# Energy



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Waiting for my permit to pass on the new nuclear reactor....

/sarc>


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

There is a reason that govt spending is driving solar and wind. It's because it's not cost effective.

It's no wonder the IBEW is lapping it up like the govt dole whores they are.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

The last 5 issues of ECM magazine appear to be written and published entirely by the S.I.E.U. or Acorn. March together comrades. March to PV Vahalla.


It should read: March together comrades. March to pv and cfl, and led Valhalla. And don't forget to plug into your electric charger profits......


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

nitro71 said:


> There is a reason that govt spending is driving solar and wind. It's because it's not cost effective.
> 
> It's no wonder the IBEW is lapping it up like the govt dole whores they are.


Its NOT being driven by gov't spending. That's a myth. There are tax incentives as there are in many new industries to promote job growth. Its working.


----------



## JM2 (Aug 5, 2011)

Sign me up!!!


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Its NOT being driven by gov't spending. That's a myth.


Followed by.....


gold said:


> There are tax incentives as there are in many new industries to promote job growth. Its working.



So tax incentives are not govenment spending?:blink:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Followed by.....
> 
> 
> So tax incentives are not govenment spending?:blink:


Thats a loaded question of course they are but they aren't "driving the market". 


The average homeowner may get a 3-5 k tax incentive on a 75k system that itself will generate a tax revenue to compensate resulting in a net zero cost to tax payers while adding to the job base.

EDIT

Net zero is probably out of line because its too soon to be determined. In theory the tax revenue generated from the energy and jobs created will exceed the revenue lost in incentives.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Why would I want my tax money spent on something that costs $0.22/kWH (All construction costs over life span of panels) to replace using other sources that only cost $0.04/kWH (Construction, production, and decommisioning costs) such as hydro, coal, or nuclear???

It is a complete waste of money and should not be funded with taxpayers dollars. If someone wants a solar system because they feel better abou tit they should feel free to waste thier own money, but not mine.


----------



## Chris Kennedy (Nov 19, 2007)

Zog said:


> they feel better abou tit


He, he, he. You said tit, he, he, he. (Bevis and Butthead)


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Chris Kennedy said:


> He, he, he. You said tit, he, he, he. (Bevis and Butthead)


You hear they are back with a new show? 
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/beavis-and-butt-head-mike-judge-trailer-video


----------



## Chris Kennedy (Nov 19, 2007)

Zog said:


> You hear they are back with a new show?
> http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/beavis-and-butt-head-mike-judge-trailer-video


Yes sir, heard that on NPR of all places.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Zog said:


> Why would I want my tax money spent on something that costs $0.22/kWH (All construction costs over life span of panels) to replace using other sources that only cost $0.04/kWH (Construction, production, and decommisioning costs) such as hydro, coal, or nuclear???
> 
> It is a complete waste of money and should not be funded with taxpayers dollars. If someone wants a solar system because they feel better abou tit they should feel free to waste thier own money, but not mine.



Well said..:thumbup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Why would I want my tax money spent on something that costs $0.22/kWH (All construction costs over life span of panels) to replace using other sources that only cost $0.04/kWH (Construction, production, and decommisioning costs) such as hydro, coal, or nuclear???
> 
> It is a complete waste of money and should not be funded with taxpayers dollars. If someone wants a solar system because they feel better abou tit they should feel free to waste thier own money, but not mine.


I'm not saying solar is the do all end all to an energy crisis and its certainly no replacement for hydro, coal, or nuclear. I mentioned 10 other things in my op and that they were a replacement to some of the work lost to the end of the housing boom. Do you see a different replacement for that work?

I don't know where that $.22 figure comes from but I can't dispute it off hand tho it sounds high. Your tax money isn't spent on anything that cost $.22 a watt. Again that statement is loaded and misleading. 

I'll say it again tho.

Solar market isn't driven by tax funds. There are incentives to develop economic growth that are the same as many industries. I concede tho that there are no such incentives in the fossil fuel, nuclear, or coal industries and perhaps should be.

My point was never to push solar as a great solution to all our energy problems Zog and its clear you have already passed judgement so the debate is moot anyway. I do think this is where our industry is going (not just solar) like it or not.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

gold said:


> I'm not saying solar is the do all end all to an energy crisis and its certainly no replacement for hydro, coal, or nuclear. I mentioned 10 other things in my op and that they were a replacement to some of the work lost to the end of the housing boom. Do you see a different replacement for that work?
> 
> I don't know where that $.22 figure comes from but I can't dispute it off hand tho it sounds high. Your tax money isn't spent on anything that cost $.22 a watt. Again that statement is loaded and misleading.
> 
> ...



Talking to some of these neo-cons is like talking to a wall.......

actually, the wall might be slightly more entertaining......


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> I'm not saying solar is the do all end all to an energy crisis and its certainly no replacement for hydro, coal, or nuclear. I mentioned 10 other things in my op and that they were a replacement to some of the work lost to the end of the housing boom. Do you see a different replacement for that work?


 Yeah, about a million better things, we have a pretty bad infastructure that needs work, roads, power grid, sewer systems, etc....



gold said:


> I don't know where that $.22 figure comes from but I can't dispute it off hand tho it sounds high. Your tax money isn't spent on anything that cost $.22 a watt. Again that statement is loaded and misleading.


The figures come from EPRI, and are solid. Wind is pretty bad too. Obama got plenty of laughs in the power generation world when he stated we would get 30% of our energy from solar by 2020 in his state of the union address, and was supporting that by wasting out tax dollars on something he knew nothing about.



gold said:


> I'll say it again tho.
> 
> Solar market isn't driven by tax funds. There are incentives to develop economic growth that are the same as many industries. I concede tho that there are no such incentives in the fossil fuel, nuclear, or coal industries and perhaps should be.


 It is driven by tax funds, without those fat incentives a lot less people would consider adding solar systems because the ROI would be much longer. But your "stimulis package" gravy train is about to end. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...off-prospects-of-renewable-power-support.html



gold said:


> My point was never to push solar as a great solution to all our energy problems Zog and its clear you have already passed judgement so the debate is moot anyway. I do think this is where our industry is going (not just solar) like it or not.


You know what the cheapest power source is? Hydro, and it keeps the tree huggers happy too so you want to spend tax money? Spend it on hydro please, not waste it on solar subsidies. I am not passing judgement on anything, just stating the facts on cots and efficiency.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Putting all the energy aside, Golds got a point. In the last 4 years we have had at least 2 dozen PV startups go to 15 truck, 40 men outfits. I have no idea how long they are going to last or how well they are actually doing numbers wise, but the growth is there sure as shooting. About 95 per cent of all new electrical permits issued in my area now are for PV systems. Been that way for a while.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Putting all the energy aside, Golds got a point. In the last 4 years we have had at least 2 dozen PV startups go to 15 truck, 40 men outfits. I have no idea how long they are going to last or how well they are actually doing numbers wise, but the growth is there sure as shooting. About 95 per cent of all new electrical permits issued in my area now are for PV systems. Been that way for a while.


The Feds can dump Billions into anything and it will create jobs, that does not mean it isn't a waste of money and could be better spent elsewhere. 
Think of the jobs building a new nuclear plant woudl create, and the total cost including costruction, production, and spent fuel disposal and plant decommisioning is $0.04/kWH, 550% more efficient than solar, 550% better use of our tax dollars.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Yeah, about a million better things, we have a pretty bad infastructure that needs work, roads, power grid, sewer systems, etc....
> Every one of those things would cost more per job created then actual workers earn look at the stimulus bill
> 
> 
> ...


Hydro is great we should indeed build more. I could care less about tree huggers my point was solely in respect to jobs created and the direction of the industry.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Zog said:


> The Feds can dump Billions into anything and it will create jobs, that does not mean it isn't a waste of money and could be better spent elsewhere.
> Think of the jobs building a new nuclear plant woudl create, and the total cost including costruction, production, and spent fuel disposal and plant decommisioning is $0.04/kWH, 550% more efficient than solar, 550% better use of our tax dollars.


We get that ok? Its just that not all of us own a whole string of whatever it is you own a string of Zog, so for the simple fool on the street who wants to pay for his own light bill next month, a company that targets new energy projects is a sure fire winner in the current trends of the business. Like I said earlier in this thread, go look at ECM for the last bunch of issues and see what the whole market is trending at these days. Remember when it was Data Wiring boom times? Did you capitalize on that boom? Do you wish you had of? Same hokey, different decade. Jump on it.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> The Feds can dump Billions into anything and it will create jobs, that does not mean it isn't a waste of money and could be better spent elsewhere.
> Think of the jobs building a new nuclear plant woudl create, and the total cost including costruction, production, and spent fuel disposal and plant decommisioning is $0.04/kWH, 550% more efficient than solar, 550% better use of our tax dollars.


Right. But the feds aren't "dumping billions" into solar. The feds are dumping exactly $0 into solar.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

I obviously can't win this arguement in the "Alternative energy" forum, just as someone can't win an open shop arguement in the union forum or a free heath care arguement in a illegial alien forum, if you are benifiting from the feds reckless spending you will think it is good. 

And ECM is a rag that lets anyone voice thier views without doing any research at all, so I couldn't care less what they publish.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> I obviously can't win this arguement in the "Alternative energy" forum, just as someone can't win an open shop arguement in the union forum or a free heath care arguement in a illegial alien forum, if you are benifiting from the feds reckless spending you will think it is good.


You most certainly can win Zog, if anyone can its probably you, and I will admit when you do. Just show the federal programs used to fund solar installations.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

The problem is that like any technology, when it's in infancy it will be expensive. Solar has been around forever, but we've never made a serious attempt to make it into a viable industry. There wasn't the R&D and there wasn't the demand, and each of those was dependent on the other.

I don't have a problem with government subsidy for it in order to try and kick-start the market. If it were totally unsustainable as an energy source, there'd be an issue. But in the future I can see a very real demand for wide-spread residential microgeneration, potentially from solar. I think for now the subsidies are a good way to help spur that on.

I'm less of a fan of utility photovoltaic plants because I don't think the capacity is there to make that a good source of base-load generation. But I think that's also part of the development process, so I'll tolerate it for now as long as we're honest about the details and don't try to green-wash it.

-John


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> ...
> 
> The average homeowner may get a 3-5 k tax incentive on a 75k system that itself will generate a tax revenue to compensate resulting in a net zero cost to tax payers while adding to the job base.


Umm, the Federal tax credit is 30%, so on a $75K system, the HO would get 
$25K from the Feds.

State incentives are over and above that.

You don't seem to have this quite right...

The only reason this pays is someone else is paying for it either
unwillingly or unknowingly.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

http://solarroadways.com/intro.shtml


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> Right. But the feds aren't "dumping billions" into solar. The feds are dumping exactly $0 into solar.


Wrong again.

The Feds are paying 30 cents of every dollar via tax credits. 

And, BTW, "The Feds" means taxpayers - you me and our children.

This is corporate welfare to the max.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Umm, the Federal tax credit is 30%, so on a $75K system, the HO would get
> $25K from the Feds.
> 
> State incentives are over and above that.
> ...


No they would not get $25k "FROM THE FEDS" No men in black with brief cases

They get to write off that 25K So there is a potential if they are tax payers that they don't pay that in taxes. This IS NOT FUNDING this is an incentive with an actual ROI measured in terms of jobs created and through them new tax base and new spending.



rexowner said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> The Feds are paying 30 cents of every dollar via tax credits.
> 
> ...


This just isn't at all any where near true.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

steelersman said:


> http://solarroadways.com/intro.shtml


Technically you got me here although it is a research project not a "program" intended to fund active installations.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

rexowner said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> The Feds are paying 30 cents of every dollar via tax credits.
> 
> ...


Well said .....:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> The Feds are paying 30 cents of every dollar via tax credits.
> 
> ...


Wait wut? Corporate welfare? Most companies installing Solar are small businesses. Thats why its so effective at CREATING JOBS :hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> No they would not get $25k "FROM THE FEDS" No men in black with brief cases
> 
> They get to write off that 25K So there is a potential if they are tax payers that they don't pay that in taxes. This IS NOT FUNDING this is an incentive with an actual ROI measured in terms of jobs created and through them new tax base and new spending.
> 
> This just isn't at all any where near true.


Wrong.

Let me give you a simple example where tax rates are 50%,
I make $100K/year and I install a $100K solar system. This
is only to make the math easy, but the same applies.

Income: $100K
Tax Rate: 50%
Solar System: $100K

"Write off" (as you say) means a DEDUCTION(this reduces 
INCOME against which tax is applied) - but you are wrong.
E.g. If I have 100K of income, and I get a 30% deduction
on the $100K cost of the solar system, 
now I pay taxes on $70K. My taxes go from $50K to $35K
(savings, i.e. what is paid by future taxpayers = $15K).
This is NOT what happens, but you seem to think it does.

The 30% is a a tax CREDIT. My taxes would have been $50K.
But I get to subract $30K, so now my taxes are *$20K*.
(savings, i.e. what is paid by future taxpayers = $30K).
THIS IS HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS.

Sorry, but you have your facts wrong.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> Well said .....:thumbup::thumbup:


Except he's wrong and doesn't make any sense.


Besides Zog, Do any of you have any actual knowledge on the subject? Real first hand information from experience or just what you see or hear?


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> Except he's wrong and doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> Besides Zog, Do any of you have any actual knowledge on the subject? Real first hand information from experience or just what you see or hear?


You seem to be the person who has their facts wrong here.

Zog told me once I didn't know what I was talking about.
He was right.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Let me give you a simple example where tax rates are 50%,
> I make $100K/year and I install a $100K solar system. This
> ...


I know exactly what a tax credit is. I also know what it is NOT. 

You tell me what happens if someone has a 25K tax credit but they only pay 10K in taxes.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> I know exactly what a tax credit is. I also know what it is NOT.
> 
> You tell me what happens if someone has a 25K tax credit but they only pay 10K in taxes.


Generally, they would get a CARRYOVER into future years.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> You seem to be the person who has their facts wrong here.
> 
> Zog told me once I didn't know what I was talking about.
> He was right.


So your saying your first hand real experience is Zog told you once you were wrong and he turned out to be right and now Zog and I disagree so my fact are confused? Did I get that right? This is your experience?:blink:


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Technically you got me here although it is a research project not a "program" intended to fund active installations.



I wasn't trying to "get" you. I am siding with you on this more or less. I was simply posting that link as I thought it was "badass".......


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Generally, they would get a CARRYOVER into future years.


Well good thing were not speaking generally here. What happens in THIS case. 


You seem to know all about taxes too so how much does a person have to make to actually pay 25k in taxes and how many people actually make that much.

Next we can talk about the differences between investment and funding.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> So your saying your first hand real experience is Zog told you once you were wrong and he turned out to be right and now Zog and I disagree so my fact are confused? Did I get that right? This is your experience?:blink:


No, I am saying you have your facts wrong.

I apologize for bringing up the side-point that Zog is a smart
guy. That was off topic. The topic is that you have your
facts wrong.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

I am all for funding R&D to get solar to where it needs to be to be a viable energy solution, but right now it is not even close and funding (Or giving a tax deduction, same thing) installtion of inefficient systems is a waste of tac dollars that are more precious than they have been in 90 years.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> No, I am saying you have your facts wrong.
> 
> I apologize for bringing up the side-point that Zog is a smart
> guy. That was off topic. The topic is that you have your
> facts wrong.


No the topic is how new energy products are stimulating jobs lost by the collapse of the building trades. However if you think my facts are wrong point them out and I will back them up.

You claim a tax CREDIT is used to fund solar installations and that is federal funding. Now considering how you educated me on what a tax CREDIT is and evaded my question to you on what happens when someone who receives a solar tax CREDIT that does not pay taxes, I will assume that your questioning my facts because you don't know the difference between a CREDIT and FUNDING.

Funding, in this case, would be the fed cutting a check for a solar project backed by tax payer debt.

A credit, in this case, is an investment by allowance into job production with a return greater then the original investment in form of a greater tax base and increased public spending.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Check your facts.............


Which one? Show me where I am wrong. What federal program pays for private solar installation?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Which one? Show me where I am wrong. What federal program pays for private solar installation?


Ugh, tax deductions, why is that so hard for you to understand?

And quit with the "job production" nonesense, I already explained that to you.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> I am all for funding R&D to get solar to where it needs to be to be a viable energy solution, but right now it is not even close and funding (Or giving a tax deduction, same thing) installtion of inefficient systems is a waste of tac dollars that are more precious than they have been in 90 years.


Its not the same thing when there is a ROI. Thats why they are called tax credits not tax debits.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Some good facts here:
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110628/FACILITIES01/106280303

e.g.:


> *The 1603 Treasury Grant Program.* When the recession hit, many solar companies were no longer able to take full advantage of the Investment Tax Credit because they did not make enough profit. So, in 2009, Congress included a provision in the sweeping American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — also known as the stimulus bill — that allows the owners of commercial solar property to receive a federal grant equal to 30 percent of their investment. If they opt for the grant, they cannot receive the tax credit. Expires Dec. 31, 2011.


 Gold, the fact is that TAXPAYERS are paying 30% of the tab for most
solar installations. You are simply wrong in your assertion:



gold said:


> Solar market isn't driven by tax funds. There are incentives to develop economic growth that are the same as many industries. I concede tho that there are no such incentives in the fossil fuel, nuclear, or coal industries and perhaps should be.


Gold, you are wrong. Solar is paid for by taxpayers (not to mention
other ratepayers) bigtime. You have your facts wrong. If you
can't acknowledge reality, it's tough to have a discussion.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> Which one? Show me where I am wrong. What federal program pays for private solar installation?


Here is a partial list from the same article:
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110628/FACILITIES01/106280303


> *Programs*
> 
> Here's a look at the federal programs that benefit the solar industry:
> • *The Investment Tax Credit, or ITC.* Created by Congress in 2005, the ITC is a reduction in overall tax liability for individuals or businesses that invest in solar energy generation technology. It is equal to 30 percent of investment in energy production using solar electric, solar hot water, fuel cell or small wind methods. Expires Dec. 31, 2016.
> ...


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

gold said:


> Which one? Show me where I am wrong. What federal program pays for private solar installation?


How about the Commercial Tax Grant program. 30% non taxable grant paid straight from the treasury dept to commercial properties that install solar. 

And on a side note your WAY off on your understanding and description of the 30% residential tax credit. A credit is just that, a credit. If I install a 75k system on my house I would receive a 22.5k credit to be applied towards my taxes. IF i owe any money it is deducted from the credit and i receive the difference as a refund. IF I don't owe any taxes, I get my refund plus credit as my tax refund. Ive been working in the solar industry for 5 years, I fully understand how this works, and where the money comes from.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> why is that so hard for you to understand?


I could ask you the same thing I suppose but I would rather just stick to our points and keep the civil tone even tho we may not see things from the same perspective.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> How about the Commercial Tax Grant program. 30% non taxable grant paid straight from the treasury dept to commercial properties that install solar.
> 
> And on a side note your WAY off on your understanding and description of the 30% residential tax credit. A credit is just that, a credit. If I install a 75k system on my house I would receive a 22.5k credit to be applied towards my taxes. IF i owe any money it is deducted from the credit and i receive the difference as a refund. IF I don't owe any taxes, I get my refund plus credit as my tax refund. Ive been working in the solar industry for 5 years, I fully understand how this works, and where the money comes from.


The credit will not take your taxable income below zero the EIC does after the credit is applied. Still a refund tho yes. Its still a CREDIT

A CREDIT

not FUNDING

Its an investment not a handout, It has a return
It has a return
It has a return
It has a return
It has a return


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Some good facts here:
> http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110628/FACILITIES01/106280303
> 
> e.g.:
> ...


Ok rex. 

Lets say a system cost 10 dollars and federal gubbamint gives dem 3 dollars. Then the gubbamint gets back 5 dollars from the jobs created by the 10 dollars. 


Is that 3 dollars funding or an investment? What are the other 2 dollars called?

.


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

gold said:


> The credit will not take your taxable income below zero the EIC does after the credit is applied. Still a refund tho yes. Its still a CREDIT
> 
> A CREDIT
> 
> ...


Why is this so hard for you do grasp. It is no different than the 8,000k deal they were doing for new homebuyers a few years ago. It offsets your taxes and if have any left over, you get it as a REFUND. Ive worked with hundreds of homeowners over the years, trust me they 100% get it back as a refund.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Why is this so hard for you do grasp. It is no different than the 8,000k deal they were doing for new homebuyers a few years ago. It offsets your taxes and if have any left over, you get it as a REFUND. Ive worked with hundreds of homeowners over the years, trust me they 100% get it back as a refund.


Ok Joe. I have done a bunch but not hundreds and I am certainly not an accountant The way I understand it they do not but they do get the EIC, however you very well could be right. This isn't what I am arguing but thanks for clearing that up for me.

My point is that (fukk I can't believe I have to say this again) There is a return on the tax credit in the form of created jobs and a larger tax base therefore it is not direct funding. Even marcs program with accelerated depreciation and guaranteed loans have a return.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

You know what. You guys are right. Solar is evil. Stay away from it. Bad solar. Evil gubbamint spending our tax dollars on jobs when so many people don't have jobs.


:surrender::surrender::surrender:


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> Ok rex.
> 
> Lets say a system cost 10 dollars and federal gubbamint gives dem 3 dollars. Then the gubbamint gets back 5 dollars from the jobs created by the 10 dollars.
> 
> ...


Huh?

You stated:


gold said:


> Its NOT being driven by gov't spending. That's a myth. There are tax incentives as there are in many new industries to promote job growth. Its working.


A number of people called BS. Now you seem to be changing the
subject, perhaps because you don't want to admit you were wrong.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> You know what. You guys are right. Solar is evil. Stay away from it. Bad solar. Evil gubbamint spending our tax dollars on jobs when so many people don't have jobs.
> 
> 
> :surrender::surrender::surrender:


FWIW, I really LIKE solar. I have worked on a bunch of solar
jobs. I would like to put it on my house if I could, but I have
to admit that IMO it is somewhat of an expensive science
project. I also support NASA putting a man on Mars (really,
I'm not kidding).

Even though I support those things, I don't want to become
detached from the fact that they are expensive.

You had some good points, though.:thumbsup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Huh?
> That math problem throw you for a loop did it? Don't worry about that its not important.
> You stated:
> 
> ...


You got me Rex. Your right I was wrong. You win dude. Next time Zog says I'm wrong I'll just do what you said and be wrong.

:surrender::surrender::surrender:


I surrender. I give up. Please No more. Your right I am wrong. Please no more.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

gold said:


> You got me Rex. Your right I was wrong. You win dude. Next time Zog says I'm wrong I'll just do what you said and be wrong.
> 
> :surrender::surrender::surrender:
> 
> ...


No, Gold.

You're the man! Just keep being you.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on clean energy sources personally then a lot of other things.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on clean energy sources personally then a lot of other things.


I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on building infrastructure. Roads. Bridges. High speed rail.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on building infrastructure. Roads. Bridges. High speed rail.


We have too much that needs to be fixed first before we start blowing money on stuff like high speed rail.


I can only keep patching **** back together for so long :laughing:


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> We have too much that needs to be fixed first before we start blowing money on stuff like high speed rail.
> 
> 
> I can only keep patching **** back together for so long :laughing:


So you support spending on clean energy sources but not rail systems? You do understand that a HS rail system saves more energy and CO2 emmisions than clean energy can for the same investment right?

Infastructure builds empires, ours is crumbling while China and India are building state of the art systems. Our economy depends on the ability to transport goods, trucks sitting in gridlock caused by poor roads and overcrowding is a huge cost for businesses and a major factor to us losing manufacturing plants overseas. 

Our power grid is a mess, investments to upgrade our grid is the best energy savings investment we can make, it is estimated that a smart grid can save up to 20% of our nations energy usage, that is the same amount of power produced by the sum of our 106 nuclear power plants, you want to invest our tax dollars wisely, invest it into our infastructure.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

I read these two articles some time ago and I learned MA transit is not that much more efficient then car travel. There are still good reasons for it in the right locations but it can often be very inefficient due to low riderships.

Pay attention to the BTUs per mile.



> Motorcycle — 2,200 with single rider.
> Heavy rail (includes subway and commuter rail but excludes light rail/streetcar) — 2,600.
> Commercial aircraft — 3,100.
> Bus — 4,300.
> Auto — 5,500 with single occupant, 3,500 with average passenger load.


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2917/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy

http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100401.php


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> You do understand that a HS rail system saves more energy and CO2 emmisions than clean energy can for the same investment right?
> 
> Thats a preposterous statement, To make a blanket statement that any HS rail is more efficient then all clean energy clearly exposes your bias. I get it you like nuclear power, me too but don't tout as the ONLY viable option.
> 
> ...



A bit threatened by solar Zog? What about the other 10 things I mentioned in my OP any of those bother you? What about fuel cells do they chap your ass too? I guess your OK with charging stations tho right?

What do you say we just get right to the real issue here and talk about micro generation and how through it we can decrease our need for the large power producers and transmission infrastructure in general?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

rexowner said:


> Huh?
> 
> You stated:
> 
> ...


Rex first of all GFY, second the solar industry is not driven by tax dollars for 2 reasons;
1) its not the biggest reason people install solar it helps, its part of the motor but not he single driving force. In fact in most of the states where its really flourishing its the RPA that pushes it.
2) Its not tax funded. I know now that you are not capable of understanding the difference between a credit a debit and funding but the fact remains there very much is a difference.

I know Zog says "Solar bad" and you may have a hard time developing your own freely thought opinions but this is an efficient method of creating jobs.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> I read these two articles some time ago and I learned MA transit is not that much more efficient then car travel. There are still good reasons for it in the right locations but it can often be very inefficient due to low riderships.
> 
> Pay attention to the BTUs per mile.
> 
> ...


Only thing I didn't see addressed that should be would be btu's per mile/pound of freight. I would imagine rail would be dramatically more efficient in that category.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Only thing I didn't see addressed that should be would be btu's per mile/pound of freight. I would imagine rail would be dramatically more efficient in that category.


I agree.

All in all they are pretty lightweight articles but I think they dispel some myths.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

WTF is with all the edited post? I don't mean you Bob I see what you added. A few people went back and changed there post and it doesn't quite reflect the same way. 

Credibility -1


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Yes , Gold , I was wondering the same thing. I wonder now if perhaps the assurances we got from Zog about how the n-plants in Japan were not going to big deal like Chernobyl have been "repaired" as well by now.......


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

macmikeman said:


> Yes , Gold , I was wondering the same thing. I wonder now if perhaps the assurances we got from Zog about how the n-plants in Japan were not going to big deal like Chernobyl have been "repaired" as well by now.......


 
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yea I am sure his love of fossile fuel and nuke power has nothing to do with his stand on solar and green energy what so ever.....:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Zog said:


> So you support spending on clean energy sources but not rail systems?


Yep. 


Infrastructure repair, SCADA work, utility system O&M.... keeps me and my guys in the money. I'm gonna care more about repairs then building stuff like new rail lines that probably won't work out exactly as planned. 

Also solar and other renewables are what clients want and I'm gonna provide them. Right now we have an r&d project going on dealing with hydrogen fuel for fleet vehicles.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

gold said:


> ...
> 
> Its an investment not a handout, It has a return
> It has a return
> ...


I have never seen any figures that show an actual ROI on solar...at least not any that show a break even number that is less than the expected life of the equipment. I have seen a lot of them that have used very very optimistic power production numbers to show a ROI that is less than the life of the equipment. However that all falls apart when you use real world power production numbers and add in maintenance costs. 
Big wind is even worse since the utilities have to buy it when it is available but can't count it as "reliable power" and still have to build enough conventional power plants to cover the load...power plants that have to be run a levels much below their optimal efficiency level because they are required to buy the wind power when the wind is blowing.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I have never seen any figures that show an actual ROI on solar...at least not any that show a break even number that is less than the expected life of the equipment. I have seen a lot of them that have used very very optimistic power production numbers to show a ROI that is less than the life of the equipment. However that all falls apart when you use real world power production numbers and add in maintenance costs.
> Big wind is even worse since the utilities have to buy it when it is available but can't count it as "reliable power" and still have to build enough conventional power plants to cover the load...power plants that have to be run a levels much below their optimal efficiency level because they are required to buy the wind power when the wind is blowing.


Really I see ROI as low as 5-7 years every single day.

The post you quoted is out of context it refers to the return from invested tax credits.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

When you get an estimate from HELCO to string a set of poles and lines 4 miles up the hill from the nearest sub station to your lava prone lot in Hawaiian Acres for two hundred thousand up front, 30K on a solar pv system starts looking real good real quick. 

For places like that, PV is a miracle cure. For an average ec who wants to grow and grow fast (if he can handle it hopefully) PV is a miracle cure. 
As a solution to the countries energy problem, PV is not the answer. 

Boiled down.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

macmikeman said:


> , PV is not the answer.
> 
> .


No it isn't. Not by itself.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

gold said:


> Really I see ROI as low as 5-7 years every single day.
> 
> The post you quoted is out of context it refers to the return from invested tax credits.


I didn't post a quote. My comment is that solar does not make any economic sense with or without tax credits. It does not pay for itself in the life of the equipment.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I didn't post a quote. My comment is that solar does not make any economic sense with or without tax credits. It does not pay for itself in the life of the equipment.


That is completely untrue. The system can pay for itself in 5-7 years.

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

robnj772 said:


> That is completely untrue. The system can pay for itself in 5-7 years.


Call me very doubtful.

Can you back that up at all?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Call me very doubtful.
> 
> Can you back that up at all?


Absolutely. It happens here Daily through SRECS and soon thanks to the new energy policies in mass modeled after ours you can do it there too.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

You have to consider the value of the energy credit. That is what pays for the system.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> You have to consider the value of the energy credit. That is what pays for the system.


Than it is not paying for itself.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Absolutely. It happens here Daily through SRECS and soon thanks to the new energy policies in mass modeled after ours you can do it there too.


We have installed quite a few systems, some pretty large. 

I have never seen any payback projections anywhere near 7 years.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I didn't post a quote. My comment is that solar does not make any economic sense with or without tax credits. It does not pay for itself in the life of the equipment.


Don you quoted me in post #72. 

It does in-fact pay for itself here in a few years. Other states are beginning to model there RPA's after hours and it will be elsewhere as well.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Than it is not paying for itself.


The system generates electric = savings
The system generates SRECs which are sold as commodities = revenue.

Savings + revenue = ROI

Cmon Bob don't troll me, please.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> We have installed quite a few systems, some pretty large.
> 
> I have never seen any payback projections anywhere near 7 years.


Most here in this state are. Some longer, most in less then 7.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> The system generates electric = savings
> The system generates SRECs which are sold as commodities = revenue.
> 
> Savings + revenue = ROI
> ...


Cmon Gold, don't be a salesman. 

You can spin it however you want, call it a credit, call it a rebate but the systems do not have their own ROI (at least not a quick one) without some sort of subsidy.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Most here in this state are. Some longer, most in less then 7.


Take away the rebates / credits and get back to me. :laughing:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> We have installed quite a few systems, some pretty large.
> 
> I have never seen any payback projections anywhere near 7 years.


I am not talking large commercial systems.

The residential systems can be paid off in 5-7 years

My in laws just got 8 grand for their serecs

It's a common fact , I don't know why there are so many negative nellie's on here these days

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I didn't post a quote. My comment is that solar does not make any economic sense with or without tax credits. It does not pay for itself in the life of the equipment.


Well you did quote a post. In fact you quoted gold's post which kept repeating...it has a return, it has a return, it has a return, it has a return, it has a return.......


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Cmon Gold, don't be a salesman.
> 
> You can spin it however you want, call it a credit, call it a rebate but the systems do not have their own ROI (at least not a quick one) without some sort of subsidy.


I concede. If you want to call a tax credit that creates jobs, grows the tax base, and increases spending a subsidy so be it. However the SREC program is not in any way a tax program.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

steelersman said:


> Well you did quote a post. In fact you quoted gold's post which kept repeating...it has a return, it has a return, it has a return, it has a return, it has a return.......


I'm beside myself. I don't even know what to say really.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

gold said:


> I'm beside myself. I don't even know what to say really.


You can always laugh.....:laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Take away the rebates / credits and get back to me. :laughing:


Ok Bob but when I take that away were gonna loose all those jobs too.

I'm gonna go slam my junk in my desk drawer. Its less painful.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

gold said:


> I'm beside myself. I don't even know what to say really.



These guys have an obvious bias against anything that will remove or lessen the dependence on big corporations and power monopolies......


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

gold said:


> Ok Bob but when I take that away were gonna loose all those jobs too.
> 
> I'm gonna go slam my junk in my desk drawer. Its less painful.


Just use after shave less damage just as much pain..:blink::laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Ok Bob but when I take that away were gonna loose all those jobs too.



So just be honest, the systems don't have great ROI but installing them is good for ECs.

That's all.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

steelersman said:


> These guys have an obvious bias against anything that will remove or lessen the dependence on big corporations and power monopolies......


No it is just common sense


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> So just be honest, the systems don't have great ROI but installing them is good for ECs.
> 
> That's all.


No Bob the ROI is 5-7 years. :hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> No it is just common sense



Woah there lil man don't start trying to understand common sense.....:laughing:


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

Obviously there are going to be very different opinions on this subject. I am in the solar industry in NJ and I'll be the first to tell you that the ROI SUCKS. Ever since the state rebate collapsed, and now with the rapidly declining SREC market there is no incentives to install solar. All that's left is the 30% federal tax credit.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

How about a quoted cost to install a "standard" system. Along with how much power it can produce in a normal day. In my area we have about 200 days a year that are very over cast. Should be very easy to add up KW and calculate the cost of power vs the cost of install.


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

nitro71 said:


> How about a quoted cost to install a "standard" system. Along with how much power it can produce in a normal day. In my area we have about 200 days a year that are very over cast. Should be very easy to add up KW and calculate the cost of power vs the cost of install.


I can't guess as to what your shading report would say. So I can't calculate what your estimated system production would be. Based on 200 days of overcast, I can say with utmost certainty that your production isn't going to be great. Your out of pocket expense is going to be huge and will not offer any good ROI. 

IF you spend on average $3,600 a year on electricity that amounts to about 15 kw of usage. Theoretically you could install a 15kw system or larger depending on what PVWatts says your production will be. Your production is affected by shade, DC to AC derate factor, and tilt and azimuth. Most states don't allow your production to exceed your annual usage. So based on 15kw if you get it installed for the average rate of 4.25 to 5.25 a watt that's about an average of 70k installed. If you get the 30% credit that brings the cost down to 49k. You will generate about 16 srecs a year which the payback can vary on. If we take the low price of 250 an srec that's about 4k a year plus your 3,600 electric bill is a net of about 7k a year. It would take you 7 years to pay off the system before you actually make a profit from it. Now, mind you these are hypothetical numbers, no true estimate can be given without actually seeing the site and taking the actual measurements.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Face it, people want their solar, wind and what not, get on board and get ahead of the pack (and by pack I mean the many failing EC's) or stick to installing can lights and adding receps for peanuts. 

And what's the real with the ROI, Grid tie systems were never gonna have great ROI on their own, most of us accepted that a long time ago. Really the only time you are gonna see the systems pay for themselves effectively is off grid like mac talked about or the small systems I do for remote sites.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Face it, people want their solar, wind and what not, get on board and get ahead of the pack (and by pack I mean the many failing EC's) or stick to installing can lights and adding receps for peanuts.
> 
> And what's the real with the ROI, Grid tie systems were never gonna have great ROI on their own, most of us accepted that a long time ago. Really the only time you are gonna see the systems pay for themselves effectively is off grid like mac talked about or the small systems I do for remote sites.


I don't think we are arguing about installing them. I do what I'm paid to do. But I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out if they pay for themselves or not.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I do have another semi logical macquestion to ask. How many EC's here would give a rats behind about how much good you are doing for the world and environment if you owned an oil refinery? None. You would have a very nice money making machine you owned and that would be all that mattered to you. But owning an oil refinery is out of the question for most of us. (Zog?) 


A PV system installing company can do very nicely for itself in a very short while. Screw the other reasons for or against PV and serc credits and all that jolly rot. Right now at least there are some big bucks to be made boys. You don't even have to be a bigger well financed outfit to start up at this, although I guarantee that you are entering a very tough market place. Still I know at least 5 one man shops three years ago that are now about 10 vans running the streets, and we have some big national outfits to deal with here too. If you have the energy and gonads to dive in, its gold time...


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

nitro71 said:


> I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out if they pay for themselves or not.



:yes::icon_wink:


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> Why would I want my tax money spent on something that costs $0.22/kWH (All construction costs over life span of panels) to replace using other sources that only cost $0.04/kWH (Construction, production, and decommisioning costs) such as hydro, coal, or nuclear???
> 
> It is a complete waste of money and should not be funded with taxpayers dollars. If someone wants a solar system because they feel better abou tit they should feel free to waste thier own money, but not mine.


Look at this link and actually read all of the bullet points.......

http://solarworld-usa.com/solar-for...ay&utm_source=microsoft&utm_content=300x250_2


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

steelersman said:


> Look at this link and actually read all of the bullet points.......
> 
> http://solarworld-usa.com/solar-for...ay&utm_source=microsoft&utm_content=300x250_2


 
He won't ever read that

He will just toss out some BS and refuse to face the facts

His job would be on the line if everyone went to solar,that is why he is saying the things he is.

Just like the BS he spewed with the whole Japanese reactor meltdown


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Micro generation is more offensive then rape to the nuclear industry.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

steelersman said:


> Look at this link and actually read all of the bullet points.......
> 
> http://solarworld-usa.com/solar-for...ay&utm_source=microsoft&utm_content=300x250_2


Yeah, "Solar world" is not going to be biased. Try looking at real data from sources like IEEE or EPRI.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> He won't ever read that
> 
> He will just toss out some BS and refuse to face the facts


 You know nothing about the facts, you have shown that again and again. 



robnj772 said:


> His job would be on the line if everyone went to solar,that is why he is saying the things he is.


 That would have no effect on me at all, again, you have no idea what you are talking about. 


robnj772 said:


> Just like the BS he spewed with the whole Japanese reactor meltdown


 Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, everything I poosted in that thread was accurate at the time I posted it. You care to share what BS you are refering to, because you have no fricking clue besides what you saw on the news, which 99% of the content was wrong. 

You really crack me up, an attic crawling rat with no involvement in the global energy market thinks he knows it all.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Micro generation is more offensive then rape to the nuclear industry.


Hmmm, that is a bout the most inaccurate statement I have read yet, the nuclear community is very supportive of clean energy and micro generation. 

Go read my posts again, I don;t have any issue with solar, just have an issue with out tax dollars subsidizing residential systems, that are a waste of money in most places. Sure in a remote location, or a place with very expensive electric rates, or with a lot of sunshine they may be a worthwile investment, but still should not be funded by the government and are a total waste of money in a place like NJ. 

You have not given any facts besides it is good to use tax money because it creates jobs, your job. A lot more jobs can be created a thousand different ways with that money.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Try looking at real data from sources like IEEE or EPRI.


IEEE uses a solar PV array to generate power for the organization’s headquarters in Piscataway, N.J. In 2009, a 50 kW roof-top solar array consisting of more than 275 panels was installed, reducing utility costs and lowering carbon dioxide emissions by 71.5 metric tons. This year, IEEE plans to expand the generation capacity of the existing solar array to 220 kW, with additional future phases planned for their other buildings.

Quoted from
http://www.ieee.org/about/news/2011/15june_2011.html

Oh EPRI is on the bandwagon too
http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1991


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Hmmm, that is a bout the most inaccurate statement I have read yet, the nuclear community is very supportive of clean energy and micro generation.
> 
> Go read my posts again, I don;t have any issue with solar, just have an issue with out tax dollars subsidizing residential systems, that are a waste of money in most places. Sure in a remote location, or a place with very expensive electric rates, or with a lot of sunshine they may be a worthwile investment, but still should not be funded by the government and are a total waste of money in a place like NJ.
> 
> You have not given any facts besides it is good to use tax money because it creates jobs, your job. A lot more jobs can be created a thousand different ways with that money.


I would argue this with you again but you have already proven yourself so biased that you won't acknowledge it.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> IEEE uses a solar PV array to generate power for the organization’s headquarters in Piscataway, N.J. In 2009, a 50 kW roof-top solar array consisting of more than 275 panels was installed, reducing utility costs and lowering carbon dioxide emissions by 71.5 metric tons. This year, IEEE plans to expand the generation capacity of the existing solar array to 220 kW, with additional future phases planned for their other buildings.
> 
> Quoted from
> http://www.ieee.org/about/news/2011/15june_2011.html
> ...


Yeah, in 10 years it "might" make economical sense for efficient large scale generation in the right parts of the workd that get a lot of sun, like I said. Neither of these have anything to do with a residential PV system in New Jersey, which will never pay for itself before needing to be replaced.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> I would argue this with you again but you have already proven yourself so biased that you won't acknowledge it.


Me biased? Are you kidding me? It effects me not one bit, you count of it for your job, so who is biased. 

Obviously we need to find a better energy solution, and maybe a small part of that will be solar someday, but in the meantime stop wasting my tax dollars on residential PV system rebates in parts of the country it makes no economic sense what so ever.

Look at this map, where should we be building solar systems??????
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cwrSE63jF...w/5sQSuXMFZmM/s1600-h/us_solar_energy_map.jpg


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Thats a great map but it doesn't consider the effect of the ambient temperatures on the efficiency of the system. 

They are paying for themselves in 4-5 years and there generating a positive tax revenue. If you don't like that idea then you should give BACK some of that tax money there saving you.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> They are paying for themselves in 4-5 years and there generating a positive tax revenue. If you don't like that idea then you should give BACK some of that tax money there saving you.


That is 100% BS that you were trained to spew. Maybe you try some research from something other than "Solar world" or "Green power". I did.

My job requires a lot of research, and one thing I know is how skewed facts are from biased sources. 

Positive tax revenue, that funny stuff:laughing:


----------



## Dan Easterday (Aug 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I have never seen any figures that show an actual ROI on solar...at least not any that show a break even number that is less than the expected life of the equipment. I have seen a lot of them that have used very very optimistic power production numbers to show a ROI that is less than the life of the equipment. However that all falls apart when you use real world power production numbers and add in maintenance costs.
> Big wind is even worse since the utilities have to buy it when it is available but can't count it as "reliable power" and still have to build enough conventional power plants to cover the load...power plants that have to be run a levels much below their optimal efficiency level because they are required to buy the wind power when the wind is blowing.


 
We just installed a 6.4Kw system on my dad's place in Woodstock, IL.

Here's the breakdown:

Modules warrantied to 85% of power for 30 years (Mage Powertec)
Inverter warrantied for 12 years (Solar Edge)
MPPT optimizers warrntied for 20 years.

His real world energy production from June 3rd to today is 22kWh per day.
Accumulated energy cost through Com-Ed is roughly $.11 /kWh (and is set to increase so that they can fund the smart grid and upgrading coal plants)

His real world power use is roughly 975 kWh per month give or take, averaged over 12 months.

Cost of the system, before state grant program and federal tax credit was $36.5K

Cost after state and federal program incentives is $14.6K

So, let's do the math:

$.11 * estimated 11700KwH is: $1287
Estimated power generation is 8030kwh. That * .11 = $883.3

So, $14.6K divided by 883.3 = 16 years payback. After that, it's all positive revenue.

Now, because of shading that we plan to eliminate, my numbers are conservative and do not include any income from SREC sales that we have signed up for. So, real world numbers, that's very conservative.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> That is 100% BS that you were trained to spew. Maybe you try some research from something other than "Solar world" or "Green power". I did.
> 
> My job requires a lot of research, and one thing I know is how skewed facts are from biased sources.
> 
> Positive tax revenue, that funny stuff:laughing:


Who is it that is training me to spew this Zog?

I see it with my own experience ROI as fast as 4 years. I'm not the only one its happening everyday.

:yes::yes:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Edited Out


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan Easterday said:


> We just installed a 6.4Kw system on my dad's place in Woodstock, IL.
> 
> Here's the breakdown:
> 
> ...


Thanks for making my point, without the government spending tax revenue on these systems it would have been $36.5k. Which divided by 833.3 is $43.8 years payback, well beyond the expected life of the system. 

Wasteful government spending at it's finest.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Thanks for making my point, without the government spending tax revenue on these systems it would have been $36.5k. Which divided by 833.3 is $43.8 years payback, well beyond the expected life of the system.
> 
> Wasteful government spending at it's finest.


Then you should give back the revenue it creates.


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

I know I am willing to spend some tax dollars on clean energy. 

Its better then giving it to countries that hate our guts and we only cozy up to for oil.

Or spending the money on war for more dirty oil.

Face facts Zog, Nukes had a good run, as did coal. But the run is coming to an end, and Japan opened a lot of peoples eyes.

As did the prices at the gas pumps.

As more people get on board, the prices will drop. Same as anything else.

Solar is the future, like it or hate it.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> ***************************
> 
> You wouldn't know a real electrician if he kicked you in the ass bubble boy. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
> 
> ...


Real nice

No fission is the new global energy market, just need a stop gap for the 20 or so years it takes us to achieve it on a large enough scale for useful power production. 

As soon as the federal and state rebates disappear, and they are already starting to the last few weeks and will disapear all together in the next couple years, the solar market will die off for residential sytems. The feds have already announced they are now renewing these programs as some of many tax cuts. Then you will be the one unemployed. I'll be just fine.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Then you should give back the revenue it creates.


I know math is hard for you but when someone proves there is no revenue maybe you should not quote that and say it creates revenue. Or do you just mean revenue for you??:whistling2:


----------



## IBEW191 (Apr 4, 2011)

nitro71 said:


> There is a reason that govt spending is driving solar and wind. It's because it's not cost effective.
> 
> It's no wonder the IBEW is lapping it up like the govt dole whores they are.


 Ya they should just turn down that work shouldn't they, greedy IBEW!


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

lefleuron said:


> I know I am willing to spend some tax dollars on clean energy.
> 
> Its better then giving it to countries that hate our guts and we only cozy up to for oil.
> 
> ...


So do I, we should be inbesting in RESEARCH of new clean energy sources, including solar because while it is not the future it is a piece of the puzzle. But fat taz rebates to people putting PV systems on thier homes in states that hardly get any sun compared to other states is a complete waste of those resources.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Of course zog its because I don't understand maffs. I know nothing of the 18 million nj tax liability from 2009 that generated 115 million in 2011 not to mention an estimated 15000 jobs. 


Oh noes da gubbamints takin Zogs taxins!!!

Remind me again where the waste from those nuke plants go?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Where do you burry those spent rods Zog? How long do they sit there? What happens to them later?


----------



## Dan Easterday (Aug 21, 2011)

Zog said:


> Real nice
> 
> No fission is the new global energy market, just need a stop gap for the 20 or so years it takes us to achieve it on a large enough scale for useful power production.
> 
> As soon as the federal and state rebates disappear, and they are already starting to the last few weeks and will disapear all together in the next couple years, the solar market will die off for residential sytems. The feds have already announced they are now renewing these programs as some of many tax cuts. Then you will be the one unemployed. I'll be just fine.


 
That's why the Germans are shutting down their Nuke plants and building coal.

Let's face it: envrionmental concerns are relevant. There is still no good long term plan for storing or disposing of nuclear waste that is guaranteed spill/leak/fire proof, and Japan showed the issues with containment in extreme conditions. Also, just as there is a finite source of coal, natural gas and oil, there is a finite source of fissionable material.

Coal is dirty, nasty, polluting material when burned and as evidenced by the huge coal ash spill/breach in TN a few years ago, byproduct storage is an issue for coal as well.

Solar energy is completely renewable, and the materials are completely recyclable at end of life span with no waste product given off as a byproduct of production. Distributed energy grids are more efficient and more stable than traditional transmision grids.

Oil, natural gas, and nuclear power all get governmental financial assistance wether through tax breaks by the feds for certain projects or parent companies or local tax incentives to bring the facility to a particular locality. Hydro gets help too because most hydro plants in the US have involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers in water management stratigies.

Also, there's a limit to how many hydro plants we can make because of terrain considerations and water management concerns.

Zog, I don't know if you have children but I do. I want to do my best to help clean up this joint and make it sustainable. The money put into solar power through incentives, exemptions, and rebates is designed to get the ball moving in the direction of cheaper and more efficient solar power. Already, there are samples of amorphous cells that are producing in the lab at 30-40% efficiency, and are cheaper to manufacture than typical mono- or poly-crystalline cells. That R&D came from studying systems in place, and was funded by people buying product. The government helped the fossil fuel and nuclear industries out the exact same way when they were starting out.


----------



## Dan Easterday (Aug 21, 2011)

Zog said:


> So do I, we should be inbesting in RESEARCH of new clean energy sources, including solar because while it is not the future it is a piece of the puzzle. But fat taz rebates to people putting PV systems on thier homes in states that hardly get any sun compared to other states is a complete waste of those resources.



If you knew anything at all about that solar irradiation chart and how it applies to different types of modules and systems, you would not have made that remark. The chart that you referenced deals with average solar hours per day based on atmospheric coverage. There are certain types of modules out there that are performing better with indirect irradiation than direct irradiation. Also, the map previously referenced was for a specific type of PV system and dealt with tracking info.

This data also does not take into account recent advancements in power inversion technology such as disributed systems and more advanced MPPT algorithms. If you reference THIS:










YOu will see that outside of Alaska, the country averages 4kWh/m^2/Day or better. That's actually pretty good when you start looking at real world numbers.

THe key to sucessful implementation of PV is to get quality trained and certified installers and designers, and start situating our buildings for maximum yield. More south facing roofs, less shaded roofs, and better large scale site design. It's a bottom up approach that will work.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> Yeah, "Solar world" is not going to be biased. Try looking at real data from sources like IEEE or EPRI.



They're no more biased than you are........


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Of course zog its because I don't understand maffs. I know nothing of the 18 million nj tax liability from 2009 that generated 115 million in 2011 not to mention an estimated 15000 jobs.
> 
> 
> Oh noes da gubbamints takin Zogs taxins!!!
> ...


Do wu have to turn to insults becawse wu can't back up any of your poo poo with wany pwoof?

Try this for a little fun, Google "solar panel plant closings" and enjoy. Then check the cuts the feds made so far this month on your precious tax rebaltes, most of them will be allowed to expire as are state programs, NJ's expires in 2012 so you have a few months to work on your resume.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Do wu have to turn to insults becawse wu can't back up any of your poo poo with wany pwoof?
> 
> Try this for a little fun, Google "solar panel plant closings" and enjoy. Then check the cuts the feds made so far this month on your precious tax rebaltes, most of them will be allowed to expire as are state programs, NJ's expires in 2012 so you have a few months to work on your resume.


well you have half the story.


What happens to that waste Zog?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan Easterday said:


> If you knew anything at all about that solar irradiation chart and how it applies to different types of modules and systems, you would not have made that remark. The chart that you referenced deals with average solar hours per day based on atmospheric coverage. There are certain types of modules out there that are performing better with indirect irradiation than direct irradiation. Also, the map previously referenced was for a specific type of PV system and dealt with tracking info.
> 
> This data also does not take into account recent advancements in power inversion technology such as disributed systems and more advanced MPPT algorithms. If you reference THIS:
> 
> ...


This map makes the same point I was making, NJ is a crappy place to put solar panels, at least until much more efficient panels are available.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> Do wu have to turn to insults becawse wu can't back up any of your poo poo with wany pwoof?
> 
> Try this for a little fun, Google "solar panel plant closings" and enjoy. Then check the cuts the feds made so far this month on your precious tax rebaltes, most of them will be allowed to expire as are state programs, NJ's expires in 2012 so you have a few months to work on your resume.



You're just so negatively and obviously biased against solar. It's comical how obvious it is. Are you going to keep dodging the questions about what happens to the nuclear waste? I thought so......


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan Easterday said:


> That's why the Germans are shutting down their Nuke plants and building coal.


 They are not shutting down anything that was not planned 20 years ago, nuclear plants have limitied times on thier operating licences (Usualy 20 years), depending on the condition and performance of the plant sometimes those licenses are extended through an application and evaluation process, when a licenece is extended a massive amount of upgrades are required to be done to that plant that can cost 10x more than it did to build the plant 20 years later. 

The plants in Germany were outdated before they came on line 20 years ago, none of the operators of these plants have even filed for an extension. 



Dan Easterday said:


> Let's face it: envrionmental concerns are relevant. There is still no good long term plan for storing or disposing of nuclear waste that is guaranteed spill/leak/fire proof, and Japan showed the issues with containment in extreme conditions. Also, just as there is a finite source of coal, natural gas and oil, there is a finite source of fissionable material.
> 
> Coal is dirty, nasty, polluting material when burned and as evidenced by the huge coal ash spill/breach in TN a few years ago, byproduct storage is an issue for coal as well.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the first intelligent pro solar post in this entire thread, I agree with everything you said. 

I have stated many times we should invest in R&D for solar, it is the rebate plan, specifically in the not so sunny states, that I am oppsoed to.


----------



## Dan Easterday (Aug 21, 2011)

Zog said:


> This map makes the same point I was making, NJ is a crappy place to put solar panels, at least until much more efficient panels are available.


 
Nope, it does not make your point. It actually makes the point that NJ is perfectly fine to install solar. Remember, we're talking about kWh/m^2/day on that map. When you start talking about real world power consumption, it equalizes across the map because the typical home will use more power in the southwest to run AC during the hotter months than a home in NJ will. Conversely, the PV system in the southwest will not get the efficiency boost of cold temperatures that NJ has during the winter. And before you go crying about cloud cover and such, remember that the map is about average solar irradiation data, which takes into account atmospheric conditions but not temperature conditions that affect how PV modules work.

Understanding how PV works is key to this conversation. Methinks you need to do some homework.

Oh, and you haven't told me that I'm wrong aobut the underwriting of nuclear and fossil fuel power by the government over time. One could argue that the entire nuclear power programwas underwritten by the government at the beginning because the government paid for all the research into nuclear power and most advancements in nuclear power have come from DOD related programs and trickled into the commercial market.

I'm tired tonight but for giggles, does anybody wnat to do a search for the amount of money that the US government has poured into research and implementation of nuclear power adjusted for today's current dollar value? I'd be willing to bet that it's more money than has been spent on Solar projects....


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

steelersman said:


> You're just so negatively and obviously biased against solar. It's comical how obvious it is. Are you going to keep dodging the questions about what happens to the nuclear waste? I thought so......


I am biased agaist wastefull tax rebates in state that don;t get any  sunshine! If you could read, you would have read many times that I support green energy, including solar power, but think we need to focus on R&D instead. 

As far as your "nuclear waste" question, what waste at what plant? There are many type of things Fox news calls "neclear waste", some is, some is not. Some is but is not an issue for disposal, some is an issue when it somes to disposal, but that all depends on where and what you are refering to. 

But simply put, it is stored somewhere to decay, which can take many years for some things, but the amount of that material is very minimal, but we do need a better way (Yucca mountain would have been pretty good), and because of the waste issue, nuclear power is likely not our long term solution, nor is solar.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> I am biased agaist wastefull tax rebates in state that don;t get any  sunshine! If you could read, you would have read many times that I support green energy, including solar power, but think we need to focus on R&D instead.
> 
> As far as your "nuclear waste" question, what waste at what plant? There are many type of things Fox news calls "neclear waste", some is, some is not. Some is but is not an issue for disposal, some is an issue when it somes to disposal, but that all depends on where and what you are refering to.
> 
> But simply put, it is stored somewhere to decay, which can take many years for some things, but the amount of that material is very minimal, but we do need a better way (Yucca mountain would have been pretty good), and because of the waste issue, nuclear power is likely not our long term solution, nor is solar.


I would imagine that the amount of govt. money spent on solar pales compared to the amount wasted on Iraq, Afganistan, and bailing out Wall Street. Those are huge wastes right there. 

As for long term energy solutions, what is harmful about solar? Why do you have such a hard-on against it? It's clear as day that your only beef isn't govt. spending on it in areas that have no sunshine? Hahahaha you are silly. All areas get sunshine. Some more than others obviously but so what we all get some sunshine. Maybe we should rally the govt. to make sure that everyone gets their fair share of sunshine as well and have it distributed evenly so that the "socialist" I mean "solar" program will be a success.

At least solar has no waste at all to be worried about. Please tell me how Chernobyl or Fukushima could happen again if they were using solar, wind, water any other free forms of energy?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan Easterday said:


> Nope, it does not make your point. It actually makes the point that NJ is perfectly fine to install solar. Remember, we're talking about kWh/m^2/day on that map. When you start talking about real world power consumption, it equalizes across the map because the typical home will use more power in the southwest to run AC during the hotter months than a home in NJ will.


 I don't see how that is relevant, regardless of usage you can still generate power at $.04-$.05/kwh using other methods and can purchase that power at around $0.10 kWh so how does a system that costs more than twice that to generate power become a good economic choice? Oh, yeah, it dosent, unless federal and state taxes are used to subsidize it. 



Dan Easterday said:


> Conversely, the PV system in the southwest will not get the efficiency boost of cold temperatures that NJ has during the winter. And before you go crying about cloud cover and such, remember that the map is about average solar irradiation data, which takes into account atmospheric conditions but not temperature conditions that affect how PV modules work.
> 
> Understanding how PV works is key to this conversation. Methinks you need to do some homework.


 That makes sense, but also is true for any power delivery system. At least you are offering an intelligent response, I respect that. 



Dan Easterday said:


> Oh, and you haven't told me that I'm wrong aobut the underwriting of nuclear and fossil fuel power by the government over time. One could argue that the entire nuclear power programwas underwritten by the government at the beginning because the government paid for all the research into nuclear power and most advancements in nuclear power have come from DOD related programs and trickled into the commercial market.


 Sure I did, I agreed with you, but that was for R&D not for an individual person putting a nuclear plant on thier roof. Again (For like the millionth time), I support R&D funding for solar.



Dan Easterday said:


> I'm tired tonight but for giggles, does anybody wnat to do a search for the amount of money that the US government has poured into research and implementation of nuclear power adjusted for today's current dollar value? I'd be willing to bet that it's more money than has been spent on Solar projects....


 I am sure it is a lot, but you have to consider the size of a generation plant compared to even the largest solar farm.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> As far as your "nuclear waste" question, what waste at what plant? There are many type of things Fox news calls "neclear waste", some is, some is not. Some is but is not an issue for disposal, some is an issue when it somes to disposal, but that all depends on where and what you are refering to.


Nothing Dodgy about that answer.

Zog Credibility -2


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

robnj772 said:


> Edited Out


I told you your not allowed to mention the Japan incident. :laughing:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

gold said:


> I told you your not allowed to mention the Japan incident. :laughing:


How about right here in NJ

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_ebddb4fc-9249-11de-ab1e-001cc4c002e0.html

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

robnj772 said:


> How about right here in NJ
> 
> http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_ebddb4fc-9249-11de-ab1e-001cc4c002e0.html
> 
> Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


It isn't the first second or third leak there, every few years they have a problem.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Life was so much simpler when we used oil lamps.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Peter D said:


> Life was so much simpler when we used oil lamps.


From whales


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

gold said:


> It isn't the first second or third leak there, every few years they have a problem.


Yea

Fish kills,leaks,cancer rate is higher,autism rate is higher,bay is polluted ,there are no more clams.

But it's the future ......

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## mudmaker (Aug 24, 2011)

The only way solar pencils out is with govt assistance. Whether it is fed, state or the local utility (funded with state or fed stimulus $$). That is not a reason to not work in the industry as the money is very good, but at the same time we can't fool ourselves into thinking it can stand on it own without govt assistance. Unless we are all paying over 40 cents/kwh or energy I don't see how it will ever pencil out without incentives, unless you are going for that warm fuzzy feeling of having solar.

As for ROI's. I think the days of 5-7yrs are gone on purchased systems. If you apply for all the incentive today I doubt you will be anywhere close to that.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

robnj772 said:


> Yea
> 
> Fish kills,leaks,cancer rate is higher,autism rate is higher,bay is polluted ,there are no more clams.
> 
> ...


Now there are problems in Virginia and Pa too.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Nothing Dodgy about that answer.
> 
> Zog Credibility -2


It was a vauge question that can't be answered in a short one sentence format. 

Why don't you try answering some of the questions I have asked here? Everytime I make a point you ignore it by changing the subject or say something like "The ROI is 2 years, yeah, I seens it myself"


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> Yea
> 
> Fish kills,leaks,cancer rate is higher,autism rate is higher,bay is polluted ,there are no more clams.


This shows that you know nothing at all about how a nuclear plant works. You read all that crap in Solar World?



robnj772 said:


> But it's the future ......


I never said it was, I said fission is the future, you just don't know the difference. Seriously, discussing nuclear energy with you guys is impossible becuase you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Everytime I make a valid point you ignore it and spew out some stupid crap you think you know. It reminds me of grade school kids arguing on the playground. If you would like to discuss nuclear energy feel free to come to a nuclear forum and discuss it. http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=466

So, lets try to talk about solar shall we? Why don't you try to contribute your wealth of knowledge on the topic so we can have a decent discussion. Dan Easterday seems to be the only guy here that knows squat about solar and has made some good points and contributed more to this thread in his first post than you ever will.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

mudmaker said:


> The only way solar pencils out is with govt assistance. Whether it is fed, state or the local utility (funded with state or fed stimulus $$). That is not a reason to not work in the industry as the money is very good, but at the same time we can't fool ourselves into thinking it can stand on it own without govt assistance. Unless we are all paying over 40 cents/kwh or energy I don't see how it will ever pencil out without incentives, unless you are going for that warm fuzzy feeling of having solar.
> 
> As for ROI's. I think the days of 5-7yrs are gone on purchased systems. If you apply for all the incentive today I doubt you will be anywhere close to that.


Exactly, so with the state of our government today is it a wise use of funding? I don't think so, not yet. Lets focus on the R&D to make solar a viable solution that makes sense economically before we cover every house with panels that are obsolete in a couple years. 

We do need a better solution, and it won't be just one source, it will be a combo of many sources, some we have developed, some we are working on, some we have not even thought of yet.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Now there are problems in Virginia and Pa too.


Like what? Please explain.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan Easterday said:


> If you knew anything at all about that solar irradiation chart and how it applies to different types of modules and systems, you would not have made that remark. The chart that you referenced deals with average solar hours per day based on atmospheric coverage. There are certain types of modules out there that are performing better with indirect irradiation than direct irradiation. Also, the map previously referenced was for a specific type of PV system and dealt with tracking info.
> 
> This data also does not take into account recent advancements in power inversion technology such as disributed systems and more advanced MPPT algorithms. If you reference THIS:
> 
> ...


Dan, this chart is interesting, so if we take the 4kWh/m^2/Day and divide that by 24 hours we get 166 W/M^2 right?

And the panels I looked at that claim to be some of the most advanced for residentail usage have ratings of around 150W @ 800W/M^2. Is that correct?

So if we have an average W/M^2 rate of 166 W/M^2 in a area (I assume this average is night and day, acoss a year) we can estimate the output of this panel to be a little over 31 watts over the course of a year. 

I am really trying to learn here so please correct me if I am wrong. This is interesting stuff.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> This shows that you know nothing at all about how a nuclear plant works. You read all that crap in Solar World?
> 
> I never said it was, I said fission is the future, you just don't know the difference. Seriously, discussing nuclear energy with you guys is impossible becuase you have no idea what you are talking about.



Just like you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to being an electrician

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> Just like you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to being an electrician
> 
> Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


I don't pretend to either, at least not what you call an electrician. I don't crawl around in attics or roofs, bend pipe, or "troubleshoot by replacement". I don't ever touch residential systems, and I never pretend to have the answers on those topics. 

I just work on, design, and test large power systems for power plants, factories, NASA, data centers, proton accelerators, etc...You know, stuff that requies knowledge of elctrcial theory and physics, that stupid stuff. 

The smallest hair on my left nut knows more about electricity than you do, but you are right, I know little about being an electrcian. 

Do you have anything valueable to add to this thread having to do with the topic or is your sole purpose in life to insult people?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

robnj772 said:


> Yea
> 
> Fish kills,leaks,cancer rate is higher,autism rate is higher,bay is polluted ,there are no more clams.
> 
> ...


Looks like you struck a nerve again



mudmaker said:


> As for ROI's. I think the days of 5-7yrs are gone on purchased systems. If you apply for all the incentive today I doubt you will be anywhere close to that.


You should have pre-qualified that statement geographically. 



Zog said:


> It was a vauge question that can't be answered in a short one sentence format.
> 
> Why don't you try answering some of the questions I have asked here? Everytime I make a point you ignore it by changing the subject or say something like "The ROI is 2 years, yeah, I seens it myself"


No it was a very direct question you evaded. I never said 2 year ROI good attempt at a spin tho.



Zog said:


> This shows that you know nothing at all about how a nuclear plant works. You read all that crap in Solar World?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course you said fission is the future.  
This isn't a nuclear forum last I checked we weren't allowed to post links to other forums. Please don't do it in my thread. 



Zog said:


> I don't pretend to either, at least not what you call an electrician. I don't crawl around in attics or roofs, bend pipe, or "troubleshoot by replacement". I don't ever touch residential systems, and I never pretend to have the answers on those topics.
> 
> I just work on, design, and test large power systems for power plants, factories, NASA, data centers, proton accelerators, etc...You know, stuff that requies knowledge of elctrcial theory and physics, that stupid stuff.
> 
> ...


I'm sure what you do is fantastic and your really proud of yourself but there is no need to diminish the value of those of us who do crawl around in attics on roofs and bend pipe or troubleshoot for a living while you admittedly are NOT an electrician this is a forum for professional electricians perhaps you should follow your own link.
On that comment you sir can GFY.

.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

Zog said:


> You know what the cheapest power source is? Hydro, and it keeps the tree huggers happy too so you want to spend tax money? Spend it on hydro please, not waste it on solar subsidies. I am not passing judgement on anything, just stating the facts on cots and efficiency.


Actually, a lot of the tree huggers have problems with wind and hydro. Hydro because of the impounded rivers. When you dam a river evidently, all kinds of eco damage happen downstream. Wind mills cause all kind of dead birdies.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> The smallest hair on my left nut knows more about electricity than you do, but you are right, I know little about being an electrcian.
> 
> Do you have anything valueable to add to this thread having to do with the topic or is your sole purpose in life to insult people?


I contributed to this thread by saying that the average system can be paid for in 5-7 years.

Which you keep saying is un true . 

So why should anyone bother? Guys with your atitude are ruining what was a good forum. This was a good,informative thread until you showed up

What is untrue is that fission is history. I have seen the beautiful bay I live on get destoyed by a Nuke plant that they are finally closing. It is too late though, Trituim has leaked into the water supply, almost all the fish and sea life are gone, Its a damn shame. I hope the men who push for this nuke crap go staight to hell.

When it comes to solar You won't even admit you don't know what your talking about. I am NACBEP certified are you?

This site is for electricians which I am, Are you an electrician or an engineer or Field tech for Nuke power plants?

Instead of getting all pissy and talking about your nuts and putting down electricians,calling us attic rats and imature crap like that why don't you go do what gold told you to do.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> On that comment you sir can GFY.
> 
> .


You Jersey boys are class acts:laughing:

Stiiiillllll waiting for you to contribute something besides insults.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> I contributed to this thread by saying that the average system can be paid for in 5-7 years.
> 
> Which you keep saying is un true .


 Which you have proved no evidence to back up, I have been attempting to get this thread back on track to look at the economics but you and Gold just ignore those. [/quote]


robnj772 said:


> So why should anyone bother? Guys with your atitude are ruining what was a good forum. This was a good,informative thread until you showed up


 Me running my mouth? Perhaps you should go read all the posts again, you and Gold have done nothing but attack me and avoided any technical discussion points I have tried to make. When you get presented with anything that you don;t understand you just start tossing insults. 


robnj772 said:


> What is untrue is that fission is history. I have seen the beautiful bay I live on get destoyed by a Nuke plant that they are finally closing. It is too late though, Trituim has leaked into the water supply, almost all the fish and sea life are gone, Its a damn shame. I hope the men who push for this nuke crap go staight to hell.


 What plant? Tritium is only a product of a certian type of reactor, of which there are only a couple left in the US, so I doubt that is the case. Tritium is used in x-ray machines and those watches everyone wore in the 90's. Given the amount of landfill in NJ there are probally a million of those watches sitting in landfills. 



robnj772 said:


> When it comes to solar You won't even admit you don't know what your talking about. I am NACBEP certified are you?


I admited I was trying to figure this out, why don't you use that certification to answer some technical questions instead of dodging them and throwing around insults. Please I would love to hear some of the vast knowledge you have. 


robnj772 said:


> This site is for electricians which I am, Are you an electrician or an engineer or Field tech for Nuke power plants?


 I was IBEW for 10 years, and moved on to something I found more enjoyable and challanging. But I feel I contribute a lot to this site, but if the mods want me to leave, I will leave. 


robnj772 said:


> Instead of getting all pissy and talking about your nuts and putting down electricians,calling us attic rats and imature crap like that why don't you go do what gold told you to do.


 I am the imature one? Do you read what you type?


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> You Jersey boys are class acts:laughing:
> 
> Stiiiillllll waiting for you to contribute something besides insults.


 
OH yea like calling people " Attic Rats" Thats REAL F-IN CLASSY !!!!!!

"Jersey Boys" just don't take any sh!t


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> OH yea like calling people " Attic Rats" Thats REAL F-IN CLASSY !!!!!!
> 
> "Jersey Boys" just don't take any sh!t


Dude, your avatar is a rat........


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Dude, your avatar is a rat........


 
That is there to piss off people like you

BTW

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_ebddb4fc-9249-11de-ab1e-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

I like it...
:thumbup:


----------



## Englishsparky (Nov 6, 2010)

robnj772 said:


> That is there to piss off people like you
> 
> BTW
> 
> http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_ebddb4fc-9249-11de-ab1e-001cc4c002e0.html


Press of Atlantic city is clearly biased against nuclear power.:thumbsup:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

And so must all these be too

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/tritium_leaks_found_at_many_nu.html

Even the Gov admits it happends but it is safe..yea right

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html

This says 20 plants leak trituim thats alot more then a "couple"

http://nuclear-news.net/2010/10/16/radioactive-tritium-leaking-from-20-usa-nuclear-plants/


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> That is there to piss off people like you
> 
> BTW
> 
> http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/article_ebddb4fc-9249-11de-ab1e-001cc4c002e0.html


Yes Oyster Creek did have a small leak that contained tritium, whcih was all contained on site, the concentration of tritium in that leak for the total volume spilled would expose you to less than the radiation of one dental x-ray if you drank all of it. 

Tritium is naturally occuring, it is in the drinking water you drink everyday, if we all drank water with 100x the EPA allowable limits everday for the rest of your life 7 in 200,000 people would get cancer than otherwise would not. 

People freak out about things they don't understand, and the press loves when people freak out, it sell papers and gets web hits. 


So, anyways, can you answer my solar questions now? Or are you going to dodge the question and insult me yet again?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog I no longer wish to debate this with you. You made your view clear you don't like solar weather because it offers an alternative to the industry you service or tax reasons or smurfs on the moon it doesn't matter. This is an alternate energy thread and some of us would like to continue our discussion without your disruption. I have offered the otherside of the argument and you dismissed it and belittled the trade I spent my life serving. To you we may be attic rats and pipe Benders but I for one have lost every ounce of respect for you I once had and no longer wish to continue this conversation. Call it a win if you like but please refrain from addressing me in the future.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

gold said:


> Zog I no longer wish to debate this with you. You made your view clear you don't like solar weather because it offers an alternative to the industry you service or tax reasons or smurfs on the moon it doesn't matter. This is an alternate energy thread and some of us would like to continue our discussion without your disruption. I have offered the otherside of the argument and you dismissed it and belittled the trade I spent my life serving. To you we may be attic rats and pipe Benders but I for one have lost every ounce of respect for you I once had and no longer wish to continue this conversation. Call it a win if you like but please refrain from addressing me in the future.


Yes I have also no longer have the desire to debate with a closed minded fool

Thanks for trashing what could have been a good thread zog way to go

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Neither of you guys have debated anything, you change the topic away from solar and towards nuclear or you just insult me. 

And I am not anti solar as I have stated about 50 times on here. It is an important piece of our energy future. But neither one of you has shown that you know anything about the efficiency or economics of PV systems. You brag about your certifications but offer no technical info, you say that a 7 year ROI is a "Common fact" but have nothing to back that up. 

I would really like to have a honest discussion about PV systems, I keep saying that over and over, you both ignore that and change the subject.

So in reference to Dan's PV map of the US, if we take the 4kWh/m^2/Day and divide that by 24 hours we get 166 W/M^2 right?

And the panels I looked at that claim to be some of the most advanced for residentail usage have ratings of around 150W @ 800W/M^2. Is that correct?

So if we have an average W/M^2 rate of 166 W/M^2 in a area (I assume this average is night and day, acoss a year) we can estimate the output of this panel to be a little over 31 watts over the course of a year. 

I am really trying to learn here so please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## MF Chunk (Aug 25, 2011)

As soon as the cheap peel-and-stick pv thin-film membranes come out, the only juice coming out of nuke plants will be from the cells plastered up and down the cooling tower.

Nuke companies are liars, just like Tokyo Denki lied to everyone about the breeched reactors on Fukushima from day one. Rods exposed to atmosphere. Now children are getting really sick, because they took the meat from the radioactive zone's cattle, mixed it with cleaner meat, and put it in the school lunches.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

We're back at this, thought this thread died. 



Zog said:


> I am really trying to learn here so please correct me if I am wrong.


I just know enough to be dangerous and make my solar gear work but as I understand it...


Solar panels are tested as Standard Test Conditions (STC, as it's abbreviated on data sheets and such). The conditions are 1000 W/m^2, a temperature of 77 F, Air mass, wind speed and height above the ground is included but I forget the numbers. 


That 1000 W/m^2 figure is obviously 1kW/m^2. The kW/m^2 is commonly called peak sun hours. basically the solar insolation (dammit spell check, I don't mean insulation :laughing that your area would receive when the sun is shining at its peak. 


Now having said that that resource map uses kW/m^2. So an area that receives an average og 6kW/m^2 is really receiving 6 hours of sunlight at 1kW/m^2. 


Now we look at the STC's on a panel. Lets say one rated 240 watts @ STC. In our 6kW/m^2 area it would generate about 1.4kWh a day. 


Now the temperature part of the STC's come into play. As the temperature increases above that 77 F the efficiency of the panel goes down. 

This all assumes clean panels tilted at latitude and a bunch of other crap. 

Lots of typing :blink: I read too many RE books.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Zog said:


> you say that a 7 year ROI is a "Common fact" but have nothing to back that up.


I don't think that is a 'common fact' I think that is a very over optimistic projection including 'incentives'.

We have installed about three or four gigawatts of PV and the numbers I was hearing were more like 20-25 years to never ...........


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Jlarson said:


> We're back at this, thought this thread died.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't feed the radioactive troll


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

MF Chunk said:


> As soon as the cheap peel-and-stick pv thin-film membranes come out, the only juice coming out of nuke plants will be from the cells plastered up and down the cooling tower.


 I hope you are right, nuclear is what I consider a necessary evil, but it is sure better than fossil plants. Did you know you recieve more radiation working at a coal burning plant than a nuclear plant? 

The really cool solar stuff is the roads, they have some sort of paving material that acts as a collector (Something like that). Once that stuff is perfected we can rebuild our nations roads and solve our energy crisis at the same time. 



MF Chunk said:


> Nuke companies are liars, just like Tokyo Denki lied to everyone about the breeched reactors on Fukushima from day one. Rods exposed to atmosphere. Now children are getting really sick, because they took the meat from the radioactive zone's cattle, mixed it with cleaner meat, and put it in the school lunches.


 They are liars, which is why I am gratefull we have the NRC here is the states. The TEPCO suits that lied during the Japan incident should get the death sentence IMO.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Solar panels are tested as Standard Test Conditions (STC, as it's abbreviated on data sheets and such). The conditions are 1000 W/m^2, a temperature of 77 F, Air mass, wind speed and height above the ground is included but I forget the numbers.
> 
> 
> That 1000 W/m^2 figure is obviously 1kW/m^2. The kW/m^2 is commonly called peak sun hours. basically the solar insolation (dammit spell check, I don't mean insulation :laughing that your area would receive when the sun is shining at its peak.


 OK, we are on the same page here, there are peak outputs which is important to consider but also average values, which is what we need to consider for looking at performance of a system over a long period of time. Do you have any idea how the performance of the cells holds up over time? I would guess there is some cleaning and maintenance involved to get them to perform at thier best over time but even with maintenence the performance has to go down some amount?



Jlarson said:


> Now having said that that resource map uses kW/m^2. So an area that receives an average og 6kW/m^2 is really receiving 6 hours of sunlight at 1kW/m^2.
> 
> Now we look at the STC's on a panel. Lets say one rated 240 watts @ STC. In our 6kW/m^2 area it would generate about 1.4kWh a day.


 Actually that map is kWh/m^2/day, which means in your area that gets 6kWh/m^2/day over an average day there would be 250W/m^2 available to be harnessed. A panel rated at 240W (at a STC of 1000W/m^2) would have an average of 60W output over the day and would generate 1.4kWH/day. 

I think we are doing the calulations 2 different ways and getting the same result, but we agree on the energy created from this panel right?


Jlarson said:


> Now the temperature part of the STC's come into play. As the temperature increases above that 77 F the efficiency of the panel goes down.
> 
> This all assumes clean panels tilted at latitude and a bunch of other crap.


What causes the efficiency to go down as tempature increases?


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> this panel to be a little over 31 watts over the course of a year.



I'm thinking typo.......


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

steelersman said:


> I'm thinking typo.......


No, that is an average output over the course of the year. If I made a math error somewhere please show me where I went wrong.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Zog said:


> Do you have any idea how the performance of the cells holds up over time?


Modern crystalline panels decay at something around .5% - .7% a year. 



Zog said:


> I think we are doing the calulations 2 different ways and getting the same result


Thinking about it again I guess we are, I've always used insolation tables and just used the value as max sunlight per day. 




Zog said:


> What causes the efficiency to go down as tempature increases?


The cells are semiconductors, the temperature increase increases their conductivity and the voltage across the cell drops.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I did a little research into the grid tie market here and ROI's here are mostly under 15 years, some average about 10 and some systems here are easily paying themselves off in 7-8 years.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> I did a little research into the grid tie market here and ROI's here are mostly under 15 years, some average about 10 and some systems here are easily paying themselves off in 7-8 years.


In real life or in projections? With incentives or just on the equipments production?

In this area I don't see the systems producing anywhere near the projections,


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Follow this link and you can see the production for a '50KW system'


http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PECI/burkeoil/HostedAdminView.html?&eid=164519


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

BBQ said:


> In real life or in projections? With incentives or just on the equipments production?


Real life with incentives. 10-15 is typical it seems and has been for a while. Although there now some installers are doing 7-8 year systems, crazy low installed price per watt.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Modern crystalline panels decay at something around .5% - .7% a year.


 That is pretty impressive actually. 




Jlarson said:


> Thinking about it again I guess we are, I've always used insolation tables and just used the value as max sunlight per day.


 Good, so we are on the same page. 



Jlarson said:


> The cells are semiconductors, the temperature increase increases their conductivity and the voltage across the cell drops.


 That makes sense, thanks for answering the question.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> Real life with incentives. 10-15 is typical it seems and has been for a while. Although there now some installers are doing 7-8 year systems, crazy low installed price per watt.


Installed price per watt is the key here, and finding what that really is has proven to be all over the place, but forget about any incentives, what is a ballpark installed price for a 4kW system in your area? $30k?


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Zog said:


> 4kW system in your area? $30k?


More like 14 to maybe 20k, 16 average. 


I haven't been keeping tabs on the solar sector here well enough. Last time I bid a grid tie job was early 2000's and it was more then the budget of some small countries.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> More like 14 to maybe 20k, 16 average.
> 
> 
> I haven't been keeping tabs on the solar sector here well enough. Last time I bid a grid tie job was early 2000's and it was more then the budget of some small countries.


Really? From what I found the panels alone were around $500 for a 150W panel, so that is $13,300 for just the panels, no install, no inverter, etc...

But you would know better than I, so lets go with $16k for a 4kW system. Instead of going through all the math I did earlier again, let's just look at this calculator because it accounts for things I ignored, has more accurate data for specific areas, and local utility rates. 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/pvwattsv1.cgi

So this 4kW system in Pheonix generates $550 a year (Your low electric rates hurt you a little here) for a $16k system would take about 29 years to pay itself off, not including maintenence, repairs, etc to the PV system.
So where do people get 5-7 years???

Same system in Atlantic City, NJ, less sun, more expensive electric rates, actually pays back $560/year, or a ROI in 28.5 years (Better than AZ, I admit, I was suprised by that, did not account for electric rate differences being that much)

Here in Charlotte, NC, only $448/yr (Cheap power) so ROI is 35.7 years. 

Honolulu, a whopping $1,057/year or ROI of 15 years (So this one makes sense, every house should have one)

But for the majority of homes in the US it seems to me like we are only half way there, either panels get twice as good as they are now, systems get cheaper (They sure seem to be dropping in price fast), or normal utility rates need to double. Actually a combonation of those 3 things. 

So while I think the math here makes it obvious where we are now, I admit, it seems we are getting pretty close. 

I learned a lot doing this research, but also came to rrealize what role PV systems are going to play in our energy future. They are going to replace all of those gas turbine peaking plants (Which is a good thing). Peaking plants only run during the day when peak loads occur, mostly from AC units, and solar seems to be perfect to be a peak load source. 

I don't see PV ever replacing base load plants (Coal, oil, nuclear, etc..), which all need to go away as soon as possible. Hydro is well suited for base load usage but limited where we can build them, off shore wave generators could help with this, but we still are going to need something else. 

Think about this, I did a bunch of math last night, to replace nuclear with solar (That is 101,229MW, yep 101 Trillion watts for nuclear in the US) using todays solar panels we would need to install 3,514 square miles of panels. (That is 3,265,451,612 150W panels). And that assumes a 100% efficient system. We would need 5 times that many to replace all of the fossil fuel plants.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Zog said:


> Really? From what I found the panels alone were around $500 for a 150W panel


Yeah to buy little quantities off the internet. The installers are getting killer bulk prices, from what one told me the prices have been continuing to going down this year too.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Zog said:


> either panels get twice as good as they are now, systems get cheaper (They sure seem to be dropping in price fast), or normal utility rates need to double.


Germany and Italy have greatly reduced their subsidies so panel demand has dropped and there is an oversupply in the market.

Evergreen Solar just went bust, they were a local panel manufacturer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trouble-in-clean-tech-2011-8


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Zog said:


> So where do people get 5-7 years???


With a few different metering programs (some plans are better depending on location and array pointing) and some incentives, for a while one utility was doing 1 dollar a watt, they may still be for a few more months this year) it's part of their goal to hit 15% renewable by 2025.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

Zog said:


> No, that is an average output over the course of the year. If I made a math error somewhere please show me where I went wrong.



Maybe I'm not understanding this but it sounds like you are saying that the panel only produces 31 watts of power in a year. Which sounds like it can't even light a 60 watt bulb?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

steelersman said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding this but it sounds like you are saying that the panel only produces 31 watts of power in a year. Which sounds like it can't even light a 60 watt bulb?


No it's output would be 31 watts averaged over a year, but yes on average would not power a 60W bulb. But that includes nighttime hours, if this panel recieved the maxiumum W/M^2 that it's 150W rating is based on (800W/M^2 for the example I gave, seems most ratings are based off 1000W/M^2 which is misleading and makes the same panel seem better) it would have a 150W rating. I am sure at high noon the panel puts out close to it's rating of 150W. 

But those values are DC watts, there are losses from the inverter and by the nature of the Pulse Width Modulation any inverter uses, from what I found most calculators use a 0.77 correction factor for the inverter to go from DC Watts to AC Watts, so that 31 Watts I mentioned is only about 24 AC Watts on average by the time it gets to that light bulb. 

That panel, with an average output of 31W would put out 744W-hrs per day and 271.5kWh per year. Or at $0.10/kWh about 27 bucks worth of energy each year.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Using a 4kw system as an example your going to have a higher cost per watt installed but.

5.25 x 4000 = 21000

30% rebate -7000

560 per year savings
produces 4 srec per year (trades between 200 - 650)
2160 per year at 400 per srec and 560 savings

6.5 year ROI


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Using a 4kw system as an example your going to have a higher cost per watt installed but.
> 
> 5.25 x 4000 = 21000
> 
> 30% rebate -7000


 Forget about rebates, lets see what the ROI is without spending the goverments money. 


gold said:


> 560 per year savings


 Agreed


gold said:


> produces 4 srec per year (trades between 200 - 650)


 What is a srec? Some sort of credt I assume, from who? You are talking about a $1,600/year factor I have not seen mentioned anywhere else and is a huge factor here. 


gold said:


> 2160 per year at 400 per srec and 560 savings


 What is average annual maintenence and upkeep costs?


gold said:


> 6.5 year ROI


Without being funded by the government, $21,000 with $560/yr savings is 37.5 years. 

Not ragging you Gold, maybe there is a 6.5 ROI with all of these credits and rebates, and looking at the ROI without them it is obvious how vital they are to the solar industry but in your example the government is paying $17,400 to this homeowner, after that 6.5 years does the homeowner start paying that money back or does it go in his pocket?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Forget about rebates, lets see what the ROI is without spending the goverments money.
> Agreed
> What is a srec? Some sort of credt I assume, from who? You are talking about a $1,600/year factor I have not seen mentioned anywhere else and is a huge factor here.
> What is average annual maintenence and upkeep costs?
> ...


$17,400? I'm not sure where your getting that number. The rebate is 30%. 30% of $21,000 is $7,000. SREC (solar renewable energy credit) For every kw of electricity produced you generate 1 SREC which is then traded like a commodity. 

No the homeowner does not repay the tax incentive its returned through new tax base and jobs created. 

Of course these numbers assume a consistent energy price, increased energy cost decrease ROI as decreased energy cost would mean a longer ROI.


----------



## Mike_586 (Mar 24, 2009)

Zog said:


> Forget about rebates, lets see what the ROI is without spending the goverments money.


Without government subsidy there is no ROI. Only incurred debt.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> $17,400? I'm not sure where your getting that number. The rebate is 30%. 30% of $21,000 is $7,000. SREC (solar renewable energy credit) For every kw of electricity produced you generate 1 SREC which is then traded like a commodity.


From your post. 

$7,000+
4 srecs per year at $400 per srec =$1,600 per year times 6.5 years= $17,400. 


However some quick searching shows 1 REC is credited for every MWh produced and sent to the grid. Seeing how the average home uses 800kWH per month and the PV system in your example only produces an average of 416kWH per month it would not earn any SREC's because thee is nothing left over, all the energy (And then some) is used by the home. 

So back to the math again. 

$21,000 install
-$7,000 of my tax dollars
=$13,000

$560 per year of energy produced = 25 Years, even with the rebate. 
(Annual maintenence and at least one battery replacement not factored)


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

Zog said:


> From your post.
> 
> $7,000+
> 4 srecs per year at $400 per srec =$1,600 per year times 6.5 years= $17,400.
> ...


You earn an srec for every Mwh PRODUCED. not just sent back to the grid.


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

Zog said:


> Really? From what I found the panels alone were around $500 for a 150W panel, so that is $13,300 for just the panels, no install, no inverter, etc...
> 
> But you would know better than I, so lets go with $16k for a 4kW system. Instead of going through all the math I did earlier again, let's just look at this calculator because it accounts for things I ignored, has more accurate data for specific areas, and local utility rates.
> 
> ...


550$ for a 150 watt panel is ridiculous. First of all stop looking at 150 watt panels and stop using them in your models. I haven't used anything smaller than a 225 watt panel in the last 6 months. Currently I can get 245 watt panels at 1.57 a watt which is about $385 a panel. So for a 4k system it would cost roughly 14-16k. IF you take the govt money out of play the realistic ROI is just about 9 years. 4 srecs a year equals [email protected]$300 average price(price dropped drastically in NJ)= $10,800. Plus 9 years of savings @ $560 a year = $5,040 for a total of $15,840


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> You earn an srec for every Mwh PRODUCED. not just sent back to the grid.


Hmmm, the rules vary by states and many states have no such program, but I see you are correct for NJ (If the homeowner qualifies). 

So the state of NJ issues these credits worth around $400 each to a person for producing $118 worth of electricity??? How does that make any economic sense at all for the state? 

Looking at the NJ state clean energy program explains why every one here so gung ho about resi PV systems just so happens to be from NJ. There are over 10,000 PV systems installed in NJ, that amazes me, why NJ of all places? You would think AZ, CA, FL, NM, etc....


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> 550$ for a 150 watt panel is ridiculous. First of all stop looking at 150 watt panels and stop using them in your models. I haven't used anything smaller than a 225 watt panel in the last 6 months. Currently I can get 245 watt panels at 1.57 a watt which is about $385 a panel. So for a 4k system it would cost roughly 14-16k. IF you take the govt money out of play the realistic ROI is just about 9 years. 4 srecs a year equals [email protected]$300 average price(price dropped drastically in NJ)= $10,800. Plus 9 years of savings @ $560 a year = $5,040 for a total of $15,840


Read that post again, I used $16k installed for a 4kW system. 

My models are correct, IF you take all of the government money out of play, including the state funded SRECS. 

But the rebates and credits do exist in NJ (For now, I suspect all sorts of programs like this are going to be going away soon with our budget issues) so I agree with the 9 year ROI for NJ.


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

Zog said:


> Read that post again, I used $16k installed for a 4kW system.
> 
> My models are correct, IF you take all of the government money out of play, including the state funded SRECS.
> 
> But the rebates and credits do exist in NJ (For now, I suspect all sorts of programs like this are going to be going away soon with our budget issues) so I agree with the 9 year ROI for NJ.


Keep doing your research. Srecs are NOT state funded and are not govt money. They are bought and sold on the open market. Bought mainly by EDC's that need to meet the minimum purchase mandate. If they don't purchase enough,they get penalized. The penalty payment is higher than the market price for Srecs. This is the driving force behind Srecs. 

The reason there was a huge boom in NJ is because most if the big companies came from Cali and AZ. They follow the money. Currently there AREN'T and state rebate programs in NJ. Only the 30% federal tax credit still exists, but solar isn't dying. Its still growing because the overall cost is much cheaper then it was when there was rebates. 5-6 years ago it cost between 8-10$ a watt installed with a 5$ per watt rebate. Now it costs between 3.50-4.50 installed with no rebate. The BIG difference was the Srecs. 6 years ago they were 200$. Up until a month ago they were $650!! People were making huge amounts of money from these systems and the ROI was seriously 3-4 years with govt money in play.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

I think zog has been winning this entirely. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Srecs are NOT state funded and are not govt money. They are bought and sold on the open market. Bought mainly by EDC's that need to meet the minimum purchase mandate.


Where does the money come from?


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Where does the money come from?


From the EDC's. Or from whoever wants to buy them.


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> I think zog has been winning this entirely. :laughing:


Zig dosent know what the f he's talking about.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Zig dosent know what the f he's talking about.


Yeah .... he is an idiot ... I have no idea why anyone would believe him. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:



Are you going to answer my question about where the money comes from?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> From the EDC's. Or from whoever wants to buy them.


That is really not an answer.

Where does the money trail start, whose pocket is being picked to subsidize the installation of PV systems?


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Yeah .... he is an idiot ... I have no idea why anyone would believe him. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> Are you going to answer my question about where the money comes from?


I did. Lol. A couple posts up. It comes from the EDC's or whoever wants to buy them. They are sold on an open market. Go to flettexchange.com


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> That is really not an answer.
> 
> Where does the money trail start, whose pocket is being picked to subsidize the installation of PV systems?


There are no subsidizes anymore. Only the 30% tax credit. The srec funding isn't govt money or taxpayer money. The only pocket getting picked now is the homeowners pocket.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> I did. Lol. A couple posts up. It comes from the EDC's or whoever wants to buy them. They are sold on an open market. Go to flettexchange.com


So in other words you just don't know. :laughing: (neither do I that is why I asked)


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> There are no subsidizes anymore. Only the 30% tax credit. The srec funding isn't govt money or taxpayer money. The only pocket getting picked now is the homeowners pocket.


Who is funding the 'srec'?


----------



## ElectricJoeNJ (Feb 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Who is funding the 'srec'?


Wow. They are a commodity!! They are purchased by the power companies to satisfy the requirement mandated by the state. They are bought and sold on an open market. I do know where the money comes From. It comes from whoever wants to buy and trade them.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Keep doing your research. Srecs are NOT state funded and are not govt money. They are bought and sold on the open market.


The credits are issued by the state


ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Bought mainly by EDC's that need to meet the minimum purchase mandate. If they don't purchase enough,they get penalized. The penalty payment is higher than the market price for Srecs. This is the driving force behind Srecs.


 Exactly, as BBQ said, follow the money trail. When is the last time you saw a government funded program that was not disguised as something else by a bunch of credits. Cash for clunkers ring a bell? 



ElectricJoeNJ said:


> The reason there was a huge boom in NJ is because most if the big companies came from Cali and AZ. They follow the money.





ElectricJoeNJ said:


> People were making huge amounts of money from these systems and the ROI was seriously 3-4 years with govt money in play.


See the connection here?


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Wow. They are a commodity!! They are purchased by the power companies to satisfy the requirement mandated by the state. They are bought and sold on an open market. I do know where the money comes From. It comes from whoever wants to buy and trade them.


 So the state forces power companies to fund these. Then the poco raises their rates to their customers. You may not call this a tax but the state is forcing the poco's customers to subsidize solar.


----------



## Englishsparky (Nov 6, 2010)

It seems to me the srec is just like wall street of the solar world.
http://www.srectrade.com/background.php


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mgraw said:


> So the state forces power companies to fund these. Then the poco raises their rates to their customers. You may not call this a tax but the state is forcing the poco's customers to subsidize solar.


Thank you! :thumbsup:


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

Englishsparky said:


> It seems to me the srec is just like wall street of the solar world.
> http://www.srectrade.com/background.php


 
Wow,

Thats interesting, and thanks for clearing this up Englishsparky!


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Englishsparky said:


> It seems to me the srec is just like wall street of the solar world.
> http://www.srectrade.com/background.php


You have to purchase shares of companies to trade them on Wall Street, no one hands them out. 

Equivilant would be this, buy a Ford and the goverment will give you 100 shares of Ford every year you own it. Either the government has to buy those shares to give to you (In one way or another, however best to hide it) or the price of Ford stock would plummet to worthless.


----------



## Englishsparky (Nov 6, 2010)

Zog said:


> You have to purchase shares of companies to trade them on Wall Street, no one hands them out.
> 
> Equivilant would be this, buy a Ford and the goverment will give you 100 shares of Ford every year you own it. Either the government has to buy those shares to give to you (In one way or another, however best to hide it) or the price of Ford stock would plummet to worthless.


The srec is similar to wall street as the price of the srec increases and decreases through supply and demand, and the srec is also auctioned.
Now through out this debate everyone has been throwing mud at the renewable energy sources yet, nuclear power has relied on the government intervention for the last 50 years. You will probably say that this source is biased.
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/s...nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Englishsparky said:


> The srec is similar to wall street as the price of the srec increases and decreases through supply and demand, and the srec is also auctioned.
> Now through out this debate everyone has been throwing mud at the renewable energy sources yet, nuclear power has relied on the government intervention for the last 50 years. You will probably say that this source is biased.
> http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/s...nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry


I never said nuclear was not heavily funded by the goverment, it has been for a long time. If I were ever to make such a silly claim I sure hope someone would throw the BS flag on me too 

I have also said I support R&D funding of solar (What maybe 20 times on this thread), actually I am a huge avocate of green energy sources and contrary to what many people assume I look forward to the day when we can shut down all fossil and nuclear plants. (I went to Captians mast on my submarine for swimming out to the rudder when we were in port and sticking a "Go solar" bumper sticker on the rudder, my CO failed to see the irony of that)

We need a smart grid more than anything else right now, our current grid is very inefficient and very unreliable (As we will all see this weekend). A smart grid would save as much energy than solar, wind, or hydro will ever be able to produce and should be where our limited resources should be focused first. Distributed generation is another key part of our energy future but is not possible without a smart grid. The day will come where everyones home is a small power plant and most homes are off the grid, the technology is just not there yet. There are many pieces to the puzzle and some things need to be done in the correct order. 

Everyone keeps saying the PV systems are getting cheaper and more powerful everyday, so lets get the technology and price to the point where it makes economic sense to invest so much money in these systems that will be obsolete in a couple years. I have to admit, through the reasearch I have done, and some of the actual information some posters contributed I learned that we are closer to that day than I thought we were. Just because I do the math, and point out the economic shortcommings of something does not mean I am anti-solar. (For the record, wind is way worse than solar, but that is a whole seperate topic).


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

Zog,


Your entire argument has been based on government waste in subsidies for solar for the average home owner.

But after this link by Englishsparky, I don't believe the nuclear industry should be slinging mud at anyone. I had no idea that much of my tax money was going to support "little Japans" all over this country.

If we stopped the subsidies to the nuclear plants for just one year, how many safe, renewable, clean energy systems could be put into place in this country do you think?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

lefleuron said:


> Zog,
> 
> 
> Your entire argument has been based on government waste in subsidies for solar for the average home owner.
> ...


How many homeowners have nuclear plants?

How many residential PV systems would be required to replace the energy produced by nuclear? 

What is a better investment, something that produces power for $.04/kWH or one that produces power at $0.22/kWH?

Come back when you have to actually contribute to the thread. Or we could start talking about all the money we waste on Ethanol?


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

Zog said:


> How many homeowners have nuclear plants?
> 
> How many residential PV systems would be required to replace the energy produced by nuclear?
> 
> ...


 Zog,

I am picking on nobody, so dont get yourself worked up.

Is that $.04/KWH figured with these massive government subsidies figured in, or is that without the added burden on us tax payers figured in?

Now I could be wrong here, but wont the solar eventually be paid for system wise? Or is it just a better idea to constantly bolster up an aging nuclear system year after year with tax payer dollars? And it will cost us EVERY year, according the the articles posted here.

Yes, right now we need Nuclear to keep the country going. But don't you think its a wise investment for homeowners and future generations to begin the phase out of fossil/nuclear energy sources right now even if this needs a boost from the government just as the Nuclear facilities do?

It just seams to me we keep sticking money into a Ford Pinto that may blow up on us, when we could be investing in something cleaner, and safer.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

I think there is a big difference between tax incentives and loan garanties (not loans) and direct subsidies.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/tools-and-resources/faqs/srec#Anchor-and-23240



*Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) are popular with politicians of several states but much less popular with solar developers and solar owners – due to their uncertain value. So who actually benefits from them?*


The idea for an SREC-only market was born in New Jersey in 2004-2005, when the state started running out of money for rebates. Due to continued problems funding the popular program, the state phased out rebates for all but a limited number of residential projects. 
During the transition, the state looked at both Feed in Tariffs and SRECs, but eventually decided that SRECs were a more suitable way to create a market.
No surprise there – they don't cost the state anything and give the impression of promoting solar energy … but do they work as well as Feed in Tariffs?Let's take a look.

http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/SRECs.html


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

lefleuron said:


> Zog,
> 
> I am picking on nobody, so dont get yourself worked up.
> 
> Is that $.04/KWH figured with these massive government subsidies figured in, or is that without the added burden on us tax payers figured in?


 Well if you noticed, most of the articles on nuclear posted here are from anti-nuclear groups so the content is pretty skewed, not that I am saying there has not been a huge pile of government money dedicated to the nuclea rindustry, but most of that was for R&D of some of the first reactors back in the 50's-70's and some funding for plant contruction, we have not built a new nuclear plant in the US since 1978 (Although there are some applications in the process now). I can't tell you how much of that was R&D and how much was form the plants but I can tell you most of it was R&D and R&D funding is not figured into the $.04 figure nor is it figured into the solar $0.22 figure. They would both be higher with R&D costs included. 



lefleuron said:


> Now I could be wrong here, but wont the solar eventually be paid for system wise?


Well if you look at the ROI's from proven sources no, the early systems were awful, todays are around the 20-30 year mark without additional funding so by the time they are paid off most of the parts will be past useful life (Batteries for example) and would require replacement. No one is going to buy old equipment to replace that stuff with the technology progressing as fast as it is, they will install a newer better system. 

I think the R&D is paying off and we are getting close to a PV system that is a good economic solution without funding. 



lefleuron said:


> Or is it just a better idea to constantly bolster up an aging nuclear system year after year with tax payer dollars? And it will cost us EVERY year, according the the articles posted here.


 I agree, there are many plants that should not have thier licences renewed, the new AR1000 reactors are 50x times better and safer. 



lefleuron said:


> Yes, right now we need Nuclear to keep the country going. But don't you think its a wise investment for homeowners and future generations to begin the phase out of fossil/nuclear energy sources right now even if this needs a boost from the government just as the Nuclear facilities do?


 Yes I do, see my last post. 



lefleuron said:


> It just seams to me we keep sticking money into a Ford Pinto that may blow up on us, when we could be investing in something cleaner, and safer.


 It is 100% impossible for any nuclear plant in the US to "Blow up", and yes, as I mentioned 21 times now, we should be investing in cleaner, better, safer solutions, starting with the smart grid.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/tools-and-resources/faqs/srec#Anchor-and-23240
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good article Rob, I stand corrected, the state does not pay for them, just the taxpayers. 

"The primary buyers of SRECs are utility companies – who are looking to avoid paying the legislated SEPC penalties. There are some private buyers too – but they appear to be in the minority.
As always – the utility companies pass along the cost the SRECs to their customers … in much the same way that the costs for Feed in Tariffs are passed back to the customers."

I was wondering why NJ electric rates were so high, it is clear now.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

ElectricJoeNJ said:


> 550$ for a 150 watt panel is ridiculous. First of all stop looking at 150 watt panels and stop using them in your models. I haven't used anything smaller than a 225 watt panel in the last 6 months. Currently I can get 245 watt panels at 1.57 a watt which is about $385 a panel. So for a 4k system it would cost roughly 14-16k. IF you take the govt money out of play the realistic ROI is just about 9 years. 4 srecs a year equals [email protected]$300 average price(price dropped drastically in NJ)= $10,800. Plus 9 years of savings @ $560 a year = $5,040 for a total of $15,840


That price will come back up it isn't the first time this happened they will just move next years requirements ahead.


Zog said:


> Read that post again, I used $16k installed for a 4kW system.
> 
> My models are correct, IF you take all of the government money out of play, including the state funded SRECS.
> 
> But the rebates and credits do exist in NJ (For now, I suspect all sorts of programs like this are going to be going away soon with our budget issues) so I agree with the 9 year ROI for NJ.


They are not state funded.



BBQ said:


> Yeah .... he is an idiot ... I have no idea why anyone would believe him. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to answer my question about where the money comes from?


Its been answered over and over but it keeps getting dismissed. I think now thats in part to a lack of understanding of what the SREC actually is.



ElectricJoeNJ said:


> Wow. They are a commodity!! They are purchased by the power companies to satisfy the requirement mandated by the state. They are bought and sold on an open market. I do know where the money comes From. It comes from whoever wants to buy and trade them.


:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:



mgraw said:


> So the state forces power companies to fund these. Then the poco raises their rates to their customers. You may not call this a tax but the state is forcing the poco's customers to subsidize solar.


Utilities pay the same rate regardless due to deregulation that is dictated by a specific index, weather they buy actual energy or REC. The cost to the end user regardless of how it is produced is the same.



Zog said:


> Good article Rob, I stand corrected, the state does not pay for them, just the taxpayers.
> 
> "The primary buyers of SRECs are utility companies – who are looking to avoid paying the legislated SEPC penalties. There are some private buyers too – but they appear to be in the minority.
> As always – the utility companies pass along the cost the SRECs to their customers … in much the same way that the costs for Feed in Tariffs are passed back to the customers."
> ...


Its clear you don't like clean energy. Thats ok, but your really fukking up this section of the forum. Please cut your wrist.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> They are not state funded.


 You are right, your buddy Rob cleared that up, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong. 

"The primary buyers of SRECs are utility companies – who are looking to avoid paying the legislated SEPC penalties. There are some private buyers too – but they appear to be in the minority.
As always – the utility companies pass along the cost the SRECs to their customers … in much the same way that the costs for Feed in Tariffs are passed back to the customers."

SERCS are so great they cut out the middle man (The state government in thsi case) and screw the taxpayers directly, or at least every taxpayer that uses electricity. 




gold said:


> Its been answered over and over but it keeps getting dismissed. I think now thats in part to a lack of understanding of what the SREC actually is.


 By you





gold said:


> Utilities pay the same rate regardless due to deregulation that is dictated by a specific index, weather they buy actual energy or REC. The cost to the end user regardless of how it is produced is the same.


 Huh?



gold said:


> Its clear you don't like clean energy.


You obviously can't read, it is obvious that I am a huge advocate of clean energy, I just hate wasteful spending. 



gold said:


> Thats ok, but your really fukking up this section of the forum. Please cut your wrist.


 Once again, the NJ class comes out. I have contributed much more to this forum, and this thread than you ever will, unless you count insults as a contribution, then you are an all star. 

Cut my wrists? Wow Are you really a high school girl because that is the last time I heard that one.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Look at rates by state, which ones are solar leaders?
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Look at rates by state, which ones are solar leaders?
> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html


Rates were just as high before solar jerkoff.

Why are you still here? You made your point you don't like solar I'm tired of trying to convince you of how misinformed you are. Some of us would really enjoy this section of the forum without your filling it with misinformation.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Look at rates by state, which ones are solar leaders?
> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html


Did you stop to think that the higher rates are the reason why more people went solar in these places?

Are you just trolling us?

It's ok just come clean

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## Widestance_Politics (Jun 2, 2010)

Zog said:


> You know what the cheapest power source is? Hydro, and it keeps the tree huggers happy too so you want to spend tax money? Spend it on hydro please, not waste it on solar subsidies. I am not passing judgement on anything, just stating the facts on cots and efficiency.



As long as it doesn't disrupt the Salmon and Steelhead seasons I'm all for it.....:whistling2:
But ya, I think the carp populations down south should be able to survive.....:laughing:


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Rates were just as high before solar jerkoff.


More name calling?? You really are a one trick pony. Now I am getting sick of you doing nothing but name calling, like you said there are some people here that want to have a real discussion about solar, but you and your buddy Rob have shown again and again not only do you want to just tossing insults, you really have nothing intelligent to contribute either. 


gold said:


> Why are you still here? You made your point you don't like solar I'm tired of trying to convince you of how misinformed you are. Some of us would really enjoy this section of the forum without your filling it with misinformation.


You are the one that is misinformed, you keep getting shown that by me and other members, but you just can't see that. You catch this in your local paper last week ny chance?

http://www.shorenewstoday.com/snt/news/index.php/politics/15112-beware-of-government-fixes.html

A few highlights:
-Most Americans (As you keep claiming Gold) think these programs “stimulate” the economy and “create jobs.” But they don’t work – they make things worse.
When government “pumps money into the economy,” it does “create jobs” for some people with political connections. But this kills even more jobs elsewhere. Every dollar pumped in somewhere must be sucked out somewhere else – through taxes and borrowing. 

-Gov. Christie repeatedly said he wants even higher electric rates to pay for even more money-losing windmills and solar panels. Is this boosting the economy with “green energy” jobs?

-Last year, the Hamilton Township Public Schools spent $3.8 million to put solar panels on three school buildings. Martha Jamison, business administrator for the school district, said the panels would pay for themselves with lower electric bills over the next 15 years.
But last year, before the panels were installed, the school district paid $824,000 for electricity. This year, with the new solar panels, the school district paid $918,000. What happened? Why are Mays Landing taxpayers now paying more, not less, for electricity with “free” electricity from the sun?
Martha Jamison said she wants to go another year before she compares energy bills. But she also said that electric rates are higher this year.

-Even though the cost of making electricity is down, thanks to abundant, low-cost natural gas now coming out of Pennsylvania, electric rates in New Jersey are way up. New Jersey already has the fourth-highest electricity rates in the country, and Atlantic City Electric is now proposing another increase for next year. This is because about one-third of our electric bills pay owners of windmills and solar panels far more than the electricity they produce is worth.(That is your SREC's at work Gold)

And these high electric bills, along with high property, income, sales, business, and payroll taxes, are what killed thousands of jobs when major employers like Wheaton, Lenox China and Ocean Spray were forced to close down or leave New Jersey.

Should we pull up the historical data of electric rates in NJ next? :whistling2:


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

robnj772 said:


> Did you stop to think that the higher rates are the reason why more people went solar in these places?


Not for one second, that would be like using fire to treat a burn.

How in the world do you apply a source of energy that has generation costs that are 5 times higher than traditional generation methods to an area and expect the rates to go down? :001_huh: Your economics are all backwards.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> More name calling?? You really are a one trick pony. Now I am getting sick of you doing nothing but name calling, like you said there are some people here that want to have a real discussion about solar, but you and your buddy Rob have shown again and again not only do you want to just tossing insults, you really have nothing intelligent to contribute either.


Well yea thats pretty much all I am going to acknowledge you with after referring to us all as attic rats and pipe benders. 




Zog said:


> You are the one that is misinformed, you keep getting shown that by me and other members, but you just can't see that. You catch this in your local paper last week ny chance?


I am misinformed because the great Zog says so. Tie a rope around your neck and step off a chair.



Zog said:


> http://www.shorenewstoday.com/snt/news/index.php/politics/15112-beware-of-government-fixes.html
> 
> A few highlights:
> -Most Americans (As you keep claiming Gold) think these programs “stimulate” the economy and “create jobs.” But they don’t work – they make things worse.


Once again Zog says so it must be true. 



Zog said:


> When government “pumps money into the economy,” it does “create jobs” for some people with political connections. But this kills even more jobs elsewhere. Every dollar pumped in somewhere must be sucked out somewhere else – through taxes and borrowing.
> 
> -Gov. Christie repeatedly said he wants even higher electric rates to pay for even more money-losing windmills and solar panels. Is this boosting the economy with “green energy” jobs?


Taken out of context 



Zog said:


> -Last year, the Hamilton Township Public Schools spent $3.8 million to put solar panels on three school buildings. Martha Jamison, business administrator for the school district, said the panels would pay for themselves with lower electric bills over the next 15 years.
> But last year, before the panels were installed, the school district paid $824,000 for electricity. This year, with the new solar panels, the school district paid $918,000. What happened? Why are Mays Landing taxpayers now paying more, not less, for electricity with “free” electricity from the sun?
> Martha Jamison said she wants to go another year before she compares energy bills. But she also said that electric rates are higher this year.
> 
> -Even though the cost of making electricity is down, thanks to abundant, low-cost natural gas now coming out of Pennsylvania, electric rates in New Jersey are way up. New Jersey already has the fourth-highest electricity rates in the country, and Atlantic City Electric is now proposing another increase for next year. This is because about one-third of our electric bills pay owners of windmills and solar panels far more than the electricity they produce is worth.(That is your SREC's at work Gold)


Yea actually most public sector projects are funded by PPA and don't receive SREC they don't see a savings for the first few years.



Zog said:


> And these high electric bills, along with high property, income, sales, business, and payroll taxes, are what killed thousands of jobs when major employers like Wheaton, Lenox China and Ocean Spray were forced to close down or leave New Jersey.


Yea those companies all left years before the solar boom.



Zog said:


> Should we pull up the historical data of electric rates in NJ next? :whistling2:


I would rather see you swallow some of what your industry makes the tax payer bury.

I wish you great harm Zog. I hope you feel my sincerity.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Well yea thats pretty much all I am going to acknowledge you with after referring to us all as attic rats and pipe benders.


 No, I called Rob a rat in jest because his avatar is a rat eating a piece of cheese. 




gold said:


> I am misinformed because the great Zog says so. Tie a rope around your neck and step off a chair.


 No you are misinformed because the economic models prove you are, you have yet to defend anything you say you have "seen" with any actual facts. 



gold said:


> Once again Zog says so it must be true.


 I didn't say it, I just quoted it. 




gold said:


> I would rather see you swallow some of what your industry makes the tax payer bury.


 What exactly is "my" industry? I am in the power generation and distribution industry, which includes all types of generation sources, so you want me to swallow some electrons?


gold said:


> I wish you great harm Zog. I hope you feel my sincerity.


That sure sounds like a threat to me. Why don't you try a different approach and show us all how much you claim to know about the solar industry with some intelligent information to support your points? It seems obvious you are not capable of anything but insults and now threats.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> No, I called Rob a rat in jest because his avatar is a rat eating a piece of cheese.


No, you nerdraged and said you weren't an electrician right after you posted a link to another forum 



Zog said:


> No you are misinformed because the economic models prove you are, you have yet to defend anything you say you have "seen" with any actual facts.


Your twisted and distorted model that omits significant information perhaps but everyone with actual experience here backed my claims, tho I have no need to prove it to you.



Zog said:


> I didn't say it, I just quoted it.
> 
> 
> What exactly is "my" industry? I am in the power generation and distribution industry, which includes all types of generation sources, so you want me to swallow some electrons?
> ...


Threat? No. I only wish you great harm. I have no intentions of inflicting it.

How much did I claim to know about solar fukkhead?

And you are only capable of deception and distortion.

Which leads me back to this question, you clearly don't approve of solar so why do you participate in this thread?

Short rope + chair = problem solved.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

mgraw said:


> You may not call this a tax but the state is forcing the poco's customers to subsidize solar.


They aren't forcing it on the customers at all. If the utility can get the money for credits from anywhere. If they want to file rate cases with the utiliy commission to raise rates to pay for it then so be it. You don't like it then you can stop getting power. Gold or ElectricJoe will gladly sell you an off grid system then :laughing:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

I would love to know what the advertisers,particularly the alternative energy companies would think if they saw all this negativity against solar and alternative energy posted on this thread alone

Seriously Zog I think your just pulling our chains for your own amusement I am sure the mods and Nathan wouldn't be happy to see this. I am surprised you have gotten away with it this long.

You should be a politician the way you have spun this over and over

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I was at a trade show today and talked to quite a few solar companies and this topic came up. The opinion was as long as other types of energy get subsidized, we (solar) should get them too, only fair.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Its been answered over and over but it keeps getting dismissed. I think now thats in part to a lack of understanding of what the SREC actually is.


What keeps getting dismissed is that many peoples pockets are getting picked to subsidize PV.

The money does not just come from nowhere.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> What keeps getting dismissed is that many peoples pockets are getting picked to subsidize PV.
> 
> The money does not just come from nowhere.


The sun is free what part of that don't you understand?

Sent from my iPad using ET Forum


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

robnj772 said:


> I would love to know what the advertisers,particularly the alternative energy companies would think if they saw all this negativity against solar and alternative energy posted on this thread alone



That is some funny stuff.:laughing:




> Seriously Zog I think your just pulling our chains for your own amusement I am sure the mods and Nathan wouldn't be happy to see this. I am surprised you have gotten away with it this long.


You must literally be out of your mind.

Zog has done nothing but provide facts and references while all you have contributed is a bad stench.:laughing:



> You should be a politician the way you have spun this over and over



It is you that is trying to spin it.

You want us to believe that the money to subsidize PV is coming out of thin air when really it is just money be taken from one group and handed to another.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

robnj772 said:


> The sun is free what part of that don't you understand?


Well done, you really got me there.:laughing::laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> I was at a trade show today and talked to quite a few solar companies and this topic came up. The opinion was as long as other types of energy get subsidized, we (solar) should get them too, only fair.


Isn't that like going to a hemp fest and asking if it should be legalized?


----------



## BestMan (Jun 19, 2011)

gold said:


> Lets face it the housing market crashed, there is no new influx of manufacturing coming anytime soon and there are only so many retail fit-outs to go around.
> 
> Every time solar comes up some idiot says its a fad until the next one don't bother, or it isn't going to work, or its political them liberal hippies no the republicans. Stop being skeptics this is what is replacing the dead spots in the industry from the housing crash. Get on board or get out of the way.
> 
> ...


 There is too many damn pages to read for this. I will say solar energy is great but it's not for every area. There are too many factors involved with solar energy. Nuclear is a more universal energy but due to politicians 50 years ago there was no chance for it to get started.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Isn't that like going to a hemp fest and asking if it should be legalized?


:laughing: kinda. But fair is fair. 

Wasn't a solar show, it was an embedded design, electronics show, mainly inverter companies.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> That is some funny stuff.:laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Your either blind or need reading comprehension skills 

That whole " I know you are but what am I? " crap ain't going to work with me.

This was a good thread until you assholes ruined it.

I already sent messages to 2 of the solar companies I saw with advertisements attached to this thread and asked why they are paying to adverstise on a forum that would allow such negative bull**** against green alternative energy.

Out of my mind? NOPE just tired of the same old assholes ruining **** on this forum. Plus the hurricane is coming and I can't sleep...:laughing:

This forum needs an enima starting with BBQ and Zog ..............:lol:


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

You know the funny thing is I first browsed this thread because I was tasked to look into the viability of adding a PV system to my companies main warehouse which is around 900,000 sq-ft. The owner of my company saw right away that the claims made by local PV firms were not possible so wanted me to figure out some details. 

While this whole mess has been going on some actual experts over at that other forum have been very helpful and there has been an excellent discussion with not a single insult or threat from anyone. Looking at the same thread in two different forums really shows the differences in class and professionalism between the two groups. 

I have stated many times that I support solar, hell I am looking at a million dollar system for my company. I have stated many times that solar is the future and needs to have even more R&D. 

Guys like you Gold do more harm to the solar industry than people like me speaking the truth and asking questions do. You go around making false claims pretending to know what you are talking about when you don't know squat can give an industry like solar a dirty image that be very harmful. When an industry gets a dirty image, justified or not, it can be hard to shake. You are too foolish to see the harm your lies are doing. Try honesty for a change, it works.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> You know the funny thing is I first browsed this thread because I was tasked to look into the viability of adding a PV system to my companies main warehouse which is around 900,000 sq-ft. The owner of my company saw right away that the claims made by local PV firms were not possible so wanted me to figure out some details.
> 
> While this whole mess has been going on some actual experts over at that other forum have been very helpful and there has been an excellent discussion with not a single insult or threat from anyone. Looking at the same thread in two different forums really shows the differences in class and professionalism between the two groups.
> 
> ...


Lies? Where did I lie jerkoff?


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

gold said:


> Lies? Where did I lie jerkoff?


Are you cabable of a post without an insult? I think you have set a new record for insults on this thread.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Zog said:


> Are you cabable of a post without an insult? I think you have set a new record for insults on this thread.


Stay on track Jerkoff. What Lies?

You don't like solar, you don't agree but what motive do you have to discredit me?

Show me these lies Jerkoff.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

gold said:


> Stay on track Jerkoff. What Lies?
> 
> You don't like solar, you don't agree but what motive do you have to discredit me?
> 
> Show me these lies Jerkoff.


 
The lord himself could desend from Heaven and tell him he is wrong and Zog would still be trying to spin it the other way


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Stay on track Jerkoff. What Lies?
> 
> You don't like solar, you don't agree but what motive do you have to discredit me?
> 
> Show me these lies Jerkoff.





robnj772 said:


> The lord himself could desend from Heaven and tell him he is wrong and Zog would still be trying to spin it the other way


Neither one of you has provided a single outside source to prove your points.

Zog has been clear where he has gotten information and when he was shown to be wrong about it being tax money he readily admitted it.

So from my point of view you are both wrong and far from being the word from heaven. :thumbsup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Neither one of you has provided a single outside source to prove your points.
> 
> Zog has been clear where he has gotten information and when he was shown to be wrong about it being tax money he readily admitted it.
> 
> So from my point of view you are both wrong and far from being the word from heaven. :thumbsup:


So, where did we lie Bob?


----------



## Englishsparky (Nov 6, 2010)

I posted two links one explaining what a srec is and the other implementing the subsidies that the nuclear industry have had for the last 50years, and it has been a lot more then the money spent on solar.
Now to get past the bickering if the cost for solar is passed on to the taxpayer, then surely the cost of every source of power distribution is funded by the taxpayer so what is the issue here.


----------



## lefleuron (May 22, 2010)

Englishsparky said:


> I posted two links one explaining what a srec is and the other implementing the subsidies that the nuclear industry have had for the last 50years, and it has been a lot more then the money spent on solar.
> Now to get past the bickering if the cost for solar is passed on to the taxpayer, then surely the cost of every source of power distribution is funded by the taxpayer so what is the issue here.


 
Because people WANT radiation in the ocean. People WANT to live near the next Three Mile Island. People WANT their neighborhood to be just like Chernobyl. People LIKE the idea of Nuclear waste buried in the ground leaching into our ground water.

The problem with you solar guys is that you just are not asking the right people. Get it through your clean, renewable, safe energy thinking heads!

We just cannot turn this planet into a cesspool fast enough without Nuclear energy, and Fossil fuels to speed the process along!!!!:no:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Englishsparky said:


> I posted two links one explaining what a srec is and the other implementing the subsidies that the nuclear industry have had for the last 50years, and it has been a lot more then the money spent on solar.
> Now to get past the bickering if the cost for solar is passed on to the taxpayer, then surely the cost of every source of power distribution is funded by the taxpayer so what is the issue here.


Your just misinformed. Stop trying to spin it. 



Still waiting for you to point those lies out Zog.


----------



## shocksystems (Apr 25, 2009)

*Informative*

I just wanted to note that I have learned a boatload from this thread. Each time the name calling starts it frustrates me because it results in multiple posts of wasted print to weed through. Also frustrates me because virtually everyone who has posted on here has added valuable input, regardless of their agenda.

So thanks everyone, I have a much better idea of the economics, viability and factors contributing the success of solar now.

Cheers!

Jim


----------



## orvo48 (Apr 7, 2013)

*alternate enrgy /off grid*

anybody heard of tesla research


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

orvo48 said:


> anybody heard of tesla research


No, who's Tesla?


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

erics37 said:


> No, who's Tesla?


----------



## orvo48 (Apr 7, 2013)

erics37 said:


> No, who's Tesla?


nicola tesla is the person that put electricity in your house built cell phone possibilty and microwave, electric cars all sotes electronic components he died in early 1900 , think about this the sun is positve and the earth is neg put the two together and 24/7 energy off grid ?


----------



## orvo48 (Apr 7, 2013)

stuiec said:


>


nice music wrong tesla.


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

orvo48 said:


> nice music wrong tesla.


 
Do tell......


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Good times!!


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

orvo48 said:


> nicola tesla is the person that put electricity in your house built cell phone possibilty and microwave, electric cars all sotes electronic components he died in early 1900 , think about this the sun is positve and the earth is neg put the two together and 24/7 energy off grid ?












I was being facetious. Every electrician worth his s**t knows who Nikola Tesla is. Hell, I even have this sticker on my truck:


----------



## stuiec (Sep 25, 2010)

Who, this guy? 


View attachment 24049


----------



## Cletis (Aug 20, 2010)

I"m making a few bucks on running dryer circuits (I mean car circuits)


----------



## Knightryder12 (Apr 4, 2013)

Solar market isn't driven by tax funds. There are incentives to develop economic growth that are the same as many industries. I concede tho that there are no such incentives in the fossil fuel, nuclear, or coal industries and perhaps should be.

You are right, there is no tax incentives on fossil fuel, nuclear and coal. But what they are doing is putting harder EPA regulations on those items (especially coal) to make it more expensive. We are all f....d no matter what we do.


----------



## Eric Farmer (Oct 7, 2013)

I find ignorance fun, we are selling systems at $4.00 a watt. Without incentives it pays for it self in 5 years. In California we have penalty tiers on our electric bills. Sure the base rate is at $.14 a KW but no one is at the base rate. It goes up to $0.45 KW and the systems we install are paying off themselves very well thank you. OH, by the way when was the last time you saw the cost of energy go down.


----------

