Thanks Skipjack, great post. It is good to hear from someone who has had practical experience doing it. And thanks for the references...I really am thinking of doing it myself in two-three years, when I will be replacing my roof.
I do think, though, that solar will make a difference if some big companies go for it in large way. Their peak use of electricity is a real burden on the grid and if these companies had alternative sources (or were even selling to the grid) this burden would not be there. The real question of electricity generation is this peak usage, as the capicity of the system has to be geared to the peak, even if most of the rest of the time the full capacity is not used. In essence, there are entire generating stations that would not be necessary except to service peak demand (although, in pracice, none of them actually are shut-off after peak periods).
I agree, however, that individual households are not likely to adopt solar in large numbers anytime soon. I do hope that increases in efficiency of the solar cells will make a difference to make it palatable even to households. The price of individual cells may not go down, but if the cells become more efficient, the 'effective' price will go down. Prototype cells, I have read, are now getting double the efficiency of the cells that are currently on the market.
Trash can become a huge problem in Urban America. What about the processing of waste in buildings to extract methane and use that to power a large fuel cell to augment the buildings energy requirements. Coupled with solar panels they may reduce energy requirement dramatically. I wonder how much methane can be produced from the daily waste of a 200 apartment building and how much electricity it can produce through fuel cell(s)?
I really am thinking of doing it myself in two-three years, when I will be replacing my roof.
Hopefully, you will be as lucky as I was. At the time the system was installed, it was the last year of the California rebate, which reimbursed me for 35-40% of my cost.
The utilities have, in the past, been supportive. They continue to buy power, which they are not obligated to do. Some have had their own rebate programs, and some cities and counties used to have their own programs. Perhaps when the economy recovers, California will continue funding the rebate program. (I haven't checked lately, but the last program was approved but not funded.)
As attractive as photovoltaics sound, I have heard that a just as effective and lower cost solar utilization is for hot water. If I had my own home, that is the first thing I would install. I have not looked into that as extensively as photovoltaics and the only souce I can recommend for information is the Real Goods site, but as I said, they are probably one of the more expensive suppliers.
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
I agree for the most part.
I believe that the intention behind the rebates (which much more than a tax rebate: part was a payback and on top of that a state tax deduction for the cost of the system) was to encourage the use of solar to the point that the prices would come down to a point where government incentives were no longer necessary. From what I have seen, this has been a failure because few people are willing to put up the initial investment.
Thinking long term, the solar installations would pay for themselves in about 20 years. The government incentives cut that down to the 10 to 20 year range.
I believe that a second intention was to invest in the infrastructure. Certainly having a distributed power generation system would help to lessen demands during the peak daylight hours. Encouraging people to install solar would reduce the necessity to build new plants, with all the permits, studies, legal fees, and environmental impact reports involved. If some of the administrative costs were dedicated to incentives, there might be a net savings. This solution is environmentally palatable and requires no additional land.
On the other hand, some people took this to the extreme and encourage independence from the grid. This defeats the second reason I mentioned. Apparently this was so serious that there was legislation proposed to charge people who divorced themselves from the grid for reimbursement for the infrastructure which had been invested (i.e., running power lines). As might be expected, this brought protests from people who did not understand why the government or utility would want to charge for gaining independence from the grid. (This charge would not apply to houses initially build as independent from the grid.)
Apparently, just as California's failed effort to encourage completely electric (not hybrid) cars, the technology is just not far advanced enough to make photovoltaics feasible for widespread use.
(Note: in any case, even with widespread use, photovoltaics would be able to supply less than 20% of the total electrical demand.)
You mean like farming? Or should we stop subsidizing gas with wars in the Middle East?
Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.
Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.
No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)
Unfortunately, the design of the internal combustion engine is rather inefficient in that not all the energy that exists in gasoline is used, so an inert fillers would really affect the power output and the way a car drives. Ever had a a batch of bad gas after a fill-up? Which may not be a bad idea. How many times do you see people jack-rabbit from a stop light?
All in all, the best solution to have them sell less gasoline with solutions that already exist. A natural gas dual fuel conversion is proven technology which doesn't compromise anything in the potential conversion market 99% of the cars running out there on gasoline . They even make applicances that allow you to fill your tank at home (if you have NG heating your house) overnight at low pressure.
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.
In any case, although the solar electric technology still needs to be advanced, some big companies are investing in it now to supplement their own economic needs. And they are investing in it because it is starting to make economic sense.
I agree that solar will never supply all of our energy needs, but it will supply enough to make a big difference, especially when combined with other new sources.
The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.
Nice idea, but the general population is usually set in their ways when it comes to supply. It's kind of like the buy-Microsoft mindset, although this is changing, and we can only hope the consumer will go out and investigate alternatives. There are so many practical alternatives, but most people just don't have the desire to do so.
On a brief tangent, how's this for a govt subsidy? Halogen bulbs can use up to two-thirds less electricity that standard incandescent bulbs and provide the same amount of light. What if a govt decided to somehow make it "free" for you to replace the bulbs in your home or office. A study was done for the Province of Ontario (not by the govt, but some enviro group) that estimated over 500 megawatts would be saved in a year if a vast majority participated in such a scheme. I read about this a month or so before the blackout.
Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.
This sounds to me like farming can't pay for itself. If not can't, doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.
In this case it doesn't have to be the sole or even main reason we went in, just one of several motivating factors. And I believe even you would have to be honest enough to admit that.
Food is subsidized because it is a base requirement to live, and for national security reasons.
Neither apply to solar power per se, but you could try to make a run with the security argument.
I disagree. Energy is essentially a base requirement to live in this country. Homes need heat in winter. Trucks need fuel to bring you the food. Farmers need energy to produce enough food for the rest of us. On and on and on....
First, I'm not arguing we raise the price of food. I'm arguing we lower the costs* of energy through subsidies like we lower the cost of food.
same with solar vs. oil energy. one is just much cheaper for the exact same product.
Oil energy is not the same as solar energy. That's the point.
It's more like comparing vegetables to twinkies. Twinkies are cheap and can get you through the day. Vegetables are expensive but a hell of a lot better for you.
If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.
If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.
THAT would actually be an argument worth seeing. The problem is that too many people go about trying to promote "Green" energy the wrong way. Yah, it will save the Earth, make you happy etc. What you really need though is to show how green energy is cheaper per KW/h than oil/coal/nuclear energy.
Now, top that argument off with some good old fashioned security based argument and then the solar/wind etc. energy idea would get more traction.
Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.
Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.
Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.
Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.
But as soon as you do this the cost of manufacturing will sky rocket, and lots of people will lose their jobs. Unless you could directly tie the health costs etc. to oil, you have a hard time proving that oil is more expensive than green energy.
Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.
Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.
So now we can see real motivations that are contradictory to improving the energy sources for this country. It's not healthy.
Start increasing taxes on oil for one area at a time. First for lung cancer. Then something else like I don't know what else it causes. Eventually the slow increase will turn heads.
Comments
I do think, though, that solar will make a difference if some big companies go for it in large way. Their peak use of electricity is a real burden on the grid and if these companies had alternative sources (or were even selling to the grid) this burden would not be there. The real question of electricity generation is this peak usage, as the capicity of the system has to be geared to the peak, even if most of the rest of the time the full capacity is not used. In essence, there are entire generating stations that would not be necessary except to service peak demand (although, in pracice, none of them actually are shut-off after peak periods).
I agree, however, that individual households are not likely to adopt solar in large numbers anytime soon. I do hope that increases in efficiency of the solar cells will make a difference to make it palatable even to households. The price of individual cells may not go down, but if the cells become more efficient, the 'effective' price will go down. Prototype cells, I have read, are now getting double the efficiency of the cells that are currently on the market.
Originally posted by Chinney
I really am thinking of doing it myself in two-three years, when I will be replacing my roof.
Hopefully, you will be as lucky as I was. At the time the system was installed, it was the last year of the California rebate, which reimbursed me for 35-40% of my cost.
The utilities have, in the past, been supportive. They continue to buy power, which they are not obligated to do. Some have had their own rebate programs, and some cities and counties used to have their own programs. Perhaps when the economy recovers, California will continue funding the rebate program. (I haven't checked lately, but the last program was approved but not funded.)
As attractive as photovoltaics sound, I have heard that a just as effective and lower cost solar utilization is for hot water. If I had my own home, that is the first thing I would install. I have not looked into that as extensively as photovoltaics and the only souce I can recommend for information is the Real Goods site, but as I said, they are probably one of the more expensive suppliers.
Originally posted by Scott
And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
You mean like farming? Or should we stop subsidizing gas with wars in the Middle East?
Originally posted by Scott
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
I agree for the most part.
I believe that the intention behind the rebates (which much more than a tax rebate: part was a payback and on top of that a state tax deduction for the cost of the system) was to encourage the use of solar to the point that the prices would come down to a point where government incentives were no longer necessary. From what I have seen, this has been a failure because few people are willing to put up the initial investment.
Thinking long term, the solar installations would pay for themselves in about 20 years. The government incentives cut that down to the 10 to 20 year range.
I believe that a second intention was to invest in the infrastructure. Certainly having a distributed power generation system would help to lessen demands during the peak daylight hours. Encouraging people to install solar would reduce the necessity to build new plants, with all the permits, studies, legal fees, and environmental impact reports involved. If some of the administrative costs were dedicated to incentives, there might be a net savings. This solution is environmentally palatable and requires no additional land.
On the other hand, some people took this to the extreme and encourage independence from the grid. This defeats the second reason I mentioned. Apparently this was so serious that there was legislation proposed to charge people who divorced themselves from the grid for reimbursement for the infrastructure which had been invested (i.e., running power lines). As might be expected, this brought protests from people who did not understand why the government or utility would want to charge for gaining independence from the grid. (This charge would not apply to houses initially build as independent from the grid.)
Apparently, just as California's failed effort to encourage completely electric (not hybrid) cars, the technology is just not far advanced enough to make photovoltaics feasible for widespread use.
(Note: in any case, even with widespread use, photovoltaics would be able to supply less than 20% of the total electrical demand.)
Originally posted by bunge
You mean like farming? Or should we stop subsidizing gas with wars in the Middle East?
Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.
Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.
Originally posted by Randycat99
No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)
Unfortunately, the design of the internal combustion engine is rather inefficient in that not all the energy that exists in gasoline is used, so an inert fillers would really affect the power output and the way a car drives. Ever had a a batch of bad gas after a fill-up? Which may not be a bad idea. How many times do you see people jack-rabbit from a stop light?
All in all, the best solution to have them sell less gasoline with solutions that already exist. A natural gas dual fuel conversion is proven technology which doesn't compromise anything in the potential conversion market 99% of the cars running out there on gasoline . They even make applicances that allow you to fill your tank at home (if you have NG heating your house) overnight at low pressure.
Originally posted by Scott
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.
The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.
In any case, although the solar electric technology still needs to be advanced, some big companies are investing in it now to supplement their own economic needs. And they are investing in it because it is starting to make economic sense.
I agree that solar will never supply all of our energy needs, but it will supply enough to make a big difference, especially when combined with other new sources.
Originally posted by Chinney
The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.
Nice idea, but the general population is usually set in their ways when it comes to supply. It's kind of like the buy-Microsoft mindset, although this is changing, and we can only hope the consumer will go out and investigate alternatives. There are so many practical alternatives, but most people just don't have the desire to do so.
On a brief tangent, how's this for a govt subsidy? Halogen bulbs can use up to two-thirds less electricity that standard incandescent bulbs and provide the same amount of light. What if a govt decided to somehow make it "free" for you to replace the bulbs in your home or office. A study was done for the Province of Ontario (not by the govt, but some enviro group) that estimated over 500 megawatts would be saved in a year if a vast majority participated in such a scheme. I read about this a month or so before the blackout.
Originally posted by Scott
Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.
This sounds to me like farming can't pay for itself. If not can't, doesn't.
Originally posted by Scott
Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.
In this case it doesn't have to be the sole or even main reason we went in, just one of several motivating factors. And I believe even you would have to be honest enough to admit that.
So, the war did subsidize oil to an extent.
This sounds to me like farming can't pay for itself. If not can't, doesn't.
You want to be the one to suggest that we charge more for food? I'm sure all the poor people will really appreciate that.
Food is subsidized because it is a base requirement to live, and for national security reasons.
Neither apply to solar power per se, but you could try to make a run with the security argument.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Food is subsidized because it is a base requirement to live, and for national security reasons.
Neither apply to solar power per se, but you could try to make a run with the security argument.
I disagree. Energy is essentially a base requirement to live in this country. Homes need heat in winter. Trucks need fuel to bring you the food. Farmers need energy to produce enough food for the rest of us. On and on and on....
First, I'm not arguing we raise the price of food. I'm arguing we lower the costs* of energy through subsidies like we lower the cost of food.
*costs refers to price and efficiency of energy.
sure, you'd get food from it, but it would be a much more expensive way to get the same amount of food than say growing in Florida.
same with solar vs. oil energy. one is just much cheaper for the exact same product.
Originally posted by Longhorn
same with solar vs. oil energy. one is just much cheaper for the exact same product.
Oil energy is not the same as solar energy. That's the point.
It's more like comparing vegetables to twinkies. Twinkies are cheap and can get you through the day. Vegetables are expensive but a hell of a lot better for you.
If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.
If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.
THAT would actually be an argument worth seeing. The problem is that too many people go about trying to promote "Green" energy the wrong way. Yah, it will save the Earth, make you happy etc. What you really need though is to show how green energy is cheaper per KW/h than oil/coal/nuclear energy.
Now, top that argument off with some good old fashioned security based argument and then the solar/wind etc. energy idea would get more traction.
Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.
Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.
Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.
But as soon as you do this the cost of manufacturing will sky rocket, and lots of people will lose their jobs. Unless you could directly tie the health costs etc. to oil, you have a hard time proving that oil is more expensive than green energy.
Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.
Originally posted by Longhorn
the cost of manufacturing will sky rocket, and lots of people will lose their jobs.
Isn't everything already made in the Far East or Mexico?
Seriously, how much manfacturing uses oil and gasoline?
Originally posted by Longhorn
Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.
So now we can see real motivations that are contradictory to improving the energy sources for this country. It's not healthy.
Start increasing taxes on oil for one area at a time. First for lung cancer. Then something else like I don't know what else it causes. Eventually the slow increase will turn heads.