FOUR high capacity 240VAC lines out and a number of 120VAC also!

Making this house ALL ELECTRIC! :-)

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:

FOUR high capacity 240VAC lines out and a number of 120VAC also!

Making this house ALL ELECTRIC! :-)

John Kuthe...

Is electricity cheap in Overland Missouri? Or are you still in St
Louis?

How many more meth labs can you run with the additional panel? Or is
this for your marijuana grow-op?

On 8/20/19 8:31 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
FOUR high capacity 240VAC lines out and a number of 120VAC also!

Making this house ALL ELECTRIC! :-)

John Kuthe...


Impressive though I wouldn't want your electric bill.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 06:35:08 -0400, Joe 30330 wrote:

On 8/20/19 8:31 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
FOUR high capacity 240VAC lines out and a number of 120VAC also!

Making this house ALL ELECTRIC! :-)

John Kuthe...


Impressive though I wouldn't want your electric bill.

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

wrote:

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

Not sure how you substitute electricity for water - assume he means heating
water with propane or gas.

That said, unless you are generating your own electricity with turbines or
photovoltaic arrays (which have substantial capital costs), electrcity is almost
always more expensive than natural gas, heating oil or bottled gas (propane),
even taking efficiency into account.

There are a number of calculators on the web. Here's just one:
https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/gas.html

In article urtqle5ddcr9he9ub3mn46s817m0r1du1u@None,
says...

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

Not sure how you substitute electricity for water - assume he means heating
water with propane or gas.



That part is easy.


If you have a well you do not pay for water. In the city water and
sewage can run up to be a big bill. Then in the winter in many parts of
the country you have to heat the house with something.

About 15 years ago I moved to a larger house that was better built. The
old house had gas heat but not too much insulation as it was built about
1965. In the winter months, I was paying more for just the gas heat for
the house and hot water than I now pay for electricity with a heat pump
and electric water heater.

I am paying around 10 to 12 cents per KWH if I devided the bill
correctly a few months back.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:01:47 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

wrote:

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

With a well?

Not sure how you substitute electricity for water - assume he means heating
water with propane or gas.

That said, unless you are generating your own electricity with turbines or
photovoltaic arrays (which have substantial capital costs), electrcity is almost
always more expensive than natural gas, heating oil or bottled gas (propane),
even taking efficiency into account.

There are a number of calculators on the web. Here's just one:
https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/gas.html

I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.

Arthur Conan Doyle writes:
wrote:

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

Not sure how you substitute electricity for water - assume he means heating
water with propane or gas.

That said, unless you are generating your own electricity with turbines or
photovoltaic arrays (which have substantial capital costs),

Substantial? Perhaps a decade ago. My electric bill is now $10/month[*], and
the array will pay itself back in seven years; the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break) and will return 12.5% p.a.
for the next 25 years. Far more secure than any stock market investment.

I'll have fed over a megawatt-hour into the grid in the past year net
of my daily usage.
[*] The cost to remain connected to the grid. Most of that will be refunded
at the annual true-up, for a net electric cost approaching zero for the year.

Ralph Mowery writes:
In article urtqle5ddcr9he9ub3mn46s817m0r1du1u@None,
says...

If it is his only bill, it might not be that bad. Mine is in the
$230/mo range but I don't get a gas bill, oil bill or a water bill.

Not sure how you substitute electricity for water - assume he means heating
water with propane or gas.



That part is easy.


If you have a well you do not pay for water.

I'm afraid that depends completely on where you live. In areas with
shortages of groundwater, a pump tax is usually applied to any well
in the area.

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:01:47 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:


I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.

Modern gas-fired high-efficiency furnaces run at 98%, the minimum is
78%.

And USD0.11 KWH may be true where you live, but it's hardly universal.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

--
Tekkie

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:21:11 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

Not paying a tax has the same effect on the budget as getting a refund
(probably what you did) or just having the government send you a
check. The tax payer still subsidized your solar panels and now the
paying electric customers are subsidizing you too unless you are only
getting credit for the fuel saving. The rest of the infrastructure
still needs to be there unless you want to shiver in the dark all
night.

No I was not in favor of boosting the deficit to cut taxes.
The only responsible way to cut taxes is to cut spending.
The only thing I said about it is if you lived in a red state, you got
a bigger piece of the cut. Elections have consequences.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

In article , says...

If you have a well you do not pay for water.

I'm afraid that depends completely on where you live. In areas with
shortages of groundwater, a pump tax is usually applied to any well
in the area.




Did not know that was going on in parts of the country.

Seems there is going to be a way to tax everything. I have heard that
the states want to put a road tax on the electric cars where you paid a
tax for the number of miles driven. That is to make up for the tax lost
on gas for roads.

I have not checked on it, but have heard there is a rain tax. That is
if you have say a parking lot where the rain can not go into the gound
but out to the storm drains you get taxed for that.

In article ,
says...

I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.



For heat pumps you can say that electricity is more than 100% efficient.

The heat transfered from the outside is more than the heat produced by
electricity if used as resistance heating.

wrote:

There are a number of calculators on the web. Here's just one:
https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/gas.html

I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.

I agree electricity is 100% efficient. A good water heater/furnane is 92%, so
you have to factor that 8% difference, but even that doesn't make electricity a
better deal.

Let's run your numbers:

1 Gallon of Propane is 1.1 Therms. If you are paying $2.50/gallon, 1 therm of
propane is $2.27. 1 Therm equals 29kwh. At 0.11/kwh, that's $3.19.

Not really fair to compare spot/peak pricing for propane as you wouldn't pay
that for the entire year.

When I was buying ~3000 gallons of propane a year, the contract price ranged
from $1.80 to 2.75/gallon depending on when I scheduled fills. I will admit that
propane prices are extremely regional. OTOH they tend to track alternative fuels
like natural gas and fuel oil, so they don't spike as much as they have in the
past.

I'd also check your electricity numbers. They have been trending upwards to
cover the cost of alternative fuels, and many PUCs force a tiered rate where
once you get above average lighting load, the cost per kwh goes up quite a bit.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:19:26 PM UTC-5, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
....

Run the numbers UP YOUR ASS!!

There is ONLY one place we get fossil fuels! ONE!! And cheap easily utilizable fossil fuels are getting harder and harder (read: more expensive!) but electricity can be generated many ways!

Get it yet?

300 year vision! :-)

John Kuthe, Climate Anarchist and Suburban Renewalist!

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:06:00 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.



For heat pumps you can say that electricity is more than 100% efficient.

The heat transfered from the outside is more than the heat produced by
electricity if used as resistance heating.

The Heat pump heating effect is supplanted with big thick nichrome coils, 240VAC and HIGH WATT! That air WILL get hot!

John Kuthe...

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:21:11 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

Not paying a tax has the same effect on the budget as getting a refund

So does the ridiculous tax cuts that were passed. As a result of
which, my tax burden _increased_, thank you very much. Therefore,
the credit for solar (which is benifical to _everyone_ in multiple
ways, which is why the solar credit exists) simply meant I paid
a bit less than I would have just under the new tax rules; although
no where near enough to make up for the increase due to the
so-called tax cuts.

(probably what you did)

I haven't had a refund in a decade.


. The rest of the infrastructure
still needs to be there unless you want to shiver in the dark all
night.

The $10/month is paying for my portion of the infrastructure, pal.


No I was not in favor of boosting the deficit to cut taxes.
The only responsible way to cut taxes is to cut spending.
The only thing I said about it is if you lived in a red state, you got
a bigger piece of the cut. Elections have consequences.

What you call consequences is pure childish revenge and has no place
in a civilized society.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Ridiculous auto-contradicting senile IDIOT! LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:19:22 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

wrote:

There are a number of calculators on the web. Here's just one:
https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/gas.html

I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.

I agree electricity is 100% efficient. A good water heater/furnane is 92%, so
you have to factor that 8% difference, but even that doesn't make electricity a
better deal.

Let's run your numbers:

1 Gallon of Propane is 1.1 Therms. If you are paying $2.50/gallon, 1 therm of
propane is $2.27. 1 Therm equals 29kwh. At 0.11/kwh, that's $3.19.

Not really fair to compare spot/peak pricing for propane as you wouldn't pay
that for the entire year.

When I was buying ~3000 gallons of propane a year, the contract price ranged
from $1.80 to 2.75/gallon depending on when I scheduled fills. I will admit that
propane prices are extremely regional. OTOH they tend to track alternative fuels
like natural gas and fuel oil, so they don't spike as much as they have in the
past.

That $2.50 was a "sale" that happens in the spring around here. It is
usually higher. Looking at a price citation on
https://fuelwonk.com/vendor/eia-flor...ne/36808/32801

It says $4.69. That makes your therms $4.26

I'd also check your electricity numbers. They have been trending upwards to
cover the cost of alternative fuels, and many PUCs force a tiered rate where
once you get above average lighting load, the cost per kwh goes up quite a bit.

Last month 11.24 cents per KWH. (Total Bill/KWH)

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:51:21 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:21:11 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

Not paying a tax has the same effect on the budget as getting a refund

So does the ridiculous tax cuts that were passed. As a result of
which, my tax burden _increased_, thank you very much.

Blue state person no doubt

Therefore,
the credit for solar (which is benifical to _everyone_ in multiple
ways, which is why the solar credit exists) simply meant I paid
a bit less than I would have just under the new tax rules; although
no where near enough to make up for the increase due to the
so-called tax cuts.

How does your solar benefit that single mom how now has to pay more
for her power to subsidize your science fair project? If they are
crediting you more than the fuel savings from your panels, someone
else is paying for all of that infrastructure.


(probably what you did)

I haven't had a refund in a decade.

That just means you are slicing your W4 and other withholding as tight
as you can get it.


. The rest of the infrastructure
still needs to be there unless you want to shiver in the dark all
night.

The $10/month is paying for my portion of the infrastructure, pal.

Really? You are deluded. Your share of all of that infrastructure is
certainly more than $10 a month.
Ten bucks barely covers their administrative fee (AKA Customer charge)
and you are certainly getting a break on the taxes, again subsidized
by someone else.
On my most recent bill "Fuel" was about 20% of it. What else are you
saving them?

Customer charge:$8.28
Non-fuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.066850)$171.43(Over 1000 kWh at
$0.077400)
FuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.022270)$65.87(Over 1000 kWh at $0.032270)
Electric service amount245.58
Storm charge3.15
Gross receipts tax6.38
Franchise charge11.81
Taxes and charges21.34



No I was not in favor of boosting the deficit to cut taxes.
The only responsible way to cut taxes is to cut spending.
The only thing I said about it is if you lived in a red state, you got
a bigger piece of the cut. Elections have consequences.

What you call consequences is pure childish revenge and has no place
in a civilized society.

It is simply giving your voters what you promised them after you won.
The people you voted for got you that sweet deal on your solar didn't
they?
It is just rich people welfare at it's finest.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Excuse me, those rich enough to install them. That works.
It also excludes vast swaths of the population who either rent or who
couldn't come up with a thousand bucks if their life depended on it.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Excuse me,

No way, you have always been completely inexcusable.

those rich enough to install them.

Those who arent too poor to install them, actually.

That works.

Nope.

It also excludes vast swaths of the population who either rent or who
couldn't come up with a thousand bucks if their life depended on it.

On 8/21/2019 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:19:22 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

wrote:

There are a number of calculators on the web. Here's just one:
https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/gas.html
I agree natural gas piped in is usually cheaper than electricity but
that is certainly not true of propane here. Propane is expensive
($2.50 to over $4 a gallon and fairly volatile pricing). Electric has
been pretty steady at ~11 cents a KWH bottom line.
Electricity is also virtually 100% efficient instead of sending a lot
of heat up the flue.
I agree electricity is 100% efficient. A good water heater/furnane is 92%, so
you have to factor that 8% difference, but even that doesn't make electricity a
better deal.

Let's run your numbers:

1 Gallon of Propane is 1.1 Therms. If you are paying $2.50/gallon, 1 therm of
propane is $2.27. 1 Therm equals 29kwh. At 0.11/kwh, that's $3.19.

Not really fair to compare spot/peak pricing for propane as you wouldn't pay
that for the entire year.

When I was buying ~3000 gallons of propane a year, the contract price ranged
from $1.80 to 2.75/gallon depending on when I scheduled fills. I will admit that
propane prices are extremely regional. OTOH they tend to track alternative fuels
like natural gas and fuel oil, so they don't spike as much as they have in the
past.
That $2.50 was a "sale" that happens in the spring around here. It is
usually higher. Looking at a price citation on
https://fuelwonk.com/vendor/eia-flor...ne/36808/32801

It says $4.69. That makes your therms $4.26

I'd also check your electricity numbers. They have been trending upwards to
cover the cost of alternative fuels, and many PUCs force a tiered rate where
once you get above average lighting load, the cost per kwh goes up quite a bit.
Last month 11.24 cents per KWH. (Total Bill/KWH)

Â* 'Lectric here is around a dime a kw/hr all in , we heat water with it
.. Propane varies , usually around $2-2.50 /gallon . But I don't care ,
we heat with wood and it's "free" - well not really , but gas to cut and
split plus my labor is cheaper than any other alternative out here . And
our woods are healthier for the culling I do .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

Ralph Mowery wrote:

For heat pumps you can say that electricity is more than 100% efficient.

The heat transfered from the outside is more than the heat produced by
electricity if used as resistance heating.

True. However, heat pumps are decidedly more expensive than conventional
furnaces to install and maintain, so that does need to be considered.

John Kuthe wrote:

There is ONLY one place we get fossil fuels! ONE!! And cheap easily utilizable fossil fuels are getting harder and harder (read: more expensive!) but electricity can be generated many ways!
Get it yet?
300 year vision! :-)

Sure, but that's a religious argument, not an economic one. I'll meet you at the
pub of your choice in 2319 and we can discuss whether or not hydrocarbon fuels
have run out. I'll buy the first round.

wrote:

That $2.50 was a "sale" that happens in the spring around here. It is
usually higher. Looking at a price citation on
https://fuelwonk.com/vendor/eia-flor...ne/36808/32801

It says $4.69. That makes your therms $4.26

Bummer. Definitely region specific. I know places in ag areas where propane
rarely goes over $1/gallon. It's used to dry grain and they go through thousands
of gallons a month.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:51:21 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:21:11 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

Not paying a tax has the same effect on the budget as getting a refund

So does the ridiculous tax cuts that were passed. As a result of
which, my tax burden _increased_, thank you very much.

Blue state person no doubt

Therefore,
the credit for solar (which is benifical to _everyone_ in multiple
ways, which is why the solar credit exists) simply meant I paid
a bit less than I would have just under the new tax rules; although
no where near enough to make up for the increase due to the
so-called tax cuts.

How does your solar benefit that single mom how now has to pay more
for her power to subsidize your science fair project? If they are
crediting you more than the fuel savings from your panels, someone
else is paying for all of that infrastructure.


(probably what you did)

I haven't had a refund in a decade.

That just means you are slicing your W4 and other withholding as tight
as you can get it.


. The rest of the infrastructure
still needs to be there unless you want to shiver in the dark all
night.

The $10/month is paying for my portion of the infrastructure, pal.

Really? You are deluded. Your share of all of that infrastructure is
certainly more than $10 a month.
Ten bucks barely covers their administrative fee (AKA Customer charge)

That's for sure. The bill here, it's about half for the electric energy and half for the delivery cost, ie the infrastructure. If everyone was paying $10 a month for delivery, the system would shut down. In fact some states are now addressing this growing and unfair problem. Solar customers can have a near zero bill, but they need the grid when the sun isn't shining to power their homes and they need it when the sun is shining to be able to sell their power.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:13:13 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

wrote:

That $2.50 was a "sale" that happens in the spring around here. It is
usually higher. Looking at a price citation on
https://fuelwonk.com/vendor/eia-flor...ne/36808/32801

It says $4.69. That makes your therms $4.26

Bummer. Definitely region specific. I know places in ag areas where propane
rarely goes over $1/gallon. It's used to dry grain and they go through thousands
of gallons a month.

The price is very volatile here. I see that $4 price a lot. I only use
it to run my generator these days Originally I got it for a pool
heater and I burned over 100 gallons in a few days, maybe a week. I
never turned the heater on again.
As long as I can keep my tank topped up at the special deal price I am
good.,

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:05:44 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

Ralph Mowery wrote:

For heat pumps you can say that electricity is more than 100% efficient.

The heat transfered from the outside is more than the heat produced by
electricity if used as resistance heating.

True. However, heat pumps are decidedly more expensive than conventional
furnaces to install and maintain, so that does need to be considered.

If you live in a place where heat pumps actually work, you probably
have an A/C anyway. The incremental cost for the reversing valve is
minimal.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:23:59 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:51:21 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:21:11 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

You are, as usual, incorrect.

There was "no pay back", just a reduction in tax. I thought
you were in favor of lower taxes?

Not paying a tax has the same effect on the budget as getting a refund

So does the ridiculous tax cuts that were passed. As a result of
which, my tax burden _increased_, thank you very much.

Blue state person no doubt

Therefore,
the credit for solar (which is benifical to _everyone_ in multiple
ways, which is why the solar credit exists) simply meant I paid
a bit less than I would have just under the new tax rules; although
no where near enough to make up for the increase due to the
so-called tax cuts.

How does your solar benefit that single mom how now has to pay more
for her power to subsidize your science fair project? If they are
crediting you more than the fuel savings from your panels, someone
else is paying for all of that infrastructure.


(probably what you did)

I haven't had a refund in a decade.

That just means you are slicing your W4 and other withholding as tight
as you can get it.


. The rest of the infrastructure
still needs to be there unless you want to shiver in the dark all
night.

The $10/month is paying for my portion of the infrastructure, pal.

Really? You are deluded. Your share of all of that infrastructure is
certainly more than $10 a month.
Ten bucks barely covers their administrative fee (AKA Customer charge)

That's for sure. The bill here, it's about half for the electric energy and half for the delivery cost, ie the infrastructure. If everyone was paying $10 a month for delivery, the system would shut down. In fact some states are now addressing this growing and unfair problem. Solar customers can have a near zero bill, but they need the grid when the sun isn't shining to power their homes and they need it when the sun is shining to be able to sell their power.


Several of my neighbors are in the roofing biz, The love solar power.
It really pumps up their business. Roofers may be the best person
around to give you a lead on someone selling used solar panels.
That is where I got two sets of pool heater panels.
A hurricane (Irma) shredded the first set.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:30:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Excuse me, those rich enough to install them. That works.
It also excludes vast swaths of the population who either rent or who
couldn't come up with a thousand bucks if their life depended on it.
A huge percentage of Americans couldn't scratch together HALF of that
- - -

wrote:

If you live in a place where heat pumps actually work, you probably
have an A/C anyway. The incremental cost for the reversing valve is
minimal.

For air based heat pumps, true. Those tend to be found in areas where winters
aren't particularly cold. Unfortunately, when temps drop below freezing, they
revert to resistence heating.

I have relatives with a geothermal system. Definitely works year round, but much
more expensive to install. It also had to be replaced after 10 years, which
wasn't cheap.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:02:55 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:30:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Excuse me, those rich enough to install them. That works.
It also excludes vast swaths of the population who either rent or who
couldn't come up with a thousand bucks if their life depended on it.
A huge percentage of Americans couldn't scratch together HALF of that
- - -

When my wife was selling A/C she was amazed at the number of people
living in gated communities in 3500 sq/ft houses with luxury cars in
the driveway who couldn't come up with $5000 and couldn't get a loan.

On 8/21/2019 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.


Just like the taxpayers ARE paying for the trillion or 2 per year tax
break for the ultra rich, and the corporations that used it to enrich
their executives by driving up stock prices with buybacks using most of
their part of it.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:20:09 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:02:55 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:30:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 07:58:01 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:28:03 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:51:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

the investment in panels
returned 30% the first year (federal tax break)

The "investment" didn't pay you back, the tax payers did ... with
borrowed money.

A point I was going to make; once again you beat me to the punch ;-)

Solar subsidies are welfare for the rich.

Not the rich so much as those who can afford to install them.

Excuse me, those rich enough to install them. That works.
It also excludes vast swaths of the population who either rent or who
couldn't come up with a thousand bucks if their life depended on it.
A huge percentage of Americans couldn't scratch together HALF of that
- - -

When my wife was selling A/C she was amazed at the number of people
living in gated communities in 3500 sq/ft houses with luxury cars in
the driveway who couldn't come up with $5000 and couldn't get a loan.
The whole kit and kaboodle was leveraged to the hilt - that's why so
many lost virtually everything in 08. In many cases they only "owned"
less than 10%.

My last car payment and my last mortgage payment were about the same
time - about 1992?. (at about age 40)
My last new car (actually my ONLY new one) was 1976.

Going for a mediteranean cruse in October.