 90watts, harbor freight for $370. That
does not include battery or inverter. It's mostly for 12 Vdc. lighting
and misc.
I mostly want it for a back up for power outages, and perhaps the big
one when all America goes without power after the solar flare.
Need backup food and water for at least 2-3 months. Some gas and
kerosene. Maybe a gun.
Also cb and ham communications, the only things available.

Good plan. Regarding the gun: get two. A long gun and a pistol.

Also hoard a vast quantity of ammunition, at least a thousand rounds for
each.

In a complete breakdown of society, ammunition is the new gold.

With sufficient bullets, all other things are obtainable.

On Apr 24, 3:36*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:de2db6ae-
:

As an example, in the recent housing bubble,
everyone got the idea that housing was a great investment, that
it could only go up. *The government helped, by subsidizing real
estate with huge tax breaks, requiring lenders to make loans
in low income areas regardless of credit worthiness and keeping
interest rates very low.

In response to that, demand for housing increased, causing prices
to rise in response. *Exactly how markets behave following the
most basic rules of economics.

Exactly, on the surface. *Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and
abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". *But
I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most
responsibility. *Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform
over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. *Therefore,
either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had
"better" regulation than others.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

The latter I think.

On Apr 23, 9:05*pm, Han wrote:
Andy wrote in news:f735dda9-c01b-45e5-8c2d-
:

* If you put the 17250 in the bank or investment that pays 4%
interest,

Since I pay 2.24% on my HELOC, please tell me where I can get 4% on a
savings account ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You wouldn't even get that in the UK.

On Apr 24, 4:21*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:48:13 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Apr 24, 2:17*am, "
wrote:

Whats the differnence beween 3Kw into the system and 3Kw out? Both
pose exactly the same control problems.

You really are clueless. *The sun is pretty well synchronized across a wide
area. *Loads aren't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So? *That means the input can be predicted so simplifying the problem.

The real problem with solar or wind being a significant part of the
grid is that you still need virtually 100% of the generating capacity
available to kick in at a moment's notice unless you are willing to
tolerate brownouts and blackouts when a cloud comes over or the wind
stops.

In fact if you watch wind turbines for any length of time you will see
them feathering the turbines to handle load variations while the
fossil plants continue to run.

You are also going to have your whole grid running at the mercy of the
maintenance habits of thousands of homeowners. I wonder what the
reliability rate will be in the out years. You can hate the evil
utility all you like but they do have better maintenance regimens than
the average homeowner and they are better equipped to recover from a
natural disaster.

All this is true. But its renewables or nuclear in the future. (And
nuclear is set back ten years at least after Fukushima) But most of
all it's got to be efficient use of energy. The USA is a long way
behind in that.