O.T. Solar power.

Page 1 of 2  
My grid linked solar power plant is up and running as of yesterday.
It has little display panel on the inverter where you can see the cash being ratcheted in. Caching,caching,caching. (cash register noise:-)
As well as supplying my own power through the day, I am supplying several of my nieghbours. My home is now a net energy exporter. (And cash importer)
Maybe we will break away and form our own state, free of our lying b@@@@d politicians.
We would have to sit in the dark at night of course.
They were a bunch of wankers who came to fit it. Clueless. I had to give them a hard time. But I am good at this.
I can lie out in the garden now and close my eyes and imagine pound notes floating down from the sky and being sucked into my roof top array and transferred to my bank balance, Whatsiss? I see a little cloud drifting over, casting a shadow on my array/bankbalance. GO AWAY, GO AWAY!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how about some numbers,
how many kW does your system produce peak? how many kWh do you use a day? how much did it cost you to install? what subsidies did you get? how long will it take you to break even?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2011 9:44 AM, Mark wrote:

Article in local paper about installing system in a church. They said half the cost of $738,000 was subsidized by a state grant and it would pay for itself in 10 years.
There was a similar article about a home owner doing it a few years ago. Can't remember subsidy but they said it would take 30 years to recoup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
email.me:

meanwhile,the solar cells last only 20 years....,and there's no accounting for worn out or bad batteries(that last much LESS than 20 years),or failures in the DC-AC inverter.
Plus an added fire hazard. Oh,and maintenance on the batteries and cleaning of solar panels.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

grid tie installations don't have batteries.
solar cells are warranteed for 25 years, inverters for 10, typically
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The grid is their battery.

Hopefully.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
email.me:

WHAT sort of "warranty"? Do they guarantee a minimum power output for a given solar input for up to 25 years? Or does the power output decline with age,from Day One?(As I believe.) I suspect they're figuring the usual owner will not notice the decline.(until they get the bill for replacement panels...and are still paying for the originals!)
WRT inverters,what good does a warranty do when your inverter fails when you need the power? How long before a replacement is sent? does the warranty cover the loss of revenue because you're wasting the power generated by your panel array and can't sell it to the utility,and have to buy power from the utility or go without? what if the inverter starts a fire when it blows out? does the warranty cover that loss? does your homeowner insurance cover that sort of loss?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Will the company still be in business next year. Are hail storms warranted against?

Since they can't power the house without the grid, the grid will be there in the interim. If its not, you're SOL even if the PV system is perfect.

Hey, I'd sell that insurance. What a great idea!

Homeowners insurance should cover that, but they might want to know about it (and charge more if there are significant losses).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I've said before, you need to take a basic course in economics. It is the GOAL of every indivdual participant in free economies to make the most profit possible. However, as soon as you have more than one supplier, the price starts to come down as they then compete with each other. Those initial high profits don't last for long, because they attract MORE participants hoping to make money too. An equilibrium is thus reached where the profits are adequate to sustain the business and provide a decent return to investors. If prices drop below that point, participants start to leave that business and that in turn tends to push prices back up a bit. If prices rise above that equilibrium point, it attracts new participants that put downward pressure on prices, pushing them back toward equilibrium.

Can you name us one monopoly in the USA or western Europe that is not directly controlled by a govt, ie utility or similar? I can't think of a single one here in the USA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a confirmed cynic, I regard the above more as wishfull thinking than a reflection of the true state of affairs. If this were true than there would never be booms, crashes and bubbles.

Agreed, there perhaps isn't a monopoly, but there are plenty of oligopolies. Utilities, while heavily (and properly) regulated, oil and gas companies, telecom, etc. While we can discuss advantages and shortcomings to the endconsumer, they're there.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The above has nothing to do with booms, crashes, and bubbles. It's in effect every day and you see it in everything from a loaf of bread you buy, to where you get your car serviced, to buying a TV or a new cell phone. There are many suppliers of all those goods and services and you choose freely accordingly.
Booms and busts occur when free markets are driven one way or the other by buyers and sellers in response to perceived market conditions. As an example, in the recent housing bubble, everyone got the idea that housing was a great investment, that it could only go up. The government helped, by subsidizing real estate with huge tax breaks, requiring lenders to make loans in low income areas regardless of credit worthiness and keeping interest rates very low.
In response to that, demand for housing increased, causing prices to rise in response. Exactly how markets behave following the most basic rules of economics.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly, on the surface. Dig a little deeper and greed, stupidity and abdication of responsibility played much bigger roles than "markets". But I dont think we'll ever agree amongst all of us who bears the most responsibility. Suffice it to say that the housing bubble wasn't uniform over the US, and certainly not over all developed countries. Therefore, either the markets were differentially manipulated, or some countries had "better" regulation than others.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or some states. I think (at least within the US) some areas had better personal regulation. The majority of people did not get suckered in because of their internal regulation more than government regulation.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/24/2011 10:36 AM, Han wrote:

Don't forget the clueless or greedy individuals who signed up for loans they knew damn well they could not afford. I blame them as much as I blame the hucksters that invited them into the tent. I could have gotten paper for twice as much house as I bought, but saw no point in it. And even with the housing crash, I think I could still sell this place for as much as I paid for it. No profit, especially once you subtract out repairs, interest, taxes, etc, but I am far from upside down. 'Blue collar' houses didn't crash near as bad as McMansions.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many were worse; no-doc loans with nowhere near the real income needed to support the payments.

I put 50% down. I could *easily* have bought twice the house (and the one we bought could be considered a McMansion - 2600ft^2). I never took a second on a house, either. Other than an addition (garage) on our first house I never pulled any money out of equity. That's just dumb.

I'd lose some, but I've also paid more off than it's gone down. I'm nowhere close to the water line.

It's all about location. Most housing is now below the cost of replacement. That can't last forever either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

These bubbles are not anybody's plot although there were people exploiting the situation. There were some smart builders who saw the end of the party coming as soon as 3q2006. They stopped building "inventory" units (only building "pre-sold houses" with $50k down) and they tried to avoid selling to "investors", generally defined as anyone with 2 existing mortgages. This tended to preserve the communities that they were developing and they did not have that many foreclosures. Other developments where they used less discretion, became ghost towns.
It is easy to say the bankers were the only greedy ones but you can't ignore the greed of buyers who entered into contracts they had no real way of honoring, in the hopes that they could "flip" the house at a profit before they had to pay the higher "adjusted" rate they signed up for. The victims were the ones who bought a homestead in that inflated market. I tried to talk as many of those people I could into renting until things settled down. The smart ones did and I know one guy who lived rent free for over 2 years while the house he rented went through a protracted foreclosure process. In real life, he could still be living there because it is still hung up in court but he had a chance to buy a house at a price he couldn't refuse. He had 2 years rent to put down on the house ... almost $40,000. He only paid $80k for the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We had 125% equity loans here from the late 70s. I knew this was going to crash eventually as soon as I saw that happening. They were not even selling these loans for home improvements and other capital outlays. They were saying "take that cruise you always wanted". Houses had to sell for more because people owed more for them. When I bought this house in 1984 it was a general rule that you could have a house built cheaper than buying an occupied one. At a certain point, I knew this could not last. It was only a pair of cascading bubbles, the 90s stock market bubble, coupled with the real estate bubble that kept it going so long but that made the crash so much harder. We were really paying for the sins of two bubbles, not just one. Without the deregulation of the 90s and the ability to generate phony money out of thin air, we would have cratered in 2000 because there would not have been the capital for a real estate boom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/24/2011 10:00 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

What is this "free market" thing you keep mentioning? If we had "free markets" all of the pirate banks and Wall St folks who were involved in mortgages and CDOs and other clever stuff would have been responsible for their greed and gambling debts and their carcasses would have been picked over by others. Instead we rushed to their aid with bailouts spun with a "too big to fail" marketing campaign.

You mean our current socialism for big business and capitalism for everyone else system?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even in the case of Microsoft, it's not a monopoly. There are other operating systems, most notably Apple with the MAC OS and Linux. You can run those on a computer as well. There are also open alternatives to the common Microsoft office apps. I expect being a free thinking anarchist, you're probably using one or more of those alternatives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

If you use the DoJ definition of monopoly in US v IBM Microsoft is certainly a monopoly
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.