"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1


If it works, good for them. Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth of electricity annuallly

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

On May 6, 4:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.

That isn't true, at least not for all locations. It depends
on exactly what the payment arrangement is from the
actual local utility. Here in NJ for example it does not
matter at all when you use the electricity. The only
thing that matters is how much you generate and how
much you use, not when.

On 5/5/2012 9:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500,
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1


If it works, good for them. Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

Read the contract VERY carefully.

I questioned one such company that had a tent at a local outdoor event.
They were VERY slippery.

According to them, there are significant corporate benefits not available
to homeowners.
The lease allows them to get the benefits you couldn't. The initial
cost is offset by taxpayer-provided energy funds.
The price the lease so that you pay slightly less than the savings
you'd get on electricity. And since electricity cost is rising
exponentially, you'll save even more in future years...
But there's a catch in the fine print.
Your "savings" is calculated based on the electric company buying your
excess power at 5X what they charge you. There's no guarantee on that
5X. Local utilities are backing down from that. If I understand the
current state,
there's a lottery of some few people who can get it.
You have to renew it every year. He admitted that their computer
has a finger on the "go" button at midnight the day of the lottery
and they're all gone in milliseconds.

And even if there is a payback period, you don't own anything but the
option to renew the contract at the then-current rate.

Explain to the buyer of your house that there's a long-term lease
that they must pay for those ugly-ass panels on the roof.

I thought I'd follow up with a visit and quote. Guess they lost
my application.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it
leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1


If it works, good for them. Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

I just saw a system that was a combination power and heat source
It was for a large dorm on the north shore of Lake Superior.
The system supplies about 50% of the daily use of total hot water, both
summer and winter.
It's actually set up for winter efficiency, but in the summer, even
though it's not lined up optimally, it still is productive enough to be
cost-effective.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process much more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be very very
careful of the fine print.

wrote:
On May 6, 4:40 am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57 am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy
systems fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big
upfront payment, it leases the systems. As the panels produce
power, surplus electricity is sold back to the local utility.
Combined with the savings that come from using less power from the
grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric bill by
enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the
south, it may be the way to go.

I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). If
not,you wont save much.

That isn't true, at least not for all locations. It depends
on exactly what the payment arrangement is from the
actual local utility. Here in NJ for example it does not
matter at all when you use the electricity. The only
thing that matters is how much you generate and how
much you use, not when.

And more important, what the arrangement is with the leasing company. Do you
only save by the power you don't use during the day, and they get the utility
rebate for all that gets to the grid?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:46:34 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:xsOdnVkIObZAFTjSnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink. com...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront
payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity
is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the
homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process much
more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be very
very
careful of the fine print.



Typically you get 100% credit for the power you use because your meter
is not running but that drops of to around half when you are selling
it back to them because you are still paying for all of the fixed
costs, taxes franchise fees etc.
Your rebate is based on the actual KWH and it might not even be 100%
of that.
When I had the quote on a 2.3KW system it only made sense to me if I
could get both the 30% federal tax credit and the Florida $4/watt
rebate. That rebate program went broke and I let the deal go.
My proposed payback time was about 8 years with all of the rebates.
Without the Florida rebate it was one of those "I would have been 90"
kind of things ... assuming nothing broke or got blown away in a
hurricane.

That's fine and good but in most jurisdictions trying to back feed to the
grid without a written understanding can get your service disconnected and
you'll play hell getting it reconnected.

Texas is somewhat straight forward. NC (several years back might have
changed in the interim) was nearly imposable.

On May 6, 1:51*pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:





On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The price of imported and exported electricity is not the same.

The panel generates about 4Mwh annually= around £1800 = $ 2700
(Got £/$rate wrong)
The price given for power generated is subsidised and tax free.
Our electricity bill was around £400=$600/yr.
Now down to £300.
So, total value=$2850.
Taking tax into account about $3700.
Cost of array $21,000
Panel is 3.88Kw (peak).
All electricity is paid for whether self used or not plus small amount
for assumed export of 50%

The main factors governing power generated are.
Size of panel.
Orientation of panel. (Azimuth/inclination.)
Day length.
Intensity of sunlight. ie rain, cloud, fog etc.

The weather in the UK is not ideal for PV.
The price of arrays has halved since I got mine.
But so has the price given for power generated.
250,000 arrays installed in the UK in the last two years.
It has been a gov. cock up from start to finish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in...United_Kingdom

On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:




Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

On May 6, 4:13*pm, "
wrote:
On May 6, 4:40*am, harry wrote:





On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.

That isn't true, at least not for all locations. *It depends
on exactly what the payment arrangement is from the
actual local utility. *Here in NJ for example it does not
matter at all when you use the electricity. * The only
thing that matters is how much you generate and how
much you use, not when.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Same in UK.

On May 6, 7:52*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:46:34 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process much more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be very very
careful of the fine print.

Typically you get 100% credit for the power you use because your meter
is not running but that drops of to around half when you are selling
it back to them because you are still paying for all of the fixed
costs, taxes franchise fees etc.
Your rebate is based on the actual KWH and it might not even be 100%
of that.
When I had the quote on a 2.3KW system it only made sense to me if I
could get both the 30% federal tax credit and the Florida $4/watt
rebate. That rebate program went broke and I let the deal go.
My proposed payback time was about 8 years with all of the rebates.
Without the Florida rebate it was one of those "I would have been 90"
kind of things ... assuming nothing broke or got blown away in a
hurricane.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My net return on capital is around 16%. (Taking tax into account.)

On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "





wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.
The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl...57627608971673

On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "





wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.

Ok, double what I spend and you're *still* not up to $9K per year, moron. You
do AlBore proud.

The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl...57627608971673

That's going to last. Not!

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:




Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now 6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:39 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:46:34 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:xsOdnVkIObZAFTjSnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront
payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus
electricity
is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come
from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the
homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process much
more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be very
very
careful of the fine print.



Typically you get 100% credit for the power you use because your meter
is not running but that drops of to around half when you are selling
it back to them because you are still paying for all of the fixed
costs, taxes franchise fees etc.
Your rebate is based on the actual KWH and it might not even be 100%
of that.
When I had the quote on a 2.3KW system it only made sense to me if I
could get both the 30% federal tax credit and the Florida $4/watt
rebate. That rebate program went broke and I let the deal go.
My proposed payback time was about 8 years with all of the rebates.
Without the Florida rebate it was one of those "I would have been 90"
kind of things ... assuming nothing broke or got blown away in a
hurricane.

That's fine and good but in most jurisdictions trying to back feed to the
grid without a written understanding can get your service disconnected and
you'll play hell getting it reconnected.

Texas is somewhat straight forward. NC (several years back might have
changed in the interim) was nearly imposable.

Grid tie is the only system Fla offered the rebate for.

You are going to be backfeeding by definition.

The inverters shut down when the grid is down.

No argument there it's that some utilities don't care what the inverters do
just that you (or someone ) is back feeding without their knowledge or
agreement.

At one time Texas was that way but now it's a net billing and a given.

On May 7, 2:30*am, wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:





On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.
The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576...

Who pays the extra 54 cents a kwh (plus transport)? The tax payer?

This sounds like a green welfare program for rich guys who can come up
with twenty grand

Other electricity users ultimately.

20 grand is not being rich.

The idea is to kick start the programme.
The first on do quite well. Later ones not as well.
There is talk of a further reduction for new installations inJuly.
The payments are inflation linked and guaranteed for 25 years.

On May 7, 3:11*am, "NotMe" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:39 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:46:34 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:xsOdnVkIObZAFTjSnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront
payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus
electricity
is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come
from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the
homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process much
more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be very
very
careful of the fine print.

Typically you get 100% credit for the power you use because your meter
is not running but that drops of to around half when you are selling
it back to them because you are still paying for all of the fixed
costs, taxes franchise fees etc.
Your rebate is based on the actual KWH and it might not even be 100%
of that.
When I had the quote on a 2.3KW system it only made sense to me if I
could get both the 30% federal tax credit and the Florida $4/watt
rebate. That rebate program went broke and I let the deal go.
My proposed payback time was about 8 years with all of the rebates.
Without the Florida rebate it was one of those "I would have been 90"
kind of things ... assuming nothing broke or got blown away in a
hurricane.

That's fine and good but in most jurisdictions trying to back feed to the
grid without a written understanding can get your service disconnected and
you'll play hell getting it reconnected.

Texas is somewhat straight forward. NC (several years back might have
changed in the interim) was nearly imposable.

Grid tie is the only system Fla offered the rebate for.

You are going to be backfeeding by definition.

The inverters shut down when the grid is down.

No argument there it's that some utilities don't care what the inverters do
just that you (or someone ) is back feeding without their knowledge or
agreement.

At one time Texas was that way but now it's a net billing and a given.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It dependson the meters. The old style spinning disk meters will run
backwards when power is exported.

The new electronic meters don't.

On May 7, 1:15*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.

Ok, double what I spend and you're *still* not up to $9K per year, moron. *You
do AlBore proud.

The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576...

That's going to last. *Not

Inflation linked and guaranteed for 25 years.

On May 7, 1:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. *A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now 6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 1:51 pm, Robert Macy wrote:
On May 6, 1:40 am, harry wrote:





On May 6, 5:57 am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment,
it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is
sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using
less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's
electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the
south,
it may be the way to go.

I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The price of imported and exported electricity is not the same.

The panel generates about 4Mwh annually= around £1800 = $ 2700
(Got £/$rate wrong)
The price given for power generated is subsidised and tax free.
Our electricity bill was around £400=$600/yr.
Now down to £300.
So, total value=$2850.
Taking tax into account about $3700.
Cost of array $21,000
Panel is 3.88Kw (peak).
All electricity is paid for whether self used or not plus small amount
for assumed export of 50%

The main factors governing power generated are.
Size of panel.
Orientation of panel. (Azimuth/inclination.)
Day length.
Intensity of sunlight. ie rain, cloud, fog etc.

The weather in the UK is not ideal for PV.
The price of arrays has halved since I got mine.
But so has the price given for power generated.
250,000 arrays installed in the UK in the last two years.
It has been a gov. cock up from start to finish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in...United_Kingdom


Very much like gun-control over the last 110 years.

On May 7, 1:20*am, harry wrote:
On May 7, 2:30*am, wrote:





On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.
The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576....

Who pays the extra 54 cents a kwh (plus transport)? The tax payer?

This sounds like a green welfare program for rich guys who can come up
with twenty grand

Other electricity users ultimately.

20 grand is not being rich.

The idea is to kick start the programme.
The first on do quite well. * Later ones not as well.

Hmmm. If the idea is to just kick start the program,
seems to me that there has been one hell of a lot of
kick starting that's been going on around the world.
Yet it's still no where near cost effective. The panels
apparently are now so cheap that companies here
can't build them and make a profit, eg Solyndra

As to later folks not doing as well, now why would
that be? Instead of paying the current 75c you say
you're getting, let's say they reduce it to 50c. If
the kickstarting works the cost of the solar systems
will have dropped by then so that the same economic
incentive would remain for those choosing to install it.

I see no indication that these can stand on their own
without large subsidy.





There is talk of a further reduction for new installations inJuly.
The payments are inflation linked and *guaranteed for 25 years.- Hide quoted text -


The latter part shows why Europe is in even more trouble
than the USA. Politicians handing out freebies with a
25 year guarantee.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 3:11 am, "NotMe" wrote:
wrote in message

...


On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:39 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:46:34 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:xsOdnVkIObZAFTjSnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...
"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems
fitted to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront
payment,
it leases the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus
electricity
is
sold back to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come
from
using less power from the grid, this will typically reduce the
homeowner's
electric bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

Some states (Texas) have a net billing law which makes the process
much
more
workable.

Other states (NC) you can't (effectively) sell the excess back to the
provider.

I expect there are states in between as well.

As for me and mine, I'd look at the process favorably but would be
very
very
careful of the fine print.

Typically you get 100% credit for the power you use because your meter
is not running but that drops of to around half when you are selling
it back to them because you are still paying for all of the fixed
costs, taxes franchise fees etc.
Your rebate is based on the actual KWH and it might not even be 100%
of that.
When I had the quote on a 2.3KW system it only made sense to me if I
could get both the 30% federal tax credit and the Florida $4/watt
rebate. That rebate program went broke and I let the deal go.
My proposed payback time was about 8 years with all of the rebates.
Without the Florida rebate it was one of those "I would have been 90"
kind of things ... assuming nothing broke or got blown away in a
hurricane.

That's fine and good but in most jurisdictions trying to back feed to
the
grid without a written understanding can get your service disconnected
and
you'll play hell getting it reconnected.

Texas is somewhat straight forward. NC (several years back might have
changed in the interim) was nearly imposable.

Grid tie is the only system Fla offered the rebate for.

You are going to be backfeeding by definition.

The inverters shut down when the grid is down.

No argument there it's that some utilities don't care what the inverters
do
just that you (or someone ) is back feeding without their knowledge or
agreement.

At one time Texas was that way but now it's a net billing and a given.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It dependson the meters. The old style spinning disk meters will run
backwards when power is exported.

The new electronic meters don't.

{{

If the homeowner has a system of generation the power company has a method
of metering in/out which also includes electronic meters. My son has a 10KW
NG/LPG powered emergency gen set and an agreement with the power company to
feed the system.

If the power goes out he also feeds a small amout of power to the neighbors
so there is no one objecting to the small amount of motor 'noise'.

We're building a new home on a decent amount of land that will support wind,
solar and NG generation. A conservative spread sheet gives a pay back of 5
to 7 years with a positive cash flow from day one.

And yes we know what we're doing as we had a cabin in the NC mountains that
has been off grid for ~ 20 years.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 1:17 am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend
something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than
AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now
6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

{{

Not very efferent. If you have the sun light and space an absorption system
can work better. A knowledge of thermodynamics can be your friend.

On May 7, 1:45*pm, "
wrote:
On May 7, 1:20*am, harry wrote:





On May 7, 2:30*am, wrote:

On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.
The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576...

Who pays the extra 54 cents a kwh (plus transport)? The tax payer?

This sounds like a green welfare program for rich guys who can come up
with twenty grand

Other electricity users ultimately.

20 grand is not being rich.

The idea is to kick start the programme.
The first on do quite well. * Later ones not as well.

Hmmm. * If the idea is to just kick start the program,
seems to me that there has been one hell of a lot of
kick starting that's been going on around the world.
Yet it's still no where near cost effective. *The panels
apparently are now so cheap that companies here
can't build them and make a profit, eg Solyndra

As to later folks not doing as well, now why would
that be? *Instead of paying the current 75c you say
you're getting, let's say they reduce it to 50c. *If
the kickstarting works the cost of the solar systems
will have dropped by then so that the same economic
incentive would remain for those choosing to install it.

I see no indication that these can stand on their own
without large subsidy.

There is talk of a further reduction for new installations inJuly.
The payments are inflation linked and *guaranteed for 25 years.- Hide quoted text -

The latter part shows why Europe is in even more trouble
than the USA. *Politicians handing out freebies with a
25 year guarantee.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The anticipation is that fossil fuel prices are going to rise. Also
the CO2 aspect.

On May 7, 3:45*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 1:17 am, "
wrote:





On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend
something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than
AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now
6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. *Max power available when you need the
cooling.

{{

Not very efferent. *If you have the sun light and space an absorption system
can work better. *A knowledge of thermodynamics can be your friend.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or evaporative cooling in dry climates.

On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:24:12 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 7, 1:15*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.

Ok, double what I spend and you're *still* not up to $9K per year, moron. *You
do AlBore proud.

The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576...

That's going to last. *Not

Inflation linked and guaranteed for 25 years.

Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?

On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:26:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 7, 1:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. *A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now 6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

Really? Do you see the sun at night in the UK. Well, *you* probably do.

On May 7, 7:03*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 3:45 pm, "NotMe" wrote:





"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 1:17 am, "
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend
something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than
AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now
6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

{{

Not very efferent. If you have the sun light and space an absorption
system
can work better. A knowledge of thermodynamics can be your friend.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or evaporative cooling in dry climates.

{{

Will be a time (some say it's here now) when water will be more valuable
than energy. * Swamp coolers (evaporative cooling) are typically not much
better then a 20 F delta T which is fine if the ambient temp is not over
100F but a bear if it's 110 F and above. *BTDT and have experience with some
that product a 100% RH which is better known as sticky heat.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They only work in low RH areas. My brother in Australia has one. Works
fine.
The air temperature is niether here nor there.

On May 8, 4:20*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:26:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 7, 1:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. *A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now 6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. *Max power available when you need the
cooling.

Really? *Do you see the sun at night in the UK. *Well, *you* probably do.-

It depends how far North you are and what time of year.
In the far North, night is only three hours long in Summer

So yes we sun when it is night for some people.
A little farther North andthe sunshines at midnight.

Homeguy will see the sun in Canada at midnight if he is far enough
North.

You ARE an ignorant ****er aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun

On May 8, 4:18*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:24:12 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 7, 1:15*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.

Ok, double what I spend and you're *still* not up to $9K per year, moron. *You
do AlBore proud.

The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576....

That's going to last. *Not

Inflation linked and guaranteed for 25 years.

Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. Well perhaps not
in your case.

On May 8, 4:15*am, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 8, 4:18*am, "
wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. *Well perhaps not
in your case.

From what we hear about your current austerity program, your guys make
our republicans look Keynesian.

On the other hand, the French have just voted to expand
and continue the subsidies by electing the pinko Hollande.
He's promising to spend them into prosperity.

Here in the USA we face the same clear choice in November.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 8, 4:15 am, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 8, 4:18 am, "
wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his
government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. Well perhaps not
in your case.

From what we hear about your current austerity program, your guys make
our republicans look Keynesian.

On the other hand, the French have just voted to expand
and continue the subsidies by electing the pinko Hollande.
He's promising to spend them into prosperity.

Here in the USA we face the same clear choice in November.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a permanent form of government."


Compared to other forms of government ?
Not much permanence there

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 7:03 pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 3:45 pm, "NotMe" wrote:





"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 7, 1:17 am, "
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:50:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "
wrote:

Indeed. We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend
something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). $9K in
electricity? Yikes! Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than
AlBore.

Typical rates in Britain are about 22¢ per kW. A bit more that I pay
in CT, about 17¢

I paid a total of $1775 last year.

Like I said, I both heat and cool with electricity - 2600ft^2 (now
6200ft^2,
but that's an anomaly).

PV is ideal for cooling. Max power available when you need the
cooling.

{{

Not very efferent. If you have the sun light and space an absorption
system
can work better. A knowledge of thermodynamics can be your friend.- Hide
quoted text -



- Show quoted text -

Or evaporative cooling in dry climates.

{{

Will be a time (some say it's here now) when water will be more valuable
than energy. Swamp coolers (evaporative cooling) are typically not much
better then a 20 F delta T which is fine if the ambient temp is not over
100F but a bear if it's 110 F and above. BTDT and have experience with
some
that produce a 100% RH which is better known as sticky heat.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

They only work in low RH areas. My brother in Australia has one. Works
fine.

The air temperature is niether here nor there.

{{

Skipped the classes on practical applications of thermodynamics did you ??

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 May 2012 14:34:31 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 8, 4:15 am, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 8, 4:18 am, "

wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his
government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. Well perhaps
not
in your case.

From what we hear about your current austerity program, your guys make
our republicans look Keynesian.

On the other hand, the French have just voted to expand
and continue the subsidies by electing the pinko Hollande.
He's promising to spend them into prosperity.

Here in the USA we face the same clear choice in November.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a permanent form of government."


Compared to other forms of government ?
Not much permanence there



The Vatican? ;-)

Good one.

On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On May 8, 4:18*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 22:24:12 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 7, 1:15*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 13:58:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On May 6, 4:55*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:47:12 -0400, "

wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 05:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
wrote:

On May 6, 1:40*am, harry wrote:
On May 6, 5:57*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2012 15:09:00 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[The company] designs, installs, and maintains solar-energy systems fitted
to homeowners' roofs. Instead of asking for a big upfront payment, it leases
the systems. As the panels produce power, surplus electricity is sold back
to the local utility. Combined with the savings that come from using less
power from the grid, this will typically reduce the homeowner's electric
bill by enough to offset the lease payments."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40352/?p1=A1

If it works, good for them. *Homeowners are either reluctant or just
don't have the money to pay for a system. *This makes it easier to
start.

Here in New England, I'm a bit skeptical on payback, but in the south,
it may be the way to go.

*I have a PV array but I own it.
The problem with the above arrangement (which you can get over here
too) is you have to be on site in the middle ofthe day (peak
production) to save any electricty.(ie do the washing baking etc). *If
not,you wont save much.
The other problem arises when you want to sell your house. *ie you
need to read the fine print.

We work hard at it and we save about 25% off our bills.
We export about $2200 worth *of electricity annuallly

You save more than we spend! How is that only 25%?

Indeed. *We both heat and cool with electricity and "only" spend something
less than $1700 (five months @ $200 and seven around $100). *$9K in
electricity? *Yikes! *Either harry is lying again, or he's worse than AlBore.

Same here. We use electricity for everything here, heat, cool,
cooking, and water plus a spa and a pool. I don't spend $2500 a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricity in the UK costs around $0.16/Kwh.

Ok, double what I spend and you're *still* not up to $9K per year, moron. *You
do AlBore proud.

The price paid for electricity generated is $0.70/Kwh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ara-chl.../in/set-721576...

That's going to last. *Not

Inflation linked and guaranteed for 25 years.

Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. Well perhaps not
in your case.

Because you're going broke, moron.

On Tue, 08 May 2012 19:59:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 8 May 2012 14:34:31 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 8, 4:15 am, wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 8, 4:18 am, "
wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that harry thinks his
government will
continue the subsidy for 25 years?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why not? We don't have republicans over here.
Your bank might lend you money for longer than that. Well perhaps not
in your case.

From what we hear about your current austerity program, your guys make
our republicans look Keynesian.

On the other hand, the French have just voted to expand
and continue the subsidies by electing the pinko Hollande.
He's promising to spend them into prosperity.

Here in the USA we face the same clear choice in November.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as
a permanent form of government."


Compared to other forms of government ?
Not much permanence there



The Vatican? ;-)

Does the Vatican issue EBT cards?