" writes:

On Feb 24, 9:51Â*am, dpb wrote:
On 2/24/2012 8:36 AM, wrote:
...

Yes, either reduce, eliminate or generate a profit.

...

Only in the local sense; it's costing all the rest of us in subsidies to
make up the extra cost for the utility to do that. Â*At some point it may
be an overall paying proposition, but it surely isn't yet. Â*

--

Yes, I agree. At least the cost is continuing to come
down. One thing that's particularly funny is what
happened at Solyndra. The govt backed the $500mil
loan as part of a govt plan to get the cost of solar
down. Yet in 18 months, the price decrease of
solar panels bankrupted the company. I mean, what
kind of business plan was that?

One thing not mentioned often is that the Chinese keep
winning the cost race. Sure they have cheap labor,
but they have another secret weapon.

You guessed it.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES,

BIG ONES.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/24/2012 11:17 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
....

One thing not mentioned often is that the Chinese keep
winning the cost race. Sure they have cheap labor,
but they have another secret weapon.

You guessed it.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES,

BIG ONES.

The biggest of which is controlling the currency.

--

G. Morgan wrote in
:

wrote:


Actually the above suggestion would be good if
you were not seeking the battery backup capability.
The built-in inverter panels I've seen are designed
to be tied to the grid. Not sure if there are ones
with built-in inverters that could be
used with a battery backup system. Probably
99% of the ones being installed today are grid
tied and don't have batteries.

So most are just using solar to reduce the bill from the power
company? Screw that, if I go solar I want battery backups.

So be prepared to tripple your investment money......
And quadrupple the mainenance costs.....

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:54:31 -0500, "
wrote:

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

What's the matter? You don't catch on the first time. Wasn't the link
clear enough for you? You must really be slow, or more likely, very
slow in the head.

What did you expect from a Democrat?

Nothing!

Many people listen / watch NFM (Non-FOX-Media)

They have FDS, (Fox Derangement Syndrome)

For example, harry never evaluated real reporting from FOX, but
instead follows something he "heard" from a biased option.

Aside from him being ignorant...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:08:10 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:54:31 -0500, "
wrote:

Wait...

I just realized, this is FOX News.

What's the matter? You don't catch on the first time. Wasn't the link
clear enough for you? You must really be slow, or more likely, very
slow in the head.

What did you expect from a Democrat?

Nothing!

Many people listen / watch NFM (Non-FOX-Media)

They have FDS, (Fox Derangement Syndrome)

For example, harry never evaluated real reporting from FOX, but
instead follows something he "heard" from a biased option.

Aside from him being ignorant...

....he's a bigoted asshole.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 5:35 am, dpb wrote:
On 2/23/2012 9:51 PM, wrote:
...

Factually incorrect "fill" doesn't do anyone any good. The problem is
that
the reporters don't know the difference. They're scientifically
illiterate.

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to
have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

....and that's a good thing?

...

You miss the whole point--the point isn't to do anything good or bad;
it's simply to have a time slot for the broadcasters can charge
advertisers.

The concept of "good" or "bad" never enters into it; only whether they
can continue to sell advertising.

--

I think he believes the viewer should be able to draw some benifit
from watchingTV. Clearly not in this case, the exact opposite in
fact.

It's obvious the that "Fox News" is accustomed to trotting out drivel,
easily provable in this case to anyone with the slightest education.


Go ahead and prove it...
(And I'm willing to bet that your education compared to mine qualifies as
"slightest")

One can conclude that other stuff they come up with is also drivel
though not so easily proved/disproved.


INdeed
One only has to read your posts to see that.


Best not to watch it. Lowered viewing rates is the best way to punish
them.


There you go
So when are you going to stop watching ?

And the creepy kid needs to be put down to prevent him from spreading
his genes.

LOL
Too bad that wasn't true for your parents...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:42:50 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

It's obvious the that "Fox News" is accustomed to trotting out drivel,
easily provable in this case to anyone with the slightest education.


Go ahead and prove it...
(And I'm willing to bet that your education compared to mine qualifies as
"slightest")

He can't!

I don't even have a GED, yet.