While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work. You'll spend many thousands
of dollars on equipment that will not have any value. Some persons
believe that the Sun will last forever, when in fact it's nearly dead
now. It's been burning for millions of years, and it's almost out of
fuel. Once the Sun burns out, all solar equipment is obsolete, and
you'll only get scrap metal value for it, which is little compared to
the cost to buy it.

It is likely the Sun will actually burn out before the end of this year.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:26:55 -0500, wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar
power:

While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work.

Not so. While the sun is shining you can capture some of the solar
generated power and use it to power a light that you shine on the
solar power array. That will keep generating electricity after the
sun dies. You can do the same type of recapturing with wind turbines
connected to large fans.

It sounds like a perpetual motion machine, but that is the kind of
thing that appeals to greenie weenie sun/wind enthusiasts.

On 6/28/2012 8:31 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:26:55 -0500, wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar
power:

While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work.

Not so. While the sun is shining you can capture some of the solar
generated power and use it to power a light that you shine on the
solar power array. That will keep generating electricity after the
sun dies. You can do the same type of recapturing with wind turbines
connected to large fans.

It sounds like a perpetual motion machine, but that is the kind of
thing that appeals to greenie weenie sun/wind enthusiasts.


Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

On Jun 28, 4:26 am, wrote:
While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work. You'll spend many thousands
of dollars on equipment that will not have any value. Some persons
believe that the Sun will last forever, when in fact it's nearly dead
now. It's been burning for millions of years, and it's almost out of
fuel. Once the Sun burns out, all solar equipment is obsolete, and
you'll only get scrap metal value for it, which is little compared to
the cost to buy it.

It is likely the Sun will actually burn out before the end of this year.

Andy comments

If what you say is true, simply take out a loan for the cost of
the
solar installation.... When the sun burns out, there will be no heat
or light, and the loan company cannont find your house to
repossess their property...

..... dude... you just gotta think it through !!!!

Andy

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar power:

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Agree. Few people take depreciation into account when making an
economic decision. That's probably because it would interfere with
getting the answer they want.

On 6/28/2012 8:53 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar power:

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Agree. Few people take depreciation into account when making an
economic decision. That's probably because it would interfere with
getting the answer they want.


The only difference with home-generated energy and
commercially-supplied energy is the size of the government subsidies.
Neither system is economically sustainable without outside support
*or* raising prices to reflect the real costs and risks of the ventures.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote:

On 6/28/2012 8:31 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:26:55 -0500, wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar
power:

While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work.

Not so. While the sun is shining you can capture some of the solar
generated power and use it to power a light that you shine on the
solar power array. That will keep generating electricity after the
sun dies. You can do the same type of recapturing with wind turbines
connected to large fans.

It sounds like a perpetual motion machine, but that is the kind of
thing that appeals to greenie weenie sun/wind enthusiasts.


Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Nor the occasional hail storm.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:47:59 -0500, Hell Toupee wrote:

On 6/28/2012 8:53 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar power:

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Agree. Few people take depreciation into account when making an
economic decision. That's probably because it would interfere with
getting the answer they want.


The only difference with home-generated energy and
commercially-supplied energy is the size of the government subsidies.
Neither system is economically sustainable without outside support
*or* raising prices to reflect the real costs and risks of the ventures.

Spoken like a true lefty loon. I suppose you've never heard of "economy of
scale"? ...or perhaps you think a homeowner can build a Mr. Fusion in his
garage.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:19:45 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:


Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve


I only have one 7 watt lightbulb in my cave. That's plenty!
I run it from AC-DC rechargable batteries.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:17:12 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:

The King has spoken.

Was Elvis here?

On 2012-06-28, Steve B wrote:

the future. So much that he gave Solyndra 500 billion dollars.

It was million, not "billion". And how many millions did The Shrub
dump down the hydrogen handout hole? It's all a scam, by both sides,
and they both jes love it when each side points the finger and calls
the other names. Keeps the dullards distracted.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
http://www.labelgmos.org/

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

On Jun 28, 1:34*pm, Frank wrote:
On 6/28/2012 8:31 AM, CRNG wrote:





On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:26:55 -0500, wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar
power:

While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out..
Without the sun, solar power will not work.

Not so. *While the sun is shining you can capture some of the solar
generated power and use it to power a light that you shine on the
solar power array. *That will keep generating electricity after the
sun dies. *You can do the same type of recapturing with wind turbines
connected to large fans.

It sounds like a perpetual motion machine, but that is the kind of
thing that appeals to greenie weenie sun/wind enthusiasts.

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. *IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a solar array. The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.

I expect people in the S of the USA could do much better than me too
financially as ther eismore sun.

On Jun 28, 7:19*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. *IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. *If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

" ) writes:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:47:59 -0500, Hell Toupee wrote:

On 6/28/2012 8:53 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar power:

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Agree. Few people take depreciation into account when making an
economic decision. That's probably because it would interfere with
getting the answer they want.



The only difference with home-generated energy and
commercially-supplied energy is the size of the government subsidies.
Neither system is economically sustainable without outside support
*or* raising prices to reflect the real costs and risks of the ventures.


Spoken like a true lefty loon. I suppose you've never heard of "economy of
scale"? ...or perhaps you think a homeowner can build a Mr. Fusion in his
garage.



"economy of scale"?... Isn't that just claptrap, fantasized by
unscientific economists/bean counters?

Oops... ignore the above... wrong news group!


ps. (not to be a pedant, but it's 'economies of scale')

--
"The world will end in 100 months because of Global Warming"
Canadian Greenpeace, May 3, 2008.

harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve


Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.


Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!

On 28 Jun 2012 19:48:33 GMT, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:

" ) writes:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:47:59 -0500, Hell Toupee wrote:

On 6/28/2012 8:53 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:34:42 -0400, Frank
wrote in
Re Don't invest in solar power:

Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

Agree. Few people take depreciation into account when making an
economic decision. That's probably because it would interfere with
getting the answer they want.



The only difference with home-generated energy and
commercially-supplied energy is the size of the government subsidies.
Neither system is economically sustainable without outside support
*or* raising prices to reflect the real costs and risks of the ventures.


Spoken like a true lefty loon. I suppose you've never heard of "economy of
scale"? ...or perhaps you think a homeowner can build a Mr. Fusion in his
garage.



"economy of scale"?... Isn't that just claptrap, fantasized by
unscientific economists/bean counters?

Economics is a big part of engineering, too.

Oops... ignore the above... wrong news group!


ps. (not to be a pedant, but it's 'economies of scale')

pps. it's both. http://www.investorwords.com/1653/economy_of_scale.html

On 6/28/2012 3:27 PM, harry wrote:


I have a solar array. The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.


ROTFLMFAO!

Would you like to buy a toll bridge?

On Jun 28, 5:38*pm, Greg wrote:
On 6/28/2012 3:27 PM, harry wrote:



I have a solar array. *The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.

ROTFLMFAO!

Would you like to buy a toll bridge?

If it is paid back in 5 years it will be via the taxpayers or
other electric users who are getting socked for tax
incentives or jacked up utility rates to pay for it.

And following that justification, there are all kinds
of things that could have great payback periods.
Just get stick someone else with a lot of the
real cost.

On Jun 28, 2:26*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Hell Toupee" wrote in message

...





On 6/28/2012 1:17 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!
The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.

wrote:

While solar power seems to be a form of free energy, after the initial
investment for equipment, dont do it!

The reason is that in less than one year, the Sun is going to burn out.
Without the sun, solar power will not work. You'll spend many thousands
of dollars on equipment that will not have any value. Some persons
believe that the Sun will last forever, when in fact it's nearly dead
now. It's been burning for millions of years, and it's almost out of
fuel. Once the Sun burns out, all solar equipment is obsolete, and
you'll only get scrap metal value for it, which is little compared to
the cost to buy it.

It is likely the Sun will actually burn out before the end of this year.

I remember you! Weren't you the guy who was selling Y2K food & water
supplies and equipment? I had a neighbor who bought three years of your
"Ready Meals". The only reason he didn't sue you is that his wife and
her mother moved out after he bought a 20 year supply blended whiskey.

On 2012-06-28, Steve B wrote:

I have a problem when it is a sum of money I cannot comprehend. And I also
cannot comprehend how no one can figure out where the money went.

What makes you think "no one can figure out where the money went"?

Anyone with an ounce of comman sense and an eyeball/ear for news knows
the money went to rich and influencial ppl who know exactly what bogus
business to set up to receive govt
subsidies/grants/financing/handouts/bailouts/the-latest-media-term,
etc. Where you been all yer life!? It's only been going on since the
biginning of time.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
http://www.labelgmos.org/

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:38*pm, Greg wrote:
On 6/28/2012 3:27 PM, harry wrote:



I have a solar array. *The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.

ROTFLMFAO!

Would you like to buy a toll bridge?

If it is paid back in 5 years it will be via the taxpayers or
other electric users who are getting socked for tax
incentives or jacked up utility rates to pay for it.

....and what happens when they run out of other people?

And following that justification, there are all kinds
of things that could have great payback periods.
Just get stick someone else with a lot of the
real cost.

Ever hear of Solyndra?

wrote


I only have one 7 watt lightbulb in my cave. That's plenty!
I run it from AC-DC rechargable batteries.

I do hope you have a nice view, and it is defensible, as the Moqui huts were
during the time after the collapse of the Anasazi/Pueblo cultures due to
drought, and people turned cannibalistic. You could have some competition
from a lot of Americans real soon.

Except, The King, of course, and those affiliated with The Royal Court. But
hey, there's always night time raids, just like they used to do it for some
fresh long pig.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10276802

Steve

"Greg" wrote in message
...
On 6/28/2012 3:27 PM, harry wrote:


I have a solar array. The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.

How does the solar array and lights on your small garden walkway compare to
regular lights? I find them rather dim.

Steve

On 6/28/2012 3:35 PM, harry wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:19 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.


Big subsidies are being cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...XLS_story.html

Some might be so crass as to say you are just sponging off the tax payers.

It's worth it, if it's for the environment?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Frank" wrote in message
...

Big subsidies are being cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...XLS_story.html

Some might be so crass as to say you are just sponging off the tax payers.

(M.A. Stewart) wrote in
:

harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears
out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not
conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power
just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes
dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially
more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a
cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve


Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and
I have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.


Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!




Where does this guy live in Europe?
Most of Europe doesn't have the type of weather suited to solar.

Plus,$6000 USD is quite a lot of KWH,unless his KWH over there is
outrageously priced.
I'm also curious as to how it's put back into the power grid,phasing and
all that.

then there's the cost of the solar panels and installation,so how long will
it take to pay off that debt? what subsidies did he get?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
(M.A. Stewart) wrote in
:

harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears
out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not
conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power
just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes
dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially
more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a
cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve


Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and
I have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.


Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!




Where does this guy live in Europe?
Most of Europe doesn't have the type of weather suited to solar.

Plus,$6000 USD is quite a lot of KWH,unless his KWH over there is
outrageously priced.
I'm also curious as to how it's put back into the power grid,phasing and
all that.

then there's the cost of the solar panels and installation,so how long
will
it take to pay off that debt? what subsidies did he get?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik

Harry's sanity is subject to question. After that, it's all suspect. Just
consider the source, do the math, and you will have the probability that the
information you have been given is truthful and accurate.

Steve

On Jun 28, 9:24*pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a virtually no American cars anywhere but America. Why do you
suppose that is?

On Jun 29, 12:10*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Greg" wrote in message

...

On 6/28/2012 3:27 PM, harry wrote:

I have a solar array. *The payback period is going to be around five
or six years.
This is a better return than leaving the money in the bank these days.
It is supposed to last 25 years minimum.

How does the solar array and lights on your small garden walkway compare to
regular lights? *I find them rather dim.

Steve
How do you find them anything?
So you have one too?
If not you are talking from your usual ignorant position.

Mine has has 3.88KWp output.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 9:24 pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out
an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not
conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power
just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes dryers,
ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially
more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a
cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a virtually no American cars anywhere but America. Why do you
suppose that is?

Shipping costs, taxes and excise, come to mind.
And let's not forget that:
in the US distances travelled are usually greater than those in Europe
Streets in Europe are much narrower
But hey harry, let's not let facts get in in the way of your bigotry

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:34:55 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Jun 28, 9:24*pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a virtually no American cars anywhere but America. Why do you
suppose that is?

Really? You've never seen a Ford or GM car in Europe? What a liar, you are,
harry.

On 6/29/2012 2:44 AM, harry wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:11 am, Frank wrote:
On 6/28/2012 3:35 PM, harry wrote:





On Jun 28, 7:19 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Big subsidies are being cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s-subsidy-cuts...

Some might be so crass as to say you are just sponging off the tax payers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Subsidiea are being cut on new installations.
But it is in line with the cost of the panels so the return is the
same.
The idea of the initial subsidies was to get the industry going.
Half the houses where I live now have a solar array.


We like to quote Margaret Thatchers, "The trouble with Socialism is that
eventually you run out of other people's money."

On 6/28/2012 7:34 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
It's worth it, if it's for the environment?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

It's also, "for the children."

On Jun 29, 2:26*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:34:55 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:24*pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a virtually no American cars anywhere but America. Why do you
suppose that is?

Really? *You've never seen a Ford or GM car in Europe? *What a liar, you are,
harry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All made here.

On Jun 29, 2:35*pm, Frank wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:44 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 29, 12:11 am, Frank wrote:
On 6/28/2012 3:35 PM, harry wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:19 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears out and
has to be replaced. *IMHO, estimated payback periods do not consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. *If you want microwave, clothes dryers, ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Big subsidies are being cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s-subsidy-cuts....

Some might be so crass as to say you are just sponging off the tax payers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Subsidiea are being cut on new installations.
But it is in line with the cost of the *panels so the return is the
same.
The idea of the initial subsidies was to get the industry going.
Half the houses where I live now have a solar array.

We like to quote Margaret Thatchers, "The trouble with Socialism is that
eventually you run out of other people's money."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The trouble with capitalism is eventually they grab all the money.

And, if you don't, you're a racist?

We'll never run out of liberalisms to invoke. Right, comrade

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/28/2012 7:34 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
It's worth it, if it's for the environment?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

It's also, "for the children."

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 2:26 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:34:55 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:24 pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
harry ) writes:
On Jun 28, 7:19=A0pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears
out an=
d
has to be replaced. =A0IMHO, estimated payback periods do not
conside=
r
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power
just s=
ome
light bulbs, and a small TV. =A0If you want microwave, clothes
dryers, ov=
ens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially
more i=
n
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a
cave w=
ith
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and
I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Advanced??? Then why do your automobiles pollute the air?

Fact: 99.999% of automobiles licensed to go on the road in
Europe, since 1970, _HAVE NOT_ been allowed on the roads of
North America. Reason... they don't meet the California/USA/
Canadian emission regulations!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There a virtually no American cars anywhere but America. Why do you
suppose that is?

Really? You've never seen a Ford or GM car in Europe? What a liar, you
are,
harry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All made here.

So that makes all the Hondas, VWs, BMWs, et all made in the USA, into
"American cars" ?
In which case, what are you blustering about now ?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 2:35 pm, Frank wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:44 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 29, 12:11 am, Frank wrote:
On 6/28/2012 3:35 PM, harry wrote:

On Jun 28, 7:19 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
Facetious, obviously, but any homeowner knows that stuff wears
out and
has to be replaced. IMHO, estimated payback periods do not
consider
this in their calculations.

And, a home powered by solar would cost a chunk of change to power
just some
light bulbs, and a small TV. If you want microwave, clothes dryers,
ovens,
toasters, and other stuff, you will have to fork out substantially
more in
the beginning.

Amortized over time, it is worthless, unless you want to live in a
cave with
one small light bulb.

Steve

Talking your usual drivel I see.
I export more power than I consume. I have a solar passive house and
I
have no fuel bills at all.
The net financial benefit of my house is almost $6000/year compared
with a standard house.
But we are more advanced in Europe.

Big subsidies are being cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s-subsidy-cuts...

Some might be so crass as to say you are just sponging off the tax
payers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Subsidiea are being cut on new installations.
But it is in line with the cost of the panels so the return is the
same.
The idea of the initial subsidies was to get the industry going.
Half the houses where I live now have a solar array.

We like to quote Margaret Thatchers, "The trouble with Socialism is that
eventually you run out of other people's money."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The trouble with capitalism is eventually they grab all the money.

LOL
That's socialism, you fool
And not just that, unlike capitalism, socialism debases the value of the
money they "grab"