Alternative Power sources - Ideas for solar power in home --

Author

Ideas for solar power in home --

Alex

2006-02-06, 4:21 pm

Hi everyone,

I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
down.

Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
appliances, and eventually grow from there.

I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.

Thanks for any ideas or starting points --

Sam

SQLit

2006-02-06, 5:21 pm

"Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139254565.945274.311890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.
>
> Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
> have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
> system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
> batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
> appliances, and eventually grow from there.
>
> I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
> and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
> Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
> feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.
>
> Thanks for any ideas or starting points --
>
> Sam

Look at COSTCO and Harbor Freight. Both sell small systems. What your going
to find pretty fast is that other than lighting and some non-heating
appliances solar is a LOT MORE expensive than grid power.

A non moving 100 watt panel will generate ~50-60% day in and out when there
is sun. A moving panel might get up to 80-90%. Opps you said not much
money....
Then there are the batteries and inverters. Gad there are tons of inverters
most are not sine wave and that starts another discussion.

Want to save money? Reinsulated the attic, change to CF bulbs, shade screen
all direct sun windows. Put a timer on the ole water heater, install a set
back t-stat. Check all windows and doors for leaks and repair as necessary.

Your water heater can be a large part of your electric bill. A solar water
heater can help a lot on that load. I had a 4 x 10 flat plate on a home
that I owned. 8 months a year it gave me all the hot water a person could
stand. 2 months a year is was better than 60%. 2 Months a year it became
not much other than a tempering tank and the electric back up ran then.

If your HVAC is older than 5 years you might think about spending several
thousand dollars on a more efficient one. I would do the above first.
Check with your local utility and state and see what they are pushing this
year.

Robert Scott

2006-02-06, 5:21 pm

On 6 Feb 2006 11:36:05 -0800, "Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote:

>I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
>electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
>monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
>down.
>
>Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
>have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
>system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
>batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
>appliances, and eventually grow from there.

If all you want to do is bring your electric bill down, then forget solar for
now. It is great for heating, but the payback is a long time on electricity.

Instead I suggest that you look very closely at your biggest electrical load.
It is probably your air conditioner. By comparison, your lights and TV comsume
almost nothing. Look at lifestyle changes to reduce the need for air
conditioning by conditioning only the rooms you are actually in, and only when
you are in them, and only to the mininal extent necessary. Reduce air
infiltration and reduce solar gain in the summer by sealing aroung windows or
planting trees to shade your windows. See if your attic is getting too hot and
radiating down into your living space. If so, install and attic vent -
preferably one that does not use electricity. This may involve enlarging the
venting on your overhangs too. All these boring measures will make a much
bigger dent in your heating bill than anything you could do with solar without
spending "thousands".

Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Malc

2006-02-06, 5:21 pm

"Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139254565.945274.311890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.
>
> Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
> have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
> system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
> batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
> appliances, and eventually grow from there.
>
> I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
> and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
> Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
> feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.
>
As others have said you would do best to start with reducing your
consumption first.

Your 110V is AC (alternating current) whilst batteries are DC (direct
current). To convert DC to AC you need an inverter which can be got for
surprisingly little cash.

Converting watts to amps and volts is fairly easy. Watts = amps multiplied
by volts. or W=IV where I = amps. So a 60 watt 110 Volt bulb would take
60/110 or about 0.5Amps. If you were to run that from a battery via an
inverter you would still be taking 60W out of your battery so that would be
60/12 = 5Amps (assuming your inverter is 100% efficient which it isn't).

Now you have Amp Hours which is the capacity of your battery. A 1AH battery
will give you 1 amp for one hour. So to run your 60W bulb for one hour you
would need a 5 amp hour battery (again assuming 100% efficiency). To run it
for say 4 hours for reading in the evening would require a 20 amp hour
battery. Probably best to add at least 20% to that for the inefficiency of
the invertor.

--
Malc

"Ah, that did it. Spare brain in action, I'm ready to go again!"

SJC

2006-02-06, 6:21 pm

"SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message news:SbOFf.23$nt5.5041@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139254565.945274.311890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Look at COSTCO and Harbor Freight. Both sell small systems. What your going
> to find pretty fast is that other than lighting and some non-heating
> appliances solar is a LOT MORE expensive than grid power.
>
> A non moving 100 watt panel will generate ~50-60% day in and out when there
> is sun. A moving panel might get up to 80-90%. Opps you said not much
> money....
> Then there are the batteries and inverters. Gad there are tons of inverters
> most are not sine wave and that starts another discussion.
>
> Want to save money? Reinsulated the attic, change to CF bulbs, shade screen
> all direct sun windows. Put a timer on the ole water heater, install a set
> back t-stat. Check all windows and doors for leaks and repair as necessary.
>
> Your water heater can be a large part of your electric bill. A solar water
> heater can help a lot on that load. I had a 4 x 10 flat plate on a home
> that I owned. 8 months a year it gave me all the hot water a person could
> stand. 2 months a year is was better than 60%. 2 Months a year it became
> not much other than a tempering tank and the electric back up ran then.
>
>
> If your HVAC is older than 5 years you might think about spending several
> thousand dollars on a more efficient one. I would do the above first.
> Check with your local utility and state and see what they are pushing this
> year.
>
>
I agree, AC is a big user of power. Venting the attic and overhangs or awnings
can be a far more cost effective solution to reducing electricity bills. Solar thermal
hot water would be good, if you have electric water heat.

dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com

2006-02-06, 6:21 pm

In alt.solar.photovoltaic Alex <samalex@gmail.com> wrote:

> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.

Visit your local power agency's web site. They probably have pages about
advice for reducing your bill, before involving solar.

They should also have pages about the solar rebates available.
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/inc...geID=1&State=TX

Austin looks like it has some programs.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Doug Simpson

2006-02-06, 8:21 pm

Visit this page and see what it says. It is a calculator for solar
system sizing.

http://dsjscrd.gotdns.com/calc

Also, visit otherpower.com and on IRC, irc.anotherpower.com and join
#otherpower. Lots of brians there! Lots of math and calculations people,
too!

Doug

Alex wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.
>
> Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
> have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
> system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
> batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
> appliances, and eventually grow from there.
>
> I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
> and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
> Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
> feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.
>
> Thanks for any ideas or starting points --
>
> Sam
>

Gary

2006-02-06, 8:21 pm

Alex wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.
>
> Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
> have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
> system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
> batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
> appliances, and eventually grow from there.
>
> I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
> and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
> Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
> feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.
>
> Thanks for any ideas or starting points --
>
> Sam
>
Hi Alex,

As others have already mentioned, solar electricity (PV) is not the best way to
save energy if you are on a budget.

I'd think about taking this approach:
- Go through the electric loads in your house as if you were going to put in a
PV system -- paying $8 to $10 per peak watt for initial installation of a PV
system makes most people real believers in electricity conservation. Some
people report cutting there power consumption by 50% or more. Having a
Kill-A-Watt meter helps in figuring out where the power is going.
But, after you do this don't put the PV system in -- use a fraction of the PV
money for the items below.

- Do the best you can to bring your insulation levels up and your air
infiltration down -- this will help both your heating and cooling bill. Here is
some info to start with:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...onservation.htm

- Think about using a solar water heater. This is probably the most cost
effective solar investment. It is many times times more cost effective than
energy from solar PV. Many solar water heating systems are simple, and make
good DIY projects if you are so inclined. Some info to start with here:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...ter_heating.htm

- Take a look at this section on passive and simple active cooling techniques,
and see if any of them are applicable to your house/climate:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...ive_cooling.htm

- Think about using solar space heating. Solar thermal collectors that might
contribute up to about 30% of your heating needs can be built for less than a
$1000 (potentially much less). These are simple systems that don't require
complex thermal storage. Some information to get started with:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...ace_Heating.htm

Good luck with your project!

Gary

--

Gary

www.BuildItSolar.com
gary@BuildItSolar.com
"Build It Yourself" Solar Projects

----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Doug Simpson

2006-02-06, 11:21 pm

Try my calculator and see if it gives you useful information.

http://dsjscrd.gotdns.com/calc

Doug

Alex wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I live in Central Texas where we have very warm summers plus with our
> electric cost going up (currently at 13.75 cents per kWh and going up
> monthly it seems) I'm looking at alternative ways to bring the bill
> down.
>
> Ideally I'd love to convert as much to Solar as possible, but I don't
> have thousands to spend on doing it. I'd like to start working on a
> system that starts small, maybe one solar panel and a couple of
> batteries to run some lights, the TV, and possibly other small
> appliances, and eventually grow from there.
>
> I have no idea how to calculate watts and amps useage from batteries
> and what kind of recharging time or power I'd need from solar panels.
> Also do I need special types of batteries to get 110 volts or is it
> feasible to use 12 volt batteries for such a project.
>
> Thanks for any ideas or starting points --
>
> Sam
>

Doug Simpson

2006-02-06, 11:21 pm

Doug Simpson wrote:
> Visit this page and see what it says. It is a calculator for solar
> system sizing.
>
> http://dsjscrd.gotdns.com/calc
>
> Also, visit otherpower.com and on IRC, irc.anotherpower.com and join
> #otherpower. Lots of brians there! Lots of math and calculations people,

Should have been brains, not brians!
[color=darkred]
> too!
>
> Doug
>
> Alex wrote:
>

Mitchell Dickson

2006-02-07, 1:21 pm

Johnny

2006-02-07, 1:21 pm

"Mitchell Dickson" <mitchelldickson@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:JL3Gf.59$bW6.8@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139254565.945274.311890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Be careful here Sam as it is easy to "put off" growing a system and you
> must
> have a burning desire to keep growing that initial system.
>
>
> A 400 watt peak, 200 watt continuous and one good pannel and a deep cycle
> 12
> volt battery will run a small computer or a small television and a lamp
> with
> a 9 watt florescent bulb. a small charge controller can be had on ebay
> for
> about $25 and the battery and the inverter are available on the net or
> Walmart.
>
> C YA
>
> Mitch

Why dooesn't Home Depot or Lowes, WalMart, etc stock solar panels?
They have solar accent lighting, so there are micropanels there, but where
are the panels themselves for mass distribution?
We won;t be able to go solar enough without the help of the megacorporations
chipping in.
FREE US FROM THE OLD SCHOOL POLLUTION REGIME!
Power to the people, etc.
Tell the gays and abortion activists to shut up and to get with the program
of helping the people of the USA.
I am personally sick of the lackluster progress of our society.

>
>

Anthony Matonak

2006-02-07, 2:21 pm

Johnny wrote:
....
> Why dooesn't Home Depot or Lowes, WalMart, etc stock solar panels?
> They have solar accent lighting, so there are micropanels there, but where
> are the panels themselves for mass distribution?
....

I guess they don't stock them because not enough people buy them.
There is a kind of home appliances supermarket here in California
called Frys which stocks solar panels so they do show up in retail
stores.

Anthony

Johnny

2006-02-07, 5:21 pm

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oLadnTwo-Nh6RXXeRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> Johnny wrote:
> ...
> ...
>
> I guess they don't stock them because not enough people buy them.

More people would buy them if they stocked them.
Do you agree?

> There is a kind of home appliances supermarket here in California
> called Frys which stocks solar panels so they do show up in retail
> stores.

Thank you for the info, but in South Carolina can I get Frys to ship to me?

>
> Anthony

John Beardmore

2006-02-07, 7:21 pm

In message <4Y7Gf.1008$697.765@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:oLadnTwo-Nh6RXXeRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

>
>More people would buy them if they stocked them.
>Do you agree?

Yes certainly, though stocking them doesn't mean that they'll sell in
significant quantity.

Cheer, J/.
--
John Beardmore

SJC

2006-02-07, 8:21 pm

There was a major US maker of panels that did a deal with Home Depot
maybe 5 years ago. They stocked them and they never sold, end of deal.

"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bs3phaSS5R6DFwW5@wookie.demon.co.uk...
> In message <4Y7Gf.1008$697.765@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
> <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>
>
> Yes certainly, though stocking them doesn't mean that they'll sell in
> significant quantity.
>
>
> Cheer, J/.
> --
> John Beardmore

beemerwacker

2006-02-07, 11:21 pm

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ct...temnumber=90599

CJT

2006-02-08, 12:21 am

beemerwacker wrote:
> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ct...temnumber=90599
>
Even at today's electricity prices, I think it would take years to
recoup that amount of money.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

JSF

2006-02-08, 12:21 am

Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on mass
producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of the cost of
standard cells.
Well where are they?

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:43E96491.1020901@prodigy.net...
> beemerwacker wrote:
> Even at today's electricity prices, I think it would take years to
> recoup that amount of money.
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Morris Dovey

2006-02-08, 1:21 am

JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:

| Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on
| mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of
| the cost of standard cells.
| Well where are they?

JSF...

A reasonable question. In the case I mentioned in an earlier thread
(in alt.solar.thermal), the company making the breakthrough simply
wasn't interested in extending their product line to include
photovoltaics.

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

Anthony Matonak

2006-02-08, 1:21 am

JSF wrote:
> Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on mass
> producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of the cost of
> standard cells.
> Well where are they?

There haven't been any so called breakthroughs. There have been a lot
of announcements of ideas and theories that might be breakthroughs
if only they would work. Most of these announcements were companies
begging for investment dollars so they could develop these ideas.
So far, none of them have actually made real breakthroughs.

Anthony

Tony Wesley

2006-02-08, 1:21 am

JSF wrote:
> Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on mass
> producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of the cost of
> standard cells.
> Well where are they?

They are two to five years away from being available for the consumer.

And they have been, for the last twenty-five years or so. And probably
will remain that way.

Johnny

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bs3phaSS5R6DFwW5@wookie.demon.co.uk...
> In message <4Y7Gf.1008$697.765@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
> <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>
>
> Yes certainly, though stocking them doesn't mean that they'll sell in
> significant quantity.

Look at who does make sales when they stock new things; e.g., japanese
hybrid vehicles.
Just seems to me we can wean off the century-old and fifty-year old energy
stuff if we really want to and see less expense at meeting EPA regs.
We can go to hydro supplying all the peak power we need and stop generating
greenhouse gases and nuclear waste.
I would prefer a massive capital investment to clean the environment here.
The cost savings long-term would be realized sooner than later with such a
national energy policy.
Big utilities operate on bonds and stock sales anyway.
Why can't the people get free of the gayblade and abortionistic corporate
control freaks?
Old school party bosses don't like losing their power it seems, but it
happens in due time anyway.

>
>
> Cheer, J/.
> --
> John Beardmore

Johnny

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SiaGf.13860$%i3.6550@trnddc02...
> There was a major US maker of panels that did a deal with Home Depot
> maybe 5 years ago. They stocked them and they never sold, end of deal.

Were they actually in the store?
I never saw them in the Home Depot in my town.
Do you mean they put up display panels and had them available by order with
one model in the store?
I just don't belive that solar panels wouldn't sell if they had 100 of them
in the store.
Looks like some protectionism going on to me.
[color=darkred]
>
> "John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bs3phaSS5R6DFwW5@wookie.demon.co.uk...

Johnny

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

"Morris Dovey" <mrdovey@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:kseGf.61$4e6.15078@news.uswest.net...
> JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:
>
> | Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on
> | mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of
> | the cost of standard cells.
> | Well where are they?

In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities being
addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.

>
> JSF...
>
> A reasonable question. In the case I mentioned in an earlier thread
> (in alt.solar.thermal), the company making the breakthrough simply
> wasn't interested in extending their product line to include
> photovoltaics.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
>
>

Johnny

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:43E96491.1020901@prodigy.net...
> beemerwacker wrote:
> Even at today's electricity prices, I think it would take years to
> recoup that amount of money.

The utilities operate on stock and bonds which take years to retire.
Why can't the DOE issue bonds and let individuals purchase energy equipment
with those funds while paying the energy loans back each month?
$500 billion to the Iraq war effort and we can't get a government energy
bond to clean up the environment?

>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

John Beardmore

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

In message <71iGf.7025$bW6.6981@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:SiaGf.13860$%i3.6550@trnddc02...

>
>Were they actually in the store?

No idea - I'm not even on your continent. I'm just making the point
that specialists consumers probably already have specialist suppliers,
and other consumers aren't going to punt out a couple of hundred bucks
on kit that won't cut their bills significantly.

>I never saw them in the Home Depot in my town.
>Do you mean they put up display panels and had them available by order with
>one model in the store?
>I just don't belive that solar panels wouldn't sell if they had 100 of them
>in the store.

It wouldn't surprise me. One of the big DIY chains over here has
dabbled in solar thermal, but I don't think they had much impact.

>Looks like some protectionism going on to me.

In what sense ?

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Johnny

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BVa$$JclHb6DFw3z@wookie.demon.co.uk...
> In message <71iGf.7025$bW6.6981@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
> <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>
>
> No idea - I'm not even on your continent. I'm just making the point that
> specialists consumers probably already have specialist suppliers, and
> other consumers aren't going to punt out a couple of hundred bucks on kit
> that won't cut their bills significantly.
>
>
>
> It wouldn't surprise me. One of the big DIY chains over here has dabbled
> in solar thermal, but I don't think they had much impact.
>
>
>
> In what sense ?

Maybe to keep the prices up for the solar dealer network.
I think it gets to rich persons can afford it, and the masses can't
somewhat.
And who controls the energy bond issues?
Again, same story.
They are addicted to the centralized power grid income stream.
They don't want the people to be free of their income machine.
Next thing we can say about that is: they don't really care about the
environment if they are playing the control game.

>
>
> Cheers, J/.
> --
> John Beardmore

John Beardmore

2006-02-08, 5:21 am

In message <m%hGf.7007$bW6.3996@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes
>"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bs3phaSS5R6DFwW5@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>
>Look at who does make sales when they stock new things; e.g., japanese
>hybrid vehicles.

Not quite the same thing. Pretty much everybody has a car. Almost
nobody has a PV system.

>Just seems to me we

Who is "we" ?

> can wean off the century-old and fifty-year old energy
>stuff if we really want to and see less expense at meeting EPA regs.

Highly desirable I agree, but I'm not convinced that the 'man in the
street' is really up for this yet.

>We can go to hydro supplying all the peak power we need and stop generating
>greenhouse gases and nuclear waste.

Good idea if you have the resource.

>I would prefer a massive capital investment to clean the environment here.

So would I. Are we feeling lucky ?

>The cost savings long-term would be realized sooner than later with such a
>national energy policy.

A couple or three decades maybe.

>Big utilities operate on bonds and stock sales anyway.

?

If you own a power plant there is only one way to recover your
investment in it.

>Why can't the people get free of the gayblade and abortionistic corporate
>control freaks?

Because they have ear of Washington ?

>Old school party bosses don't like losing their power it seems, but it
>happens in due time anyway.

Yes - everything changes. But in time ?

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Wes Stewart

2006-02-08, 9:21 am

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:01:13 -0600, "JSF" <jsf@yahoo.net> wrote:

>Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on mass
>producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of the cost of
>standard cells.
>Well where are they?

Solar cells are the energy source of the future and will always be.

D.S.

2006-02-08, 10:21 am

Hello, all!

Try this and let me know what you think. . .

http://dsjscrd.gotdns.com/calc

Robert Scott wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 11:36:05 -0800, "Alex" <samalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> If all you want to do is bring your electric bill down, then forget solar for
> now. It is great for heating, but the payback is a long time on electricity.
>
> Instead I suggest that you look very closely at your biggest electrical load.
> It is probably your air conditioner. By comparison, your lights and TV comsume
> almost nothing. Look at lifestyle changes to reduce the need for air
> conditioning by conditioning only the rooms you are actually in, and only when
> you are in them, and only to the mininal extent necessary. Reduce air
> infiltration and reduce solar gain in the summer by sealing aroung windows or
> planting trees to shade your windows. See if your attic is getting too hot and
> radiating down into your living space. If so, install and attic vent -
> preferably one that does not use electricity. This may involve enlarging the
> venting on your overhangs too. All these boring measures will make a much
> bigger dent in your heating bill than anything you could do with solar without
> spending "thousands".
>
>
> Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 10:21 am

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 03:51:38 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

>
>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:43E96491.1020901@prodigy.net...
>
>The utilities operate on stock and bonds which take years to retire.
>Why can't the DOE issue bonds and let individuals purchase energy equipment
>with those funds while paying the energy loans back each month?
>$500 billion to the Iraq war effort and we can't get a government energy
>bond to clean up the environment?

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? There are currently some home energy
loans, but they're complicated, obscure, vary from state to state, and
typically aren't available to the people who would be most likely to
use them.

One way of doing that would be to offer a free home energy analysis
(not "audit," that's a word that scares people!) to every household,
which would yield a list of home improvements and replacement
appliances that would produce a ten-year or better payback. Then the
local power company would front the money for those improvements, with
a monthly payback added to the power bill that would yield, on
average, a net positive cash flow (along with an item that said "you
saved, on average, so and so many dollars this month"). The loan would
be attached to the property -- legally part of the power bill even if
a new owner built a house -- so unless the property was abandoned,
default wouldn't be a problem.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Johnny

2006-02-08, 11:21 am

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lstju1d9c1jg50ipno85265r0s1j4rm2dt@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 03:51:38 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? There are currently some home energy
> loans, but they're complicated, obscure, vary from state to state, and
> typically aren't available to the people who would be most likely to
> use them.
>
> One way of doing that would be to offer a free home energy analysis
> (not "audit," that's a word that scares people!) to every household,
> which would yield a list of home improvements and replacement
> appliances that would produce a ten-year or better payback. Then the
> local power company would front the money for those improvements, with
> a monthly payback added to the power bill that would yield, on
> average, a net positive cash flow (along with an item that said "you
> saved, on average, so and so many dollars this month"). The loan would
> be attached to the property -- legally part of the power bill even if
> a new owner built a house -- so unless the property was abandoned,
> default wouldn't be a problem.

Thank you. The lien would be only on the energy equipment, correct?

>
> --
> Josh
>
> "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
> Roosevelt have
> all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto
> Gonzales

Morris Dovey

2006-02-08, 12:21 pm

Johnny (in T5iGf.7072$bW6.5851@bignews7.bellsouth.net) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <mrdovey@iedu.com> wrote in message
| news:kseGf.61$4e6.15078@news.uswest.net...
|| JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:
||
||| Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on
||| mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6
||| of the cost of standard cells.
||| Well where are they?
||
|| A reasonable question. In the case I mentioned in an earlier thread
|| (in alt.solar.thermal), the company making the breakthrough simply
|| wasn't interested in extending their product line to include
|| photovoltaics.
|
| In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities
| being addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.

Since you're responding to my reference to an earlier post, I'm
assuming that you actually read that post and enough of the thread to
get some context...

I can say with certainty that the decision at IBM to not diversify
into photovoltaics was based only on the fact that at the time the
company's buisness model had absolutely no provision for
manufacturing, marketing, or sales of a consumer product - and that
development and implementation of the necessary corporate
infrastructure would have cost so much as to make the operation
inadequately profitable.

The process was considered "interesting"; but since the end result
didn't lend itself to the production of logic chips, it was considered
as no more than one more milestone along the path of learning. To the
best of my knowledge, IBM top management never knew of the
development - and, as frequently happened, there didn't seem to be any
reason to tell the public (or the DOE) about another might-have-been
product they didn't intend to produce.

If patents were filed, you should be able to find 'em to examine the
details of the process and use it yourself - because they will have
expired by now. I haven't had need to do any patent searching for a
while; but I recall that IBM made an Internet patent search capability
freely available to the public some years ago.

I haven't been associated with IBM since 1976 and, in fact, have only
a minimal personal interest in PV stuff (I manufacture and sell
passive solar heating panels); but I think you're missing the boat
with your conspiracy theory - most of the neglect would seem to be due
to a general lack of interest in producing/buying a product that
offered too little economic benefit.

HTH

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

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 1:21 pm

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:13:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lstju1d9c1jg50ipno85265r0s1j4rm2dt@4ax.com...
>
>Thank you. The lien would be only on the energy equipment, correct?

What I had in mind was more of a lien on the property, in that the
energy company would have a right to tack payments onto the bill for
any structure built at that location until the loan was satisfied.
That would keep sleazy operators from for example conspiring with a
contractor to install energy-saving appliances in a house that was
about to be demolished and sticking the power company with the bill.
It would also allow the power company to offer the loan to people who
would otherwise be bad credit risks, which would include the people
most likely to take advantage of the offer, those for whom a power
bill is a major expense.

It's just an idea I had a few weeks ago -- I haven't thought through
all of the ramifications and it hasn't been vetted by experts.

You could put a lien on the equipment as you suggest, but I'm afraid a
program like that would be open to fraud unless the purchasers' credit
history was vetted, as it would be if they bought a car or major
appliance on credit. I assume that a bank or finance company loses a
significant amount of its investment if it has to repossess and sell a
used asset at auction, and this would be doubly so in the case of
things like insulation and caulking, which can't be resold and may be
more expensive to remove than to abandon, or efficient heating systems
which are to some extent customized and required a lot of effort
install or demolish. That's one of the problems with current energy
loans. For example, my state offers them, and I suggested one to
someone I know, but while she's responsible and has never defaulted on
a loan she's maxed out and so wouldn't be accepted by the program even
though the efficiency upgrades would yield a positive cash flow.

Another possibility I've seen discussed is allowing people to
refinance their mortgages to include the value added by energy-saving
investments.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Jeff Thies

2006-02-08, 3:21 pm

<snip>
>
>
> Thank you for the info, but in South Carolina can I get Frys to ship to me?
>
The online store is:
<URL: http://outpost.com/ >

Cheers,
Jeff

>
>
>

Morris Dovey

2006-02-08, 3:21 pm

Jeff Thies (in uBqGf.15572$vU2.13441@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net)
said:

| <snip>
||| There is a kind of home appliances supermarket here in California
||| called Frys which stocks solar panels so they do show up in retail
||| stores.
||
|| Thank you for the info, but in South Carolina can I get Frys to
|| ship to me?
||
| The online store is:
| <URL: http://outpost.com/ >

Jeff...

Thanks for posting the link! When I last checked (SJ store in 1991)
all purchases had to be in-store and carried away (usually after
waiting in a long check-out line). This is good news to me!

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

ghostwriter

2006-02-08, 3:21 pm

The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough
compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. There
exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. The
production facilities that are around are small by industrial
standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that
suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works attached
could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, assuming a
10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a great profit
margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a 10% time value of
money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.

The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And
until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming available.

Ghostwriter

Derek Broughton

2006-02-08, 3:21 pm

Wes Stewart wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:01:13 -0600, "JSF" <jsf@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Solar cells are the energy source of the future and will always be.

They're producing power at entirely competitive rates for me, now.
--
derek

ghostwriter

2006-02-08, 4:21 pm

Interesting, large scale energy investments have always been included
in the value of a property during an appraisal (PV panel for instance).
I assume that solar thermal installation would also give a boost to a
value. But the smaller stuff is harder to quantify.

I imagine that the gas and electical budget might start to become a
factor with a positive or negative adjustment based on the % difference
from the average of similar sized and located homes. A home with a
$350 dollar combined gas and electric budget and a mortgage payment of
$500 has a monthly outlay of $850. The same home after impovements may
have a $300 new combined budget, that $50/month is worth about $7000
assuming 30 years at 7.5%. It makes sense to include that 7K in an
updated value of the home. By the same token a poorly built home with a
$400 combined budget would see the retail value fall that same 7K
compared to the average.

Ghostwriter

ghostwriter

2006-02-08, 5:21 pm

I did some more looking around and it seems that the average energy
bill (both natural gas and electric) is about $250 per month. That has
a value of about $35K at 7.5% for 30years. It seems to me that getting
off grid tends to cost right about that much. Although the average
homeowner might not be able to handle the restrictions that offgrid
requires.

Ghostwriter

dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com

2006-02-08, 5:21 pm

In alt.energy.renewable Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? There are currently some home energy
> loans, but they're complicated, obscure, vary from state to state, and
> typically aren't available to the people who would be most likely to
> use them.

In one sense, payback of solar power could be achieved if payments on a
loan to install solar were exactly the amount that you would otherwise pay
for electricity.

That was offered to me by SunPowerGeo, but it has since been retracted to
applying only to commercial installations.

I think it is offered by Akeena Solar, as part of their "positive cash flow in
the first year".

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Steve Spence

2006-02-08, 5:21 pm

Wes Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:01:13 -0600, "JSF" <jsf@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Solar cells are the energy source of the future and will always be.

replace "the" with "one".

--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

daestrom

2006-02-08, 7:21 pm

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:T5iGf.7072$bW6.5851@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Morris Dovey" <mrdovey@iedu.com> wrote in message
> news:kseGf.61$4e6.15078@news.uswest.net...
>
> In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities being
> addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.
>

Yeah, right. Those darn 'centralized power authorities' keep making that
electricity so cheaply, that PV panels have a hard time being economical.
They are obviously deliberately underpricing those billion dollar nuc
plants, and such just to keep the PV market stifled.

daestrom

daestrom

2006-02-08, 7:21 pm

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad6ku19vke2late876791t8k0aro6s8hp3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:13:08 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> What I had in mind was more of a lien on the property, in that the
> energy company would have a right to tack payments onto the bill for
> any structure built at that location until the loan was satisfied.
> That would keep sleazy operators from for example conspiring with a
> contractor to install energy-saving appliances in a house that was
> about to be demolished and sticking the power company with the bill.
> It would also allow the power company to offer the loan to people who
> would otherwise be bad credit risks, which would include the people
> most likely to take advantage of the offer, those for whom a power
> bill is a major expense.
>
> It's just an idea I had a few weeks ago -- I haven't thought through
> all of the ramifications and it hasn't been vetted by experts.
>
> You could put a lien on the equipment as you suggest, but I'm afraid a
> program like that would be open to fraud unless the purchasers' credit
> history was vetted, as it would be if they bought a car or major
> appliance on credit. I assume that a bank or finance company loses a
> significant amount of its investment if it has to repossess and sell a
> used asset at auction, and this would be doubly so in the case of
> things like insulation and caulking, which can't be resold and may be
> more expensive to remove than to abandon, or efficient heating systems
> which are to some extent customized and required a lot of effort
> install or demolish. That's one of the problems with current energy
> loans. For example, my state offers them, and I suggested one to
> someone I know, but while she's responsible and has never defaulted on
> a loan she's maxed out and so wouldn't be accepted by the program even
> though the efficiency upgrades would yield a positive cash flow.
>
> Another possibility I've seen discussed is allowing people to
> refinance their mortgages to include the value added by energy-saving
> investments.
>

Your idea has some good points. But a couple of issues.

For the power company to have a lien against some property, then it would
have to be recorded in the public record. Now, try and sell your house.
Most prospective buyers would not be able to get financing because their
bank would not be able to be recorded as the first mortgage/lien holder.
(the 'first mortgage' is the oldest recorded outstanding claim against the
property. Banks want this position because if the loan defaults, they are
first in line to receive the proceeds from any forced sale). So you'd have
to pay off the lien before you sold the house. Not a complete
'show-stopper', but a complication.

Considering that the 'average homeowner' moves every 5 to 7 years, the
utility loan would have to be set up to pay off somewhere in that time
frame.

Refinancing with a 'home improvement' loan is tough in this case because
banks/realtors can't put a good solid price on the value added. It isn't
just the retail 'sticker price' of the system. It's how much more the
average buyer would be willing to pay because your home has this extra
'feature'. Kind of like how much more is your home worth if you have a
second bath, or a fireplace. But those features are common enough that
realtors/appraisors can put a fairly reliable number on them. And if the
appraisal doesn't justify the added 'value', the bank won't make the loan
for it.

daestrom

ronwagn

2006-02-08, 7:21 pm

Look into a do it yourself geothermal project. Do some web searches.
Basically you keep water underground in tubes and circulate it through
the house. Or cool air from a heat exchanger. If you are in a dry area
evaporative coolers are a good way to go.

Ditto the other suggestions.

All the best,

Ron Wagner

SJC

2006-02-08, 7:21 pm

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:7guGf.998$z%5.771@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:T5iGf.7072$bW6.5851@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> Yeah, right. Those darn 'centralized power authorities' keep making that
> electricity so cheaply, that PV panels have a hard time being economical.
> They are obviously deliberately underpricing those billion dollar nuc
> plants, and such just to keep the PV market stifled.
>
> daestrom

I have heard that the federal government pays some $10B a year for
nuclear power plant insurance. This would be like a subsidy paid for
by all the taxpayers but benefiting only the industry and those that use
that power.
>
>

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 9:21 pm

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:08:01 GMT, "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:7guGf.998$z%5.771@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> I have heard that the federal government pays some $10B a year for
>nuclear power plant insurance. This would be like a subsidy paid for
>by all the taxpayers but benefiting only the industry and those that use
>that power.

I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does
insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a
subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal
and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.

Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think
solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid
locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 9:21 pm

On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter"
<ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:

>The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough
>compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. There
>exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. The
>production facilities that are around are small by industrial
>standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that
>suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works attached
>could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, assuming a
>10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a great profit
>margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a 10% time value of
>money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.

>The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And
>until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming available.

If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some applications,
e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air conditioning season.
Beyond that, I think you have to take into account the cost and
inefficiency of batteries or the infrastructure and staffing that
provide power on cloudy days. Wind has the same problem -- wind power
is already in the $0.05/kWh range, which after subsidies and indirect
costs is probably competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always
blow, and storage would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read
proposals to tie widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not
sure if that would be price effective given grid losses.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 9:21 pm

On 8 Feb 2006 12:05:56 -0800, "ghostwriter"
<ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:

>Interesting, large scale energy investments have always been included
>in the value of a property during an appraisal (PV panel for instance).
>I assume that solar thermal installation would also give a boost to a
>value. But the smaller stuff is harder to quantify.
>
> I imagine that the gas and electical budget might start to become a
>factor with a positive or negative adjustment based on the % difference
>from the average of similar sized and located homes. A home with a
>$350 dollar combined gas and electric budget and a mortgage payment of
>$500 has a monthly outlay of $850. The same home after impovements may
>have a $300 new combined budget, that $50/month is worth about $7000
>assuming 30 years at 7.5%. It makes sense to include that 7K in an
>updated value of the home. By the same token a poorly built home with a
>$400 combined budget would see the retail value fall that same 7K
>compared to the average.

That's the way it should work, anyway! I gather from what I've read
that the market isn't always that rational. Some people may look upon
solar power as a complicated albatross (and in some installations
they're right!), or find solar panels unsightly. In other cases,
something like a pleasant sunroom can add more to the value of the
property than its energy contribution would suggest.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

SJC

2006-02-08, 9:21 pm

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:rq4lu1dam72m2p520o9b8q2tq7citvckas@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter"
> <ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some applications,
> e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air conditioning season.
> Beyond that, I think you have to take into account the cost and
> inefficiency of batteries or the infrastructure and staffing that
> provide power on cloudy days. Wind has the same problem -- wind power
> is already in the $0.05/kWh range, which after subsidies and indirect
> costs is probably competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always
> blow, and storage would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read
> proposals to tie widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not
> sure if that would be price effective given grid losses.
>
> --
> Josh

I have seen plans to tie wind to water pumps to bring water uphill
and let it out to generate power when needed. Seemed like a good idea.

>
> "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
> all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 10:21 pm

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:40:31 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ad6ku19vke2late876791t8k0aro6s8hp3@4ax.com...
>
>Your idea has some good points. But a couple of issues.
>
>For the power company to have a lien against some property, then it would
>have to be recorded in the public record. Now, try and sell your house.
>Most prospective buyers would not be able to get financing because their
>bank would not be able to be recorded as the first mortgage/lien holder.
>(the 'first mortgage' is the oldest recorded outstanding claim against the
>property. Banks want this position because if the loan defaults, they are
>first in line to receive the proceeds from any forced sale). So you'd have
>to pay off the lien before you sold the house. Not a complete
>'show-stopper', but a complication.
>
>Considering that the 'average homeowner' moves every 5 to 7 years, the
>utility loan would have to be set up to pay off somewhere in that time
>frame.
>
>Refinancing with a 'home improvement' loan is tough in this case because
>banks/realtors can't put a good solid price on the value added. It isn't
>just the retail 'sticker price' of the system. It's how much more the
>average buyer would be willing to pay because your home has this extra
>'feature'. Kind of like how much more is your home worth if you have a
>second bath, or a fireplace. But those features are common enough that
>realtors/appraisors can put a fairly reliable number on them. And if the
>appraisal doesn't justify the added 'value', the bank won't make the loan
>for it.

That reinforces my sense that the traditional approach isn't the most
effective one, and that the government would have to get involved, not
to write the loans, but to pass the enabling legislation that would
overcome these and similar obstacles.

Since the energy audit would be performed by a professional energy
assessor, the upgrades would be installed only if they yielded on
average a positive cash flow, and the loan would be part of the
utility bill whoever owned the house, I don't think the lien would
concern a bank writing a new mortgage; if the house were auctioned
off, the bank would receive all proceeds, and the new owner would
inherit the obligation for continued payments for items in the fixed
plant, assuming that the legislation required that.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 10:21 pm

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:00:28 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com
wrote:

>In alt.energy.renewable Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>In one sense, payback of solar power could be achieved if payments on a
>loan to install solar were exactly the amount that you would otherwise pay
>for electricity.

That's a good point. I was thinking in terms of positive cash flow,
but neutral cash flow would work as well.

>That was offered to me by SunPowerGeo, but it has since been retracted to
>applying only to commercial installations.
>
>I think it is offered by Akeena Solar, as part of their "positive cash flow in
>the first year".

I've seen some other programs that accomplish this to varying degrees.
Here in Connecticut, forex, the state offers low-interest energy loans
to qualified borrowers, though I gather it's left up to the buyer to
figure out whether he'll get positive cash flow.

An excellent point that some have made is that the return on an energy
saving loan is interest free, and depending on the investment can be
fairly spectacular compared to a similar amount invested in real
estate or the stock market. Some friends here invested in a geothermal
heat pump -- extremely expensive, but with gas prices being what they
are they hit payback far sooner than they thought they would, in just
a few years. But I'm afraid most people don't look at it that way --
they see it as an expense . . .

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-08, 10:21 pm

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:08:07 GMT, "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:rq4lu1dam72m2p520o9b8q2tq7citvckas@4ax.com...
>
> I have seen plans to tie wind to water pumps to bring water uphill
>and let it out to generate power when needed. Seemed like a good idea.

I found this article on pumped storage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped...ydroelectricity

According to the article, the storage conversion efficiency is between
70-85 percent, but I don't see anything about how much the land,
construction, and maintenance would add to the cost of the
electricity, so I'm not sure whether it would push the price of wind
power out of the ballpark or not. And since it's subject to
evaporation, the availability of the water might also be a problem in
arid areas such as the west. Destruction of habit and arable land
might also be a concern. That being said, it would be fabulous if it
proved economical, wouldn't it? I'd much rather see carefully-sited
wind turbines than nuclear . . .

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Jeff Thies

2006-02-08, 11:21 pm

<snip>

> I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does
> insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a
> subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal
> and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.
>
> Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think
> solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid
> locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.

I've seen a number of posts lately of people that are running PV and
making it work. Contributing factors seem to be ability to sell back and
state and federal tax credits (US). One guy had already paid back his
system over 5 years.

Whether this is good fiscal policy is debatable and there are certainly
many other ways that are vastly more feasible and economic.

What strikes me though is the investment big oil has in PV. The large
number of solar powered gas stations by BP in particular. Shell also
seems to be a big player.

From what I gather there is a shortage relative to demand. With the
high cost and what I assume to be the high profit of PV it may only be a
matter of time before first the Koreans, and then the Chinese jump into
this fully. I remember in the mid to late 90's when only the Japanese
(mostly) made RAM and kept conspiring to create shortages to drive up
the price to about $50/meg (I think you can get a gig now for that).
That price certainly encouraged companies in other countries to make the
investment.

I think there is greater inherent cost for PV but I wonder when PV
will become a comodity. I would think that many forms (like
polycrystaline) are already mature.

Jimmy Carter gets little credit but it was his policies that drove
electric generation off of oil and onto natural gas and coal. Can you
imagine what the cost of electricity and gas would be now if that hadn't
happened?

Cheers,
Jeff
>

Jeff Thies

2006-02-08, 11:21 pm

Morris Dovey wrote:

> Jeff Thies (in uBqGf.15572$vU2.13441@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net)
> said:
>
> | <snip>
> ||| There is a kind of home appliances supermarket here in California
> ||| called Frys which stocks solar panels so they do show up in retail
> ||| stores.
> ||
> || Thank you for the info, but in South Carolina can I get Frys to
> || ship to me?
> ||
> | The online store is:
> | <URL: http://outpost.com/ >
>
> Jeff...
>
> Thanks for posting the link! When I last checked (SJ store in 1991)
> all purchases had to be in-store and carried away (usually after
> waiting in a long check-out line). This is good news to me!

You are welcome! The have PV panels for about $6/watt.

They built a Frys in my hometown of Atlanta and I have never seen
anything like it! Well, maybe the IKEA... Puts new meaning in the term
Big Box Store.

The cashiers at Frys work on commission so you would probably find
that the lines move a lot faster!!!

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

Morris Dovey

2006-02-09, 12:21 am

Josh Hill (in rq4lu1dam72m2p520o9b8q2tq7citvckas@4ax.com) said:

| On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter"
| <ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
|
|| The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough
|| compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested.
|| There exists no true mass production facility for solar panels.
|| The production facilities that are around are small by industrial
|| standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that
|| suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works
|| attached could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed,
|| assuming a 10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a
|| great profit margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a
|| 10% time value of money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.
|
|| The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And
|| until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming
|| available.
|
| If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some
| applications, e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air
| conditioning season. Beyond that, I think you have to take into
| account the cost and inefficiency of batteries or the
| infrastructure and staffing that provide power on cloudy days. Wind
| has the same problem -- wind power is already in the $0.05/kWh
| range, which after subsidies and indirect costs is probably
| competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always blow, and storage
| would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read proposals to tie
| widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not sure if that
| would be price effective given grid losses.

Does it really need to be so binary? A number of municipalities have
begun using wind generators to "buy down" the cost of electricity
provided to their communities. The town of Waverly (population 10,000)
in northeastern Iowa uses coal, hydro, and wind (as well as natural
gas and/or diesel to handle peak loads).

One of the more interesting aspects of the Waverly scenario (from the
ICLEI web page at
http://www.greenpowergovs.org/wind/...e%20study.html, with
some additional info at http://www.waverlyia.com/):

"... consumer electricity rates have consistently gone down since
1992, even with the purchase of three wind turbines. The cost of wind
generation is currently the lowest cost source of new energy available
to WL&P."

From what I've heard, Waverly doesn't even try to store the energy -
they use whatever wind power is available to reduce consumption of
more expensive fuels.

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

ghostwriter

2006-02-09, 10:21 am

It occurs to me that you could get higher effiiciency if the windmill
was a mechanically mated pump assembly rather than a generator that fed
a motor that turned a pump. Given a 85% return on electrical energy
and a 85% efficient pump and a 85% efficient generator the use of a
mechanical system would put out 117% more power than a wind turbine
does now. That makes sense since you can use larger more efficient
turbine on the discharge of a pond than you can use on a single
windmill. That would reduce capital outlay for a large system
substantially and make maintance a lot more simple. The land use would
be much larger and might create unique problems. But then the system
would be sized for the average and the production peaks and valleys
could be smoothed out. A lot more incrementally upgradable as well.

The same concept could work for tidal and wave power as well, in fact
given a little engineering the same pump assembly might fit all three
systems. Line the coast with windmills and wave bouys that would fill
huge saltwater resevoirs.

Ghostwriter

Derek Broughton

2006-02-09, 10:21 am

Josh Hill wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:08:01 GMT, "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Yes, they are indeed underpricing the nuclear produced power. Not to
mention the coal & oil. Through various subsidies.
[color=darkred]
>
> I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does
> insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a
> subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal
> and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.
>
> Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think
> solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid
> locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.

It doesn't have to be remote - I'm 0.5km from the end of the power line.
With costs of $CDN10,000 - $15,000 to bring in the line, it was a
no-brainer to go off-grid. Power lines cost at least $1000/pole, with at
most 100m between poles. Price goes up depending on requirements for
easements and terrain.

I would bet anyone more than a mile from the grid could save money
generating their own power, and many people closer to the grid can make it
work.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2006-02-09, 10:21 am

ghostwriter wrote:

> I did some more looking around and it seems that the average energy
> bill (both natural gas and electric) is about $250 per month. That has
> a value of about $35K at 7.5% for 30years. It seems to me that getting
> off grid tends to cost right about that much. Although the average
> homeowner might not be able to handle the restrictions that offgrid
> requires.

What happens is: you plan the conversion; you decide $35000 is too much; you
go on a serious energy conservation program; you get costs down to $20000
and decide it's worthwhile.

Of course, you've now got your monthly electricity bill down to about
$150/mo :-)

When you're currently connected to the grid, going off-grid will rarely make
sense. Going to a grid-tie system, might. otoh, when you don't have the
grid to begin with, bringing it in is often not a paying proposition. You
don't have to be very far off-grid at all to get the cost of running poles
and lines above the cost of installing your own power.
--
derek

Wes Stewart

2006-02-09, 12:21 pm

On 8 Feb 2006 15:00:39 -0800, "ronwagn" <psychrn7n@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

> If you are in a dry area
>evaporative coolers are a good way to go.

Pima County AZ is a dry area. (No rain in 110 days and counting)

Pima County is also considering a ban on evap coolers on new
construction. We have a lot more electricity than we do water.

I have a dual system, evap for when it's cooling season and dry, and a
heat pump for otherwise. I like the constant stream of fresh air with
the evap but honestly, when I trade my heat pump for a newer more
efficient unit, I may retire the evap.

A 1 hp blower motor running 24/7 and constant water consumption are
not necesarily more efficient than a high efficiency A/C.

Josh Hill

2006-02-09, 3:21 pm

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:50:32 -0400, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>

>
>It doesn't have to be remote - I'm 0.5km from the end of the power line.
>With costs of $CDN10,000 - $15,000 to bring in the line, it was a
>no-brainer to go off-grid. Power lines cost at least $1000/pole, with at
>most 100m between poles. Price goes up depending on requirements for
>easements and terrain.
>
>I would bet anyone more than a mile from the grid could save money
>generating their own power, and many people closer to the grid can make it
>work.

Good point. I've seen the one mile figure bandied about, though I
guess even that's just a rule of thumb.

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

Josh Hill

2006-02-09, 6:21 pm

On 9 Feb 2006 05:34:35 -0800, "ghostwriter"
<ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:

>It occurs to me that you could get higher effiiciency if the windmill
>was a mechanically mated pump assembly rather than a generator that fed
>a motor that turned a pump. Given a 85% return on electrical energy
>and a 85% efficient pump and a 85% efficient generator the use of a
>mechanical system would put out 117% more power than a wind turbine
>does now. That makes sense since you can use larger more efficient
>turbine on the discharge of a pond than you can use on a single
>windmill. That would reduce capital outlay for a large system
>substantially and make maintance a lot more simple. The land use would
>be much larger and might create unique problems. But then the system
>would be sized for the average and the production peaks and valleys
>could be smoothed out. A lot more incrementally upgradable as well.

You'd lose the efficiency advantage of direct generation when output
met demand, though . . . not sure how much of an advantage you'd get
from a more efficient generator, but you'd have to measure it against
pump and water turbine efficiency, evaporative losses, and capital . .
..

>The same concept could work for tidal and wave power as well, in fact
>given a little engineering the same pump assembly might fit all three
>systems. Line the coast with windmills and wave bouys that would fill
>huge saltwater resevoirs.

That might be impractical due to the high cost of coastal land . . .
although you might be able to put the reservoirs inland some . . .

--
Josh

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com

2006-02-09, 7:21 pm

In alt.solar.photovoltaic Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
> estate or the stock market. Some friends here invested in a geothermal
> heat pump -- extremely expensive, but with gas prices being what they
> are they hit payback far sooner than they thought they would, in just
> a few years. But I'm afraid most people don't look at it that way --
> they see it as an expense . . .

Part of my solar proposal ROI was the "continuation of the
historic PG&E rate increases", which I took at face value, because it made
moderate difference in the payback date, and I really wasn't concerned
whether it was 5, 10, or 15 years.

I've been looking at PG&E rates over the last 10 years. They are all
online at PGE.com, but in separate files. The early ones are in effect for
a couple of years, but recently the rate increases have come closer and
closer together, there were four in 05. What I don't see is any increase
in the "baseline" rates. What I do see is rises in the "over baseline"
rates. The base went down a couple of pennies per kwh for the summertime
peak usage on the baseline, but is higher for the top tier.

Term, TOU Peak base, toptier over baseline
960101 $0.31524 N/A
060101 $0.29372 $0.49422
non-TOU
960101 $0.11589 $0.12229
060101 $0.11430 $0.33039

Installing solar, even if it doesn't produce enough energy to satisfy your
total demand, will lower your usage into the cheaper ranges in the
summertime months. On a dollar for dollar basis, the first few kw should
be easy to justify, the last few are pretty cheap from the grid.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com

2006-02-09, 7:21 pm

In alt.solar.photovoltaic Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the article, the storage conversion efficiency is between
> 70-85 percent, but I don't see anything about how much the land,

California shows a negative energy input from the water pump system, but
the uphill pump is done at night, the downhill flow is during the day, so
they are using excess capacity at night to moderate the demand during the
day. The water, land, and, the pumps were already part of the massive
California Water Project, so the source of the energy is "free", in that it
was already required to be expended for the water project.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Jim Baber

2006-02-10, 1:21 pm

Jim wrote:

Jeff Thies wrote:

> <snip>
>
> The online store is:
> <URL: http://outpost.com/ >

But their price for the 100W panel is a bit high, I'll bet several of
the on-line dealers will improve on that for equivalent 100W panels. If
they have them in stock and watch the shipping costs
good luck -- Jim.
[color=darkred]
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>
>

Jim Baber

2006-02-10, 1:21 pm

Josh Hill wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:50:32 -0400, Derek Broughton
><news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Good point. I've seen the one mile figure bandied about, though I
>guess even that's just a rule of thumb.
>
>
You have got to also consider HIGH cost electricity. Pacific Gas &
Electric's rate structure for ordinary residential can go as high as
$0.29xxx per kWh if you exceed their baseline usage by 300%.

This means for example in the summer in Fresno CA the baseline is 17.5
kWh per day in the summer, and remember the high temp. in Fresno during
the months of Jul. - Sep. Will be over 93 degrees. Air conditioning is
a given necessity. I used an average of 76 kWh each day for those 3
months, and my bills would have been over $1590 for just those 3 months.

SJC

2006-02-10, 3:26 pm

"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message news:oMCdnWYVj_FMWnHenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> Josh Hill wrote:
>
> You have got to also consider HIGH cost electricity. Pacific Gas &
> Electric's rate structure for ordinary residential can go as high as
> $0.29xxx per kWh if you exceed their baseline usage by 300%.
>
> This means for example in the summer in Fresno CA the baseline is 17.5
> kWh per day in the summer, and remember the high temp. in Fresno during
> the months of Jul. - Sep. Will be over 93 degrees. Air conditioning is
> a given necessity. I used an average of 76 kWh each day for those 3
> months, and my bills would have been over $1590 for just those 3 months.
>
I ground source heat pump might be attractive because it is liquid cooled
and would have a higher COP. The tubes in the ground might be expensive,
but a good thermal mass might be less expensive and store some heat for
later. Combine that with some netmetered PV to offset the electric costs
to keep you under the third tier rates and it might pay off, eventually.

Jim Baber

2006-02-10, 10:21 pm

Jim Baber comments:

dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In alt.solar.photovoltaic Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>California shows a negative energy input from the water pump system, but
>the uphill pump is done at night, the downhill flow is during the day, so
>they are using excess capacity at night to moderate the demand during the
>day.
>
Completly true to here but there are major errors in the next paragraph.

>The water, land, and, the pumps were already part of the massive
>California Water Project, so the source of the energy is "free", in that it
>was already required to be expended for the water project.
>so the source of the energy is "free", in that it
>was already required to be expended for the water project.
>
>
>
It should have read:

The water, and land were already part of the massive California Water Project, but the pumps were at the Bakersfield side of the mountain range and pumped water one direction only uphill to Triangle Lake. The reversible pump/generators needed to act as ei
ther a pump to return water uphill to Triangle Lake at night or were used as generators in the daytime, were at Castaic Lake which was downhill from Triangle Lake on the Los Angeles side of the mountains.

There were considerable savings because of the double use of the water for power storage and also a major source of water for southern california, but the pump/generators needed for the power storage aspects of the project were not a part of the Californi
a Water Project but were added to the project by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to make peaking power from surplus power produced at night in their conventional plants.

Jim Baber

2006-02-11, 4:21 pm

Jim Baber wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:00:28 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>That's a good point. I was thinking in terms of positive cash flow,
>but neutral cash flow would work as well.
>
>
>
>I've seen some other programs that accomplish this to varying degrees.
>Here in Connecticut, forex, the state offers low-interest energy loans
>to qualified borrowers, though I gather it's left up to the buyer to
>figure out whether he'll get positive cash flow.
>
>An excellent point that some have made is that the return on an energy
>saving loan is interest free, and depending on the investment can be
>fairly spectacular compared to a similar amount invested in real
>estate or the stock market. Some friends here invested in a geothermal
>heat pump -- extremely expensive, but with gas prices being what they
>are they hit payback far sooner than they thought they would, in just
>a few years. But I'm afraid most people don't look at it that way --
>they see it as an expense . . .
>
>
Not only is the return interest free, but once the loan is repaid these
'savings' are an income usable as discretional funds that can be spent
without incuring further earnings effort or taxes.

SJC

2006-02-11, 4:21 pm

"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message news:jdidnb-azu_A3XPeRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Jim Baber wrote:
>
> Josh Hill wrote:
>
> Not only is the return interest free, but once the loan is repaid these
> 'savings' are an income usable as discretional funds that can be spent
> without incuring further earnings effort or taxes.
>
I always thought that if you refinance your mortgage and use the cash
out for a solar home improvement, the interest on that is tax deductable.
Since home mortgages are probably lower interest than just a loan for
the solar upgrade alone, you save money. That way you are paying the
mortgage company for capital improvments instead of the utility company.

Jim Baber

2006-02-11, 6:21 pm

SJC wrote:

>
> "Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message
> news:jdidnb-azu_A3XPeRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>
> I always thought that if you refinance your mortgage and use the cash
> out for a solar home improvement, the interest on that is tax deductable.
> Since home mortgages are probably lower interest than just a loan for
> the solar upgrade alone, you save money. That way you are paying the
> mortgage company for capital improvments instead of the utility company.

That thought just is a part of the tax implications, when I re-financed
to pay for our system the original loan 30 year had been in effect for
12 years and our income tax interest deductions were considerably less
than a new loan's deductions would be. I re-financed for 15 years
instead of the original 30 and even though the interest rate dropped
(saved us some also) on the new loan, our net income tax decreased
because of the new loan's larger allowable tax deductions (state an
federal income taxes both restarted their deduction schedules based on
the new loan balance) and this tax decrease alone will pay over a
quarter of the cost of my system in the first 6 years.

SJC

2006-02-11, 6:21 pm

"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message news:UKmdnf3FJuylxXPeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
>
> SJC wrote:
>
>
> That thought just is a part of the tax implications, when I re-financed
> to pay for our system the original loan 30 year had been in effect for
> 12 years and our income tax interest deductions were considerably less
> than a new loan's deductions would be. I re-financed for 15 years
> instead of the original 30 and even though the interest rate dropped
> (saved us some also) on the new loan, our net income tax decreased
> because of the new loan's larger allowable tax deductions (state an
> federal income taxes both restarted their deduction schedules based on
> the new loan balance) and this tax decrease alone will pay over a
> quarter of the cost of my system in the first 6 years.
>
>
Thanks for your personal real world example. For those of us who
are not green eye shade, sharp penciled accountants, it is good to hear
that there are some further benefits in the state and federal tax codes to
enc