Watch this: video Amazon energy saving

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.

Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:43:23 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
Costs won't exceed 8 years on average, no matter how you look at it. End of story.

Vos non potestis figere stultus. Invicta est ignorantia, et addere illud aggregatum mortiferum.

The headlines say that coal is MORE inefficient than wind or solar:

"Climate Change: Coal Now More Expensive Than Wind, Solar Energy"
USAToday - June 4, 2019
-- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/04/climate-change-coal-now-more-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Efficiency is not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the actual lifetime cost of Solar as compared to the actual return over that lifetime.

No one in this discussion has actually mentioned coal (or any other fossil fuel) as I read it.
Nuclear and Wind power have been mentioned.
Wind is limited by and to appropriate locations, but as to cost and efficiency, it is a the top of the list.
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:

...
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166

Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield

John :-#)#

 

[Chuck]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:
...
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166

Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield

John :-#)#

John,
Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers?
There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no
trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I
wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east.
The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such
ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes
drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck

 

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Efficiency is not what is under discussion.

Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money).

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:49:34 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
Efficiency is not what is under discussion.

Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money).

Only if those "solar people" are not paying the actual lifetime costs of the installation. When will you "get" that basic fact?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/01/08 11:41 a.m., Chuck wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:

On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:
...
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166

Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield

John :-#)#
John,
Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers?
There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no
trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I
wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east.
The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such
ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes
drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck

I think those stacks were added back in the 60s...and I remember reading
about the devastation that the people of Sudbury enjoyed from their main
employer.

In some respects it was only fair to ship the pollution further as both
Canadians and Americans had the benefit of "The Big Nickle" and both
should pay the price. And (as far as I know) Inco was forced to clean up
their act because of all that pollution because it turned out that the
rest of Canada and the US didn't care for all that crap!

John :-#)#

 

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 4:44:04 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 3:49:34 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
Efficiency is not what is under discussion.

Yes it is. Industry records show that efficiency helps solar make people money after eight years (while non-solar users still lose money).

Only if those "solar people" are not paying the actual lifetime costs of the installation. When will you "get" that basic fact?

After eight years, everything is profit. Whether "lifetime" or not.

This is well-known within the solar power industry. You do not "get" this basic fact.

 

[Chuck]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:24:03 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 2020/01/08 11:41 a.m., Chuck wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:45:20 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:

On 2020/01/08 8:50 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:
...
Nuclear is limited by political will, and by poorly executed installation parameters. Otherwise, it really would be too cheap to meter. Think "test sites in Nevada" when it comes to waste, and think "Fast breeder reactor" when it comes to new fuel. All established technologies that if installed in an appropriate scale would be entirely safe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


The Canadian Shield has been rather stable (other than that nickle
meteor that created Inco - in Sudbury) for a billion years or so:

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y84-166

Also the remoteness makes it unlikely to be breached by our curious
descendants in the far off future...or current idiots.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield

John :-#)#
John,
Were you ever in Sudbury before Inco installed the strato-towers?
There was only bedrock for miles in every direction. No lawns , no
trees, no vegetation of any kind. I had never heard of Sudbury so I
wondered what the hell was going on as I drove in on 17 from the east.
The locals filled me in. I was shocked that Canada would allow such
ecological degradation. After the towers were installed, the fumes
drifted into New York state and caused dead lakes. Chuck


I think those stacks were added back in the 60s...and I remember reading
about the devastation that the people of Sudbury enjoyed from their main
employer.

In some respects it was only fair to ship the pollution further as both
Canadians and Americans had the benefit of "The Big Nickle" and both
should pay the price. And (as far as I know) Inco was forced to clean up
their act because of all that pollution because it turned out that the
rest of Canada and the US didn't care for all that crap!

John :-#)#

John,
The chimney went into operation in 1972. I was there in 72 just before
it went live. I went through 3 years later and there were already
green shoots appearing out of cracks in the bedrock.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Last attempt here. Parameters:

a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.

A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.

The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process.

Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826.

Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.

Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.

Do the math, if you have the capacity.

Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/01/10 11:25 a.m., pfjw@aol.com wrote:

Last attempt here. Parameters:

a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.
b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.
d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.

A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.

The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197. At the end of the 20 year process.

Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826.

Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.

Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.

Do the math, if you have the capacity.

Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Adding in maintenance costs to the system:
So many electrical connections, some will fail.
Inverters will die - capacitors most likely suspects...
Costs to remove snow and clean periodically.
Extra insurance...

https://www.powerfromsunlight.com/operational-costs-solar-panel-system/

John :-#)#

 

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Last attempt here. Parameters:

Yes, parameters as decided by the solar industry. Not you. And which costs are included in their well-cited 8-year estimate. Not yours.

> a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.

The solar industry determines this. Not you.

b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.

The solar industry determines this.

d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.

A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total
cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.

The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases
of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197.
At the end of the 20 year process.

The solar industry has determined this. Not you.

Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826..

Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.

Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.

Do the math, if you have the capacity.

The solar industry has determined this. You're simply tryjng to re-invent the wheel.

> Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.

Because the solar industry has determined it in their eight-year estimate. After which solar operators make money.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die GÜtter selbst vergebens.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/01/13 6:57 a.m., bruce2bowser@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
Last attempt here. Parameters:

Yes, parameters as decided by the solar industry. Not you. And which costs are included in their well-cited 8-year estimate. Not yours.

a) Full cost of the system to the consumer. That is NO subsidies so that the actual cost is used against the potential payback. Let's assume we are dealing with honest people unwilling to steal from the common Taxpayer.

The solar industry determines this. Not you.

b) Standard current mortgage rates for a 20-year 0% down loan for the full amount. That would be 4% for a 0-down loan these days.
c) I am using Energy Sage figures from their website for our zip code and energy provider, and the mortgage calculator from Bankrate.com.

The solar industry determines this.

d) This is based on our available south facing roof (2 years into a 30-year NDL warranty, and approved as a solar substrate). So, no cost-of-land included.
e) Which leads to Energy Sage stating that our first-cost, un-subsidized, would be $29,000.
f) Which is based on our average power cost of $200 per month for a 5,000 square foot, three-story center-hall colonial built in 1890.

A 20-year loan at 4% would entail a payment of $175 per month for 20 years.
The total
cost of the loan, including principle and interest would be $42,269.

The total cost of power for those same 20 years, assuming historical increases
of about 1.2% per year would be $54,466. So, the net payback would be: $12,197.
At the end of the 20 year process.

The solar industry has determined this. Not you.

Now, let's do an annuity at 2% at $175 per month for 20 years. Go to NerdWallet's compound interest calculator. The net in 20 years would be $51,826..

Effectively, I have given up the opportunity to have $51,826 (in 20 years) in order to save $12,197 (after 20 years). A net difference of -$39,628.

Now, Energy Sage states that our property value will increase by 3%. That would be roughly $15,000. Against the above figures, that really does not help, given that the $15,000 is valid only at the beginning of the process. The system becomes a liability as it approaches end-of-life. So, even that claim is a delusion.

Do the math, if you have the capacity.

The solar industry has determined this. You're simply tryjng to re-invent the wheel.

Nor have we calculated removal & disposal costs at the end of the system's service-life.

Because the solar industry has determined it in their eight-year estimate. After which solar operators make money.

Sounds just like the Climate Alarmists to me. They define the parameters
and you can't debate them because the "Science is Proven" when NO
science is ever proven, only what appears to currently fit the current
hypothesis best is assumed to be accurate.

The hypothesis apparently being that Nature is Good and Humans are Bad.
(4 legs good...)


John ;-#)#

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 1/13/20 11:40 AM, John Robertson wrote:
> (4 legs good...)

All climate is equal.
Some climate is more equal.


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 10:18:38 AM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Gegen die Dummheit kämpfen die GÜtter selbst vergebens.

Doch. "Im Vergleich zu Kohle ist Solarenergie auch fĂźr Investoren weit attraktiver."

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.

Useful when 'the grid' is not available.
Useful in outer space where sunlight is available.
Useful in some other extreme situations.

But as a utility-scale option, it is pretty wretched.
And as a residential option, it is outright theft if subsidized.

And, as an industry, the Solar Industry is no better than it should be, about as honest as the average politician, about as ethical as the average evangelical preacher.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 2:19:23 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> There is all that. But, sadly, nothing is perfect, and Solar is far less perfect than very nearly anything else.

Agreed. BEFORE the 8 year break-even period is up.
(A lot like a mortgage. Its HATED until you pay it off)