Anyone have one?

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfc0WZ5Bns0

On 5/6/2017 9:45 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
Anyone have one?

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfc0WZ5Bns0


Last I read the introduction was delayed a bit. I don't think anyone
has one yet aside from testing. Check back in six months

On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head wrote:
That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit scam his
company would have folded up a long time ago.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head wrote:
That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit scam his
company would have folded up a long time ago.

What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?
And what happens to all the existing solar installations
precariously supported by credits?

On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head wrote:
That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit scam his
company would have folded up a long time ago.

What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?
And what happens to all the existing solar installations
precariously supported by credits?

Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the
installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps the
credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was when
the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat but
solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially. I will
be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One
hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

Only stoopid arseholes fell for that solar bull****.
Folks with more money than brains.

On 5/7/2017 7:32 AM, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
Only stoopid arseholes fell for that solar bull****.
Folks with more money than brains.


I expect that there were many scams, but for a while,
there were subsidies that were not bull****.
You could get your house weatherized for free if you happened
to be in the right place at the right time with no income.
Paid for at retail, it would never pencil out.

Solar power is always a good deal if you get someone
else to pay for it. I would have snatched it up except
that I had 60 foot trees on adjacent property that
blocked the roof and people pushing it couldn't make
enough money off me.

"mike" wrote in message news
On 5/7/2017 7:32 AM, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
Only stoopid arseholes fell for that solar bull****.
Folks with more money than brains.
I expect that there were many scams, but for a while,
there were subsidies that were not bull****.
You could get your house weatherized for free if you happened
to be in the right place at the right time with no income.
Paid for at retail, it would never pencil out.

Solar power is always a good deal if you get someone
else to pay for it. I would have snatched it up except
that I had 60 foot trees on adjacent property that
blocked the roof and people pushing it couldn't make
enough money off me.

#CALIFORNIA #SOLAR POWER IS A SCAM BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!!
I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not happy with
anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax credit that sound
great but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as I understand credit or
rebates would be only applied to ward IRS Payments, meaning that it is only
for those people that are working and owed IRS money, however the people on
SSI that don’t owed IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless unless;
unless that credit can be use and applied to ward their homes property tax
which not available. More swindling, all Solar companies are basing their
rates at PG&E will be and continued raise their rates 6% per year, and on my
figures that is defiantly wrong. My finding for the past 9 years PG&E in
California has raise the rate in Tear2 less then 2% per year, and if you
look at last 4 years “surprise” not even “.5%” but in mean time Solar Co.
want raise and charge you and me; consumer 2.9% raise “per year”. Yes
everybody must make living, but this in my opinion is rip-offs, they triple+
their investment in 20 years “on you”. They will show you how much are you
saving but that is illogical and belief numbers, because they are assuming
that PE&G will be raising their rates at 6% as I said before’ per year which
is inaccurate. If that was to happen our country will be in depression as
year of 1939. Yes I am still looking but? Fact is regardless what PG&E rates
are, the Sun rays do not have different rates, so why Solar Companies want
to raise your rates yearly, it is simple Scamming of people and our
Government is backing it because they are the part of the “SCAM”! There is
lot swindling, I am showing here for example PG&E, if you have Solar, PG&E
charges are base on one time “yearly consumption”, which that Calculation
will put you in Tear #4 the highest rate possible, at present time
$0.36/Kwh. instead of calculating on monthly bases that would put you in
bracket of Tear#1 and $0.18/Kwh. Note: This is not presented to you, the
installation Companies do not explain this that PG&E will base their charges
on accumulative yearly consumption. Now don’t forget unless you purchase
fully solar system you will still be paying Solar for power used $0.21 per
kilowatt.
Example: If you have Solar you will be charge by PG&E $4.xx per month, which
are to be raised to $10.00/Month. On the end of year 2016, they calculate
how much did you use over the solar. Because Solar fluctuate with the Sun
some months are more some less. You will be using PG&E at the times when
there is no Sun. The problem here is that PG&E do not calculate on monthly
bases here but on yearly, 12 months of use is added and you are charge for
max rate because when 12 months are added into one accumulative sum that put
you in Tear#4 or $0.36/Kwh. Instead if this was calculated per month you
would be below Tear#1. So: at the end of the year you savings are next to
nothing, in mean time Solar financial group will be tripling+ their profit
on your sweat and labor. You see Ladies and Gentleman Credits/Rebates are
design for the rich and Legislators which they owe at any giving time to the
Uncle Sam Thousands of dollars so that can benefit and people on Social
Security get rusted shaft in rear. HELLO!!!
As I said California Government is big SCAM.
DIGESTED IF YOU CAN! I CAN NOT”

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head wrote:
That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit scam his
company would have folded up a long time ago.

What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?
And what happens to all the existing solar installations
precariously supported by credits?

Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the
installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps the
credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was when
the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat but
solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially. I will
be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One
hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

I guess it depends on what credits you're counting. Some of them
have expired, like some or all of the federal tax credit for installation.
But AFAIK, utilities are still under constraint to buy an increasing
share of their electric from clean, green, sources. Here in NJ, they
are mandated to do that and one form is to buy electricity from those
residential solar panels. Something obviously makes them practical
here, I see new ones going up all the time. IDK what people are getting
now, but the requirement that the utilities buy green was giving people
with solar panels thousands a year. I think that has tapered down
somewhat now, but it's still a substantial subsidy.

"trader_4" wrote in message ...

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head wrote:
That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit scam his
company would have folded up a long time ago.

What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?
And what happens to all the existing solar installations
precariously supported by credits?

Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the
installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps the
credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was when
the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat but
solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially. I will
be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One
hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

I guess it depends on what credits you're counting. Some of them
have expired, like some or all of the federal tax credit for installation.
But AFAIK, utilities are still under constraint to buy an increasing
share of their electric from clean, green, sources. Here in NJ, they
are mandated to do that and one form is to buy electricity from those
residential solar panels. Something obviously makes them practical
here, I see new ones going up all the time. IDK what people are getting
now, but the requirement that the utilities buy green was giving people
with solar panels thousands a year. I think that has tapered down
somewhat now, but it's still a substantial subsidy.

#CALIFORNIA #SOLAR POWER IS A SCAM BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!!
I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not happy with anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax credit that sound great but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as I understand credit or rebates would be only applied to ward IRS Payments, meaning that it is only for those people that are working and owed IRS money, however the people on SSI that dont owed IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless unless; unless that credit can be use and applied to ward their homes property tax which not available. More swindling, all Solar companies are basing their rates at PG&E will be and continued raise their rates 6% per year, and on my figures that is defiantly wrong. My finding for the past 9 years PG&E in California has raise the rate in Tear2 less then 2% per year, and if you look at last 4 years €œsurprise€� not even €œ.5%€� but in mean time Solar Co. want raise and charge you and me; consumer 2.9% raise €œper year€�. Yes everybody must make living, but this in my opinion is rip-offs, they triple+ their investment in 20 years €œon you€�. They will show you how much are you saving but that is illogical and belief numbers, because they are assuming that PE&G will be raising their rates at 6% as I said before per year which is inaccurate. If that was to happen our country will be in depression as year of 1939. Yes I am still looking but? Fact is regardless what PG&E rates are, the Sun rays do not have different rates, so why Solar Companies want to raise your rates yearly, it is simple Scamming of people and our Government is backing it because they are the part of the €œSCAM€�! There is lot swindling, I am showing here for example PG&E, if you have Solar, PG&E charges are base on one time €œyearly consumption€�, which that Calculation will put you in Tear #4 the highest rate possible, at present time $0.36/Kwh. instead of calculating on monthly bases that would put you in bracket of Tear#1 and $0.18/Kwh. Note: This is not presented to you, the installation Companies do not explain this that PG&E will base their charges on accumulative yearly consumption. Now dont forget unless you purchase fully solar system you will still be paying Solar for power used $0.21 per kilowatt.
Example: If you have Solar you will be charge by PG&E $4.xx per month, which are to be raised to $10.00/Month. On the end of year 2016, they calculate how much did you use over the solar. Because Solar fluctuate with the Sun some months are more some less. You will be using PG&E at the times when there is no Sun. The problem here is that PG&E do not calculate on monthly bases here but on yearly, 12 months of use is added and you are charge for max rate because when 12 months are added into one accumulative sum that put you in Tear#4 or $0.36/Kwh. Instead if this was calculated per month you would be below Tear#1. So: at the end of the year you savings are next to nothing, in mean time Solar financial group will be tripling+ their profit on your sweat and labor. You see Ladies and Gentleman Credits/Rebates are design for the rich and Legislators which they owe at any giving time to the Uncle Sam Thousands of dollars so that can benefit and people on Social Security get rusted shaft in rear. HELLO!!!
As I said California Government is big SCAM.
DIGESTED IF YOU CAN! I CAN NOT€�

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:41:19 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:
Â*

Â*

"trader_4"Â* wrote in message
...

Â*

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike
wrote:



On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head
wrote:

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.



Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit
scam his

company would have folded up a long time ago.



What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?

And what happens to all the existing solar installations

precariously supported by credits?



Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the

installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps
the

credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was
when

the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat
but

solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially. I
will

be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One

hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

Â*

I guess it depends on what credits you're counting.Â* Some of
them

have expired, like some or all of the federal tax credit for
installation.

But AFAIK, utilities are still under constraint to buy an increasing

share of their electric from clean, green, sources.Â* Here in NJ,
they

are mandated to do that and one form is to buy electricity from those

residential solar panels.Â* Something obviously makes them
practical

here, I see new ones going up all the time.Â* IDK what people are
getting

now, but the requirement that the utilities buy green was giving
people

with solar panels thousands a year.Â* IÂ* think that has tapered
down

somewhat now, but it's still a substantial subsidy.

Â*

#CALIFORNIA #SOLAR POWER IS A SCAM BY YOUR OWN
GOVERNMENT!!!

I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not happy with
anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax credit that sound great
but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as I understand credit or rebates would
be only applied to ward IRS Payments, meaning that it is only for those people
that are working and owed IRS money, however the people on SSI that dont owed
IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless

Yeah, well, like any rebates, tax breaks, etc, you can't make everyone
happy. And IDK what's going on in CA, but in many states there are
incentives, subsidies other than just an income tax credit.

On Wed, 10 May 2017 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not happy with
anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax credit that sound great
but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as I understand credit or rebates would
be only applied to ward IRS Payments, meaning that it is only for those people
that are working and owed IRS money, however the people on SSI that dont owed
IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless

Yeah, well, like any rebates, tax breaks, etc, you can't make everyone
happy. And IDK what's going on in CA, but in many states there are
incentives, subsidies other than just an income tax credit.


People on SSI are not going to be able to front up the $20,000-50,000
to install solar in the first place so this is a red herring. Solar is
welfare for the rich but it is not because of the way people get paid
back.

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 May 2017 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I
am not happy with
anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax
credit that sound great
but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as I understand
credit or rebates would
be only applied to ward IRS Payments, meaning that it is
only for those people
that are working and owed IRS money, however the people
on SSI that dont owed
IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless

Yeah, well, like any rebates, tax breaks, etc, you can't
make everyone
happy. And IDK what's going on in CA, but in many states
there are
incentives, subsidies other than just an income tax
credit.


People on SSI are not going to be able to front up the
$20,000-50,000
to install solar in the first place so this is a red
herring. Solar is
welfare for the rich but it is not because of the way
people get paid
back.

Wind and solar are indeed a farce. Check this out:

http://www.rangemagazine.com/feature...power_down.pdf

On Wed, 10 May 2017 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:41:19 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:
Â*

Â*

"trader_4"Â* wrote in message
...

Â*

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike
wrote:



On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head
wrote:

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.



Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit
scam his

company would have folded up a long time ago.



What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?

And what happens to all the existing solar installations

precariously supported by credits?



Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the

installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps
the

credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was
when

the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat
but

solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially. I
will

be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One

hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

Â*

I guess it depends on what credits you're counting.Â* Some of
them

have expired, like some or all of the federal tax credit for
installation.

But AFAIK, utilities are still under constraint to buy an increasing

share of their electric from clean, green, sources.Â* Here in NJ,
they

are mandated to do that and one form is to buy electricity from
those

residential solar panels.Â* Something obviously makes them
practical

here, I see new ones going up all the time.Â* IDK what people are
getting

now, but the requirement that the utilities buy green was giving
people

with solar panels thousands a year.Â* IÂ* think that has tapered
down

somewhat now, but it's still a substantial subsidy.

Â*

#CALIFORNIA #SOLAR POWER IS A SCAM BY YOUR OWN
GOVERNMENT!!!

I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not
happy with anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax
credit that sound great but if you are on SSI there no benefits, as
I understand credit or rebates would be only applied to ward IRS
Payments, meaning that it is only for those people that are working
and owed IRS money, however the people on SSI that dont owed IRS
any money, rebates/credit becomes useless

Yeah, well, like any rebates, tax breaks, etc, you can't make everyone
happy. And IDK what's going on in CA, but in many states there are
incentives, subsidies other than just an income tax credit.



Have you installed total solar for your home?

On 5/10/2017 1:45 PM, Phil Kangas wrote:



Wind and solar are indeed a farce. Check this out:

http://www.rangemagazine.com/feature...power_down.pdf

I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5/10/2017 7:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

In the general case, I'd agree.
In some cases, the startup costs are so high that for-profit
industry can't front the money to do it.
There's also the issue of coordination.
It's the old chicken, egg, dead chicken problem.
I won't build an electric car if you won't make batteries.
You won't make batteries if there are no electric cars.
Nobody wants to pay more to drive an electric car...strike 3.
The people, through their elected officials, for the common good,
subsidize the startup.

Wind and solar certainly have their place where needs are modest and
no alternatives exist. As a general solution to the world's energy
needs, they're a non-starter with currently imaginable technology and
insatiable demand.
Subsidize the research. Build some prototypes. Don't subsidize
rooftop solar panels in regions where alternatives are plentiful.
Build nukes instead. Waste disposal is a far easier problem to solve
than global warming past the tipping point. No, I don't have a solution,
but nobody can imagine a solution to climate change past the tipping point.

The elephant in the room is global warming.
The proven solution with available technology is nuclear.
We could solve our CO2 problem with nuclear.
There's too much fear for that to happen until we really feel
the consequences of global warming. Then it's too late.
So, we'll just continue on our current path to destruction.
It's a self limiting situation. Our descendents will die off.
No big deal for us tho. We'll all be fine...sigh...
People are just too selfish to reduce current demand for some
future disaster...assuming you believe the GW fear mongers.

I think the evidence is a bit thin. If Al Gore believed it,
would he be flying around in a private plane to his
many mansions? He should be setting an example, not exacerbating
the problem.

The solution to the problem is clear.
Build some nuclear power plants.
Terminate half the population, sterilize most of who's
left and live within the resources of the
planet. Or let the planet do it for you. Same end result, just
harsher conditions for the survivors.

The problem can't be fixed with the current mindset, no matter how
many tree huggers march in the streets.
Think how much we could achieve if all the people marching
in the streets destroying property of those who have no impact
on the solution set about solving the problems we already have.

On 05/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.


Fracking is all the rage but it pollutes the ground water supply. Has
it polluted your water yet?

Burning coal spews the neurotoxin mercury into the air we breathe. Had
your blood tested for mercury yet?

Nuclear? Mind if we store the waste in your basement?

Yes, solar panels are currently expensive but their price will come down
and their efficiency will go up as the technology evolves.

On Wed, 10 May 2017 16:03:30 -0400
burfordTjustice wrote:

On Wed, 10 May 2017 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:41:19 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:
Â*

Â*

"trader_4"Â* wrote in message
...

Â*

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:30:16 AM UTC-4,
wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2017 23:46:34 -0700, mike
wrote:



On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Roger Blake wrote:

On 2017-05-07, Seymore4Head
wrote:

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.



Musk is a rent-seeking huckster. Without the carbon credit
scam his

company would have folded up a long time ago.



What's Trump's agenda gonna do to that?

And what happens to all the existing solar installations

precariously supported by credits?



Most of the credits are already paid out. They were for the

installation but new installations could suffer if Trump dumps
the

credits. I know that the thing that stopped my solar plans was
when

the Florida grant program ran dry. I still use solar pool heat
but

solar PV is still too expensive to make much sense financially.
I
will

be dead before it pays for itself, assuming nothing breaks. One

hurricane could push that out to my kid's death.

Â*

I guess it depends on what credits you're counting.Â* Some of
them

have expired, like some or all of the federal tax credit for
installation.

But AFAIK, utilities are still under constraint to buy an
increasing

share of their electric from clean, green, sources.Â* Here in NJ,
they

are mandated to do that and one form is to buy electricity from
those

residential solar panels.Â* Something obviously makes them
practical

here, I see new ones going up all the time.Â* IDK what people are
getting

now, but the requirement that the utilities buy green was giving
people

with solar panels thousands a year.Â* IÂ* think that has tapered
down

somewhat now, but it's still a substantial subsidy.

Â*

#CALIFORNIA #SOLAR POWER IS A SCAM BY YOUR OWN
GOVERNMENT!!!

I had 4 quotes on installment of solar power as for me I am not
happy with anyone of them. They are all similar. In regard to tax
credit that sound great but if you are on SSI there no benefits,
as I understand credit or rebates would be only applied to ward
IRS Payments, meaning that it is only for those people that are
working and owed IRS money, however the people on SSI that dont
owed IRS any money, rebates/credit becomes useless

Yeah, well, like any rebates, tax breaks, etc, you can't make
everyone happy. And IDK what's going on in CA, but in many states
there are incentives, subsidies other than just an income tax
credit.



Have you installed total solar for your home?

On 5/6/2017 9:45 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
Anyone have one?

That Musk guy makes them sound very appealing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfc0WZ5Bns0

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...d-to-know.aspx

On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot legislate
science to make it do what you want. Too many decisions are made today
by politicians. Does not bother me if investors lose money off bad
decisions but bad public decisions loose taxpayers money.

On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot legislate
science to make it do what you want. Too many decisions are made today
by politicians. Does not bother me if investors lose money off bad
decisions but bad public decisions loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway signs
already.

On Thu, 11 May 2017 04:47:47 -0400, fred wrote:

Yes, solar panels are currently expensive but their price will come down
and their efficiency will go up as the technology evolves.

The main thing that is bringing the price down is they are being made
in Asian countries with no environmental regulations for handling the
hazmat they produce, using coal fired plants and coolie labor. We are
basically sending our government subsidy dollars to China and being
told to feel good about it.

On 5/11/2017 9:33 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many decisions are
made today by politicians. Does not bother me if investors lose money
off bad decisions but bad public decisions loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway signs
already.

I'm not necessarily against it getting started but do not like
continuous subsidies. PBS is a good example. I remember when there
were only 3 local TV channels and PBS brought in a fourth. Today on the
cable there are over 1,000 TV channels. Time for PBS to wing it alone.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?



the subsidies for solar help people that can afford to be part of the solar experiment, pay a little less.

the subsidies for solar are not for basic research as your analogy with medical research suggests.

i too am in favor of basic research

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?



the subsidies for solar help people that can afford to be part of the solar experiment, pay a little less.

the subsidies for solar are not for basic research as your analogy with medical research suggests.

i too am in favor of basic research

ps. one issue is there has been a LOT of basic research on PV solar already and it is not likely to get much better...it could get cheaper, but not better. Direct sunlight deposits about 1000 Watts per sq yard and there are fundamental limits as to how much of that you can capture with PV.

On 5/11/2017 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?


the subsidies for solar help people that can afford to be part of the solar experiment, pay a little less.

the subsidies for solar are not for basic research as your analogy with medical research suggests.

i too am in favor of basic research
ps. one issue is there has been a LOT of basic research on PV solar already and it is not likely to get much better...it could get cheaper, but not better. Direct sunlight deposits about 1000 Watts per sq yard and there are fundamental limits as to how much of that you can capture with PV.




There was some clown that told the Wright brothers that if man were meant to fly they'd have been born with wings.

No way you could ever get an airplane to go 550 mph and carry 600 people.

Ed Pawlowski Thu,
11 May 2017 13:33:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different manner. It will take many more years to become
economically a winner. They laughed at the horseless carriage
too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits.
If it is any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many
decisions are made today by politicians. Does not bother me if
investors lose money off bad decisions but bad public decisions
loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help
everyone and at what cost. The government does subsidize medical
research, for instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on
their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway
signs already.

Well, solar does a bit more than that, actually. The solar job I was
involved in is providing enough power on a good sunlight day to run
his house without much (any?) need for the grid.

To the point where he gets a small check from the power company,
instead of a large bill. Since it has no battery storage for surplus
generated power, the house has to run off the grid supplied power
during the night. As his appliances are gas, it's actually capable of
providing sufficient power for his entire house, on it's own. Excess
generated power is placed back on the grid and 'sold' back to the
power company. In the form of no power bill, but a very small check
instead. heh.

During the day, it's providing enough power to make up for the
difference cost wise, though. It will be a long time due to the size
of the checks before he breaks even, if you look at that way. And a
shorter period of time if you look at the electric bills he's no
longer getting.

I realize many people don't have the funds to fork out for the
equipment or the installation costs, and, not everyone is in a
suitable area to be able to make good use of it, even if they could
afford it. But, for those who are able, it doesn't make sense not to
take advantage of it. The panel technologies will continue to
improve, the inverter gear will also continue to improve as a result.
Which translates into a viable, realistic source of electrical power,
originating from the sun.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 5/11/2017 6:33 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different
manner. It will take many more years to become economically a winner.
They laughed at the horseless carriage too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits. If it is
any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many decisions are
made today by politicians. Does not bother me if investors lose money
off bad decisions but bad public decisions loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help everyone and
at what cost. The government does subsidize medical research, for
instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway signs
already.

Solar is great when there are no cheaper alternatives.

Just down the street, there's a solar powered traffic radar speed sign.
The cost of the solar panel is high, but it's way cheaper than
digging up the street to run a line to the power grid across the street.
It's cheaper than adding an agenda item to the city engineer's
todo list. It's a no-brainer.

The power requirement is low.
There are no CHEAPER alternative power sources available. Even tho
the grid is 100 feet away, accessing it is still more expensive than
solar.
Great solar application.

50 years ago, that sign would have been a rack full of vacuum tubes
and required many times the power of current systems.
We got here not by making a bigger solar panel.
We got here by REDUCING power consumption by orders of magnitude.

The same thing is happening in rooftop solar.
Thru artificial means and regulations,
the homeowner is presented with a scenario that makes him think
that installing solar, for him, is cheaper than not installing solar.
To him, the cost is lower. To society, the installed cost of
solar powering his home is HIGHER than not doing it.

How can this be? Adding up losses does not equal a gain.
You fix that by scaring people into believing that we're all doomed
if we don't and we hide/ignore the math.
We riot in the streets. We have sit-ins at
a pipeline project. We want to save the planet as long as
it's done by other people's sacrifice.

Al Gore cures CO2 emissions by flying his private jet
between his mansions.
Protesters drive their SUV 200 miles back home from the rally
and turn up the heat, and turn on the big-screen TV and pop
some K-cups in the Keurig. It's easy
to tell others how bad they are for the environment.

Let's apply some 'put your money where your mouth is' to the
voting process. Your vote on climate-related issues gets
weighted inversely to your
past sacrifice in reducing your personal carbon footprint.
You don't get to vote if you've participated
in any demonstration that required police presence. Sacrifice
personally to peacefully achieve the goal you seek.

What we're doing thru regulation and sanctions is to try to make
existing power sources so expensive that solar looks like a better
option. The homeowner doesn't see the total cost on his power bill.
He doesn't see that his big screen TV cost more because the trucking
company had to pay higher regulatory fees. He doesn't know that his
company is moving overseas and he will lose his job next year.

He does wonder why the government can't balance the budget, but he has
nothing specific to protest about unless he admits that he's evil
and killing the planet.

Legislating fossil fuel consumption would be great if there were a
viable alternative.
Well, there is...nuclear...but that's the topic of a different rant.

Forcing the 'system' to use more solar power does nothing to make
the sun shine when it's night or cloudy or winter. All the expensive
technology in the world won't make the sun shine any brighter on
a cloudy day.

Solar just doesn't work by itself. It requires SIGNIFICANT
EXPENSIVE storage and backup for the 50-100% of the time you can't
see the sun, depending on your location.

Ask the man on the street, "would you care if the power went out every
night?" "Would you care if your air conditioner didn't work during the
hottest part of the day?" "Would you care if you had to choose between
a hot bath at noon on sunny days or a cold bath at a time and weather
of your choosing?"
If you answered no to all of those, you're a candidate for solar
power with current technology. Disconnect yourself from the grid.
Leaves more power for me.

Do you believe in catastrophic climate change based on human dependence
on fossil fuel? I'm not so sure. I think humans will find ways
to let their selfishness destroy themselves and the planet whether
we have rooftop solar or not. We're screwed either way.

If you believe the gloom and doom, it's a problem that can't be fixed
after the tipping point. And that tipping point happens before
the problem inconveniences us to the point of action.
Our only hope is a dramatic reduction in population. Turns out that
nuclear is a solution to that too.

Individuals will always choose instant personal gratification.
Those same individuals aggregate in the streets to demand others
sacrifice for the greater good. We're screwed, no matter what we do
about rooftop solar. The same investment in population reduction
would be much better for the environment.

On 5/11/2017 4:43 PM, Diesel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Thu,
11 May 2017 13:33:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different manner. It will take many more years to become
economically a winner. They laughed at the horseless carriage
too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits.
If it is any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many
decisions are made today by politicians. Does not bother me if
investors lose money off bad decisions but bad public decisions
loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help
everyone and at what cost. The government does subsidize medical
research, for instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on
their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway
signs already.

Well, solar does a bit more than that, actually. The solar job I was
involved in is providing enough power on a good sunlight day to run
his house without much (any?) need for the grid.

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.
The grid has to maintain sufficient capacity to supply the
total needs of the population under worst case insolation.
The electricity purchased from him by the utility is at a
legally mandated rate that exceeds their cost to buy the same
power from the grid.
The rest of us pay for that in our utility bill.

As rooftop solar increases, the problem gets much worse.
On a sunny summer day, the power generation plant has idle equipment.
They still pay for that equipment. They still pay salaries.
They still have to fix the wires when weather takes them down.
But they don't get the profit from selling power.
At some point, their daytime peak energy buyback exceeds the remaining
demand.
What does the utility do with that surplus energy?
Without local storage close to the point of generation, rooftop solar
is a nonstarter. With local storage at the point of generation,
users quickly find that they have huge costs and nobody to buy
their peak power at high rates...another nonstarter.

There are certainly great applications for solar power.
High population density areas with access to the grid ain't
one of them. Come up with CHEAP local storage and we'll talk more...

To the point where he gets a small check from the power company,
instead of a large bill. Since it has no battery storage for surplus
generated power, the house has to run off the grid supplied power
during the night. As his appliances are gas, it's actually capable of
providing sufficient power for his entire house, on it's own. Excess
generated power is placed back on the grid and 'sold' back to the
power company. In the form of no power bill, but a very small check
instead. heh.

During the day, it's providing enough power to make up for the
difference cost wise, though. It will be a long time due to the size
of the checks before he breaks even, if you look at that way. And a
shorter period of time if you look at the electric bills he's no
longer getting.

I realize many people don't have the funds to fork out for the
equipment or the installation costs, and, not everyone is in a
suitable area to be able to make good use of it, even if they could
afford it.

Nobody (on the grid) with a calculator would ever install rooftop
solar unless someone else paid for it.

But, for those who are able, it doesn't make sense not to
take advantage of it. The panel technologies will continue to
improve, the inverter gear will also continue to improve as a result.
Which translates into a viable, realistic source of electrical power,
originating from the sun.


If
you don't allow fossil fuel,
you've run out of rivers to dam,
you don't live on a prime thermal energy site,
you continue to procreate like rabbits,
and
you want to continue your current lifestyle,
nuclear is the only current technology
that makes sense to your calculator.

Solar makes sense in some cases. It is not a general
solution to the energy crisis or climate change...at
the projected rates of energy consumption.

mike news May 2017 05:03:33 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.

He has no battery bank, so, during the nighttime, and on very cloudy
days, he'd require the grid to make up the difference. If he elects
to install a large enough battery bank, he wouldn't require the grid
during the evenings or when it's cloudy outside.

I'm unclear as to why you think I contradicted myself. Whatever power
the house consumes when the solar system isn't able to provide power
isn't costing him money in the form of a bill from the power company,
as when sunlight returns, the system makes up for whatever 'losses'
it sustained during it's down time.

And, it could avoid that, with a battery bank. He didn't opt for it
at the time we did the installation. He still has the option, if he
chooses to take it. The wiring for the bank was already done. Place
for the bank to live already setup, just waiting. The inverter is
bank ready...So.. it's upto him when/if he wants to do it. For home
owner safety, terminations to the inverter haven't been completed,
but, the wiring is present and ready.

The grid has to maintain sufficient capacity to supply the
total needs of the population under worst case insolation.
The electricity purchased from him by the utility is at a
legally mandated rate that exceeds their cost to buy the same
power from the grid.

He's not going to become a millionaire with those checks at this
rate. The system won't even pay for itself, for years, at this rate,
either.. so...

The rest of us pay for that in our utility bill.

How so?

As rooftop solar increases, the problem gets much worse.
On a sunny summer day, the power generation plant has idle
equipment. They still pay for that equipment. They still pay
salaries. They still have to fix the wires when weather takes them
down. But they don't get the profit from selling power.

Power companies sell power to one another when additional power is
needed, what's the difference? I doubt they're selling to each other
at a loss...

At some point, their daytime peak energy buyback exceeds the
remaining demand.

I don't think that's happening here just yet. Likely some years off,
if ever.

What does the utility do with that surplus energy?

Sell it to another utility company in need of it? They already do
that.

Without local storage close to the point of generation, rooftop
solar is a nonstarter. With local storage at the point of
generation, users quickly find that they have huge costs and
nobody to buy their peak power at high rates...another nonstarter.

That depends on what qualifies as a nonstarter for you. I don't
personally see the issue here. He's invested a pile of cash into a
solar power source, and, it's doing it's job. It's saving him money
in the form of no electric bills. But, he's still at a financial loss
because the savings won't pay for the equipment for several years
down the road. And, if going by the check amounts, it'll take even
more years to pay it off.

He doesn't have to sell any of it back to the power company, if he
doesn't want to. All he has to do is flip a switch outside the home
and the excess generated power will not be returned to the grid. At
this point, it would simply be wasted, since he has no battery bank
to store it.

There are certainly great applications for solar power.
High population density areas with access to the grid ain't
one of them. Come up with CHEAP local storage and we'll talk
more...

He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for him.

Nobody (on the grid) with a calculator would ever install rooftop
solar unless someone else paid for it.

Sorry, but, you're wrong. He paid for the gear and installation, out
of his own pocket. He paid for the entire house, custom built to his
specifications. No bank financing, no home loan, none of that.

Along with the RV inside the RV garage he wanted. Which is attached
to the house. He didn't take any handouts in the form of government
assistance of any kind for any aspect of it.

And, I seriously doubt he's the only person able to do something like
that either.

The RV garage made the service entrance work a real ****er for myself
though. ****. My arms hurt just thinking about it. That was a
nightmare. Enter 90degree angle, go straight up (the RV wasn't
exactly a short one, it was rather tall!), 90degree angle, come
straight across (easily 15ft or more), another 90degree angle, come
straight down to the electrical panels, inverter, etc. I absolutely
hated it and hope to never have to pull service entrance wire for
something like that again. I'm not a big/husky fellow you understand,
so, it wasn't a walk in the park for my happy ass.

If
you don't allow fossil fuel,
you've run out of rivers to dam,
you don't live on a prime thermal energy site,
you continue to procreate like rabbits,
and
you want to continue your current lifestyle,
nuclear is the only current technology
that makes sense to your calculator.

To quote a friend, "what does any of that have to do with the price
of tea in China?"

Solar makes sense in some cases. It is not a general
solution to the energy crisis or climate change...at
the projected rates of energy consumption.

I didn't say otherwise...




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 5/12/2017 1:03 AM, mike wrote:



There are certainly great applications for solar power.
High population density areas with access to the grid ain't
one of them. Come up with CHEAP local storage and we'll talk more...

That is in the works from what I've read. Like everyth1ng else, you
have to jump in and start and then you have evolution. Your other
points are valid, but solar is still an infant. It should not be a give
away, but some subsidy in the right place can be good.

He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for him.


Ha, thats the best part.

Does he know that most grid tie inverters will NOT function without the grid.

What that means in practical terms, he cannot use the electricity from solar during a power failure.

I think that is a travesty and the rules re inverter designs should be changed.

Right now this behavior is REQUIRED by the rules to prevent the possibility of backfeeding power to a dead power line.

m

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 1:05:02 AM UTC-4, mike wrote:
On 5/11/2017 4:43 PM, Diesel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Thu,
11 May 2017 13:33:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different manner. It will take many more years to become
economically a winner. They laughed at the horseless carriage
too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits.
If it is any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many
decisions are made today by politicians. Does not bother me if
investors lose money off bad decisions but bad public decisions
loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help
everyone and at what cost. The government does subsidize medical
research, for instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on
their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway
signs already.

Well, solar does a bit more than that, actually. The solar job I was
involved in is providing enough power on a good sunlight day to run
his house without much (any?) need for the grid.

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.
The grid has to maintain sufficient capacity to supply the
total needs of the population under worst case insolation.
The electricity purchased from him by the utility is at a
legally mandated rate that exceeds their cost to buy the same
power from the grid.
The rest of us pay for that in our utility bill.

Bingo, that about sums it up. Plus the rest of us also
pay for it with federal tax credits.



As rooftop solar increases, the problem gets much worse.
On a sunny summer day, the power generation plant has idle equipment.
They still pay for that equipment. They still pay salaries.
They still have to fix the wires when weather takes them down.
But they don't get the profit from selling power.
At some point, their daytime peak energy buyback exceeds the remaining
demand.

Which is why in some states, utilities are starting to levy
a fee on solar systems to help pay for the infrastructure
that's there, which they need, but use very little of.
In other words, the current, widely used pricing schemes,
still assume customers are relying totally on the electric
company for power. If instead, a large number convert to
solar and only pull 10% of their needs from the utility,
the pricing models for power delivery fall apart, with not
enough revenue to cover the cost of the plants and the
massive distribution system.



What does the utility do with that surplus energy?
Without local storage close to the point of generation, rooftop solar
is a nonstarter. With local storage at the point of generation,
users quickly find that they have huge costs and nobody to buy
their peak power at high rates...another nonstarter.

There are certainly great applications for solar power.
High population density areas with access to the grid ain't
one of them. Come up with CHEAP local storage and we'll talk more...

To the point where he gets a small check from the power company,
instead of a large bill. Since it has no battery storage for surplus
generated power, the house has to run off the grid supplied power
during the night. As his appliances are gas, it's actually capable of
providing sufficient power for his entire house, on it's own. Excess
generated power is placed back on the grid and 'sold' back to the
power company. In the form of no power bill, but a very small check
instead. heh.

During the day, it's providing enough power to make up for the
difference cost wise, though. It will be a long time due to the size
of the checks before he breaks even, if you look at that way. And a
shorter period of time if you look at the electric bills he's no
longer getting.

I realize many people don't have the funds to fork out for the
equipment or the installation costs, and, not everyone is in a
suitable area to be able to make good use of it, even if they could
afford it.

Nobody (on the grid) with a calculator would ever install rooftop
solar unless someone else paid for it.

Correct. The exception being hippies with extra bucks,
Hollywood loons, etc.





But, for those who are able, it doesn't make sense not to
take advantage of it. The panel technologies will continue to
improve, the inverter gear will also continue to improve as a result.
Which translates into a viable, realistic source of electrical power,
originating from the sun.


If
you don't allow fossil fuel,
you've run out of rivers to dam,
you don't live on a prime thermal energy site,
you continue to procreate like rabbits,
and
you want to continue your current lifestyle,
nuclear is the only current technology
that makes sense to your calculator.


It certainly seems the best option if you believe that
CO2 is going to doom us all in the not too distant future.
Funny thing though, the same hippies, environmentalist
and media dimwits that claim CO2 is going to kill us all,
are also dead set against nuclear. Now nuclear is far
from perfect and has it's own serious risks, but if you
believe Co2 is dooming the planet, then clearly we should
be building them as fast as we can. Yet the above folks
just pretend that electricity for cars or whatever comes
out of the wall and ignore all the excellent points you
and I know are true.


Solar makes sense in some cases. It is not a general
solution to the energy crisis or climate change...at
the projected rates of energy consumption.

It's certainly not with today's technology, that's for sure.
And we haven't gotten to the possible serious problems,
like what if panels don't last the 30 years it takes to
get your money back?

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 7:47:16 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
Ed Pawlowski Thu,
11 May 2017 13:33:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/11/2017 8:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 5/10/2017 10:08 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-05-11, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I'd not call it a farce, but it says we have to do things in a
different manner. It will take many more years to become
economically a winner. They laughed at the horseless carriage
too.

Solar should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits.
If it is any good it does not need to be subsidized.

Exactly right. Mandating it will not make it so. You cannot
legislate science to make it do what you want. Too many
decisions are made today by politicians. Does not bother me if
investors lose money off bad decisions but bad public decisions
loose taxpayers money.

You have to consider the long term benefit and will it help
everyone and at what cost. The government does subsidize medical
research, for instance. Should cures for all diseases stand on
their own merits too?

I'm not against some help, but it should not be just a freebie for
everyone either. Solar will be a big deal in the future and help
everyone eventually. If nothing else, it powers some highway
signs already.

Well, solar does a bit more than that, actually. The solar job I was
involved in is providing enough power on a good sunlight day to run
his house without much (any?) need for the grid.

To the point where he gets a small check from the power company,
instead of a large bill. Since it has no battery storage for surplus
generated power, the house has to run off the grid supplied power
during the night. As his appliances are gas, it's actually capable of
providing sufficient power for his entire house, on it's own. Excess
generated power is placed back on the grid and 'sold' back to the
power company. In the form of no power bill, but a very small check
instead. heh.

Typically that check is because the govt is forcing the
utility to buy the power at rates far above what they
could obtain the electricity for from other, conventional
sources.




During the day, it's providing enough power to make up for the
difference cost wise, though. It will be a long time due to the size
of the checks before he breaks even, if you look at that way.

And absent federal tax credits, forcing utilities to buy
the power at inflated rates, it will never break even.


And a
shorter period of time if you look at the electric bills he's no
longer getting.

I realize many people don't have the funds to fork out for the
equipment or the installation costs, and, not everyone is in a
suitable area to be able to make good use of it, even if they could
afford it. But, for those who are able, it doesn't make sense not to
take advantage of it.

Sure, for the individual, if you ignore the true, actual
costs to all of us.





The panel technologies will continue to
improve, the inverter gear will also continue to improve as a result.
Which translates into a viable, realistic source of electrical power,
originating from the sun.


It's nowhere near viable yet, the massive govt subsidies
and forcing of utilities proves it. And bear in mind,
that the govt is pouring billions into this now, with
only a very small percentage of deployment. The govt
is already broke and doesn't have enough money to
subsidize it to become a major portion of our electricity
source.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:22:05 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
mike news May 2017 05:03:33 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.

He has no battery bank, so, during the nighttime, and on very cloudy
days, he'd require the grid to make up the difference. If he elects
to install a large enough battery bank, he wouldn't require the grid
during the evenings or when it's cloudy outside.

What's the size and cost of that battery bank?
Add that to the total cost and make it the real cost
too, not the cost after massive govt tax credits.
Clearly the battery model isn't here, solar is being
installed here and not a one that I've heard of uses
batteries. They are all grid tied, grid dependent.




I'm unclear as to why you think I contradicted myself. Whatever power
the house consumes when the solar system isn't able to provide power
isn't costing him money in the form of a bill from the power company,
as when sunlight returns, the system makes up for whatever 'losses'
it sustained during it's down time.


True. But his neighbor, who doesn't have solar, is
getting screwed because the utility, in most cases,
is being forced to buy his solar energy at inflated
prices, when they could be buying cheaper, grid
electric from conventional sources. And we're all
helping pay for his electric because of big tax
subsidies.



And, it could avoid that, with a battery bank. He didn't opt for it
at the time we did the installation. He still has the option, if he
chooses to take it. The wiring for the bank was already done. Place
for the bank to live already setup, just waiting. The inverter is
bank ready...So.. it's upto him when/if he wants to do it. For home
owner safety, terminations to the inverter haven't been completed,
but, the wiring is present and ready.

The grid has to maintain sufficient capacity to supply the
total needs of the population under worst case insolation.
The electricity purchased from him by the utility is at a
legally mandated rate that exceeds their cost to buy the same
power from the grid.

He's not going to become a millionaire with those checks at this
rate. The system won't even pay for itself, for years, at this rate,
either.. so...

The rest of us pay for that in our utility bill.

How so?

Utilities being mandated to buy his solar power at
inflated costs.

His house, with minimal needs from the grid, not fairly
paying for all the infrastructure necessary to deliver
him that power.

Massive tax breaks that increase the tax burden for all
tax payers, which isn't in your utility bill, but we
still pay it.




As rooftop solar increases, the problem gets much worse.
On a sunny summer day, the power generation plant has idle
equipment. They still pay for that equipment. They still pay
salaries. They still have to fix the wires when weather takes them
down. But they don't get the profit from selling power.

Power companies sell power to one another when additional power is
needed, what's the difference? I doubt they're selling to each other
at a loss...

The difference is that utilities are being forced to
buy solar at inflated rates. May not be true
everywhere, but it's the case in many places,
including here in NJ.




At some point, their daytime peak energy buyback exceeds the
remaining demand.

I don't think that's happening here just yet. Likely some years off,
if ever.

What does the utility do with that surplus energy?

Sell it to another utility company in need of it? They already do
that.


They can't sell it when all the utilites have the same
problem. Right now, there is excess capacity at night.
Who can you sell that too?



Without local storage close to the point of generation, rooftop
solar is a nonstarter. With local storage at the point of
generation, users quickly find that they have huge costs and
nobody to buy their peak power at high rates...another nonstarter.

That depends on what qualifies as a nonstarter for you. I don't
personally see the issue here. He's invested a pile of cash into a
solar power source, and, it's doing it's job. It's saving him money
in the form of no electric bills. But, he's still at a financial loss
because the savings won't pay for the equipment for several years
down the road. And, if going by the check amounts, it'll take even
more years to pay it off.



The problem is the rest of us are paying for it,
that it's totally economically unviable on it's own.


He doesn't have to sell any of it back to the power company, if he
doesn't want to. All he has to do is flip a switch outside the home
and the excess generated power will not be returned to the grid.

IDK how you do that. I;d like to see an example of a
typical ome solar system that is not required to be
connected to the grid. Everyone I've seen, if the grid
goes down, you have no power, it disconnects and shuts
down. Which is one of the ironic things, all the
people here with solar, if there is a power outage,
they will be without power just like the rest of us.



At
this point, it would simply be wasted, since he has no battery bank
to store it.

There are certainly great applications for solar power.
High population density areas with access to the grid ain't
one of them. Come up with CHEAP local storage and we'll talk
more...

He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for him.


Show us the spec sheet for the eqpt he's using that
doesn't require the grid for him to have power.



Nobody (on the grid) with a calculator would ever install rooftop
solar unless someone else paid for it.

Sorry, but, you're wrong. He paid for the gear and installation, out
of his own pocket.

No he didn't, unless he's a complete fool or pays
no income tax. Every
solar installer touts the big tax credits that
make it work. And I'll bet the utility is paying
him more for his solar than they can generate or
but electricity for. Many states also have other
rebate programs that kick in money too.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 10:05:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:

He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for him.


Ha, thats the best part.

Does he know that most grid tie inverters will NOT function without the grid.

Bingo! I just asked Diesel to provide us with the
spec sheet for the inverter he claims to have
installed that he says will work without the grid.
Every installer pitch I've heard, every story about
actual installation, they all tell you that if the
grid goes down, you have no power. Unless you have
a battery bank, which no one here is hawking, that's
for sure, because it just makes the economics worse
and you can ride your free connection to the grid.



What that means in practical terms, he cannot use the electricity from solar during a power failure.

I think that is a travesty and the rules re inverter designs should be changed.


The fundamental problem here is that without
the grid or a battery bank, there is no ability
to provide consistent power. It suddenly gets
cloudy, then what? Brown out?



Right now this behavior is REQUIRED by the rules to prevent the possibility of backfeeding power to a dead power line.

m

I don't think that's the real problem. The same
potential for backfeeding exists with any alternate
power system, eg generators and it's routinely
handled with an interlock, etc.

On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Bingo! I just asked Diesel to provide us with the
spec sheet for the inverter he claims to have
installed that he says will work without the grid.
Every installer pitch I've heard, every story about
actual installation, they all tell you that if the
grid goes down, you have no power. Unless you have
a battery bank, which no one here is hawking, that's
for sure, because it just makes the economics worse
and you can ride your free connection to the grid.



What that means in practical terms, he cannot use the electricity from solar during a power failure.

I think that is a travesty and the rules re inverter designs should be changed.


The fundamental problem here is that without
the grid or a battery bank, there is no ability
to provide consistent power. It suddenly gets
cloudy, then what? Brown out?



Right now this behavior is REQUIRED by the rules to prevent the possibility of backfeeding power to a dead power line.

m

I don't think that's the real problem. The same
potential for backfeeding exists with any alternate
power system, eg generators and it's routinely
handled with an interlock, etc.

I often wonder that if you had suitable transfer equipment, could you
kick start a grid tie inverter with a regular 12v input inverter on
the line side. I think they are really just looking for clocking from
the grid.

On 05/11/2017 07:32 PM, mike wrote:

Just down the street, there's a solar powered traffic radar speed sign.
The cost of the solar panel is high, but it's way cheaper than
digging up the street to run a line to the power grid across the street.
It's cheaper than adding an agenda item to the city engineer's
todo list. It's a no-brainer.

Around here, those signs are portable, and moved to different places. A
permanent solution like digging up the street would not be appropriate.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Q: 'Let us pray for understanding and for compassion.' Picard: 'Let us
do no such damn thing.'"

trader_4
Fri, 12
May 2017 15:58:09 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Does he know that most grid tie inverters will NOT function
without the grid.

Bingo! I just asked Diesel to provide us with the
spec sheet for the inverter he claims to have
installed that he says will work without the grid.
Every installer pitch I've heard, every story about
actual installation, they all tell you that if the
grid goes down, you have no power. Unless you have
a battery bank, which no one here is hawking, that's
for sure, because it just makes the economics worse
and you can ride your free connection to the grid.

The system has an automatic disconnect switch (interlock) from the
grid; just like a house generator does. So, that it does NOT under
any circumstances backfeed a dead grid and electrocute someone who's
working on it. The ONLY time it will provide power to the grid is if
the grid is hot, AND, the owner hasn't manually flipped another
switch that isolates his house from the grid; which forces the house
to run entirely on solar power.

He's using a hybrid inverter...So it doesn't need the grid to run.
It's able to provide power without the grid, via the panels on his
house, AND a battery bank if he opts to get one.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

If you pull up the spec sheet, it's the one to the right:

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf
They are cluster configurable too, so you can extend the capacity by
adding additional ones. It's a sweet one, it really is. Easy to work
with, easy to wire, easy to configure. Nice unit, and powerful.

Here's another one (so I'm not being totally biased here) that can
provide power, without the grid:

https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/s...s-22-inverter/

Also, an optional Secure Power Supply (SPS) feature enables these
Sunny Boy inverters to supply up to 12 A at 120VAC to a single
outlet for recharging portable devices or a small UPS directly from
the PV array in the event of a grid outage.

You guys both seem to be a bit more than behind the times on this...

I don't think that's the real problem. The same
potential for backfeeding exists with any alternate
power system, eg generators and it's routinely
handled with an interlock, etc.

It's not a problem. It has an interlock which prevents it from
backfeeding onto a dead grid, just like a house generator does, by
code. As well as having a secondary interlock that he can flip to
isolate his house from the grid, whether it's hot or not.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.