My electricity bill is less than $100/mo and a system is $20k plus w/o subsidies (not sure there are any up here) so the payback is very long even if I could generate all my power 24/7. I assume the system would be worn out/obsolete by then.
Solar Panels, for CIVIL discussion
- Thread starter jos51700
- Start date
-
Because minus the huge injection of taxpayer dollars, subsidies and tax breaks.. no one buys them.
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
Any calculation that doesn't take into account the amount of money which could be earned through other investments also doesn't paint a whole picture. If I had $20-40k in cash to invest, it wouldn't be into solar panels.
If someone is financing the unsubsidized amount of the equipment and install, they're putting even more money into someone else's bank account.
Solar does makes sense when utility level electricity isn't available at a remote site, or for things like warehouses where the roof is already dead space.
I'm not sure where you are but if you can run a heat pump they run on elect and you can heat with ele a lot of the year also. I'm in Central Iowa and i use my heat pump to heat like right now and so it's really pays to have solar if you can get in on heating with it also.
Thats the thing. much like electric cars they aren't for everyone everywhere. Ele cars work fine in some areas and not so much in others or for other uses. I have talked to some of the smartest guys I know on this site. Lots of critical thinkers. I would much rather trust these guys spend my money than the GOV.
These guys are capable to dissecting the entire process and judge what works for them better than any other group I am in. But dealing with solar like engines can only be done when folks are getting accurate intel. The guys in this group work together to make cars faster, make more HP. get better MPG. There is NO reason a lot of guys here can't make solar work for them.
When a guy gets solar panels installed have the installers put a wire from the grid to the breaker panel that will hold twice the amperage legally. This way when your panels get broke, old and need replaced your grid is capable of supporting the increased energy created from a likely more powerful panel of the same size. As stated by someone else progress is in progress. It don't cost much to be a step ahead of the future panels.
Yes that's called lost opportunity. I know people who want solar because they want to be self reliant especially living in rural areas so it isn't about the money for everyone. Now if I could generate enough power to heat my home in the winter that might be more interesting but I assume the panels requirements would be excessive. If it made economic sense today everyone would be doing it.
Is there a point? Exactly how did you add to the discussion of solar?
Can the moderator eliminate the subsidies from this discussion so progress can be made. The horse is dead, can we cart it away?
So if I counter your posts with inconvenient facts, I need to be censored?
Ironracer
Gearhead
Or Cancelled! Lol
Yes. Everything you post should be censored. I'm glad you picked up on that. I was hoping that you would corelate eliminating the toxic non productive political aspect of this conversation as censoring YOU. My whole world revolves around your feelings and needs. In no way was I suggesting a separate thread for people who could not let the poor dead horse be so the rest of the people can move on and folks can learn a thing or two.
Can we be done now?
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
Bingo bango. If they worked well, every utility would be installing them to increase their profits. Obviously there's economic factors for why they don't. Maybe we should just declare war on clouds so solar can be useful - that'd be green, right?
Nuclear installations would take less than 1% of the same amount of land than equivalent solar installations and more reliably supply power to more people. The lack of a campaign to nationalize decomissioned coal plants and conver them to nuclear tells me there's no serious demand for 'green' energy though. Teenagers who drink too much (we call 'em sailors - relax, it's a joke) successfully run the largest fleet of nuke reactors on earth, yet it's "too complicated" to rely on for utility power? Not buying it. Public/private partnerships successfully and safely oversee some of the most dangerous materials on earth. Yet somehow we ignore a reliable, mature, and exceedingly useful technology because... some people are afraid (of things that are easily addressed).
They do work well for a lot of people, not everyone everywhere but they do work great. My system would be worth it if I had not gotten subsidized. Some of that was speculation on the cost of electric going up in my area and the political environment which turned out to be a correct assessment.
I'm with you on everything else you said about nuclear!!!
Calls to censor really show the strength of your positions.
The industry goes away minus massive injections of taxpayer $$$, no one buys it.
That's not "toxic' or "political"... it's economic reality.
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
Iowa uses about 45.7TWh of electricity. Even if all those bars are added together (not including deprecated or replaced systems), we're looking at 480MW of installs - or 0.01% of solar generation in the state. Annual average growth in demand since 1968 has been about 1.47%.
If solar penciled out, they'd be installing it at more than 10% of annual demand increases. If I had to guess, if I keep digging, I'm going to find out Iowa is installing solar for the same reason so many EVs are only available in CA: compliance.
He said censored. I was being sarcastic at his twisted version of reality. I don't think I have a position. The conversation was set for discussion of solar energy not it's finances. Everyone here agrees the subsadies are an issue. The people that can't control that and can handle that as a fact would like to move on to other aspects of the solar issue.
Not one poster I have seen suggested the tax rebates are fair or good for America. Not one me included. I took the money end of story. I took that money and spent it well. I hope the department of education, homeland security, revenue ect did the same.
I don't see how solar field arrays are any less toxic to the planet and it's wildlife than nearly any large energy source if not all.
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
I would argue you'd be in a better financial position had you taken the money invested/financed and put it (and monthly interest payments, if financed) into any number of othe financial vehicles.
That wouldn't offset any concerns about power availability or stability, granted, but a generator is relatively cheap. Mine was under $2k and nets me about 4kw when the wind knocks our poles down. I'll admit I have no idea how often power is unvailable in your neighborhood.
jos51700
Green Bearing thread connoisseur
All, please review thread title and keep it civil.
You gotta understand, a good portion of the population doesn't live in the desert sand so the viability of your setup diminishes greatly in other parts of the world.
I don't blame you for taking money that's available to you, but it AIN'T free. Ergo, you are kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth when you talk about the cost but lop off what the rest of us funded. It's costing me money but not benefiting me.
I WILL say kudos 100% for making sure that you got USA made panels. The biggest problem I have with these plans BY FAR is how much subsidized money goes overseas.
Kinda like a car that shuts off at stop lights to conserve fuel but has remote start so it can idle in the driveway for twenty minutes on cold mornings to keep your tushy from touching cold vinyl.
Just because you can, does that mean you should?
My brother is a good example and I can't recall if I've stated this already. Financed his solar thinking he was going off-grid. Couldn't afford the battery. Twenty year note. Twenty year lifespan. His payment on the solar is almost exactly what his power bills were (I'll wager that's true of most installs, conveniently).
So they will be trash not long after they're paid off. He's spending the same money every month. His lights still go dark when everyone else's do.
The only real benefit is someone made a sale.
You gotta understand, a good portion of the population doesn't live in the desert sand so the viability of your setup diminishes greatly in other parts of the world.
I don't blame you for taking money that's available to you, but it AIN'T free. Ergo, you are kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth when you talk about the cost but lop off what the rest of us funded. It's costing me money but not benefiting me.
I WILL say kudos 100% for making sure that you got USA made panels. The biggest problem I have with these plans BY FAR is how much subsidized money goes overseas.
The problem with this graph is that a huge number of people will jump on board with this without doing any research whatsoever. People then see this graph and think it's good because people are doing it.
Kinda like a car that shuts off at stop lights to conserve fuel but has remote start so it can idle in the driveway for twenty minutes on cold mornings to keep your tushy from touching cold vinyl.
Just because you can, does that mean you should?
My brother is a good example and I can't recall if I've stated this already. Financed his solar thinking he was going off-grid. Couldn't afford the battery. Twenty year note. Twenty year lifespan. His payment on the solar is almost exactly what his power bills were (I'll wager that's true of most installs, conveniently).
So they will be trash not long after they're paid off. He's spending the same money every month. His lights still go dark when everyone else's do.
The only real benefit is someone made a sale.
jos51700
Green Bearing thread connoisseur
If the whole push for this is to lower carbon emissions, how much carbon would be sequestered by a one hundred plus year old forest where the panel array is installed, versus the clean power and maintaining and replacing panels during that time?
Legit question, I don't know.
Exactly. I agree 100%.
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
They aren't less toxic. The contribution from mining and the PM2.5 which results are on-par if not in excess of what coal mining and burning creates. Windmills are even worse, mostly due to the fiberglass dust that gets generated by manufacturing.
PM2.5 is far more dangerous than any other atmospheric emissions allowed, but of course we ignore it because the mining is 'exportable' to places where the general public doesn't see or feel it. Yay for 3rd worlds.
The discussion is "Solar Panels, for CIVIL discussion" not "Solar Panels, only what aspects Dmopower want's discussed".
Financing solar is a huge part of the topic. Id's say it IS the topic as the technology has been around for decades and really does not confuse anyone on a nuts and bolts level. Most people run the numbers, have a look at the number of years it would take to break even.. and take a hard pass. The math is not the same for everyone. But if it made sense more people would be doing it without the massive $$ infusions and gubberment mandates. We don't hate our money or keeping more of it.
I paid out of pocket 40 grand for mine, I dont thbink you helped me pay for it!!
-
