[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

1) I don't live in the US.

Sorry - I assumed you did. Regardless, the situation is pretty much the same almost everywhere, to varying degrees.

Originally Posted by Eug 

2) There are lots of subsidies for solar in the US. You can get as much as $20000 off an installation in the US... which would mean it would cost $80000 instead of $100000.

That's true in some places, although the subsidy for carbon fuels is much higher. I'm not sure the subsisdy for solar is as high as you think it is - where did you get the idea that a domestic solar system could cost 100,000?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Furthermore, you can get paid by the state electricity provider if your solar power generates net power for them.

Net metering is good, for sure, but it's not a subsidy - you're selling power.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Subsidies for solar abound, especially if you live in specific areas. However, solar still costs an arm and a leg for startup costs. I don't care so much about coulda woulda shoulda when it comes to my personal expenses and my house.

Subsidies for solar, are, as you point out, hit or miss - you have to live in certain areas. The costs are front loaded, whereas with carbon they are subsidized, socialized and delayed.

Originally Posted by Eug 

The bottom line is when someone says I should invest in solar or something for my home to help the environment, I have to wonder if they have any concept of the real world practicality.

Well, I agree with you that under the current subsidy regime it's difficult for individuals to make it make financial sense, but when you talk about 'real world practicality', I don't think you understand how much the public purse is dealing with the problems of carbon based fuel without passing those costs on to users.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's true in some places, although the subsidy for carbon fuels is much higher. I'm not sure the subsisdy for solar is as high as you think it is - where did you get the idea that a domestic solar system could cost 100,000?

Those are real-world estimates for large homes, assuming you actually want to deal with near-peak power usage in your home with solar.

Estimates for say $25000-40000 solar setups are either for much smaller (and brand new very energy efficient) homes or for only partial coverage of power usage in a more usual home.

Quite frankly, I'd be better off ripping out my drywall and redoing all the insulation.

Net metering is good, for sure, but it's not a subsidy - you're selling power.

Actually, it indeed may be subsidized (depending upon what you mean by the term). The sold power is often at full residential rates, not at much lower bulk rates. Basically they're doing you a favour... because you're doing them a favour.

Well, I agree with you that under the current subsidy regime it's difficult for individuals to make it make financial sense, but when you talk about 'real world practicality', I don't think you understand how much the public purse is dealing with the problems of carbon based fuel without passing those costs on to users.

I pay my taxes, don't you?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Those are real-world estimates for large homes, assuming you actually want to deal with near-peak power usage in your home with solar.
Estimates for say $40000 solar setups are either for much smaller homes or for only partial coverage of power usage in that home.

I've never seen cost estimates that high for regular homes, but regardless, it's rare to install solar systems that produce near peak power. If you want to hit to cost sweet point, you rarely want to be producing more than you use yourself - producing close to peak usage would definitely put you in that category.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, it indeed may be subsidized (depending upon what you mean by the term). The sold power is often at full residential rates, not at much lower bulk rates. Basically they're doing you a favour... because you're doing them a favour.

It's a sale, so I'm pretty sure it's not getting any government subsidy, which is what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I pay my taxes, don't you?

Indeed I pay taxes, but have a hard time thinking that using public resources to subsidize pretty much the worst possible power sources (coal etc) is a good use of my taxes. Of course, in addition to this, much of the cost isn't even being dealt with, and will be left for future generations.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I've never seen cost estimates that high for regular homes

Then it seems to me you haven't looked far enough into it.

To put it another way, my subwoofer alone can use 1000 Watts, so I just have to laugh when some of the solar PR stuff suggests that 2000 Watts of solar power generation is enough for a home.

It seems to me a reasonable rule of thumb is that it's around $8-10 per Watt, so that's about $20000 for 2000 Watts. If you go for more Watts it gets cheaper, so say $80000 for 10000 Watts.

Or are you assuming that you're going to heat the home with natural gas or something? I live in Canada. It gets cold here in the winter. And what about my hot water?

but regardless, it's rare to install solar systems that produce near peak power. If you want to hit to cost sweet point, you rarely want to be producing more than you use yourself - producing close to peak usage would definitely put you in that category.

I agree, it's rare to do that, but that's because it costs far too much money, since solar is so expensive.

Like I said, I'd do if it cost me $10000. But I ain't going to do it if it costs me $60000 or $40000 or even $25000.

It would take me what, 25 years to recoup my investment? I don't know if I'll even be living there by then.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

What nonsense. I'm talking about things that many or most people can do...

Then you should phrase it that way. Say what you mean, don't try to blow it up into "we as a society." When you do that, you're the one responsible for the humorous predictability of the discussion. You're the one who started the over-generalizations.

More on topic, instead of saying "our society should make more affordable solar panels," why don't you say "I'm going to make more affordable solar panels"? In other words, why put the burden of responsibility on everyone else? It's hard, that's why. Your rhetoric makes it sound like a no-brainer. But it's a, um, brainer.

[olePigeon]

Traditional solar is cost prohibitive. People who don't make a lot of money looking to save money aren't going to be buying solar.

There are a lot of promising cheaper solar technologies on the horizon.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

To put it another way, my subwoofer alone can use 1000 Watts, so I just have to laugh when some of the solar PR stuff suggests that 2000 Watts of solar power generation is enough for a home.

The way you phrase that makes me think you are a little confused. Are you mixing up sound output measures with power consumption? What sub-woofer do you have? Regardless, I think what you've probably seen is the claim that for an average home 2000 is the typical low end load?

Originally Posted by Eug 

It seems to me a reasonable rule of thumb is that it's around $8-10 per Watt, so that's about $20000 for 2000 Watts. If you go for more Watts it gets cheaper, so say $80000 for 10000 Watts.

Where are you getting those figures? They seem awfully high.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or are you assuming that you're going to heat the home with natural gas or something? I live in Canada. It gets cold here in the winter.

Am I understanding you right that you are trying to heat your house in Canada with a solar electric system?

Originally Posted by Eug 

I agree, it's rare to do that, but that's because it costs far too much money, since solar is so expensive.

By 'so expensive', you mean relative to subsidized fossil fuels. All fuel is expensive, one way or another. We've decided as a society to subsidize the worst of them. We need to stop doing that.

Originally Posted by Eug 

It would take me what, 25 years to recoup my investment? I don't know if I'll even be living there by then.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures or exactly what they include, so I'm not sure. 25 years sounds high, but then, I just invested in a roof that will pay back over that kind of time frame - it's not unusual to do that - if you move, you just roll it into the sale price of the house.

[Eug]

5000 watts - Electric oven
5000 watts - Clothes dryer (electric)
3800 watts - Water heater (electric)
3500 watts - Central Air Conditioner (2.5 tons)
1500 watts - Microwave oven
1500 watts - Toaster (four-slot)
900 watts - Coffee maker
800 watts - Range burner
500-1440 watts - Window unit air conditioner
200-700 watts - Refrigerator

Note that for the above, electric heaters are not even listed.

Originally Posted by peeb 

The way you phrase that makes me think you are a little confused. Are you mixing up sound output measures with power consumption? What sub-woofer do you have? Regardless....

My sub at max requires a circuit capable of 10A (120V). It probably draws closer to 7-8 Amps at peak, but you get the picture. It's an SVS PB-13 Ultra. I'm not sure what sound output measures I'd get confused with.

Am I understanding you right that you are trying to heat your house in Canada with a solar electric system?

No, cuz it's too expensive.

One could go with alternative solar heating methods... if you ripped out all the walls and started over.

By 'so expensive', you mean relative to subsidized fossil fuels. All fuel is expensive, one way or another. We've decided as a society to subsidize the worst of them. We need to stop doing that.

Fine, go right ahead. Maybe in 20 years I'll follow suit.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures or exactly what they include, so I'm not sure. 25 years sounds high, but then, I just invested in a roof that will pay back over that kind of time frame - it's not unusual to do that - if you move, you just roll it into the sale price of the house.

Solar panels on the roof aren't going to get you a $40000 premium on the house.

Where are you getting those figures? They seem awfully high.

Google is your friend.

It's around $8-10 per Watt for US residential installations. It's lower if you go for higher wattage, which is why it sometimes makes more sense for large commercial buildings.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

3800 watts - Water heater (electric)

Well, this one popped out as highlighting that you need to do a bit more research - you definitely should not consider running an electric water heater on solar electric - solar water heating will be much more cost effective. Water heating is the second largest energy cost in most homes, so that's usually the most cost effective point. Solar water heaters are also much cheaper than photo panels.

The bigger issue here though is that you are saying you need this level of power consumption, and that you also want a socialized system where other people under right the cost for you, it's the second part I take issue with.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.

I swore I was going to stay away, but this right there requires the Chris V Seal of Approval.™



We could drill every drop of oil in all 50 states, and it'd make about not one iota of difference with the long-term problem. The short-term problem is that we're experiencing a speculation bubble on the price of oil. The short-termers are speculating on it becoming a long-term problem, which it might. The Saudis are declining to pump more oil, perhaps because they can't. Russia is bellicose and corrupt, and the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge has about enough oil to fuel America's fleet of Hummers and Suburbans for about 3 hours, at highway speeds.

Expediency requires that no one suffer any pain that might be inflicted by an actual long-term solution, unfortunately. We're left with nothing but a surfeit of stupid.

[peeb]

Well said Chris.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, this one popped out as highlighting that you need to do a bit more research - you definitely should not consider running an electric water heater on solar electric - solar water heating will be much more cost effective. Water heating is the second largest energy cost in most homes, so that's usually the most cost effective point. Solar water heaters are also much cheaper than photo panels.

I don't think you get it. I'm not considering any of this at all, because it's impractical in my home, because I'd have to heavily alter (at significant expense) what already exists in the home. I'd consider some of these things if I were building a home, but I'm not.

The bigger issue here though is that you are saying you need this level of power consumption

Nope. I'm saying I want to be able do it. If I didn't, I'd just move into a smaller home.

and that you also want a socialized system where other people under right the cost for you, it's the second part I take issue with.

Ironically, I'd be perfectly happy if the government raised electricity prices a bit and shunted some of that money to research in alternative and renewable fuels. However, that still doesn't mean I'd actually buy a solar setup any time soon, even with heavy subsidization, because it simply doesn't make financial sense.

There's a HUGE difference between gradually shifting governmental policies and spending $60000 of your cash up front just because.

Let me ask you. Do you have a full-fledged solar setup in your house? If not, then why not? If you're living in an apartment then why aren't you demanding your landlord put one in? Do you own a car? If so, why? Etc.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't think you get it. I'm not considering any of this at all, because it's impractical in my home, because I'd have to heavily alter (at significant expense) what already exist in the home. I'd consider some of these things if I were building a home, but I'm not.

I think what you are saying is that you are not interested in finding out about it. That's fine, but you have several major misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ironically, I'd be perfectly happy if the government raised electricity prices a bit and shunted some of that money to research in alternative and renewable fuels.

The issue here is that the government is currently massively subsidizing the costs of the fuel you are using. It's not a question of raising the costs, the costs are already huge, they are just being paid by the state and society in general, not the people using the fuels.

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, that still doesn't mean I'd actually buy a solar setup, even with heavy subsidization, because it simply doesn't make financial sense.

Not to you, because you are not paying the cost of the fuel you are using, which is being massively subsidized. It's amazing that you think that solar needs subsidy, when it is carbon fuels that are being subsidized. It's hard to discuss this with you when you don't seem to have some of the basic facts.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

and the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge has about enough oil to fuel America's fleet of Hummers and Suburbans for about 3 hours, at highway speeds.

This is the line people keep spouting, I guess because they heard it spouted somewhere else, but why is it when I've asked for SPECIFIC PROOF of how much oil is there, how long would it last in the REAL WORLD, not in fantasyland, as compared to other smaller reserves that have been pumping steadily for decades on end, and therefore how much REAL WORLD time would it buy us toward eliminating the need for the equivalent amount of Middle East oil until we can develop alternatives- I get nothing but cricket chirps.

There's no shortage of stupidity alright- from all sides of this issue.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think what you are saying is that you are not interested in finding out about it. That's fine, but you have several major misconceptions.

I already looked into parts of it months ago. If you think you can find a company to install a solar setup for $2 a Watt, then I'm interested.

The going rate is usually around $8 a watt or more for residential installations. You keep suggesting that's not true, but have provided nothing to back that up. Look it up. It's out there.

The issue here is that the government is currently massively subsidizing the costs of the fuel you are using. It's not a question of raising the costs, the costs are already huge, they are just being paid by the state and society in general, not the people using the fuels.

Unsubsidized electricity where I live would probably mean an increase in electricity costs of about a third. Yes, that's a huge increase, but solar would still be impractical in that context.

Not to you, because you are not paying the cost of the fuel you are using, which is being massively subsidized. It's amazing that you think that solar needs subsidy, when it is carbon fuels that are being subsidized. It's hard to discuss this with you when you don't seem to have some of the basic facts.

You are very selective with your "facts". The fact of the matter is BOTH are subsidized. Solar essentially wouldn't exist at all without the numerous subsidies it's received over the years. And something like a $20000 rebate for solar installs in certain areas is nothing to sneeze at. Still, solar is largely impractical. If it weren't then there wouldn't be a need for such large rebates. And yet, despite the existence of such large rebates, solar is not popular.

It's not as if people LIKE paying high electricity bills. They just don't like paying $40000 up front to save a little bit so that they can break even on their investment 25 years later.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Unsubsidized electricity where I live would probably mean an increase in electricity costs of about a third.

It would be much, much more than that. When you take into account the infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks, health care costs, climate change adaptation etc, the costs of carbon are enormous.

Originally Posted by Eug 

You are very selective with your "facts". The fact of the matter is BOTH are subsidized. Solar essentially wouldn't exist at all without the numerous subsidies it's received over the years.

Somewhat, but carbon far more.