Alternative Power sources

Author

Why go solar?

dh@.

2005-10-27, 7:21 pm

Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
a power company?

SQLit

2005-10-27, 7:21 pm

<dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

They don't usually.

One of our utilities sells solar packages for the "outback" installations

http://www.aps.com/my_community/Solar/solar_10.html

Be on good terms with your banker before considering these. The small one
used to be $25,000.00

There are several communication sites in Arizona that are 100% solar
powered. The cost of running power to the top of the mountain far outweigh
the cost of the solar and the maintenance these systems require.

Reg

2005-10-27, 8:21 pm

Paul E. Bennett

2005-10-27, 8:21 pm

Solar Flare

2005-10-27, 9:21 pm

Dead loss for me at $0.10 per kWh but a fun hobby I can watch grow and
experiement with.

This is with todays grid rates. Break even point with no financials involved =
70-80 years.

When TOU comes in???? who knows?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

Steve Spence

2005-10-27, 9:21 pm

Derek Broughton

2005-10-27, 10:21 pm

Eric Gisin

2005-10-27, 11:21 pm

Being too far from the grid is the main reason.
Round here, there are two subdivisions and hundreds of cottages.

Another reason is fear and paranoid. In 1999 it was the Millenium cult.
I expect the peak oil cult to result in more people going off grid.

<dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

Gunner

2005-10-28, 3:21 am

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:21:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
>it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
>so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
>in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
>that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
>So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
>a power company?

Because sometimes, in worst cases..its cheaper in the short term to
get power via solar, than via a utility

A case in point...a friend lives 1.01 mile from the nearest power
pole. Pacific Greed and Extortion wanted IRRC...$90,000 to run the
power that mile.

So my friend spent $30,000 on solar. A net savings in the short run,
of $60,000. While it didnt get him a 200 amp 24/7, it gave him enough
power to function and raise a family.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Richard P.

2005-10-28, 4:21 am

Why do I do it..?

1. (partial) Energy independence.
2. Personal environmental belief.
3. I'm a gadget geek and I like to tinker.

<dh@.> wrote in message
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

TV's and computers are a real pain in the a$$ too. You've gotta set them
up.. theres all those wires, constant maintenance with virus, spyware, and
spam eradication, wading thru excessive bottom posting replies (hehehe!!),
etc.. etc..

Of course, like everything else, convenience has a price -- and it don't
come cheap. If you have the ca$h you can certainly approach a professional
solar installer and pay them to install a completely automated system you
can just forget about. But how much fun is that..? ;-)

Or look at it from a MasterCard tv commercial viewpoint:

CFL = $4.
100 watt PV = $500
Battery bank and inverter = $350
Drinking ice cold beer while watching a Canadian hockey team beat the
stuffing out of an American one for the Stanley Cup on your 33" LCD HD/SatTV
during a dark and stormy night when the grid has failed..?

PRICELESS...!!!

carly

2005-10-28, 5:21 am

"Gunner" <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:bff3m1hnsvvqolticu5uco4m3765fsft9f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:21:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> Because sometimes, in worst cases..its cheaper in the short term to
> get power via solar, than via a utility
>
> A case in point...a friend lives 1.01 mile from the nearest power
> pole. Pacific Greed and Extortion wanted IRRC...$90,000 to run the
> power that mile.
>
> So my friend spent $30,000 on solar. A net savings in the short run,
> of $60,000. While it didnt get him a 200 amp 24/7, it gave him enough
> power to function and raise a family.
>
> Gunner
>
> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>
> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
> for torturing the cat." Gunner

solar is the biggest scam, then comes ethonol.

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-10-28, 6:21 am

carly <carly@nex.net.au> wrote:

>solar is the biggest scam, then comes ethonol.

Let's keep in mind that solar heat can be 100 times cheaper than solar
electricity, per peak watt, and most houses need several times more heat
energy than electrical energy, and the electrical slice of the energy pie
can easily shrink with compact flourescents, etc.

Nick

Anthony Matonak

2005-10-28, 7:21 am

carly wrote:
....
> solar is the biggest scam, then comes ethonol.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
How are solar and ethanol scams?

Anthony

myal

2005-10-28, 8:21 am

Anthony Matonak wrote:
> carly wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
> How are solar and ethanol scams?
>
> Anthony

Ethanol is badly brewed booze , it makes the car happier than you are

Jeff Schwartz

2005-10-28, 9:21 am

<dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

You have hit the nail on the head....

People go solar when they have a cabin in the back woods where there is no
service, or where the power company will charge them more to run a line out
to them than the solar set-up cost.

Or some people have small "backup solar" if they figure they will not have
power from the power company often enough to justify it. Examples: some
folks in hurricane areas who are hit repeatedly, or survivalist nutcase
whackos....

Ouch, I resemble my last remark.

George Ghio

2005-10-28, 9:21 am

Richard P. wrote:

>
> Of course, like everything else, convenience has a price -- and it don't
> come cheap. If you have the ca$h you can certainly approach a professional
> solar installer and pay them to install a completely automated system you
> can just forget about. But how much fun is that..? ;-)

Small point, this is the reason most people fail to survive their solar
experience. IF you don't learn your system and pay attention to its
operation and needs you will end up sitting in the dark.

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 11:21 am

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:37:46 -0700, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:

>carly wrote:
>...
>
>Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
>How are solar and ethanol scams?
>
>Anthony

Subsidies force taxpayers to fund them. If they were not
scams, they would be able to raise capital from willing
investors.

Regards,

Bill Ward

Harry Chickpea

2005-10-28, 12:21 pm

"Jeff Schwartz" <Schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com> wrote:

>Or some people have small "backup solar" if they figure they will not have
>power from the power company often enough to justify it. Examples: some
>folks in hurricane areas who are hit repeatedly, or survivalist nutcase
>whackos....

Yep. <Raises hand as survivalist nutcase> As I type, my quadlam is
adding about 90 watts to my smallish battery bank. The generator and
charger run twice a day, since I don't want to go below 20% discharge,
but it appears that about 2 or 3 hours of generator time plus the
solar panel holding the charge during most of the day is our sweet
spot. In our case, the solar slows the discharge during the day
rather than adding to the charge. If I had another panel or two, I
could power more stuff comfortably, but this is fine, since it
prevents me having to bump the genny on mid-day unless I have
something power-hungry to do.

I'm the only one in the neighborhood (and possibly town) with a
refrigerator/freezer that has been running constantly since Wilma
passed through. I have usable power 24/7. :-)

In contrast, folks with the expensive "whole-house" generators got a
fast expensive lesson in off-grid. The gas tanks on those units
typically hold 16 gallons, and they were being run full-bore after the
storm, in typical South Florida excess-consumption "see what I've got"
gloating. In two days they were out of gas - AND no gas stations were
open because the gas pumps require power, and all South Florida was
essentially without power. Even if the pumps worked, Port Everglades,
the seaport that receives the gas from the tankers was out of
commission, and the gas station tanks were essentially empty.

People with just generators (and no battery banks and inverter) are
looking at $3/gal gas (when available). That means daily operating
costs of about $20 per day or refrigerated and frozen food that is
going funky by now.

I'm running at about $5 per day, (I could go lower, but I'm also
powering a neighbor's refrigerator when I use the genny) and still
have a couple days of gas from my small supply before I have to get
out and find some. (I have another reserve just in case the lines are
too long, but that is another story.) I have a lot of frozen foods
that are perfectly fine, while the garbage cans of the neighbors
around me are beginning to stink of rotten steaks and seafood.

We could continue indefinitely like this, and as for my design of an
emergency backup system, I'm extremely pleased. I know what I would
do differently if I could start from scratch, but with some items that
are as much as 12 years old, I'm more than satisfied.

Best guess is that power might be back in another week.

ladasky@my-deja.com

2005-10-28, 12:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:37:46 -0700, Anthony Matonak
> <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Subsidies force taxpayers to fund them. If they were not
> scams, they would be able to raise capital from willing
> investors.

That describes nuclear power just as well as it describes solar and
biofuels.

It would also describe petroleum, if the subsidies for it were not so
incredibly huge. But because they are, oil investors get to stay in
business.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 213 days none 4837 3829 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

wmbjk

2005-10-28, 12:21 pm

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:47:24 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>In answer to the question, intelligent people _don't_ bother with PV if they
>can get service from the power company.

Actually, very many intelligent people use grid-connected PV. There's
been a huge increase in that market. If you need confirmation, simply
consider that there aren't anywhere near enough off-grid homes to
drive the recent increases in PV prices.

Wayne

wmbjk

2005-10-28, 12:21 pm

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:13:51 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:

>Small point, this is the reason most people fail to survive their solar
>experience. IF you don't learn your system and pay attention to its
>operation and needs you will end up sitting in the dark.

George, what's your opinion on using battery monitors on home power
systems?

Wayne

Derek Broughton

2005-10-28, 12:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:37:46 -0700, Anthony Matonak
> <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Subsidies force taxpayers to fund them. If they were not
> scams, they would be able to raise capital from willing
> investors.

In the first place, many of us get no subsidies on solar. In the second,
you're talking about PV, not solar. In the third, fossil fuel electrical
generation is already heavily subsidized. Let's get rid of the subsidies
and let PV fight it out on its merits. As long as investors in oil fields
or coal fired plants can get preferred tax rates or investment credits,
alternative fuels will not be able to raise capital - scam or not.
--
derek

wmbjk

2005-10-28, 1:21 pm

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:18:19 GMT, hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com (Harry
Chickpea) wrote:

>Yep. <Raises hand as survivalist nutcase> As I type, my quadlam is
>adding about 90 watts to my smallish battery bank. The generator and
>charger run twice a day, since I don't want to go below 20% discharge,
>but it appears that about 2 or 3 hours of generator time plus the
>solar panel holding the charge during most of the day is our sweet
>spot. In our case, the solar slows the discharge during the day
>rather than adding to the charge. If I had another panel or two, I
>could power more stuff comfortably, but this is fine, since it
>prevents me having to bump the genny on mid-day unless I have
>something power-hungry to do.
>
>I'm the only one in the neighborhood (and possibly town) with a
>refrigerator/freezer that has been running constantly since Wilma
>passed through. I have usable power 24/7. :-)
>
>In contrast, folks with the expensive "whole-house" generators got a
>fast expensive lesson in off-grid. The gas tanks on those units
>typically hold 16 gallons, and they were being run full-bore after the
>storm, in typical South Florida excess-consumption "see what I've got"
>gloating. In two days they were out of gas - AND no gas stations were
>open because the gas pumps require power, and all South Florida was
>essentially without power. Even if the pumps worked, Port Everglades,
>the seaport that receives the gas from the tankers was out of
>commission, and the gas station tanks were essentially empty.
>
>People with just generators (and no battery banks and inverter) are
>looking at $3/gal gas (when available). That means daily operating
>costs of about $20 per day or refrigerated and frozen food that is
>going funky by now.
>
>I'm running at about $5 per day, (I could go lower, but I'm also
>powering a neighbor's refrigerator when I use the genny) and still
>have a couple days of gas from my small supply before I have to get
>out and find some. (I have another reserve just in case the lines are
>too long, but that is another story.) I have a lot of frozen foods
>that are perfectly fine, while the garbage cans of the neighbors
>around me are beginning to stink of rotten steaks and seafood.
>
>We could continue indefinitely like this, and as for my design of an
>emergency backup system, I'm extremely pleased. I know what I would
>do differently if I could start from scratch, but with some items that
>are as much as 12 years old, I'm more than satisfied.
>
>Best guess is that power might be back in another week.

Nice job. Your type of setup is what I ask people to consider as an
alternative to a 10kW generator for backup. But they often have a hard
time understanding how a say, 2Kw generator combined with storage and
an inverter can be better. Thanks for posting your example.

Wayne

Ulysses

2005-10-28, 1:21 pm

<dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

It was going to cost me about $65,000 to get a line extension from Southern
California Edison plus an additional $10,000 or so to get it to the house.
I could get a pretty decent solar system for about $30,000-$40,000. The
monthly cost for solar, including repairs, replacement of components, and
occasional new batteries *might* be lower on a monthly average over the
years than Edison but I live in a place where electricity is expensive from
the grid. And, of course, there would not be an unlimited amount of power
available and my lifestyle would have to be adjusted accordingly.

Ulysses

2005-10-28, 1:21 pm

"Jeff Schwartz" <Schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mho8f.2976$yX2.2250@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:j1h2m190u5f90r3aaomv382d41rk9abojf@4ax.com...
>
> You have hit the nail on the head....
>
> People go solar when they have a cabin in the back woods where there is no
> service, or where the power company will charge them more to run a line
out
> to them than the solar set-up cost.
>
> Or some people have small "backup solar" if they figure they will not have
> power from the power company often enough to justify it. Examples: some
> folks in hurricane areas who are hit repeatedly,

or survivalist nutcase
> whackos....

You say that like it's a negative thing ;-)

>
> Ouch, I resemble my last remark.
>
>

J. David Boyd

2005-10-28, 2:21 pm

Harry Chickpea wrote:
>
> Yep. <Raises hand as survivalist nutcase> As I type, my quadlam is
> adding about 90 watts to my smallish battery bank. The generator and
> charger run twice a day, since I don't want to go below 20% discharge,
> but it appears that about 2 or 3 hours of generator time plus the
> solar panel holding the charge during most of the day is our sweet
> spot. In our case, the solar slows the discharge during the day
> rather than adding to the charge. If I had another panel or two, I
> could power more stuff comfortably, but this is fine, since it
> prevents me having to bump the genny on mid-day unless I have
> something power-hungry to do.
>

Could, and would, you describe your system in more detail, so that I can
find out how to build one myself?

Or, if that is too much effort, what kind of books did you read to learn
how to cobble all of it together?

Thanks you,

Dave in Largo, FL

lifeform1@atlantic.net

2005-10-28, 2:21 pm

Go to any bookstore in Largo or St. Pete and get a copy of Homepower
Magazine.

http://www.homepower.com/

ladasky@my-deja.com

2005-10-28, 2:21 pm

dh@. wrote:
> Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
> it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
> so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
> in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
> that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
> So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
> a power company?

Hi there,

The short-term economics of solar PV are indeed a loss, when compared
to other forms of energy. But the future is hard to predict. How
closely will tomorrow resemble today?

Why is gasoline relatively cheap in the United States, when compared to
European countries? Some people will say that it's because the
Europeans have way too many taxes on fossil fuels. However, many
economists note that there are many externalized costs associated with
petroleum use. Burning petroleum causes pollution, which affects the
health of the environment and the populace. Increasingly,
oil-importing countries spend money prosecuting wars in countries that
have the petroleum that they want -- which is essentially the same as
buying the oil, but at a higher price.

So, what will happen to the price of electricity in the future? It is
somewhat tied to the price of petroleum, and more tightly tied to
natural gas. In Europe, some (possibly, all) of those externalized
costs are being collected at the point of sale, providing an incentive
for people to conserve. The Europeans, as a consequence, are far ahead
of the Americans in conservation and the development of clean energy
alternatives, such as wind and tidal power. Prices are high, but less
volatile.

I went solar because I felt a sense of civic responsibility. I am an
environmentalist, and I also believe in true-cost pricing. It's
morally wrong for me to use resources at a discount today, and leave
the mess for my grandchildren.

My PV system may never save me money -- I computed 11 years to achieve
payback of my initial investment. Then again, it might. I live in
California, which in recent years has had the highest and most volatile
electricity prices in the United States. I fully expect to see
electric rates rise again, perhaps because people (particularly, those
of us who are energy-conscious) get tired of having the externalized
costs of fossil fuel use laundered through the income tax. However and
whenever that might happen, I now have an insurance policy. I pay
$5.81/month to be connected to the power grid. I accumulated a credit
of over 1,000 kWh with the power company over the past six months,
which I will now withdraw as days become short and cloudy. Electricity
could go to $1.50/kWh for all I care. Now I am a contributor, as well
as a consumer.

Mostly, I'll admit, what I've managed to displace with my PV system is
natural gas use, not petroleum use. But as pressure on the energy
sector increases, we are seeing the merging of energy markets that were
previously thought to be separate. There are now vehicles that run on
compressed natural gas, and others which run on electricity. I already
own a Prius. I'm looking forward to the day when I can purchase a
plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV), and use some of my sunshine for
transportation.

My system is turnkey -- grid-tied, no battery backup to maintain. If I
ever add a battery to my system, I expect that it will be on board my
PHEV, and this battery will be maintenance-free.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 213 days none 4837 3829 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 2:21 pm

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:55:38 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>
>In the first place, many of us get no subsidies on solar.

Then you are not involved in a scam, are you?

>In the second, you're talking about PV, not solar.

I am? Why do you say that? Anything that's being
subsidized can't stand on it's own, and is scamming the
taxpayers.

>In the third, fossil fuel electrical
>generation is already heavily subsidized. Let's get rid of the subsidies
>and let PV fight it out on its merits.

OK, lets start with a level playing field - no taxes or
subsidies at all on solar, ethanol or fossil fuels. No
preferred tax rates, no investment credits. No lobbyists,
no edgy campaign funding, just the free market finding the
best solution

> As long as investors in oil fields
>or coal fired plants can get preferred tax rates or investment credits,
>alternative fuels will not be able to raise capital - scam or not.

It seems we're in agreement. Let's try it without
interference from taxes or subsidies.

And now for the screams of anguish...

Regards.

Bill Ward

J. David Boyd

2005-10-28, 3:21 pm

lifeform1@atlantic.net wrote:
> Go to any bookstore in Largo or St. Pete and get a copy of Homepower
> Magazine.
>
> http://www.homepower.com/
>

Thanks, never heard of it, but I will...

Dave

p.s. On a different note, doesn't anyone mind that all these posts seem
to be cross-posted to four different newsgroups. Is that just the way
it works here?

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-10-28, 3:21 pm

wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:

>hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com (Harry Chickpea) wrote:

[color=darkred]
>... Your type of setup is what I ask people to consider as an
>alternative to a 10kW generator for backup. But they often have a hard
>time understanding how a say, 2Kw generator combined with storage and
>an inverter can be better...

Heart Akerson's Transverter might help in this direction. It can discharge
batteries while a generator runs to meet higher motor starting current
requirements, adding to the effective generator capacity. It can also act
as a UPS and discharge batteries into a grid for power factor correction
and grid surge capacity needs.

Nick

Anthony Matonak

2005-10-28, 3:21 pm

wmbjk wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:47:24 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, very many intelligent people use grid-connected PV. There's
> been a huge increase in that market. If you need confirmation, simply
> consider that there aren't anywhere near enough off-grid homes to
> drive the recent increases in PV prices.

More to the point, intelligent people in areas that offer massive
buydowns and rebates (Germany, Japan, California) install grid
connected PV because it's cost effective (or nearly so).

Anthony

ladasky@my-deja.com

2005-10-28, 3:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:55:38 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
> It seems we're in agreement. Let's try it without
> interference from taxes

How do you propose to collect the *externalized* costs of fossil fuels,
if not through taxes?

> or subsidies.
>
> And now for the screams of anguish...

No anguish, as long as all of the externalized health care costs of
pollution, which accrue to all of us regardless of our fossil fuel use,
are paid at the point of sale. If not through taxes, please tell me
how you intend to collect. I'm flexible.

Also, in the case of petroleum, be sure to collect the full costs of
the "special appropriations" for the Department of Defense's activities
in Iraq, plus at least a quarter of the recurring DOD budget. To
satisfy your insistence on not using *taxes* to collect these funds,
just adopt the Halliburton/KBR model in its entirety. No
half-measures. No more free mercernary troops from the DOD for the
petroleum war. Bring the troops home, discharge them honorably. If
some soldiers want to return to Iraq, and contract their services out
to KBR, they can do so. Big Oil will pay the tab, not the government.
Yes, Big Oil will pass the costs along to the consumer. But that will
give people a strong incentive to look for other sources of energy,
won't it?

Solar is starting to look mighty cheap.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 213 days none 4837 3829 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

On 28 Oct 2005 10:56:58 -0700, "ladasky@my-deja.com"
<ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote:

>
>Bill Ward wrote:
>[snip]
>
>How do you propose to collect the *externalized* costs of fossil fuels,
>if not through taxes?
>
>
>No anguish, as long as all of the externalized health care costs of
>pollution, which accrue to all of us regardless of our fossil fuel use,
>are paid at the point of sale. If not through taxes, please tell me
>how you intend to collect. I'm flexible.

Why, I'll pay for the costs I incur from the taxes I save,
of course. Do you really think funneling my money through
the government will somehow increase efficiency?
>
>Also, in the case of petroleum, be sure to collect the full costs of
>the "special appropriations" for the Department of Defense's activities
>in Iraq, plus at least a quarter of the recurring DOD budget.

Defense spending comes out of the general fund - you know -
income taxes. Has to do with keeping terorists from flying
airplanes into our buildings and similar unfriendly acts.
Not much to do with energy at all, but it's one of the most
important things our government is authorized to do.

>To satisfy your insistence on not using *taxes*

Please stay on point. I specified "energy taxes". But if
you can figure a way to eliminate *taxes* in general, you
can change to that subject, and be guaranteed my full
attention.

>to collect these funds,
>just adopt the Halliburton/KBR model in its entirety. No
>half-measures. No more free mercernary troops from the DOD for the
>petroleum war. Bring the troops home, discharge them honorably. If
>some soldiers want to return to Iraq, and contract their services out
>to KBR, they can do so. Big Oil will pay the tab, not the government.

Why would they do that?

>Yes, Big Oil will pass the costs along to the consumer.

And the profits along to shareholders, Buy stock if you
don't like it.

>But that will give people a strong incentive to look for other sources of energy,
>won't it?

Maybe, maybe not. That's the trouble with freedom, people
tend to do as they please. And that seems to bother some
people.

Regards,

Bill Ward

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

On 28 Oct 2005 10:01:29 -0700, "ladasky@my-deja.com"
<ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>Hi there,
>
>The short-term economics of solar PV are indeed a loss, when compared
>to other forms of energy. But the future is hard to predict. How
>closely will tomorrow resemble today?
>
>Why is gasoline relatively cheap in the United States, when compared to
>European countries? Some people will say that it's because the
>Europeans have way too many taxes on fossil fuels. However, many
>economists note that there are many externalized costs associated with
>petroleum use. Burning petroleum causes pollution, which affects the
>health of the environment and the populace. Increasingly,
>oil-importing countries spend money prosecuting wars in countries that
>have the petroleum that they want -- which is essentially the same as
>buying the oil, but at a higher price.
>
>So, what will happen to the price of electricity in the future? It is
>somewhat tied to the price of petroleum, and more tightly tied to
>natural gas. In Europe, some (possibly, all) of those externalized
>costs are being collected at the point of sale, providing an incentive
>for people to conserve. The Europeans, as a consequence, are far ahead
>of the Americans in conservation and the development of clean energy
>alternatives, such as wind and tidal power. Prices are high, but less
>volatile.
>
>I went solar because I felt a sense of civic responsibility. I am an
>environmentalist, and I also believe in true-cost pricing. It's
>morally wrong for me to use resources at a discount today, and leave
>the mess for my grandchildren.
>
>My PV system may never save me money -- I computed 11 years to achieve
>payback of my initial investment. Then again, it might. I live in
>California, which in recent years has had the highest and most volatile
>electricity prices in the United States. I fully expect to see
>electric rates rise again, perhaps because people (particularly, those
>of us who are energy-conscious) get tired of having the externalized
>costs of fossil fuel use laundered through the income tax. However and
>whenever that might happen, I now have an insurance policy. I pay
>$5.81/month to be connected to the power grid. I accumulated a credit
>of over 1,000 kWh with the power company over the past six months,
>which I will now withdraw as days become short and cloudy. Electricity
>could go to $1.50/kWh for all I care. Now I am a contributor, as well
>as a consumer.

Just don't ever forget who's keeping you free to make that
choice.
>
>Mostly, I'll admit, what I've managed to displace with my PV system is
>natural gas use, not petroleum use. But as pressure on the energy
>sector increases, we are seeing the merging of energy markets that were
>previously thought to be separate. There are now vehicles that run on
>compressed natural gas, and others which run on electricity. I already
>own a Prius. I'm looking forward to the day when I can purchase a
>plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV), and use some of my sunshine for
>transportation.
>
>My system is turnkey -- grid-tied, no battery backup to maintain. If I
>ever add a battery to my system, I expect that it will be on board my
>PHEV, and this battery will be maintenance-free.
>
>+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
>| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
>+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
>| 213 days none 4837 3829 |
>+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>

Dan Bloomquist

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

ladasky@my-deja.com wrote:

> Also, in the case of petroleum, be sure to collect the full costs of
> the "special appropriations" for the Department of Defense's activities
> in Iraq, plus at least a quarter of the recurring DOD budget. To
> satisfy your insistence on not using *taxes* to collect these funds,
> just adopt the Halliburton/KBR model in its entirety. No
> half-measures. No more free mercernary troops from the DOD for the
> petroleum war. Bring the troops home, discharge them honorably. If
> some soldiers want to return to Iraq, and contract their services out
> to KBR, they can do so. Big Oil will pay the tab, not the government.
> Yes, Big Oil will pass the costs along to the consumer. But that will
> give people a strong incentive to look for other sources of energy,
> won't it?
>
> Solar is starting to look mighty cheap.

It depends.
http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?...ws&new_topic=15

PV may see its day but if the numbers I recall are correct, Solar
thermal electric is quite a bit ahead.

That Portugal plant will run $4/peak watt and the sterling farm in the
SW will start at $2/peak watt. The press release had the target of
$1/peak watt in a few years. That would make it a more reasonable $5/net
watt.

We also have nuclear. Clean power. The only catch is the political
nature of waste.

But the grid doesn't address transportation fuels. That is what oil is
about. There would have to be a dramatic paradigm change, a massive
infusion of EVs and electric rail into society for grid electricity to
have an impact on oil consumption.

Best, Dan.

Derek Broughton

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:55:38 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
....[color=darkred]
>
> I am? Why do you say that? Anything that's being
> subsidized can't stand on it's own, and is scamming the
> taxpayers.

I say that because passive solar design isn't subsidized anywhere in the
world, that I've ever heard of. Feel free to provide counter-evidence.
There are some places that provide some subsidy for active solar heating,
but they're rare because active solar easily pays for itself.

>
> OK, lets start with a level playing field - no taxes or
> subsidies at all on solar, ethanol or fossil fuels. No
> preferred tax rates, no investment credits. No lobbyists,
> no edgy campaign funding, just the free market finding the
> best solution

I'm all for free markets. It's amazing how hard they are to find.

> It seems we're in agreement. Let's try it without
> interference from taxes or subsidies.
>
> And now for the screams of anguish...

You won't hear many from the "solar" field.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

J. David Boyd wrote:

> lifeform1@atlantic.net wrote:
>
> Thanks, never heard of it, but I will...
>
> Dave
>
> p.s. On a different note, doesn't anyone mind that all these posts seem
> to be cross-posted to four different newsgroups. Is that just the way
> it works here?

I certainly don't mind, because it's on-topic for the only one of those
groups I read - a.e.homepower - and I guess the denizens of the other
groups feel the same, or they'd have complained. There's nothing wrong
with cross-posting when it's appropriate to the included groups.
--
derek

Harry Chickpea

2005-10-28, 4:21 pm

"J. David Boyd" <jdboyd@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>Harry Chickpea wrote:
>
>Could, and would, you describe your system in more detail, so that I can
>find out how to build one myself?
>
>Or, if that is too much effort, what kind of books did you read to learn
>how to cobble all of it together?
>
>Thanks you,
>
>Dave in Largo, FL

My inverter (an older Trace mod sine wave 2KW with charger) and one
battery live in my stealth camping van. I gutted a hightop van of the
seats and fold down bench seat and rebuilt it so that it sleeps two
and can go places where RVs aren't allowed. The generator lives at
home, along with a couple other marine batteries.

The recommendation that you look at Homepower is a good one. I had
all the older issues until I lent them out (dumb). Each system is
somewhat unique, so you have to understand the basics and limitations.
Describing my system in detail would be less helpful than your
learning the concepts. Think deisel generator with good 60 cycle
regulation, full sine wave inverter, a couple hundred watts worth of
PV, and at least 4 batteries. On the home side, a way to isolate the
refrigerator and a socket or two in the kitchen would be good, a
second circuit to the bedroom would allow for powering a room AC off
the genny. An important aspect is matching the size of the genny to
the task. Too small, and you'll burn it out. Too big and you waste
money and fuel.

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 6:21 pm

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:23:38 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>...
>
>I say that because passive solar design isn't subsidized anywhere in the
>world, that I've ever heard of. Feel free to provide counter-evidence.
>There are some places that provide some subsidy for active solar heating,
>but they're rare because active solar easily pays for itself.

I'm reinserting the clipped text that originally started
this:
=====
[Anthony}
>Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
>How are solar and ethanol scams?

[Bill]
Subsidies force taxpayers to fund them. If they were not
scams, they would be able to raise capital from willing
investors.
<end reinsertion>
=====

It's a scam when taxpayers are forced to subsidize it.

I have no complaints whatsoever about people installing
whatever makes them happy. I just don't want to pay for it.

Regards,

Bill Ward

Antipodean Bucket Farmer

2005-10-28, 6:21 pm

In article <43622966.384327@localhost>,
hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com says...
> "Jeff Schwartz" <Schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yep. <Raises hand as survivalist nutcase> As I type, my quadlam is
> adding about 90 watts to my smallish battery bank. The generator and
> charger run twice a day, since I don't want to go below 20% discharge,
> but it appears that about 2 or 3 hours of generator time plus the
> solar panel holding the charge during most of the day is our sweet
> spot. In our case, the solar slows the discharge during the day
> rather than adding to the charge. If I had another panel or two, I
> could power more stuff comfortably, but this is fine, since it
> prevents me having to bump the genny on mid-day unless I have
> something power-hungry to do.
>
> I'm the only one in the neighborhood (and possibly town) with a
> refrigerator/freezer that has been running constantly since Wilma
> passed through. I have usable power 24/7. :-)
>
> In contrast, folks with the expensive "whole-house" generators got a
> fast expensive lesson in off-grid. The gas tanks on those units
> typically hold 16 gallons, and they were being run full-bore after the
> storm, in typical South Florida excess-consumption "see what I've got"
> gloating. In two days they were out of gas - AND no gas stations were
> open because the gas pumps require power, and all South Florida was
> essentially without power. Even if the pumps worked, Port Everglades,
> the seaport that receives the gas from the tankers was out of
> commission, and the gas station tanks were essentially empty.
>
> People with just generators (and no battery banks and inverter) are
> looking at $3/gal gas (when available). That means daily operating
> costs of about $20 per day or refrigerated and frozen food that is
> going funky by now.
>
> I'm running at about $5 per day, (I could go lower, but I'm also
> powering a neighbor's refrigerator when I use the genny) and still
> have a couple days of gas from my small supply before I have to get
> out and find some. (I have another reserve just in case the lines are
> too long, but that is another story.) I have a lot of frozen foods
> that are perfectly fine, while the garbage cans of the neighbors
> around me are beginning to stink of rotten steaks and seafood.
>
> We could continue indefinitely like this, and as for my design of an
> emergency backup system, I'm extremely pleased. I know what I would
> do differently if I could start from scratch, but with some items that
> are as much as 12 years old, I'm more than satisfied.
>
> Best guess is that power might be back in another week.

I am curious. How are you using the Net? Is your
phone landline working? Or do you have some kind of
wireless or satellite access?

--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

pyotr filipivich

2005-10-28, 6:21 pm

Let the record show that dh@. wrote back on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:21:46 -0400
in misc.survivalism :
>Until yesterday, I had thought people use solar energy because
>it's cheaper. It seems like a pain in the XXX to get it going on,
>so I felt the payoff must be that it's cheaper than buying power
>in the long run. After reading the replys, it now seems to me
>that solar is both a pain in the XXX and more expensive too.
>So why do people bother with it if they can get service from
>a power company?

Operative phrase "if they can get service". If the cost of putting in
a solar power system is less than getting the Electric company to run a
power line to the site ... whatcha goona do? It is like the saying about
drinking water: there is plenty of drinking water, just how much are you
willing to pay for it?

Reminds me of the family story: a hundred or so years ago, my great
grand father went into town to see about getting one of them newfangled
telephones hooked-up. He was told that the phone company needed at least 8
subscribers out there to justify running a line. He said "Start doing it,
I've got seven brothers in law."

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

ladasky@my-deja.com

2005-10-28, 6:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2005 10:56:58 -0700, "ladasky@my-deja.com"
> <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why, I'll pay for the costs I incur from the taxes I save,
> of course. Do you really think funneling my money through
> the government will somehow increase efficiency?

Do you understand the concept of an *externalized* cost?

I drive a Toyota Prius. Suppose that I have a neighbor who drives a
Ford Expedition (thankfully, I don't). Like it or not, we breathe the
same air every day. We both have an equal chance of needing to visit
the doctor for an asthma attack. But, driving my little hybrid car,
I'm contributing to the public health problem only about one fifth as
much as my super-sized neighbor.

Why should I be exposed to the exact same health risk as he? If it is
unavoidable that I am going to experience the exact same risk, then why
shouldn't he pay me for the excess harm to which he is exposing me? If
he is obligated to pay me, how do I collect?

Do you think that each driver only sucks on the exhaust from their own
car? It's specious to state, as you did above, that "*I'll* pay for
the costs *I* incur from the taxes *I* save." Your driving habits
cause me to incur some costs, and vice versa.

>
> Defense spending comes out of the general fund - you know -
> income taxes.

Right. I'm saying that not all of what is presently called "defense
spending" SHOULD come from income taxes, given what it actually pays
for.

> Has to do with keeping terorists from flying
> airplanes into our buildings and similar unfriendly acts.

Some of it does.

> Not much to do with energy at all,

Even the government disagrees. Please visit this web page of the
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security:

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

"Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically
unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to
occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which,
according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy,
have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last
30 years."

The DOE study is linked from that web page. You can follow this link
directly:

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publica...TM_2000_152.pdf

And that was five years ago. My back-of-the-envelope calculations
indicate that we've spent about another $0.4 trillion on the Oil Wars
since then that few people would dispute (mostly Bush's "special
funding requests" for Iraq).

I would contend further that a signficant fraction of the resources of
America's standing army are devoted to this same purpose, and should be
accounted for. I also contend that no one would have flown any
airplanes into New York and Washington, and we wouldn't ever have
needed to create a Department of "Homeland Security," were it not for
our short-sighted policies regarding foreign oil. That's an extra
half-trillion dollars or so.

> but it's one of the most
> important things our government is authorized to do.

Agreed. I'd like to see them stick to their authorized mission.

>
> Please stay on point. I specified "energy taxes". But if
> you can figure a way to eliminate *taxes* in general, you
> can change to that subject, and be guaranteed my full
> attention.

I can think of no practical way. That was one of my points.

>
> Why would they do that?

Why would Big Oil fund a mercernary army in the Mideast? Because
that's where the oil is. Who knows, maybe if they actually did have to
pay for what they're getting right now from the taxpayers, they would
balk and diversify into other lines of commerce. I wouldn't complain.

Of course, a private corporate army probably violates a whole bunch of
international treaties that the United States has signed -- but it's
worth considering the economic consequences of Big Oil actually having
to pay its own way, even in this hypothetical situation.

>
> And the profits along to shareholders, Buy stock if you
> don't like it.

I'm all for investment, but I avoid industries that ought to be in
court for their scandalous abuse of lobbying. Big Oil is one such
industry. I've been investing in alternative energy stocks over the
past two years, and they have paid off as handsomely as oil. The stock
market knows that oil and renewables are overlapping markets, and
that's O.K. by me.

>
> Maybe, maybe not. That's the trouble with freedom, people
> tend to do as they please. And that seems to bother some
> people.

If people would actually WANT to throw their money away when they have
to pay the social costs of their vices at the point of sale, I guess I
can't stop them. Still, I believe that most people still have a little
economic sense, and love their pocketbooks more than they love
petroleum.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 213 days none 4837 3829 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

dh@.

2005-10-28, 7:21 pm

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:34:44 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Dead loss for me at $0.10 per kWh but a fun hobby I can watch grow and
>experiement with.
>
>This is with todays grid rates. Break even point with no financials involved =
>70-80 years.
>
>When TOU comes in???? who knows?

What's TOU?

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com

2005-10-28, 7:21 pm

> It's
> morally wrong for me to use resources at a discount today, and leave
> the mess for my grandchildren.

not to be smart-assed, but can you cite some evidence for the
assertion that it's immoral?

All your ancestors (including specifically your grandparnets) left
their messes for you to deal with.... what makes you so
goody-two-shoes?

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com

2005-10-28, 7:21 pm

> No more free mercernary troops from the DOD for the petroleum war.

not to be smart-assed, but can you present dome EVIDENCE that it's a
petroleum war?

There was no previous shortage of petroleum which got alleviated by
the war.

Petroleum didn't get cheaper because of the war.

The oil companies are doing better from the price increases, but
that's no different than all the do-gooder charities having done better
because of the tsunami contributions.

Harry Chickpea

2005-10-28, 8:21 pm

Antipodean Bucket Farmer <usenet2005@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:

>I am curious. How are you using the Net? Is your
>phone landline working?

Dialup works off and on, enough for me to download and read, type a
response and get back on.

Anthony Matonak

2005-10-28, 10:21 pm

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> not to be smart-assed, but can you present dome EVIDENCE that it's a
> petroleum war?

It's not a good conspiracy if there is evidence.

Besides, taking over a country and stealing it's resources is more
of a long term goal. Perhaps the oil companies are planing for 2015
profits rather than todays.

Anthony

Anthony Matonak

2005-10-28, 10:21 pm

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> not to be smart-assed, but can you cite some evidence for the
> assertion that it's immoral?

Let's take the time portion out of it and consider it all happening
at this instant. Say your drunk skunk of a grandfather comes to visit
without invitation, drinks all your beer, eats all your food and then
defecates on your couch before leaving. Would you call this moral?

> All your ancestors (including specifically your grandparnets) left
> their messes for you to deal with.... what makes you so
> goody-two-shoes?

All our ancestors also left other things, sometimes very good things,
behind for us as well. This just means some of our ancestors were good
and some bad and we have to deal with whatever it is they left behind.

What makes a person a goody-two-shoes is the choice to avoid doing
bad things, of course. Choosing to not be evil, while not popular in
politics, Hollywood or the media, is generally held acceptable.

Anthony

Bill Ward

2005-10-28, 10:21 pm

On 28 Oct 2005 14:07:35 -0700, "ladasky@my-deja.com"
<ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote:

>
>Bill Ward wrote:
>
>Do you understand the concept of an *externalized* cost?
>
>I drive a Toyota Prius. Suppose that I have a neighbor who drives a
>Ford Expedition (thankfully, I don't). Like it or not, we breathe the
>same air every day. We both have an equal chance of needing to visit
>the doctor for an asthma attack. But, driving my little hybrid car,
>I'm contributing to the public health problem only about one fifth as
>much as my super-sized neighbor.
>
>Why should I be exposed to the exact same health risk as he? If it is
>unavoidable that I am going to experience the exact same risk, then why
>shouldn't he pay me for the excess harm to which he is exposing me? If
>he is obligated to pay me, how do I collect?
>
>Do you think that each driver only sucks on the exhaust from their own
>car? It's specious to state, as you did above, that "*I'll* pay for
>the costs *I* incur from the taxes *I* save." Your driving habits
>cause me to incur some costs, and vice versa.

Two points. 1) You need to quantify the increase in health
risk with some kind of hard evidence, not just hand
wringing. I assume you've noticed the NOx, CO, and HC
emissions from recent cars are almost undetectable. Enough
so that CO2 emissions are now the major talking point, and
they have very little effect on human health.

2) If you could attribute some actual harm to general
health to the difference between your hypothetical
neighbor's SUV and your Prius, why not impose a tax on the
harmful emissions instead of on fuel consumption?

>
>
>Right. I'm saying that not all of what is presently called "defense
>spending" SHOULD come from income taxes, given what it actually pays
>for.
>
>
>Some of it does.
>
>
>Even the government disagrees. Please visit this web page of the
>Institute for the Analysis of Global Security:
>
>http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

That's clearly an advocacy site. They have a point of view
to which they are entitled, and they are not objective.
>
>"Our dependency on oil from countries that are either politically
>unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjects the American economy to
>occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth, which,
>according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy,
>have cost us more than $7 trillion present value dollars over the last
>30 years."
>
>The DOE study is linked from that web page. You can follow this link
>directly:
>
>http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publica...TM_2000_152.pdf

I don't buy this either. Reminds me of the Emperor's new
clothes. A quick scan shows they've discovered that when
one country buys products from another, there is a "wealth
transfer" from the buyer to the seller. If the price is
more than the buyer wants to pay, then it's somehow unfair
and a problem. When the government tries to fix it, it
becomes a disaster. Government disasters are even more
expensive then oil.

That's the short version, but what the hey, I don't get paid
to review reports like that.

I saw nothing in there about needing to use force to take
oil from people who won't sell it to us at what we think is
a fair price. I don't think Americans would stand for that.

We are paying the same price for oil as everybody else. Yet
some are whining about our being "addicted" to oil, while
China and India are just developing nations. Oil price is
exactly what people are willing to freely buy and sell it
for, no more, no less. If China can afford it, why can't
we? And why isn't their economy affected like ours is
supposed to be?
>
>And that was five years ago. My back-of-the-envelope calculations
>indicate that we've spent about another $0.4 trillion on the Oil Wars
>since then that few people would dispute (mostly Bush's "special
>funding requests" for Iraq).
>
>I would contend further that a signficant fraction of the resources of
>America's standing army are devoted to this same purpose, and should be
>accounted for. I also contend that no one would have flown any
>airplanes into New York and Washington, and we wouldn't ever have
>needed to create a Department of "Homeland Security," were it not for
>our short-sighted policies regarding foreign oil. That's an extra
>half-trillion dollars or so.

So it's our fault New York and DC were attacked. I don't
think so.
>
>
>Agreed. I'd like to see them stick to their authorized mission.
>
>
>I can think of no practical way. That was one of my points.
>
>
>Why would Big Oil fund a mercernary army in the Mideast? Because
>that's where the oil is.

Why does that matter? We are paying the market rate for
oil. We are not stealing it. What are you implying?

>Who knows, maybe if they actually did have to
>pay for what they're getting right now from the taxpayers, they would
>balk and diversify into other lines of commerce. I wouldn't complain.

What are they getting from taxpayers? Be specific.
>
>Of course, a private corporate army probably violates a whole bunch of
>international treaties that the United States has signed -- but it's
>worth considering the economic consequences of Big Oil actually having
>to pay its own way, even in this hypothetical situation.

It's not up to Big Oil to defend the country. That's the
Defense Department's job.
>
>
>I'm all for investment, but I avoid industries that ought to be in
>court for their scandalous abuse of lobbying. Big Oil is one such
>industry. I've been investing in alternative energy stocks over the
>past two years, and they have paid off as handsomely as oil.

Good for you. Were their customers or the taxpayers ripped
off? Was there any lobbying involved? Other than for a good
cause, of course.

>The stock
>market knows that oil and renewables are overlapping markets, and
>that's O.K. by me.
>
>
>If people would actually WANT to throw their money away when they have
>to pay the social costs of their vices at the point of sale,

You'll probably have to prove exactly what those "social
costs" of those "vices" actually are before anyone will buy
into that. Not everyone agrees tha driving is a vice.

>I guess I
>can't stop them. Still, I believe that most people still have a little
>economic sense, and love their pocketbooks more than they love
>petroleum.
>
I trust they will do what they think appropriate.

Regards,

Bill Ward

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 12:21 am

Time Of Use metering.

The Ontario plan is (effective April, 2006) 9.3 cents /kWh 12 - 6 PM, 2.9? cents
/ kWh 10PM-6AM and a rate in between for shoulder rate times (I forget). Now
this is all plus all the current other crap, delivery charge, debt buy down,
network connection fees, taxes, having a face, etc...etc..

These rate will start when you have a TOU meter installed except their are none
approved for this usage yet in Ontario.

<dh@.> wrote in message news:aq45m15h2q03qatge5n14rm36kjjelko47@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:34:44 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
=[color=darkred]
>
> What's TOU?

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 12:21 am

Have another cigarette

<ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1130533655.671414.316410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I drive a Toyota Prius. Suppose that I have a neighbor who drives a
> Ford Expedition (thankfully, I don't). Like it or not, we breathe the
> same air every day. We both have an equal chance of needing to visit
> the doctor for an asthma attack. But, driving my little hybrid car,
> I'm contributing to the public health problem only about one fifth as
> much as my super-sized neighbor.
>
> Why should I be exposed to the exact same health risk as he? If it is
> unavoidable that I am going to experience the exact same risk, then why
> shouldn't he pay me for the excess harm to which he is exposing me? If
> he is obligated to pay me, how do I collect?
>
> Do you think that each driver only sucks on the exhaust from their own
> car? It's specious to state, as you did above, that "*I'll* pay for
> the costs *I* incur from the taxes *I* save." Your driving habits
> cause me to incur some costs, and vice versa.
>

Solar Flare

2005-10-29, 12:21 am

Our children are typically spoiled to the point of many of them cannot survive
in this world without us. We, as moderen N.American parents ,have been
overprotective, in most cases, and not done our jobs correctly, kicking the
chics out of the nest to learn to fly.

Energy and environmental issues are just another example of overprotective and
lousy parenting.

We have left behind many good things. Computers, nuclear developments, starts at
world peace, prozac, tobacco addiction infrastructures and higher education
standards. I doubt our predecessors left any more or less for us. We all try our
best.

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Mbadnf0Zj5SIWv_enZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Let's take the time portion out of it and consider it all happening
> at this instant. Say your drunk skunk of a grandfather comes to visit
> without invitation, drinks all your beer, eats all your food and then
> defecates on your couch before leaving. Would you call this moral?
>
>
> All our ancestors also left other things, sometimes very good things,
> behind for us as well. This just means some of our ancestors were good
> and some bad and we have to deal with whatever it is they left behind.
>
> What makes a person a goody-two-shoes is the choice to avoid doing
> bad things, of course. Choosing to not be evil, while not popular in
> politics, Hollywood or the media, is generally held acceptable.
>
> Anthony

Winston Smith

2005-10-29, 1:21 am

Stuart Grey

2005-10-29, 11:21 am

Reg wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> Independence, for one thing. If the utility supplied power
> goes away you're not SOL with everyone else.

You could get a generator, and an oil fired heating furnace and be just
as not SOL and save a lot of money.

> As far as the ROI, there are programs and subsidies
> that will significantly reduce the cost. A relative of mine
> in LA just finished a solar buildout last year. Total cost
> was about 40k, 25k of which was kicked back to them from
> the utility.

Yes. Californians have voted themselves a free ride before, with the
previous energy boondoggle. If enough people follow your relative's
example, California will, once again, but heads with the fact that
TANSTAAFL.

You'd think they'd learn, but NOoooo...

> Even with the subsidy it will still take years
> to payoff though, so the financial incentive by itself is
> minimal.
>

Paul E. Bennett

2005-10-29, 5:21 pm

Bill Ward wrote:

> Two points. 1) You need to quantify the increase in health
> risk with some kind of hard evidence, not just hand
> wringing. I assume you've noticed the NOx, CO, and HC
> emissions from recent cars are almost undetectable. Enough
> so that CO2 emissions are now the major talking point, and
> they have very little effect on human health.

If you think it has so little effect on human health perhaps you would care
to sit in your garage with your car with the windows and doors of said
garage closed for a few hours while you breathe in the fumes from your
running engine.

The levels aof NOX, CO and HC are still very measurable by the currently
available equipment even if some old equipment would struggle. The
situation has improved with engines generally but it is still not as
harmless as you were trying to imply.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
********************************************************************

Reg

2005-10-29, 6:21 pm

Stuart Grey wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>
> You could get a generator, and an oil fired heating furnace and be just
> as not SOL and save a lot of money.

Yeah, but you wouldn't get to have a cool looking panel
in your garage that you can show your neighbors.

>
>
> Yes. Californians have voted themselves a free ride before, with the
> previous energy boondoggle. If enough people follow your relative's
> example, California will, once again, but heads with the fact that
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> You'd think they'd learn, but NOoooo...

I agree. I can't see any benefit to society at large from this
particular subsidy program. With energy prices this low there's
no real payback. The net result is to raise the overall cost of
the energy delivered.

On the other hand if energy prices end up going high enough, there's
no need for a subsidy in the first place. People would convert
on their own because it's in their interest.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

twostik

2005-10-29, 6:21 pm

Also i think that a lot of folks that use solor money is not the main issue
..there a great many things on this world that are worth way more than
money,just my 2c
"Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:djrmi1$5fi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> dh@. wrote:
>
>
> Depends whether you are thinking of photovoltaic systems ((PV) or solar
> thermal systems. The former is only really good if you need to recharge
> battery systems used for powering equipment (computers, fans, circulation
> pumps. Solar thermal seems tro be better for space heating, hot water and
> similar systems. Whichever, you will need to do some sort of power budget
> to determine your needs to be able to properly size the solar panels you
> need.
>
> --
> ********************************************************************
> Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk>
> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
> Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
> Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
> ********************************************************************

Antipodean Bucket Farmer

2005-10-29, 7:21 pm

In article
<aq45m15h2q03qatge5n14rm36kjjelko47@4ax.com>, dh@.
says...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:34:44 -0400, "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What's TOU?

Time Of Use. Some utilities charge different rates
based on the time that the electricity is being used.
Generally, rates will be higher during the afternoon.

This relates to grid-tied PV payback because the
afternoon is when a household system will be putting
power back into the grid, and gaining credit at the
higher rate, compared to nighttime, when you would be
buying power at a lower rate.

--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

Stuart Grey

2005-10-29, 8:21 pm

Reg wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, but you wouldn't get to have a cool looking panel
> in your garage that you can show your neighbors.

Shouldn't the panel be outside, where the sun is?

The off grid homes I've seen usually have a generator, not solar panels.
Solar panels are for rich folks that have more money than brains. You
know the type: Apple Macingosh computers powered off a PV solar panel,
as they sit in their funky chairs in their earth shoes.

We're not talking the barn boots crowd here.

>
>
> I agree. I can't see any benefit to society at large from this
> particular subsidy program. With energy prices this low there's
> no real payback. The net result is to raise the overall cost of
> the energy delivered.
>
> On the other hand if energy prices end up going high enough, there's
> no need for a subsidy in the first place. People would convert
> on their own because it's in their interest.

And you can be sure that whatever solution they come up with, would be a
real working solution.

The kind of stuff you see in the turd world is some home-made windmill
runing an alternator to charge a car battery, and the home has a bunch
of 12 volt stuff. Pretty simple, entirely practical.

Market Theory

2005-10-29, 8:21 pm

ladasky@my-deja.com wrote:
....
>
> That describes nuclear power just as well as it describes solar and
> biofuels.
>
> It would also describe petroleum, if the subsidies for it were not so
> incredibly huge. But because they are, oil investors get to stay in
> business.

Nonsense. The fossil fuel industry survives because it supplies most of
our energy at economic prices, not because of subsidies. Where's the
cheaper energy source that could replace the energy output of fossil
fuels which is being displaced by fossil fuel subsidies?

cheers,
--mt.

Market Theory

2005-10-29, 9:21 pm

ladasky@my-deja.com wrote:
....
> Also, in the case of petroleum, be sure to collect the full costs of
> the "special appropriations" for the Department of Defense's activities
> in Iraq, plus at least a quarter of the recurring DOD budget. To
> satisfy your insistence on not using *taxes* to collect these funds,
> just adopt the Halliburton/KBR model in its entirety. No
> half-measures. No more free mercernary troops from the DOD for the
> petroleum war. Bring the troops home, discharge them honorably. If
> some soldiers want to return to Iraq, and contract their services out
> to KBR, they can do so. Big Oil will pay the tab, not the government.

Ah, you're one of those left-wing fruitloops. I don't think we're going
to talk much, but has it occurred to you that oil wells in Iraq
produced oil just fine before the US DoD went there? So how can the
costs of whatever the US DoD did there be attributed to oil production?
In fact the restriction on Iraq oil sales was imposed externally,
mostly by the US.

--mt.

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com

2005-10-29, 10:21 pm

> Just don't ever forget who's keeping you free to make that
> choice.

as a member of the US Uniformed Services, I think you're referring
to suchlike as myself. Thanks for the glory and the glamour.

I think, however, that his energy freedom is as much due to the
existence of financial speculators in the futures market, as it is to
my miserable self.

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com

2005-10-29, 10:21 pm

> a private corporate army probably violates a whole bunch of
> international treaties that the United States has signed

the corporations can pay for it, and then the fighters can be
deputized, if you're worried about what the caliph-wannabees will say
about it - which I'm not.

Because I'm not, I think it should be mediated by a constitutional
method: Letters of Reprisal.

Reg

2005-10-30, 12:21 am

Stuart Grey wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>
> Shouldn't the panel be outside, where the sun is?

<rimshot>

Good one! I meant the control panel.

The owner added in some extra instrumentation, and he loves
monitoring everything and doing calculations. Again, I think
that's a major part of the appeal here: the toy factor. From
what I hear his next step will be adding the PC interface.

http://www.mauisolarsoftware.com/MSESC/TraceTools.htm

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Scott Harless

2005-10-30, 1:21 am

>I went solar because I felt a sense of civic responsibility. I am an
>environmentalist, and I also believe in true-cost pricing. It's
>morally wrong for me to use resources at a discount today, and leave
>the mess for my grandchildren.

I've read/heard many times that the power required to
manufacturer a PV panel is greater than the lifetime output
of the PV panel...If that's the case, a PV panel is a net
energy loser. While a PV panel might save money during
its life (especially with tax-subsidies), it will NEVER
save energy.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...well, on
usenet, someone might correct me if I'm right.<G>

Scott
1984 Fiero EV

--
Why don't we just hire illegal immigrants to be U.S.
Congresscritters? There's no reason to pay a high
salary PLUS benefits to someone screwing over U.S.
citizens when an illegal will do the job much
cheaper. THINK OF THE SAVINGS!

lifeform1@atlantic.net

2005-10-30, 1:21 am

Scott Harless wrote:
>
> I've read/heard many times that the power required to
> manufacturer a PV panel is greater than the lifetime output
> of the PV panel...If that's the case, a PV panel is a net
> energy loser. While a PV panel might save money during
> its life (especially with tax-subsidies), it will NEVER
> save energy.

Sorry, but that is simply wrong, regardless of what Don Lancaster might
say.

> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...well, on
> usenet, someone might correct me if I'm right.<G>

Nothing personal, but your claim is indeed a myth :

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/energy_payback.html

http://www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf

Stuart Grey

2005-10-30, 1:21 am

Reg wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
>
> <rimshot>
>
> Good one! I meant the control panel.
>
> The owner added in some extra instrumentation, and he loves
> monitoring everything and doing calculations. Again, I think
> that's a major part of the appeal here: the toy factor. From
> what I hear his next step will be adding the PC interface.
>
> http://www.mauisolarsoftware.com/MSESC/TraceTools.htm

I think the toy factor is a good point. People should be able to buy the
toy of their choice, be it oversided SUV or Solar panels. However, I
don't think some toys ought to be subsidized with tax dollars.

Stuart Grey

2005-10-30, 1:21 am

Scott Harless wrote:
>
>
> I've read/heard many times that the power required to
> manufacturer a PV panel is greater than the lifetime output
> of the PV panel...If that's the case, a PV panel is a net
> energy loser. While a PV panel might save money during
> its life (especially with tax-subsidies), it will NEVER
> save energy.
> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...well, on
> usenet, someone might correct me if I'm right.<G>

Yeah, I pointed that out, and someone pointed to a paper where they were
claiming that they had the ratio of energy used to make the PVs to the
energy the PVs produced down to 1/3 or so.

The paper pointed to a promise to get an even better ratio because a
better ratio would be good. Which seemed like an absurd argument, but
there it was.

> Scott
> 1984 Fiero EV
>
>
> --
> Why don't we just hire illegal immigrants to be U.S.
> Congresscritters? There's no reason to pay a high
> salary PLUS benefits to someone screwing over U.S.
> citizens when an illegal will do the job much
> cheaper. THINK OF THE SAVINGS!

Humm, not a bad idea, but I'd refine it to say we should replace the
congress with Mexican whores. That way, we can screw them back when they
screw us over.

Stuart Grey

2005-10-30, 2:21 am

lifeform1@atlantic.net wrote:
> Scott Harless wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry, but that is simply wrong, regardless of what Don Lancaster might
> say.
>
>
>
>
> Nothing personal, but your claim is indeed a myth :
>
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Nice, but this paper is propaganda. The assumption being made is that
they have an endless supply of silicon scrap from the semiconductor
industry. I've run into people passing off this shell game before.

From your cite:
"Today's PV industry generally recrystalizes any of several types of
"off grade" silicon from the microelectronics industry, and estimates
for the energy payback calculation are not straightforward. Until the PV
indistry begins to make its own silicon, which it could do in the near
future, calculating payback for crytalline PV requires that we make
certain assumptions."

They are expecting a free ride on the back of the electronic
semiconductor industry. However, if PV were to became a major market,
demand would exceed the supply of recycled silicon and the "payback"
times would become much longer. Any large scale use of PV will run into
this problem.

> http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/energy_payback.html

Same paper in HTLM form.

> http://www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf

This one I've seen before. Among the errors is an optimistic number for
installation and the assumption that the panels never degrade.

Jet Graphics

2005-10-30, 5:21 am

Stuart Grey wrote:

> I think the toy factor is a good point. People should be able to buy the
> toy of their choice, be it oversided SUV or Solar panels. However, I
> don't think some toys ought to be subsidized with tax dollars.

The centralized power system was already subsidized with tax dollars and
special benefits.
See: Tennessee Valley Authority, for example.
See: easements to utilities.
See: government code enforcement derived from connections to public
utilities.

If one wishes to sever all ties with "the system", an independent power
system, whether photovoltaic or wind turbine or anything else, is a good
place to start.

You should find that most, if not all building codes have no applicability
to property not connected to a public utility (water, sewer, electrical,
gas).

ladasky@my-deja.com

2005-10-30, 7:21 am