If they'd been proactive on the matter they wouldn't have this problem so they should just shut the fuck up. <_<
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213468
QuoteTaking a Dim View of Solar Energy
Who could possibly be against homeowners using solar panels to power their homes? Utility companies.
By Matthew Philips | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Aug 25, 2009
Not long ago, most homeowners saw their roofs as simply something to keep the rain out. Now they see them as a source of electricity. Despite the bad economy, or maybe because of it, the rooftop-solar industry is booming, as Americans become increasingly intrigued by the idea of turning their roofs into mini power plants and cutting their electric bills. In 2008, 33,500 rooftop solar systems were installed in the United States, a 63 percent increase over the amount of capacity installed in 2007. In California, the solar capital of country, the increase was 95 percent.
Meanwhile, the outlook for the other side of the solar industry—the large, centralized power plants—isn't so sunny. These megaprojects—think acres of desert landscape covered in thousands of solar panels sending electricity through transmission lines—controlled mostly by utility companies that have had a monopoly over the country's electricity grid since the turn of the last century, were supposed to be the key to the future of the solar industry. So far, they're getting vastly outpaced by the decentralized rooftop approach. According to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council's 2006-08 count, consumers added 522 megawatts to the grid; whereas utility generated sites added just 96 megawatts.
How Smart Are You?
Take NEWSWEEK's incredibly hard news quiz to find out.
The disparity has utilities worried about loosing their grip on the country's energy industry, and the $130 billion residential electricity market. In some cases, utilities are actually taking direct steps to thwart rooftop solar. Two weeks ago in Colorado, the state's biggest utility, Xcel, tried passing a surcharge on homes and businesses using rooftop solar power. The public went ballistic, and with pressure from Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, the proposal was eventually shelved. In early July, New Mexico's biggest utility, PNM, filed an official request to dramatically reduce incentives for businesses and homeowners to install solar panels, and is now fighting with state lawmakers over whether it has the right to exclusively own solar panels systems hooked up to its grid. During California's last legislative session, Southern California Edison, which serves 13 million residents, successfully lobbied against a bill that would have allowed the city of Palm Desert to pay solar users for the excess power they generate.
"There is across the board tension between distributed solar generation and utilities," says Adam Browning, executive director of The Vote Solar Initiative, a solar advocacy group in San Francisco. "They've had the energy pie to themselves for a century, and now facing a future where clean distributed energy will play a large part, they're looking for ways to profit from it and maintain control." Can we really blame them though? That's just capitalism right? "Part of having a monopoly is serving the public trust," says Browning. "People want solar panels on their roofs, so utilities should be working to make that happen rather than getting in the way."
It's not hard to understand why a big utility might not like the idea of homes, businesses, schools, and even government buildings being covered in solar panels. If every building in America is generating its own solar energy, that throws a big wrench into their business model. It's why utilities have historically been opposed to solar power, say solar's advocates. But as most states have passed renewable-energy standards recently, mandating that a certain percentage of their energy come from renewable sources, utilities have become reluctant players in the solar game because, frankly, they have no choice. Rather than get on board with rooftop solar, though, utilities decided to do what they do best: build a centralized system of large power plants, and make money by charging customers for taking power off the grid. While large-scale utility projects do hold the promise of generating massive amounts of electricity, so far they've delivered precious few new sources of electricity, as dozens of proposed projects are languishing in the application process. Building the thousands of miles of new transmission lines these projects require not only costs millions, it's fraught with red tape: zoning and permitting regulations, and issues like eminent domain, as lines are strung across both public and private property.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 called for the addition of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2015, much of which was thought to be provided by big solar plants. But four years in, things are barely off the ground. The two biggest solar projects in the U.S., which are both in the Nevada desert and came online in 2007, combine to produce just 78 megawatts, 14 of which are used solely to power Nellis Air Force Base. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says that by 2010, 13 utility projects will be under construction on public land in the Southwest, but that's still years away from generating electricity. California has the country's most aggressive renewable goal, mandating that 20 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by the end of 2010. Lawmakers are now pushing that to 33 percent by 2020. But at its current pace, it won't come close to being met. None of Southern California's four biggest utilities, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, Pacific Gas and Electric, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, are on target largely, critics say, because they're too focused on trying to make money off big centralized plants.
"The utilities are more interested in protecting their stranglehold on the power grid and preserving their century-old business model than they are producing clean electricity," says Jim Harvey, who heads up the Joshua Tree, Calif.-based Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy, an advocacy group that's staunchly opposed to utility-generated solar power. Harvey actually believes that the country's entire renewable portfolio can be achieved through rooftop solar alone. That may be possible from a sheer megawatts perspective, but from a practical standpoint, it's way over-ambitious. With no centralized source, how do you run traffic or street lights? What if it rains for a week? We still don't have foolproof means to store solar power, so for now, distributed generation needs the grid as a backup.
This isn't to take anything away from the private-sector solar boom. In 2008, rooftop solar added more than 10 times the amount of power to the country's grid than utilities did. Maryland-based Sun Edison, the country's biggest installer of solar panels in the retail market, added more electricity to the grid last year, 25 megawatts, than did the entire utility industry. San Francisco-based SunRun has come up with a way to let homeowners make a down payment, usually about $1,500, on what is typically a $30,000 solar-panel system, lock in a below-market fixed rate for their electricity, then use the savings to help pay off the cost of the system.
This is all possible thanks to state and federal government subsidies, and the declining cost of producing electricity from solar panels, down to $6 per watt from about $9 per watt in 2006. "We're buying panels at prices I didn't think we'd see for at least another decade," says John Berger, founder of Standard Renewable Energy, a Texas-based company that provides homeowners and businesses ways to reduce their energy costs, including on-site solar generation. Berger expects to have revenues of $50 million in 2009, this after doing $11 million in business last year, and only $1.5 million in 2007. He gets particularly agitated when talking about the utilities. "When solar came along, they thought they could ignore it. Then they thought they could just monopolize it. But the private sector is giving them competition, and now they're scared."
© 2009
How Smart Are You?
Take NEWSWEEK's incredibly hard news quiz to find out.
Quote
The disparity has utilities worried about loosing their grip on the country's energy industry, and the $130 billion residential electricity market.
Apparently the proofreading standards are a bit relaxed for the web exclusives.
Quote from: ulmont on August 26, 2009, 04:18:24 PM
Quote
The disparity has utilities worried about loosing their grip on the country's energy industry, and the $130 billion residential electricity market.
Apparently the proofreading standards are a bit relaxed for the web exclusives.
I can finally make it big! :w00t:
Screw them. Everyone knows that you don't tap the true potential of technology until it becomes personal. In the power generation world, we're still in the era equivalent to when computers took up entire warehouses and only huge companies and government agencies had them. Due to infrastructure needs, the progress for electricity has a much higher barrier to entry than for computers and so the process takes decades longer--but we'll get there.
Quote from: Jaron on August 26, 2009, 04:08:19 PM
How Smart Are You?
Take NEWSWEEK's incredibly hard news quiz to find out.
I am not very smart, am afraid.
Yeah, rooftop solar panels. When you live in a 70 floor building with 8 units on each floor, that idea sounds like a joke.
Honk kong sucks, dude.
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 10:50:53 PM
Honk kong sucks, dude.
One reason why we are an attractive place to live is that we are explicitly barred from military service in the PLA :contract:
Screw the utility companies.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:05:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 10:50:53 PM
Honk kong sucks, dude.
One reason why we are an attractive place to live is that we are explicitly barred from military service in the PLA :contract:
That's just because they don't want anyone with potential second-thoughts if they feel the need to Tiananmen you guys. ;)
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:05:13 PM
One reason why we are an attractive place to live is that we are explicitly barred from military service in the PLA :contract:
Why? Politically unreliable?
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 10:49:19 PM
Yeah, rooftop solar panels. When you live in a 70 floor building with 8 units on each floor, that idea sounds like a joke.
But back on the issue....
Of course this is not an idea for Hong Kong. But in Amerika, with a penchant for individual, suburban homes; it makes a lot more sense.
Hell, when I was in San Antonio, I figured that if they built every new home with solar panels, they could end up exporting electricity.
Well, until a hailstorm came in and wrecked i'em all.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2009, 11:14:49 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:05:13 PM
One reason why we are an attractive place to live is that we are explicitly barred from military service in the PLA :contract:
Why? Politically unreliable?
Nah. Before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, there was a great fear among the population that we could potentially be drafted into the army. Traditionally, army service is viewed very negatively in Chinese culture. The rule is an assurance from Beijing that "no, you won't be drafted."
And it is not like they have manpower shortages anyway. They don't even enforce conscription on the mainland because they have far more people than they need.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:05:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 26, 2009, 10:50:53 PM
Honk kong sucks, dude.
One reason why we are an attractive place to live is that we are explicitly barred from military service in the PLA :contract:
Remarkably, so is Missouri!
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 10:49:19 PM
Yeah, rooftop solar panels. When you live in a 70 floor building with 8 units on each floor, that idea sounds like a joke.
There are translucent solar panels that can be applied over windows as a tint, converting a percentage of the blocked light into electric energy. Not sure if they're on the market yet or if they're economically feasible, but iirc they convert up to 30% which is extremely efficient.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 26, 2009, 11:20:22 PM
Well, until a hailstorm came in and wrecked i'em all.
They are engineered to be able to resist most hail storms.
Generally the solar panels can resist anything that fails to completely destroy a roof. A tornado could be problematic.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:25:11 PM
Nah. Before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, there was a great fear among the population that we could potentially be drafted into the army. Traditionally, army service is viewed very negatively in Chinese culture. The rule is an assurance from Beijing that "no, you won't be drafted."
And it is not like they have manpower shortages anyway. They don't even enforce conscription on the mainland because they have far more people than they need.
Like you said, they don't have manpower shortage.
If they ever do have such shortage, they will draft you ;)
This is wacky, isn't it? The utility companies have problems, even with such a demand item as power generation. They apparently have so far failed with the 2005 energy act, though I can't see how they could have gotten very far in such a short time with that. Now yeah, they're scrambling a bit as business threatens to move away from them, somewhat anyway. I feel it's a great idea people are able to power their own homes and businesses. Solar, windmills, and whatever new comes along. And isn't that kind of change part of what we need?
I'm just thinking also, as to what might be in any new energy policies, or cap and trade bills, to help out the util corps who certainly are a big part in lobbying for change that suits them. I generally have little anger with the util companies. These corps will be a big part of the energy future, but they have such a stranglehold now, so much control, that maybe we need at least some change like in this article. Don't want to spite ourselves though, we need the utility companies and I don't think that will change for some decades. But people shouldn't get penalized for making other choices.
Utilities may be in a defensible position if solar panels are heavily subsidized by the government. Are they?
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 09:41:44 AM
Utilities may be in a defensible position if solar panels are heavily subsidized by the government. Are they?
So? Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the government.
I think there is a federal tax credit for solar panel installation IIRC.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 09:55:25 AM
So? Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the government.
I think there is a federal tax credit for solar panel installation IIRC.
The point is that subsidized competition is neither fair nor constructive.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 09:59:31 AM
The point is that subsidized competition is neither fair nor constructive.
So argueth the regulated monopolies. :lol:
I kinda like this solar ivy, although I don't know that I'd want it on my house.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savvyhousekeeping.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fsmitsolarivy-2.jpg&hash=f5e6653f6a6a8858f080d74305d6bc8dc14a88fb)
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 09:59:31 AM
The point is that subsidized competition is neither fair nor constructive.
I agree. In fact I think that without the subsized nature of oil and coal we would have naturally moved to alternative sources long ago. Pity we do not live in that world though.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 07:45:27 AM
Generally the solar panels can resist anything that fails to completely destroy a roof. A tornado could be problematic.
Are they dust & dirt resistant? One guy who put solar panels on his entire roof has to go up on the roof at least once a week with a hose to clean them off.
Someday we'll all have small power supplies to heat/cool our homes. For now, solar or wind are probably our main choices, so we have to settle for those and their limitations. But someday, we'll have fuel cells or something else. Why not battery power that gets recharged when needed, just like hybrid cars? Run the charging motor off of stored electricity, or from outside/utility lines. That's one idea. I should patent that, since they stole my hybrid car idea. <_<
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2009, 11:33:41 AM
Are they dust & dirt resistant? One guy who put solar panels on his entire roof has to go up on the roof at least once a week with a hose to clean them off.
Nope. If something covers them up they lose efficiency, but that is pretty logical.
When it snows you have to knock the snow off also.
Sure, be tied to your precious sun. When your sunny buddy quits on you the atom will still be here. Warming you and powering your appliances.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2009, 11:41:40 AM
Sure, be tied to your precious sun. When your sunny buddy quits on you the atom will still be here. Warming you and powering your appliances.
I am a big fan of the nuclear power. If France can do it anybody should be able to.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2009, 11:41:40 AM
Sure, be tied to your precious sun. When your sunny buddy quits on you the atom will still be here. Warming you and powering your appliances.
I am a big fan of the nuclear power. If France can do it anybody should be able to.
It is a government project only recently forced very slightly open by EU rules. Does America want Huge Government?
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2009, 11:50:16 AM
It is a government project only recently forced very slightly open by EU rules. Does America want Huge Government?
We have it so clearly we do.
Quote from: The Brain on August 27, 2009, 11:41:40 AM
Sure, be tied to your precious sun. When your sunny buddy quits on you the atom will still be here. Warming you and powering your appliances.
I'm all for nuclear power. But politically it's a very hard sell, for what ever reasons. Funny that many of the "greens" type people are adamantly opposed to nuclear power, including allowing the waste to be stored anywhere, while other nations can do it quite well.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 10:15:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 09:59:31 AM
The point is that subsidized competition is neither fair nor constructive.
I agree. In fact I think that without the subsized nature of oil and coal we would have naturally moved to alternative sources long ago. Pity we do not live in that world though.
Not really. Wind is still more expensive than fossil, and has technical problems that are far from being solved (although they can be minimized by throwing absurd amounts of money at it).
Solar on the other hand is simply ridiculously expensive.
Biofuel is stupid.
Hydro is only viable as a main source on places with low population and rugged terrain (Iceland, Norway ...).
Geothermal requires certain geologic conditions.
The only promising alternative source is Hot Dry Rock, and it is far from being viable. It might trigger seismic tremors as well.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Not really. Wind is still more expensive than fossil, and has technical problems that are far from being solved (although they can be minimized by throwing absurd amounts of money at it).
Solar on the other hand is simply ridiculously expensive.
Gosh really? I had no idea. I thought the technology was perfect and we were in the process of shifting to full solar and wind as we type.
By the way I do not find 10 cents per KW/H (and constantly coming down as mass production lowers costs) ridiculously expensive...but YMMV
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Hydro is only viable as a main source on places with low population and rugged terrain (Iceland, Norway ...).
:yeah:
Hydro is viable anywhere look at China.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Not really. Wind is still more expensive than fossil, and has technical problems that are far from being solved (although they can be minimized by throwing absurd amounts of money at it).
Solar on the other hand is simply ridiculously expensive.
Gosh really? I had no idea. I thought the technology was perfect and we were in the process of shifting to full solar and wind as we type.
It's not.
The 'alternatives will get better eventually' thing is a fine argument for research incentives.
It won't help executives put solar inefficient panels instead of a coal-powered turbine. Huge subsidies are needed for that.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:26:54 PM
The 'alternatives will get better eventually' thing is a fine argument for research incentives.
It won't help executives put solar inefficient panels instead of a coal-powered turbine. Huge subsidies are needed for that.
So why then do the governments of the world spend billions every year proping up the fucking fossil fuels? If they didn't then maybe the cost difference would not be so dramatic.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 01:27:34 PM
:unsure: Are you saying that the technology is indeed perfect?
I was being very very sarcastic.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 01:27:34 PM
:unsure: Are you saying that the technology is indeed perfect?
No, but he does think we should subsidize the shit out of unproven solar & wind power technology, while taxing the shit out of fossil fuels. All of which would do wonders for the economy :D
Personally, I think these alternative energy technologies will be ready for prime-time when the market says they're ready.
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2009, 01:32:35 PM
No, but he does think we should subsidize the shit out of unproven solar & wind power technology, while taxing the shit out of fossil fuels. All of which would do wonders for the economy :D
Personally, I think these alternative energy technologies will be ready for prime-time when the market says they're ready.
WTF? I actualy said just the opposite.
Um...I said we need to stop proping up the Fossil fuels and having them manage our energy policy for us. If we weren't fighting massive wars and running our foreign policy to secure FF supplies and so forth then maybe natural supply and demand would do the rest.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 01:33:35 PM
Um...I said we need to stop proping up the Fossil fuels and having them manage our energy policy for us. If we weren't fighting massive wars and running our foreign policy to secure FF supplies and so forth then maybe natural supply and demand would do the rest.
I was really going by what you said before. Now how do we subsidize fossil fuels?
What exactly are these "huge subsidies" towards fossil fuels?
:unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2009, 01:36:40 PM
I was really going by what you said before. Now how do we subsidize fossil fuels?
I do not know exactly (though I have some basic ideas) that is what the Economist said. But the foreign policy/military aspects are self evident. So long as we continue to believe fossil fuels are essential as water and have our government working to keep supplies coming in and costs low...well what chance does anything else have?
The only thing I have said before is so long as we are going to be subsidizing fossil fuels we might as well subsidize their alternatives as well just to be fair. I have always been against big subsidies for any energy beyond research money.
Speaking of solar panels, anybody know of a website that gives a vague idea of the cost without having to give out info so that a salesman will call repeatedly and bug the living shit out of me?
just curious.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 01:37:11 PM
What exactly are these "huge subsidies" towards fossil fuels?
:unsure:
From what I understand, favorable tax schemes and government money for exploration and exploitation of gas, coal, and oil sources and so forth.
Heck all around the world fossil fuels are a heavily government run monopoly.
But there is more to it than that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Speaking of solar panels, anybody know of a website that gives a vague idea of the cost without having to give out info so that a salesman will call repeatedly and bug the living shit out of me?
just curious.
Shouldn't be too hard. All you would need to do is figure out the total energy generated on average by a single solar module and then divide it by the amount you are paying and you can see how the cost per KW-H goes down per year. Um...let me see if I can find you something later this afternoon.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:26:54 PM
The 'alternatives will get better eventually' thing is a fine argument for research incentives.
It won't help executives put solar inefficient panels instead of a coal-powered turbine. Huge subsidies are needed for that.
So why then do the governments of the world spend billions every year proping up the fucking fossil fuels? If they didn't then maybe the cost difference would not be so dramatic.
Precisely because there are no viable alternatives, so we find essential to secure fossil supplies. You have to understand that alternative sources are not just a tad most expensive. We're talking two, five, ten times the cost.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 01:47:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Speaking of solar panels, anybody know of a website that gives a vague idea of the cost without having to give out info so that a salesman will call repeatedly and bug the living shit out of me?
just curious.
Shouldn't be too hard. All you would need to do is figure out the total energy generated on average by a single solar module and then divide it by the amount you are paying and you can see how the cost per KW-H goes down per year. Um...let me see if I can find you something later this afternoon.
thanks, but I was think more of the cost of panels and installation. Every frickin' website wants my personal info so they can bug me.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 27, 2009, 01:49:28 PM
Precisely because there are no viable alternatives, so we find essential to secure fossil supplies. You have to understand that alternative sources are not just a tad most expensive. We're talking two, five, ten times the cost.
I am well aware of the current situation. I am simply saying the main reason the fossil fuels are two, five, ten times cheaper is BECAUSE we work so hard to secure fossil fuel supplies and keep them coming. If we worked as hard to get other supplies they would be as cheap as well simply due to economies of scale if nothing else.
It is nonsense to claim that there is a free market in energy. The game is stacked against the competitors of fossil fuels.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:50:00 PM
thanks, but I was think more of the cost of panels and installation. Every frickin' website wants my personal info so they can bug me.
Hmmm...this is surprisingly difficult to find because the prices have fallen so much this year due to decreased demand due to the recession and increased production.
Rooftop panels FTW.
If only they weren't so darn expensive.
There's one bloke near where I love though who has made a wind turbine in his garden. It looks like one of those wild west windmill thingys.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2009, 01:37:11 PM
What exactly are these "huge subsidies" towards fossil fuels?
:unsure:
tax holidays. exploration grants. other policy tools.
of course, in Alberta they even "forget" to bill for royalties.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:50:00 PM
thanks, but I was think more of the cost of panels and installation. Every frickin' website wants my personal info so they can bug me.
Hmmm...this is surprisingly difficult to find because the prices have fallen so much this year due to decreased demand due to the recession and increased production.
Screw it, I'm buying a Hummer. :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 01:27:34 PM
:unsure: Are you saying that the technology is indeed perfect?
I was being very very sarcastic.
Oh, ok. I thought you really thought that the technology was perfect, and was not just fucking with you to alleviate my boredom.
Hey MB use this: http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?page=solar-calculator
All they need is your zip code no other info needed.
You have to scroll down a bit to get the actual money involved in $ per watt. So it looks like a 1000W system would cost $9,000. But it will vary a bit depending on who is installing it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:04:19 PM
Screw it, I'm buying a Hummer. :)
Good. Support the American Auto industry.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:50:00 PM
thanks, but I was think more of the cost of panels and installation. Every frickin' website wants my personal info so they can bug me.
Hmmm...this is surprisingly difficult to find because the prices have fallen so much this year due to decreased demand due to the recession and increased production.
Screw it, I'm buying a Hummer. :)
I'll be impressed if you buy a Hummer as the vehicle you tow behind your RV for long trips and vacations. :D
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:09:04 PM
Hey MB use this: http://www.solar-estimate.org/index.php?page=solar-calculator
All they need is your zip code no other info needed.
You have to scroll down a bit to get the actual money involved in $ per watt. So it looks like a 1000K system would cost $9,000. But it will vary a bit depending on who is installing it.
Dude, you rock.
QuoteAssumed Installation Gross Cost:
"Gross Cost" is the cost before any rebates, incentives, tax credits, etc. are applied. See the Cost Notes, below!
$134,370
ESTIMATED NET COST: $ 76,559
heh. pass.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 02:08:41 PM
Oh, ok. I thought you really thought that the technology was perfect, and was not just fucking with you to alleviate my boredom.
Sorry I have been rather short tempered on here for awhile. Maybe I need a Languish break again.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:13:14 PM
heh. pass.
Hehe it is a very upfront cost intensive investment.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:13:14 PM
heh. pass.
Hehe it is a very upfront cost intensive investment.
I thought there were more government incentives. ~ 50% ain't bad, but I ain't putting up 75K+ on that.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:15:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 02:08:41 PM
Oh, ok. I thought you really thought that the technology was perfect, and was not just fucking with you to alleviate my boredom.
Sorry I have been rather short tempered on here for awhile. Maybe I need a Languish break again.
Heh, I understood your earlier post, and the sarcasm you were saying. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:20:14 PM
I thought there were more government incentives. ~ 50% ain't bad, but I ain't putting up 75K+ on that.
You might try a smaller system that you can afford, try changing the percentage at the top.
50% is really good, Ohio must have a generous incentive system.
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:04:19 PM
Screw it, I'm buying a Hummer. :)
Good. Support the American Auto industry.
But Hummer was sold to China. :bleeding:
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:23:47 PM
But Hummer was sold to China. :bleeding:
Doh! Buy a huge Ford truck or something then MB.
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:23:47 PM
But Hummer was sold to China. :bleeding:
Excellent. Two birds with one stone.
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:23:47 PM
But Hummer was sold to China. :bleeding:
Siege needs to eat, too. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 27, 2009, 02:23:47 PM
But Hummer was sold to China. :bleeding:
Doh! Buy a huge Ford truck or something then MB.
I'm not buying a truck. It was a joke. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:27:07 PM
I'm not buying a truck. It was a joke. :P
I know I was playing along ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 02:13:14 PM
heh. pass.
Hehe it is a very upfront cost intensive investment.
How'd it go from $9,000 to $134,370? :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2009, 03:47:32 PM
How'd it go from $9,000 to $134,370? :yeahright:
Because of the amount of power he was wanting?
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2009, 03:47:32 PM
How'd it go from $9,000 to $134,370? :yeahright:
Because of the amount of power he was wanting?
He's building a death ray?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 27, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Speaking of solar panels, anybody know of a website that gives a vague idea of the cost without having to give out info so that a salesman will call repeatedly and bug the living shit out of me?
just curious.
Just go to IKEA & buy a shitload of those $20 solar-powered desk lamps and put the solar-cell battery thingies on your roof :D
Actually the lamp is pretty cool. I figure the one I use offsets the 3 PCs & Xbox I have running most of the day...
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2009, 04:19:04 PM
Just go to IKEA & buy a shitload of those $20 solar-powered desk lamps and put the solar-cell battery thingies on your roof :D
Actually the lamp is pretty cool. I figure the one I use offsets the 3 PCs & Xbox I have running most of the day...
Because the time one mosts need a desk lamp is when solar rays are streaming onto one's desk :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2009, 03:47:32 PM
How'd it go from $9,000 to $134,370? :yeahright:
$9000 per MW/Year; that's not very much energy relative to what a household would use so it ramps up a lot.
I looked at the site my own home; at today's energy prices the system would pay for itself in just 20 short years. :pinch:
Quote from: Warspite on August 27, 2009, 04:27:13 PM
Because the time one mosts need a desk lamp is when solar rays are streaming onto one's desk :huh:
I don't know about the IKEA one, but a lot of those sort of things store up energy during the day so that they can be used at night.
Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired. I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2009, 07:34:10 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 10:49:19 PM
Yeah, rooftop solar panels. When you live in a 70 floor building with 8 units on each floor, that idea sounds like a joke.
There are translucent solar panels that can be applied over windows as a tint, converting a percentage of the blocked light into electric energy. Not sure if they're on the market yet or if they're economically feasible, but iirc they convert up to 30% which is extremely efficient.
We are not allowed to do anything to our windows. Imagine a tower 70 floors high. If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2009, 08:24:12 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 26, 2009, 11:25:11 PM
Nah. Before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, there was a great fear among the population that we could potentially be drafted into the army. Traditionally, army service is viewed very negatively in Chinese culture. The rule is an assurance from Beijing that "no, you won't be drafted."
And it is not like they have manpower shortages anyway. They don't even enforce conscription on the mainland because they have far more people than they need.
Like you said, they don't have manpower shortage.
If they ever do have such shortage, they will draft you ;)
Nah, their manpower needs are rapidly decreasing, as they move from human wave doctrine to high tech doctrine. Plus, HK constitutes such a tiny portion of the nation's population that there is simply no need for our manpower.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 27, 2009, 07:16:34 PM
If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible.
As opposed to the marvel of architecture they look like now?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2009, 01:23:21 PM
Hydro is viable anywhere look at China.
Not everyone can tap the blood-flow of their sweat shop laborers.
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2009, 09:55:25 AM
So? Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the government.
I think there is a federal tax credit for solar panel installation IIRC.
The point is that subsidized competition is neither fair nor constructive.
We're not in the business of being fair.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 27, 2009, 07:16:34 PM
If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible.
:lol:
That's rich
Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2009, 07:24:06 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on August 27, 2009, 07:16:34 PM
If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible.
As opposed to the marvel of architecture they look like now?
Oh you have to see it to believe it. Imagine 10 such buildings, all look exactly the same, lined-up side-by-side facing the same direction with no space between them. It really does look quite imposing.
Like this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_West_Kowloon_Giants.JPG
Each unit costs like US$5 mil each, or more :mmm:
Quote from: Monoriu on August 27, 2009, 08:30:13 PM
Oh you have to see it to believe it. Imagine 10 such buildings, all look exactly the same, lined-up side-by-side facing the same direction with no space between them. It really does look quite imposing.
A pack of bull dykes looks imposing as well. Aesthetically pleasing? Not so much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired. I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.
They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years.
Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.
Quote from: Warspite on August 27, 2009, 04:27:13 PM
Because the time one mosts need a desk lamp is when solar rays are streaming onto one's desk :huh:
Um it has a battery dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired. I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.
Well you would be wrong. They are subsidized to the tune of billions every year.
Edit: What Joan said.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2009, 04:37:26 PM
I don't know about the IKEA one, but a lot of those sort of things store up energy during the day so that they can be used at night.
Yeah-- the solar cell/battery pack module can also be popped out so you can place it near a window to recharge.
Plus, for each one you buy, IKEA donates one to UNICEF to give to some poor kid :goodboy:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 10:31:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 27, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired. I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.
They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years.
Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.
$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.
In terms of the "subsidies" for oil, the supporters of the heavy subsidy argument tend to go into one of two directions when pressed for details: 1) taxation, and 2) military/foreign policy.
To address point 1), the taxation of oil companies is very complex, but suffice it to say that they pay significant taxes. I am guessing now, but probably safely, that Exxon has paid more taxes than any other entity in US history. The effective tax rates of oil companies tends to be in line or higher than other corporations, and certainly far less than pharmaceutical companies or some finance related entities.
Point 2) is in my view unfair. Afghanistan and Iraq were not major sources of oil before the invasion, and are not now. The middle east isn't responsible for all of our military spending, and even then isn't the major source of our problems there (Israel/Palestine, Iran's nuclear ambitions, terrorism). You could argue that the oil revenue creates wealth in the Middle East fueling the problems we deal with, but it isn't obvious to me that a dirt poor middle east would suddenly make the region placid.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.
What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period. Solar doesn't get anything near that.
If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree. But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.
What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period. Solar doesn't get anything near that.
If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree. But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.
Because there seems to be an undercurrent in Valmy's threads on this (not just in this topic) that fossil fuels are the predominant energy source because of subsidies. I hate that line of argument because it is essentially denying the fundamental reason we use fossil fuels--that we have ready made and abundant energy sources buried under our feet that are very economical to obtain.
At the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.
What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period. Solar doesn't get anything near that.
If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree. But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.
Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless? What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2009, 02:10:02 PM
Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless? What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.
Hilarious that suddenly the dude whining about how unfair it is some energy sources get public funding goes into full retreat once it touches his precious fossil fuels.
You can dislike new energy sources all you want but don't bitch to me about fairness. Fossil Fuels are massively subsidized world wide.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2009, 01:11:06 PM
Because there seems to be an undercurrent in Valmy's threads on this (not just in this topic) that fossil fuels are the predominant energy source because of subsidies. I hate that line of argument because it is essentially denying the fundamental reason we use fossil fuels--that we have ready made and abundant energy sources buried under our feet that are very economical to obtain.
But it is not sustainable. There are plenty of arguements about finding and developing new energy sources. Oh but no we cannot put any money there because it would be unfair and the free market should decide. But guess what? The market isn't free. That is an entirely pro-fossil fuels arguement and not balanced at all.
Besides if they are so freaking economical to obtain then why do they require hundreds of billions worldwide to keep the prices down? Why do we keep going to war to secure their supply?
I am sorry you hate the arguement, but it is a completely valid one and I stand by it.
QuoteAt the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.
Wow talk about moving the goal posts.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 02:19:00 PM
But it is not sustainable. There are plenty of arguements about finding and developing new energy sources. Oh but no we cannot put any money there because it would be unfair and the free market should decide. But guess what? The market isn't free. That is an entirely pro-fossil fuels arguement and not balanced at all.
Besides if they are so freaking economical to obtain then why do they require hundreds of billions worldwide to keep the prices down? Why do we keep going to war to secure their supply?
I am sorry you hate the arguement, but it is a completely valid one and I stand by it.
Fossil fuels are not sustainable. All indications are that they are badly damaging the environment. On those points I agree with you.
On the issue of the economics of the immediate present, I can't disagree more. Which is important because the problem of addressing the first few points is hopelessly compounded by the groups putting out your arguments.
Do you agree that the some of the largest taxpayers on the planet are oil companies?
Have you read oil company financials? If so, have you seen the billions of dollars of subsidies on the financials? (I've read them and never seen those line items)
What wars have we gone to in order to secure the supply of oil? (I'll maybe give you Gulf War 1, although we have gone to war in the past to prevent countries from conquering others through naked aggression. We've twice gone to war to protect France, but I don't hear much complaining about the French wine subsidy) How much do you put the expense at?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2009, 02:12:20 PM
Hilarious that suddenly the dude whining about how unfair it is some energy sources get public funding goes into full retreat once it touches his precious fossil fuels.
You can dislike new energy sources all you want but don't bitch to me about fairness. Fossil Fuels are massively subsidized world wide.
What? :huh:
The biggest subsidy coal receives is in the form of Medicare and other health expenses. Without that it might actually be true what Valmy says.
As it is, subsidies per kWh are not even close. Not to mention alternative sources cannot be relied upon to supply energy whenever you need it. We burn coal and gas, we split atoms, because there is no just viable alternative.
We just don't have any energy source yet that compares to fossil fuels. It's more portable than electricity( and more reliable than wind, solar etc), more efficient than ethanol, cheaper and easier to produce than any other liquid fuel out there, more plentiful than hydro(estimated reserves of coal in the US will last us more than 200 years at current consumption). These are the kinds of reasons we still use it, not because of subsidies.
On the flip side, it does have a detrimental effect on the environment, and the supply is finite, even if we don't agree where that point is. If we wait to find another source until we need it, it will be too late. Better for us it becomes uneconomical due to obsolescence than from scarcity.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2009, 02:10:02 PM
Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless? What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.
It is very relevant because it goes directly to the fundamental question about what the government's priorities are as opposed to what they should be.
We are already in agreement that there the energy markets are nothing resembling laissez faire, so the question is - if the government is going to spend $3 billion in taxpayer money how should it be spent? And it is very hard to see the argument that it should go to coal instead on something else that generates fewer environmental externalities.
I don't see how subsidy/MW is relevant to the question.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 28, 2009, 01:11:06 PM
At the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.
That may be true but it has nothing to do with the relative size of $3 billion in funding relative to the overall size of the economy. The question is whether X amount of funding could result in sufficient progress with respect to say solar to transform it into a more efficient and workable alternative. It may be that no amount of money can do that or it could be (in theory) possible that only a few tens of millions might do it. If the latter were true than it would indeed be the case that only a few millions would be enough to transform the entire economy.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 28, 2009, 02:43:15 PM
The biggest subsidy coal receives is in the form of Medicare and other health expenses. Without that it might actually be true what Valmy says.
As it is, subsidies per kWh are not even close. Not to mention alternative sources cannot be relied upon to supply energy whenever you need it. We burn coal and gas, we split atoms, because there is no just viable alternative.
Funny thing about coal is that it contributes more to our intake of radiation than nuclear power.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 03:26:29 PM
It is very relevant because it goes directly to the fundamental question about what the government's priorities are as opposed to what they should be.
We are already in agreement that there the energy markets are nothing resembling laissez faire, so the question is - if the government is going to spend $3 billion in taxpayer money how should it be spent? And it is very hard to see the argument that it should go to coal instead on something else that generates fewer environmental externalities.
I don't see how subsidy/MW is relevant to the question.
To me it seems very relevant. The bottom line goal is about producing energy for the cheapest price per unit (ideally factoring in the externalities, of course). That's how competitiveness of various forms of energy is ultimately judged, and that's the criteria upon which rational decisions are made by individuals. To judge how subsidies skew that decision, we need to look at subsidies per energy unit.
How the $3 billion should be allocated, assuming it's a fixed numbers doled out between various forms of energy, is an entirely different question, and of little relevance to this discussion.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2009, 03:42:00 PM
The bottom line goal is about producing energy for the cheapest price per unit (ideally factoring in the externalities, of course).
not necessarily there are other considerations such as sustainability. Of course if you define externality broad enough you can sweep everything in, but then again no one has provided any cost/MW calculations that sweep in such externalities so it is a moot point.
Of all the things we are spending on right now, $3 billion for solar may be stupid, but hardly the most outrageous. The same goes for coal. I really don't care; the money is pissed away anyhow.
I was recently at a paper mill where the company is getting tens of millions in tax refunds for using an alternative fuel mixer credit stuffed into a highway bill for something that was already standard practice in the industry. The credit expires this year (I think it was just recently enacted). No positive benefit whatsoever, but billions gone for the taxpayer. Hooray for Congress.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 28, 2009, 10:31:35 AM
They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years.
Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.
Liquified coal doesn't compete with renewable energies in electricity generation I assume. And clean coal doesn't lower the cost of coal-generated electricity vs. renewable. It subsidizes a reduction in the pollution externality.