The first half megawatt

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

Not extreme, concise. Just putting it out there so that it is plain to
see and understand. You advocate force/compulsion; I advocate
freedom/liberty.

So you absolutely don't care if your neighbor decides his property would be an
excellent toxic waste dump and he starts at your property line?

 

[Peter Franks]

I bet in Germany you can put it on your mortgage, which is probably fixed
around 4%. In the UK you probably could as well, it is a home-improvement
with a 10years guarantee afterall.

That's worse. Assuming 25 yrs. left on a 30 yr. loan @ 4%, interest is
8120.

 

[I'll Always Be 09/04/11]

consider the amount of mercury that is going into landfills.

consider the amount of radioactivity that is going into the oceans

 

[vaughn]

consider the amount of mercury that is going into landfills.

(Sigh) "That" old chestnut... Disproved years ago, yet still repeated all over
the Internet as if it were gospel. Do the math, and you will discover that
using the incandescent bulb releases more mercury into the environment than the
CFL, even if the CFL is improperly disposed of via landfill. Take the bother to
properly dispose of the CFL, and you have a huge win for the environment.

See
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Scroll down to the 4th topic.

Vaughn

 

[Giga2]

There is no bill to see. Are you going to buy me a PV system for the
"general good"?

Of course not.

 

[Giga2]

Not extreme, concise. Just putting it out there so that it is plain to
see and understand. You advocate force/compulsion; I advocate
freedom/liberty.

lalalallala

 

[Giga2]

That's worse. Assuming 25 yrs. left on a 30 yr. loan @ 4%, interest is
8120.

But you could pay it off in 10 years as well, if you choose.

 

[Tom P]

It makes a difference which it is. If a business (expense), it can be
used as a deduction; personal, no such thing. In the end, it can make a
sizable impact as to the total cost.

Secondly, an individual will probably finance the expense, meaning
interest, translating into a greater expense.

So, take your 11690 + VAT (2221) + interest (5900, 10yrs @ 7.5%) and you
come up w/ a total cost of 19811 which is approaching TWICE your
original net quote.

Not cheap bro, not cheap.

Except that this is money that I have in the bank, not money I borrowed.
I get a better return investing the money in a PV installation than on a
fixed term deposit.

Why don't you just give up with your stupid arguments and creep back
down a hole.

 

[Peter Franks]

Of course not.

They why would I?

?!

 

[Peter Franks]

But you could pay it off in 10 years as well, if you choose.

Or had the $$.

You could buy it outright and not finance it too, again, if you had the $$.

The point that I've made is that for most people, the cost of PV is far
too expensive to justify. The costs, esp. when financed are NOT cost
effective, and therefore, will appeal to a very few/select subset of
people that either have disposable income (disposable in the literal
sense) or some other agenda.

For the time being, PV is not cost effective, even in Germany.

 

[Peter Franks]

Except that this is money that I have in the bank, not money I borrowed.
I get a better return investing the money in a PV installation than on a
fixed term deposit.

And most individuals don't. If a business wants to 'invest' in PV, so
be it -- hopefully the board of directors will see thru the scam and
boot the exectutive(s). In your case, good luck on seeing a return on
your 'investment'.

Why don't you just give up with your stupid arguments and creep back
down a hole.

That is all that you can come up with? 'Go away'? What happened to
being able to discuss your point? Such standard tripe from those that
have insolently lost the battle. You, my friend, are the one going back
into your hole. You lost the argument; you lost the battle.

Good day.

-pf

 

[Giga2]

Or had the $$.

A lot quicker than at 7%.

You could buy it outright and not finance it too, again, if you had the
$$.

The point that I've made is that for most people, the cost of PV is far
too expensive to justify. The costs, esp. when financed are NOT cost
effective, and therefore, will appeal to a very few/select subset of
people that either have disposable income (disposable in the literal
sense) or some other agenda.

For the time being, PV is not cost effective, even in Germany.

You are just simply denying what Tom has said. Do you think he is lying?

 

[Curbie]

No, actually the most efficient cells operate at 300-400 suns.

Peter,

Can you cite this 300-400 sun claim???

These "most efficient cells" can dissipate the heat???

Correct me if I'm wrong, at 1 kWh/m2 (or 317 btu/ft2) doesn't a PV
cell convert <20% of solar energy to electricity and >80% to heat???
Rough math:

1000 (Wh/m2) * .80 (%) = 800(Wh/m2) or 254 (btu/ft2) of heat to
dissipate at 1 sun and 280 (kWh/m2) or 88 (kbtu/ft2) at 350 suns,
seems like an awful lot heat to dissipate.

NREL's PV-watts starts reducing the efficiency of PV cells at 45C
(113F).

Curbie

 

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

Peter,

Can you cite this 300-400 sun claim???

These "most efficient cells" can dissipate the heat???

Correct me if I'm wrong, at 1 kWh/m2 (or 317 btu/ft2) doesn't a PV
cell convert <20% of solar energy to electricity and >80% to heat???
Rough math:

1000 (Wh/m2) * .80 (%) = 800(Wh/m2) or 254 (btu/ft2) of heat to
dissipate at 1 sun and 280 (kWh/m2) or 88 (kbtu/ft2) at 350 suns,
seems like an awful lot heat to dissipate.

NREL's PV-watts starts reducing the efficiency of PV cells at 45C
(113F).

Curbie

Of course that is an awful lot of potentially valuable heat that could be
collected and used for other purposes. I'd imagine it could even power an Air
Conditioner

 

[Trawley Trash]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:42:11 -0700

<snip>

I would like to add one more point in case anyone else
wants to convert a trailer to solar power.

The 3 m2 of solar panels were adequate for all of the
uses I planned, but in the winter I found myself not having
enough power, even though the panels generated the
predicted amounts. What I didn't think of was that the gas
furnace uses electricity to run the fan. With the furnace
running at about fifty percent duty cycle, the fan used as
much electricity as everything else together.

 

[Peter Franks]

A lot quicker than at 7%.


You are just simply denying what Tom has said. Do you think he is lying?

Tom said that a business paid for it outright.

 

[Tom P]

And most individuals don't. If a business wants to 'invest' in PV, so be
it -- hopefully the board of directors will see thru the scam and boot
the exectutive(s). In your case, good luck on seeing a return on your
'investment'.


That is all that you can come up with? 'Go away'? What happened to being
able to discuss your point? Such standard tripe from those that have
insolently lost the battle. You, my friend, are the one going back into
your hole. You lost the argument; you lost the battle.

Good day.

-pf

Lost the argument? You're telling me that you lost the argument. All
you've told me so far is that borrowing money from the bank to invest it
somewhere else is a bad idea.

 

[Giga2]

Tom said that a business paid for it outright.

He also said it had an ROI around 5%

 

[Giga2]

Lost the argument? You're telling me that you lost the argument. All
you've told me so far is that borrowing money from the bank to invest it
somewhere else is a bad idea.

Tom, when people start talking about 'winning and losing' rather than truth
rational argument is very difficult.

 

[Peter Franks]

He also said it had an ROI around 5%

Are you arguing against my statemement that "for most people, the cost
of PV is far too expensive to justify."?