Mike O. wrote:

There was an interesting article in the Nov PM mag about an Arizona
company named Stirling Energy Systems. They're testing a 38' wide
dish powering a 25KW Stirling engine that heats and cools hydrogen
gas. They claim to have set an efficiency record for a commercial
solar device at 31.25 %.

Unless you're looking for a new hobby (or have bottomless pockets) don't
get caught in the efficiency trap. An increase in efficiency allows you
to get a little more out of an improved engine, usually at a greater
cost. Each increment of additional efficiency is likely to cost
appreciably more than the previous.

With this technology you can almost always arrive at the output you need
by scaling up an appropriate amount and using a bit more of that free
sunshine - without having to pay the penalty for bleeding-edge efficiency.

Methinks their efficiency record won't stand long.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:
"mac davis" wrote

They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
initial
investment back from savings in utilities..

IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except
in savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.

Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
energy used.

People who like to work with really sharp pencils may want to figure in
costs associated with buying, installing, maintaining (etc) the baseline
conventional system, but I don't even bother - and I encourage people to
keep whatever heating system they already have as a backstop for
protracted periods of unusually cold, dark weather.

It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
free heat.

Morris,

What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me that it could
not be window glass because of the heat.

Chris

Chris wrote:

What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me that
it could not be window glass because of the heat.

I use a twinwall polycarbonate - not because of the heat but because
it's a good insulator and because it's much less vulnerable to breakage
than glass.

Neither Heat nor temperature is a problem. The panels are designed so
that any increase in input results in a faster airflow (more heat energy
at same temperature). The normal operating temperature at sea level is
in the neighborhood of 110F increasing to about 125F at 5,000' above sea
level.

The polycarbonate glazing is good to about 800F and it'll survive an 80
mph hardball pitch, so it's well suited for the job. A cross section
slice would look like a ladder.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

BDBConstruction wrote:

On Dec 6, 6:21Â*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
snip

The 10 year average I used should be fairly applicable since it began at
a period when gas prices were below $1 and have carried through this
year's $4+ prices. Â*The fly in the ointment in the future will be if this
cap and trade taxation scheme ever gets implemented and destroys the cost
of electric power.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Even the most conservative speculations are not looking to even the
recent past as an accurate gauge of where our energy prices could be
headed in the next 20 years. We are by no means on a level grade
though it is of course all speculation.

That is why using historical data is of value. Will it be 100% accurate?
Of course not, but it provides a reasonable point of departure for planning
purposes. If I take your 6% per year estimate and apply it to my average of
$192 per month (all electric home in Arizona) for 2000 and forward-price
that to 2008, it shows my average monthly energy cost would be $306 per
month. That is not the case, even after this year's extra-ordinary cost
increases and the fact that my December bill is not yet factored into the
mix. The reality is that this year's average is on the order of $220,
reflecting an average annual cost increase of only about 2.5%. Could
energy price increases accelerate in the future? Of course, but if one is
planning a large expense, one should use a more solid foundation than
speculation. For the 6% per year energy increase to become true, energy
rates would need to increase at more than twice the rate they have
increased in the past.

As far as not being on a level grade, if you had been asked this summer if
gas prices would ever reach $1.60 per gallon again, would you have answered
in the affirmative? Energy as a commodity rises and falls with demand and
economic conditions.

The concern here is going to be non-market factors such as government
interference attempting to do social engineering by artificially inflating
conventional energy costs.

The auto exec's surley based
their business on an unmitigated analysis focused squarely on the past
with no eye to the future and look where it has gotten their
businesses.

There were numerous things that have contributed to the auto companies'
problems, but not all of them are germain to this subject.

I have no idea if you are one that feels there is a never
ending supply of oil and NG and we are all being snowed with regards
to the energy and environmental issues we face in the future.

The fact is there are significant energy reserves that have been walled
off to development and some of that are not yet cost effective to develop.
The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so rosy
a picture.

As far as environmental issues, if you are one who has bought into the
man-made global warming (oops, that didn't work since it's getting cooler),
um, man-made global climate change; then I fear further discussion is
pointless.

If that
is the case than the conversation is pointless as we can all rest our
bones and just boost the thermostat.


I always love it when someone points out issues in alternate energy
computations or projected cost savings and is answered with one of
those, "fine, go home and turn up the thermostat then" kind of responses.

With regards to system sizing/pricing I merely referenced a 1.5-2kw
system which of course is not going to cut it for a large or all
electric or wasteful/non-conserving home. Nor one in poor location for
PV. This is a system that would cost 9-11k or less without storage.
With federal and state rebates could be as low as I mentioned. This is
a system respective of the 75.00 a month electric bill in most
locations. However, if ones bill is more than 75, its more, system is
bigger, savings are bigger.

System is bigger, initial cost is bigger.



The common averages state that one can
expect a 8-12 percent return on investment over 20 years depending on
system cost and location (rebates). Most portfolios are lucky to hit
that in decent times and arent further bolstered by tens of thousands
of tons of reduced carbon footprint. At some point we have to stop
merely looking at our wallet. Though it will always be the
overwhelming factor at some point we are going to have to factor other
things in that we may not be instantly compensated for or that we
merely break even financially over the 20 years.


OK, you do buy into the anthropogenic global climate change hoax.


Given this is for CA but a simple calculator found in many forms on
the net - http://www.suncalsolar.com/costs/costs.htm

This link is from a company we have used and these examples are more
geared toward off grid homes. They all include costly batteries
however also use grid tie-able inverters.
http://www.backwoodssolar.com/reference/examples.htm . Examples 2-4 would
be similar (less the batteries, trading them for panels) to what I was
referring to. Even the largest system on the list isnt 60k though it
doesnt include any installation.

With regards to system maintenance yes, of course there will be
maintenance as well as risk. It isnt any different than any other
investment you make. Just like hail can trash your car or home, a
lightning strike, power surge, falling tree, could damage your system.
Just like your vehicle oil changes, tires, and home require
maintenance so will it though without batteries it would require
virtually none. If there is storage involved replacing battery banks
every 5-7 years will be factored in. However most grid tied homes opt
to forgo storage and trade those $$ for more panels as the grid is a
far more effective storage module than batteries. This would
additionally boost output. This is something that always gives me a
chuckle. When someone wants a cedar sided house, tiled roof, or an
Escolade they dont "run the numbers". They just want it. The cost of
owning it is offset by emotion. Yet when something like this is
actually practical and in many cases even profitable it is held to
unrealistic standards of scrutiny by some.

Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy prices
do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.


As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?


The simple fact of the matter, is most all calculators out there call
out 8-12 percent return on investment with many factors included.
Given some of this is based on state and fed rebates and it varies
from state to state. Savings is savings. From my perspective if you
can come within +/- 2 points of the average interest rate of the same
period for investing your money its a no brainer simply due to doing
more with less and supporting new and innovative industries.

Sadly, most of the blanket nay sayers with regards to AE in general
come from a very biased viewpoint to begin with and will only be
swayed if they get paid. Break even wont even move them. Its the Me
Millennium, Welcome to the future.

You'd do a lot better making your case without the condescension and
derision.



Mark

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Morris Dovey wrote:
Chris wrote:

What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me
that it could not be window glass because of the heat.

I use a twinwall polycarbonate - not because of the heat but because
it's a good insulator and because it's much less vulnerable to breakage
than glass.

Neither Heat nor temperature is a problem. The panels are designed so
that any increase in input results in a faster airflow (more heat energy
at same temperature). The normal operating temperature at sea level is
in the neighborhood of 110F increasing to about 125F at 5,000' above sea
level.

The polycarbonate glazing is good to about 800F and it'll survive an 80
mph hardball pitch, so it's well suited for the job. A cross section
slice would look like a ladder.

Thank you. I did not think about the heat leaving.

Chris

Mark & Juanita wrote:

and Morris snipped extensively

The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so rosy
a picture.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
"jump on board in a heartbeat" part.

"The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
well-exceeded.

Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy prices
do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.

Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.

As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?

Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.

Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 6, 11:29*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

and Morris snipped extensively

The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy. *If they can do so, then that is great,
people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so rosy
a picture.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
"jump on board in a heartbeat" part.

"The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
well-exceeded.

* Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. *If energy prices
do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.

Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.

* As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?

Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.

Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris, the "Drill-Baby Drill" crowd will never get it. Their way of
solving the energy crisis is not to make things more efficient, but to
develop new ways to make money so that the high prices won't bother
them.
All you have to do, is make sure you have enough money that YOU can
still drive your SUV when others can't.
Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
THEM for the last drop.
That makes WAY more sense.
OR... better yet.. convert all the food crops into fuel and starve the
*******s away from the pumps so there WILL be more fuel for the SUV's.

I find that in most cases, when trying to have a conversation about
alternative energy, the 'vision' is most often restricted by the same
blinders that keep the sunlight out.

Take your panels as an example. When one accepts that they work as
well as they do, then the next step will be the attempt to make them
better and cheaper. To walk away at this stage by saying, that they're
too expensive today, therefore unacceptable is dumb.

I could rant on, but a new dawn is coming. Free energy...oops can't
have that..there must be a way we can keep the serfs small by making
them pay for simple stuff like heat! What is this world coming to? No
KBR? No Chevron? heavens-to-betsy... how will we raise money to buy
politicians??..G

/rant

"Robatoy" wrote in message
Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
THEM for the last drop.

Well, you know why that's happening don't you? It's because it's being
looked at from the bean counter's accountant point of view. It's a tried and
true method that has worked well up to this point and it's easier for them
to select that route because they know it works. And, you're right. Human
beings as they are, are afraid of or just too damned selfish to make a
change. Or, most of them at least.

Robatoy wrote:

Morris, the "Drill-Baby Drill" crowd will never get it. Their way of
solving the energy crisis is not to make things more efficient, but to
develop new ways to make money so that the high prices won't bother
them.

And yet, even I have to admit that petroleum-based energy has been
comfortable - and the idea of switching to non-petroleum transportation
is intimidating for me.

All you have to do, is make sure you have enough money that YOU can
still drive your SUV when others can't.
Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
THEM for the last drop.
That makes WAY more sense.
OR... better yet.. convert all the food crops into fuel and starve the
*******s away from the pumps so there WILL be more fuel for the SUV's.

Yes, but that's not the /whole/ story. I think a lot of the situation
stems from preferring the devil one knows to a strange angel.

There is risk in change, and people are especially averse to risk in
times of uncertainty. "How can I recover if this doesn't work out as
expected?" is a very important question, and so far, I've seen every
purchase (including yours) as an act of real courage - so let me
encourage you to show yours off.

I find that in most cases, when trying to have a conversation about
alternative energy, the 'vision' is most often restricted by the same
blinders that keep the sunlight out.

Take your panels as an example. When one accepts that they work as
well as they do, then the next step will be the attempt to make them
better and cheaper. To walk away at this stage by saying, that they're
too expensive today, therefore unacceptable is dumb.

It's going to be very difficult to make 'em work significantly better -
although I do know how to make 'em last at least 4 or 5 times as long as
the current 25-year projection.

I already know how to bring the price down, but if everyone waits for
that they'll end up buying 'em from whoever replaces me (or him) who may
not have much/any interest in bringing the price down. Currently the
fixed overhead exceeds the selling price of the panels. It truly is a
matter of "I lose a little on each one, but could make it up by selling
at a lower price in quantity."

OTOH, as long as the payback period is shorter than the time required to
significantly reduce the cost/price, it actually does make sense to buy
at the current price. I wonder if anyone ever considers that...

I could rant on, but a new dawn is coming. Free energy...oops can't
have that..there must be a way we can keep the serfs small by making
them pay for simple stuff like heat! What is this world coming to? No
KBR? No Chevron? heavens-to-betsy... how will we raise money to buy
politicians??..G

I haven't looked to the politicians to smooth my path (and I'm fairly
sure that the cost of having them do that would be more than I could
afford) - I think I'd rather not have their "help".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:56:03 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:29:05 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:


Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
expected.

Just playing the dark side here, bro... What was your cost on the project?

They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your initial
investment back from savings in utilities..
Might just be our location, though. Electricity is very inexpensive here..
Now, in the Republik of Kalifornia your savings would be much more..



What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?

wrote:

What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?

Good question. It's designed to turn itself off as summer approaches.
The angle angle at which sunlight strikes the glazing - see the
explanation at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Astro/Seasons.html - provides
seasonal control. You can get more information still by doing a Google
search on "critical angle".

It's also possible to shut the panel off completely in any season by
covering the glazing.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:

What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?

Good question. It's designed to turn itself off as summer approaches.
The angle angle at which sunlight strikes the glazing - see the
explanation at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Astro/Seasons.html - provides
seasonal control. You can get more information still by doing a Google
search on "critical angle".

It's also possible to shut the panel off completely in any season by
covering the glazing.

Before electricity became common in south Georgia, our neighbor had a
refrigerator that ran on propane. After college I worked in a huge
drug store in Tennessee whose air conditioner used a gas burner
instead of a compressor. Has anyone ever made a room cooling system
that used solar heat to drive the ammonia cycle and passive convection
instead of a fan to spread the cooler air? A lot of our electricity in
the south is used for cooling, but I've never heard this discussed.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

A man with a briefcase can steal more
money than any man with a gun.

Gerald Ross wrote:

Before electricity became common in south Georgia, our neighbor had a
refrigerator that ran on propane. After college I worked in a huge drug
store in Tennessee whose air conditioner used a gas burner instead of a
compressor. Has anyone ever made a room cooling system that used solar
heat to drive the ammonia cycle and passive convection instead of a fan
to spread the cooler air? A lot of our electricity in the south is used
for cooling, but I've never heard this discussed.

It's theoretically possible, but loaded with so many practical problems
that the problem will probably be solved in some other way.

As resources have permitted, I've been working another approach which
seems promising - and talk about the approach (without providing much
detail) in the web page at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Journey.html

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:17:35 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

"mac davis" wrote

They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
initial
investment back from savings in utilities..

IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.

Exactly....
Sort of like changing out the windows for double pane or putting dark tint on
the widows that get sun..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Dec 7, 11:45*am, mac davis wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:17:35 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:
"mac davis" wrote

They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
initial
investment back from savings in utilities..

IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.

Exactly....
Sort of like changing out the windows for double pane or putting dark tint on
the widows that get sun..



All things passive appeal to my passive nature.

On Dec 6, 10:03*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Morris Doveys follow up is spot on,...

* As far as not being on a level grade, if you had been asked this summer if
gas prices would ever reach $1.60 per gallon again, would you have answered
in the affirmative? *

I wouldnt have guessed below two dollars this quickly but I was in
complete agreement with several outspoken sources that repeatedly
stated the gasoline prices were being artificially inflated by
capitalist greed and OPEC. I had many conversations with individuals
that as soon as these prices became unsustainable and AE began to once
again look viable it would be crushed by an immediate price drop as
not to undermine the system and that is where we are today.

It has been publicly stated numerous times that the petroleum industry
has been more than willing to make it clear that they will price any
competition out of existence to protect their market share or until
they themselves can profit from it.

The fixing in ares like the food and gasoline markets going on in the
past year is right out of the Enron/Tyco/K Street playbook. Greed,
greed, greed. Reducing quantity, quality, raising the price, and
record profits all the while blaming corn growers, truckers, supply,
hurricanes that never make land fall, on and on. Around here everyone
is skwaking that their vehicles which never had a problem before are
now knocking and pinging like crazy, mileage is lower. It is clear
producers are tweaking anywhere they can all the while driving the
screws even deeper.

So yes, I did state that gasoline would drop and there is plenty of
margin for it to drop more as there is in food and other commodities.

* There were numerous things that have contributed to the auto companies'
problems, but not all of them are germain to this subject.

What IS germain is the flawed philosophy of in extremely dynamic
situations heavily weighting the past in planning how to move forward
in the future. Its why we struggled for a while in a new generation
war we didnt know how to fight. No front line, no clear enemy, etc.
Yet we go in with the strategies of Custer and WWII. All through the
election we hear about Hoover, FDR, Lincoln, Regan, on and on. We are
moving into times that many of them could not even comprehend yet all
we heard was "a return to ...". It is perfectly germain to the
conversation in that these people who harken the past most generally
look for big overarching solutions to very complex problems and
unfortunately our future has more facets than the Hope diamond. I had
to have heard Britt Hume say 500 times "yeah, but whats his
overarching message?" The past.

It just like your energy issues with your house. You could likely gain
SOME of your heat from passive solar, SOME from active solar, SOME
from electricity, SOME from NG, and come out financially,
environmentally, and self sufficiently, ahead with a multi-pronged
heat source that worked in power outages, saved you when electricity
was high and NG was low, had built in redundancy, and did more with
less.

All we hear is "electric cars arent the solution". But they are part
of it. CNG isnt the solution. But it is part of it. Wind isnt the
solution. But it is part of it. The politics of the past, and mainly
the republican politics of the past, only want to see a single facet
solution. Its more profitable and easier to control.

* The fact is there are significant energy reserves that have been walled
off to development and some of that are not yet cost effective to develop..

Not significant enough to weight them as a sole solution.

The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy.

In your calculations for your home power you want to factor in every
little thing to make it a non viable option, cost of operation, long
term, short term, risk, change, esthetic's. Does it increase or
decrease the long term value of your home. Even 5% ROI isnt enough.
Likewise when if you factor in every little thing positive with AE
many of them DO compete with petroleum today. However some of these
things are not ones people can immediately see, they are not gee gaws
and buttons, and heated seats, shinny paint. They are long term
advances in efficiency and independence and just plain doing more with
less. Look, the simple fact of the matter is things like CFL' s. It
has been stated for years that if every home in the US changed ONE of
their most used bulbs to CFL it would be the equivalent of taking
1,000,000 cars off the road immediately. Yet it is not done. I dont
personally like CFLs everywhere, they are not the best light for
certain applications, however there are many that are and I use them
there. Many wont yet they are completely cost effective, highly
profitable for the individual.

* I always love it when someone points out issues in alternate energy
computations or projected cost savings and is answered with one of
those, "fine, go home and turn up the thermostat then" kind of responses.

Thats not what I said, I said IF "we" are being snowed "we" can all
sit back and turn up the thermostat. What is most perplexing is that
the past 8 years of chest drumming and near public lynching of anyone
who didnt fly a flag on their car or a ribbon on their trunk, why in
gods name would we, as the most advanced and supposed innovative
nation on the face of the earth and many would say the universe not
expect ourselves to continually strive for improvment and innovation?
Why would we NOT want an SUV that goes 45 miles on a gallon of gas?
Not want a home that you can heat for 400.00 a year in New England.
Even if there is no global warming why would we not innovate? Everyone
wins, Mfr's, consumers, the list goes on. To hell with global warming,
why not be in a constant state of advance? Yet our auto industry has
been stagnant for 30 years resisted everything thrown at it and lived
in the pocket of petroleum. Homebuilding is some of the least
efficient of the advanced nations. Heating systems, mechanical
systems, all way behind the curve. Some of the most wasteful
appliances made in the world are for US consumption. Our auto industry
makes some 30+ CNG cars that are not sold in the US? We've gotten fat
and lazy and now we pay.

* System is bigger, initial cost is bigger.

Savings are bigger, the percentages run parallel until you hit the
rebate cap.

* As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?

I dont know many that smugly claim $0 electric bill. The cost of the
system and maintenance are amortized over the life of the system and
in a case like ours in a state with no rebates what so ever and a
political system tied to coal that will likely never implement a
profitable grid tie program it is the most expensive power you can
have. In these cases it is relegated to pieces of property that are
cost prohibitive to run grid power to.

IMHO where the focus needs to be is imagining every new home and
commercial property built from this day forward had some quantity of
grid tied PV incorporated directly into the roofing system. No
storage, just daylight generation. In a short time many areas would be
generating substantial percentages of their daylight power via PV.
With a modest increase in federal rebates this would be very cost
effective and with the grid already in place it would be a direct
offset to coal, NG, and petrolem which could then be diverted to
better use. This could then be expanded to re-roofs and so on where a
major capital expenditure was already planned and needed.


* You'd do a lot better making your case without the condescension and
derision. *

There is no condescension, I simply despise bias in any way shape or
form.

Mark

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

and Morris snipped extensively

The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so
rosy a picture.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
"jump on board in a heartbeat" part.

"The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
well-exceeded.

I don't think it's an inertia thing so much as having to be cost-effective
enough to be worth the pain and hassle of going through the change. Even
when changing out conventional systems for another conventional system,
most folks will postpone that change as long as possible, both for monetary
and convenience reasons.



Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy
prices do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it
will be worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually
be cost competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.

Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.


There is that consideration. Just as in other things, it's a matter of
deciding the right timing.

I did run the numbers that the OP gave (both $9k and assuming a 30%
federal subsidy) with the idea that rather than trying to replace all grid
power, using it only as supplemental. i.e, use the solar power to reduce
the total electric bill, not expecting it to pull the whole load. Loading
the average monthly daylight hours, assuming about 80% of the day as being
capable of generating 2.5kW, the payback starts getting more reasonable.
It's on the order of 9 years unsubsidized and 7 years subsidized. Everyone
has a different threshold, but my personal threshold would be for a 5 year
or less payback period. Anything further out and you are dealing with too
many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. One disclaimer, my
computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company, assuming
that most of my use is after daylight hours. While I know that to be the
case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years that will be
unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it only makes sense,
the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and deliver at retail).
That will make a significant difference when that occurs in terms of
lengthening the time before break-even.


As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?

Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.

Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.


Good observation


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 5, 11:33*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:29*am, Robatoy wrote:



I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
done.

That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
the truck and we installed it this week.

Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.

Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
expected.


This afternoon, it was 28F outside, Direct, full sunlight on the
panel. I thumbtacked a strip of paper over the 'exhaust' and merrily
wiggled in the stream of warm air.
Film at 11

G

many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. *One disclaimer, my
computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company, assuming
that most of my use is after daylight hours. *While I know that to be the
case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years that will be
unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it only makes sense,
the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and deliver at retail).
That will make a significant difference when that occurs in terms of
lengthening the time before break-even.

Which is what I found when I looked into it. It made sense, until I
learned their buyback rate. They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.

No thanks. It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.

JW

jw wrote:


many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. Â*One disclaimer, my
computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company,
assuming that most of my use is after daylight hours. Â*While I know that
to be the case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years
that will be unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it
only makes sense, the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and
deliver at retail). That will make a significant difference when that
occurs in terms of lengthening the time before break-even.

Which is what I found when I looked into it. It made sense, until I
learned their buyback rate. They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.

No thanks. It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.

JW


Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.

The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/ Selecting a 2000 kWh
system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.

For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
$75/month?

I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
order for it to be cost effective.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Dec 12, 6:55*pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
jw wrote:

many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. *One disclaimer, my
computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company,
assuming that most of my use is after daylight hours. *While I know that
to be the case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years
that will be unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it
only makes sense, the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and
deliver at retail). That will make a significant difference when that
occurs in terms of lengthening the time before break-even.

Which is what I found when I looked into it. *It made sense, until I
learned their buyback rate. *They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.

No thanks. *It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.

JW

* Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.

And this has 'what' to do with passive solar heating?

Morris Dovey wrote:
Swingman wrote:
"mac davis" wrote

They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
initial
investment back from savings in utilities..

IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except
in savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.

Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
energy used.

I'm guessing that the payback period for passive heating panels might be
a bit shorter for a lot of the 1+ million home and business owners in
New England who're without power today...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.

The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/ Selecting a 2000 kWh
system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.

For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
$75/month?

I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
order for it to be cost effective.

I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at it a
little differently...
He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of his
solar system, so he went with it..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

For fun I looked at a grid of cells that covered my roof. It would be about
40x120 feet. It was about $300,000 for the array and I could expect an average
of 30-40% for a year from it. Three months of the year - hot summer - less than
50% and winter months - very low.

Payback was very very long. Doubtful the array could last that long.

The biggest issue is cloud cover. Zero power under clouds. They work on long
waves. If someone would invent a microwave or rather ultraviolet sensing cell
they could clean up. Then it would work as long as the sun was up.

I'd buy it if I won the lottery. Otherwise it is a foolish thing in this area.
Yea, I'd help me and all about 35% of the time, but it doesn't break even or
pays off.

Martin

mac davis wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.

The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/ Selecting a 2000 kWh
system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.

For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
$75/month?

I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
order for it to be cost effective.

I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at it a
little differently...
He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of his
solar system, so he went with it..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
For fun I looked at a grid of cells that covered my roof. It would
be about 40x120 feet. It was about $300,000 for the array and I
could expect an average of 30-40% for a year from it. Three months
of the year - hot summer - less than 50% and winter months - very
low.

Payback was very very long. Doubtful the array could last that long.


The biggest issue is cloud cover. Zero power under clouds. They
work on long waves. If someone would invent a microwave or rather
ultraviolet sensing cell they could clean up. Then it would work as
long as the sun was up.

I'd buy it if I won the lottery. Otherwise it is a foolish thing in
this area. Yea, I'd help me and all about 35% of the time, but it
doesn't break even or pays off.

If you're located between Terre Haute and Springfield, you could
probably heat your 4800 sq ft home indefinitely using passive solar for
less than 10% of the cost of your PV array...

....and the solar cooling project is underway.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

mac davis wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took
a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.

The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/ Selecting a 2000 kWh
system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.

For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
$75/month?

I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed
in
order for it to be cost effective.

I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at
it a little differently...
He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of
his solar system, so he went with it..


That's a totally different mindset. If somebody wants to pay tens of
thousands of dollars for the satisfaction of saying, "I'm not paying
anything to the electric company [sub-vocal, 'my system will never pay for
itself']" then that's a status kind of thing. From a practical standpoint,
cost-effective solar just isn't there yet.



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough