Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/business/amazon-cardboard-box-prime-day/index.html
Easy to watch, quick. Make a difference
Janet US
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
Have you ever done a life-time analysis of a solar panel?
a) Impact of mining the materials going into the panel.
b) Transporting those materials for refining and processing.
c) Transporting the refined materials to the assembly factory.
d) Assembly into panels and testing.
e) Transportation to the installation point.
f) Installation and materials required to do so - as above.
g) Service life (return on first-costs) (approximately 20 years).
h) Removal and restoration of the installation site.
g) Disposition of the removed materials.
In the US, the average cost per KW of actual capacity is about $3,000 before tax credits, and not counting the cost of land, if needed.
The average solar panel is about 40% efficient at the equator and assuming 100% sunny days - this is not solar efficiency, but actual production-to-nameplate numbers. So, in North America, that drops to about 25%. The average cost per KWH, nationwide is about $0.1319. But to make the panels 'look better', let's use $0.14.
So, a panel with a nameplate of 1,000 watts (1kw) will make 6,000 watts per day of actual power, on average. Or, $0.84 per day. Average of $25.55 per month. Or, $306.60 per year.
On a straight-line payback (no time-value of money included), the first-cost will be paid back in 9.8 years. We still have not counted the cost of proper disposition. And we have carefully elided on the environmental impact in their manufacture.
What makes solar panels 'practical' as a primary generator of electric power is that the various governments have bamboozled their taxpaying constituents into subsidizing their use for no discernible return. If one wishes to be 'off the grid', then solar power is a perfectly legitimate option. But it should in no way be subsidized with tax revenue.
Properly managed, nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that the political will to manage it properly does not yet exist.
Properly managed, wind power is vastly cheaper and vastly cleaner than solar power. The issue is, simply, that not every site is amenable to wind.
Then, there is tidal power. Not cheap, but once the plant is built, it will last pretty much indefinitely.
Solar power is one of the greatest frauds
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:13:01 AM UTC-5, U.S. Janet B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/business/amazon-cardboard-box-prime-day/index.html
Easy to watch, quick. Make a difference
Janet US
In many places, companies can get paid by local government to install your property with solar panels.
May I (re)acquaint you with "The Bellman's Proof"?
What you say many (three) times does not make it true.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Clearly you do not understand what I am writing, as clearly you conflate increasing use of solar panels with that increase being cost-effective and efficient. Without subsidies, Solar Panels are neither. There are installations in Canada that are producing power at C$0.80 per KWH - when Hydro-Quebec is making power at C$0.07 per KWH. Why? Because Solar is a feel-good option that is visible and impressive, while giving the illusion of being pollution-free - which it also is not.
Rather than spouting garbage and displaying your ignorance, why not investigate the actual costs of a Utility-Scale solar installation - which includes:
Panels.
Mounting Systems.
Grid-Tie Inverter Systems.
Step-up transformers.
Land.
Include the cost of raw materials, production, transportation, and ultimate disposal of all of the above, and the restoration of the underlying land to some useful condition.
You will begin to see *why* C$0.80 is a relative bargain based on a 20-year lifespan. And that rate is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers.
The situation is no better here in the US, but I am absolutely certain about the
Canadian numbers as I had a direct hand in the construction of three Utility-Scale
plants in Canada. And where I learned all about the ripping off of the taxpayers and
the politics involved. I left that company in short order upon gaining that knowledge.
The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
Do the math, if you can. US $20,000 gets you 6.6 KW of "nameplate", exclusive of land. Make it 7.
7 x 6,000 = 42 KWH per day.
42 X $0.14 = $5.88.
Assume 'perfect' sun every day. Making 365 x 5.88 = $2,146.20 = 9.32 years before payback on a straight-line calculation. Which carefully avoids the concept of Time-Value of Money. On a monthly basis, that comes to $178..85. If you borrow money at 3.5% (unlikely for a solar project with $0 residual value), that would come in at $115.99 per month. Given an actual payback (time-value of money) of 62.86 per month, or 26 years, 7 months. Roughly six (6) years beyond the useful life of the installation.
Had you invested that same $20,000 at that same 3.5% for that same 20 years, on the assumption that you have that much cash lying around, you would have $39,795.78 in 20 years.
NOTE: None of the above counts any sort of maintenance. Such as cutting the grass, scrub or whatever underneath the panels, cleaning the panels - which needs to be done. Snow removal if relevant. Bad days, rain, clouds, nor any other adverse conditions. Equipment servicing - Grid-Tie inverters need regular servicing and certification. And so forth.
One last myth: Appreciation of property - 20,000 watts of panels will take 67 panels at 300 watts per each (optimistic). Each panel is 2 square meters - very roughly 10 square feet. 670 square feet is, again, very roughly 26 feet square. Not one helluva lot of land to appreciate. And an installation that small will hardly generate the material discounts that a Utility-Scale installation will command. But, for you, we are ignoring the hard truths, while looking only at the raw, optimistic numbers.
Solar, without subsidies is a bad deal. Full stop.
Solar with subsidies is a bad deal for the taxpayers. Full stop.
Solar, with or without subsidies is a bad deal for the Planet. Full stop.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 12:05:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
There is that. There is the false assumption of $2,500 in avoided utility bills - possible in some parts of the US with good sun, no snow, and dry-but-dust-free weather. Oh, and the service life of 35 years. Sure. All good.
And, of course, EnergySage wants to sell you solar panels on commission from local installers. Naturally, their figures will be highly optimistic.
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thus your property is appreciating in value, afterwards.
The payback only appears to be eight years. There is interest involved in the initial costs. Also the solar panels will raise your property taxes.
Yikes!
Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
Schiller
When will you understand that there is no effective payback on Solar unless:
a) You have a 'free' source of original funding.
b) There are no peripheral costs to the installation.
Why:
a) TVM at 3.5% makes the linear payback over 26 years at $0.14/KWH in 2020 dollars. That is beyond the expected service life (80% of nameplate) of a solar panel. 3.5% is an optimistic interest rate for a project of this type.
b) The lifetime cost of a solar panel exceeds the amount of energy it produces. Again, from production of raw materials to disposition of the exhausted panel.
c) Government subsidies are an outright theft of taxpayer money. Perhaps not as egregious as the F35 fighter, but close enough.
I choose not to steal from you via a subsidy for an already marginal system. Or are you OK with me picking your pocket?
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA