$6. A month electric bill.

[fineline]

Is it possible for us in the Pacific Northwest to lower our electric bill and use less hydropower? Check out this video on the topic. http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=fe...64&fg=copy

[freespool]

That looks far from the gadget or novelty label given by some on this website.
The answer is right there in front of you, just like I've said before, photovoltaic is a viable short term energy alturnative to nukes and coal. And with no nasty after taste.
Now let's see some political will to make it happen.





salmon hugger

[Swamp Puppy]

looks like a great option for those people in the sacramento, ca. area where that story is based. it should only take them about 25 years (+/- a few years) to recoup the initial 18,000 dollar cost of install...based on an average of 60 dollars a month in savings. (18,000 dollars divided by 60/month = 300 months..300 months divided by 12 months = 25 years) i'm sure they will all live in those homes long enough to see that savings.

of course, if you don't live in a "sunshine intense" area like california's central valley, it might never pay off.

[freespool]

Now let's see some political will to make it happen.

That photo op. with the decommissioned nuke power plant in the back ground was priceless.




salmon hugger

[Splash]

And then again if you use the figures of the the guys brother that pays $265 per month...$18,000 divided by 265/month = 68 months to pay it off. I am sure most peoples automobile cost more and I doubt they will still be driving it in 20-30 years either. Granted the metro area does not see a heap of sunshine all year but there are other areas of the state that could potentially see benefits.

Combine this with Other renewable resources and that dreaded "C" word (conservation) and we just might see something positive.

[Swamp Puppy]

i doubt his bill every month is that high. most likely just a couple of months a year during the summer. that is why i used an average of 60 per month for every month. i pay an electric bill during our warmer summers that gets up to the 150 mark..maybe 2 months out of our year. the other 10 months it floats around 30-40 dollars per month.

i don't disagree that this is a neat little tool to apply to a small scale, much like most of the conservation items though it is just that. a high cost/small scale solution that is not widely practical.

[fineline]

i don't disagree that this is a neat little tool to apply to a small scale, much like most of the conservation items though it is just that. a high cost/small scale solution that is not widely practical.

So if this won't work for you , what will?

looks like a great option for those people in the sacramento, ca. area where that story is based.

How about the people in Germany who are snapping up most of the solar energy supplies? I have never been to Germany but what I have seen of it looks a lot like Oregon. A google search gave me this info on German climate:

"Germany's climate is almost as varied as its country but mostly temperate or marine. Extreme temperature lows and highs are rare. Winter temperatures vary from west to east, with about freezing temperatures in the west and well below freezing in eastern Germany. Summer temperatures are typically between 20 and 30°C, with more rainfall during the summer.
Frequent changes of weather make prognosis difficult. To be on the save side take a sweater or weather protection with you."

The people that paid $30-55 a month with the new house used to pay $150-200 a month with a smaller house. In the case of the $6 monthly bill, that was including the $5 service fee. His brother said his was $265. Without more information we can only take his word for it.

The cost of the equipment for the energy savings was a non factor since the builder charged them the same price for the homes. Their free upgrades became energy saving equipment rather than granite counter tops.

Germany is on a mandate to pay everyone who puts in solar panels 69 cents for excess kilowatts which is 5 times what we pay.
Demand is out stripping supply. People are saving on the cost of energy without even trying. We like high performance cars, trucks, and boats, why not houses?
These high perfomance houses will be saving energy long after 25 years. The house I live in has been around since 1922 and shows no sign of going away for quite some time. The energy savings equipment I added years ago paid for it self long ago.

If we can do better, why wouldn't we?

[Swamp Puppy]

again, if you want to take a small cross section..such as ONE person's savings and try to apply that across the entire spectrum of varying situations. well, i can't stop ya...

just another example of people grasping at one straw and trying make a whole bale.

but hey...i'm not opposed to it. if they can make it work, great. do it. in fact..maybe all the proponents of it here should pony up and be the test market for oregon. let me know how that goes..would ya?

[fineline]

If we all wait for "They" to do something, nothing will happen.

[Swamp Puppy]

that's my point...if all the people who keep singing the praises of solar power and such would just step up to the plate and take the initiative to show the rest of us power hungry heathens just what we're missing out on...maybe they would change the world! be pro-active!! be pioneers!! practice what you preach!!

if it works..i'll happily follow in your footsteps. until then, excuse me if i remain skeptical.

[freespool]

Now let's see some political will to make it happen.


Without federal help on this issue, it is surly doomed.
Seems to me the feds were all over the dam building/nuke power plants, let's see the same effort put into alturnative energy sources.
Or we can try to import the technology from outside the US, as we have with the PGE wind generation farms.
I think that is a very bad idea, we as a nation, need to lead the world in this endevor, not follow.



salmon hugger

[Moldy45]

I would fear all the feds would do to help is help themselves by trying to charge a "SUN" tax

[Swamp Puppy]

funny how the tones of these discussions always changes from "SOMEONE" telling "ME" what "I" need to do to conserve...but when it comes around to what "YOU" are doing the topic gets deflected yet again to "THE GOVERMENT" or "SOCIETY".

it's always the other person with conservationists....never about what they are doing..just what other people need to do.

[Moldy45]

Oh my bad! I didn't realize it was a one person opinion topic! I'll not say another word :depressed: again I apologize

[Splash]

Perhaps some of the people pushing conservation are already conserving in their own households. Little things like turning off unnecessary lights, turning down the thermostat and wearing a sweater, washing clothing in cold water, flow restrictors in the shower... These things can become so routine you don't even think about them. They are certainly practiced in my household and have been for years, not just when there is an energy crunch.

Nobody is suggesting drastic and radical lifestyle changes. It is the multitude of little things that can add up. The water heater is probably one of the most expensive appliances in your home to operate. It is a good place to start.

The money saved helps pay for my fishing. I do not have to work additional hours to earn (re-earn) that money, therefore more time to spend fishing.

[Swamp Puppy]

Oh my bad! I didn't realize it was a one person opinion topic! I'll not say another word :depressed: again I apologize

that really wasn't directed towards you Moldy. actually, i thought the "sun tax" idea was rather humorous. mainly because i can easily see it happening.

my issue was more one with the ongoing conversations in many threads that seem to always have fingers pointed at "US" to conserve. i do many things around my house to conserve. including, when i built my home, adding extra insulation in places (such as the garage walls AND walls between the garage and house for double insulation) and installing a high efficiency water heater (750 bucks) as well as furnace. we turn off lights when not in use..keep all thermostats on the lower end of normal settings and don't use the big oven when the microwave will do.

no, my issue is not with conservation. it's with being told how i am stupposed to conserve by people who probably don't believe in half the ideas they toss out to begin with. i doubt any of them drive hybrid cars..or would spend the money on solar power conversions for their homes...and certainly wouldn't like to clear cut large areas of forest on mountains to build massive wind farms. how about 5 miles of large windmills in the gorge? it would be a great place for them. no? oh...i see.

[freespool]

and certainly wouldn't like to clear cut large areas of forest on mountains to build massive wind farms.

How about the federal government giving folks tax breaks for conserving power? That way it would be voluntary, and folks that don't care, and don't want to change the way they do things, could just pay more to do so.
Federal grants could be given for more research and development of alturnative energy sources.
At this point we are behind other nations alturnative energy research, this must change soon, or we will be in a very sad state of affairs.



salmon hugger

[Thumper]

Toy technologies aren't gonna replace 600 coal-fired plants. If you want to take a turn at bat, swing for a winner. That winner is nuclear.

[freespool]

Toy technologies aren't gonna replace 600 coal-fired plants.

With the leadership we have in Washington DC right now, your correct.
With the right political will, we can do this, yes even with toy technolgies.
We need the same government backing we saw with dam and nuke power plant building era.
Trying to solve this with private capital will not work, we need our governments help.
Hey Jack check out the moth balled nuke plant in the back ground, that is just to rich.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=fe...64&fg=copy




salmon hugger

[Swamp Puppy]

Toy technologies aren't gonna replace 600 coal-fired plants. If you want to take a turn at bat, swing for a winner. That winner is nuclear.

here are a few facts..the palo verde nuclear plant serves areas in New Mexico, Arizona, and California. one facility..lots of power.

the most productive nuclear power plant in the United States. Located about 50 miles west of Phoenix in Tonopah, Ariz., Palo Verde generates 3,810 megawatts of energy. The plant, which has been online since 1986, services homes throughout the Southwest and meets 30 percent of the power needs of PNM customers.

Palo Verde generated nearly 30.4 million megawatts of power in 2000, more than any other U.S. power plant. From 1997 to 1999, it had the second-lowest three-year average production costs of the 68 nuclear utilities in the United States at 1.29 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's almost a half cent lower than the national average for nuclear power plants.

The plant does not use fossil fuels to generate electricity and produces no air emissions.

If all the electricity used throughout one person's life was produced by nuclear power, that person's share of waste from nuclear facilities would fit in a soda can.

Nuclear reactors and steam generators are located in a containment building — an airtight, reinforced concrete structure designed to withstand the force of a jet airplane.

Palo Verde is the only nuclear energy facility in the world that uses treated sewage effluence for cooling water. The plant uses effluent water from the City of Phoenix, where it is treated in an 80-acre reservoir for use in the plant's cooling towers. More than 20 billion gallons of this water are recycled each year.

now...compare that to THIS plant. also, operating in the same region.

Four Corners Power Plant is one of the largest coal-fired generating stations in the United States. The plant is located on Navajo land in Fruitland, N.M., about 25 miles west of Farmington.

It was the first mine-mouth generation station to take advantage of the large deposits of sub-bituminous coal in the Four Corners region. The plant’s five units generate 2,040 megawatts. The first unit went online in 1963. The plant, operated by Arizona Public Service Co., provides power to about 300,000 households in New Mexico, Arizona, California and Texas.


hmmm....one nuke plant generates about 1,800 more megawatts of energy than one of the largest coal plants in the US. AAANNNDDD with zero airborn emissions while simulateously recycling waste water to be used as coolant.

imagine how many smaller plants could be replaced with one similiar nuke plant.

put the federal money here...it's the only realistic option.

[fineline]

funny how the tones of these discussions always changes from "SOMEONE" telling "ME" what "I" need to do to conserve...but when it comes around to what "YOU" are doing the topic gets deflected yet again to "THE GOVERMENT" or "SOCIETY".
it's always the other person with conservationists....never about what they are doing..just what other people need to do.

Is this a R.L. or a L.L. quote? So your saying anyone who conserves anything should be labeled and then once the label is applied they then are all the same? In your own words”Just another example of people grasping at one straw and trying to make a whole bale”.

change the world! be pro-active!! be pioneers!! practice what you preach!!"if they can make it work, great. do it. in fact..maybe all the proponents of it here should pony up and be the test market for oregon".

It seems the only person telling another what to do is you.
I only pointed out a way 95 homeowners (not just one), in California and a large number of the German population are saving money on energy. If you or anyone else wants to waste their money, then who am I to tell you or them to do otherwise. If a true skeptic of what these people are doing, how about backing it up with some facts.

it's always the other person with conservationists....never about what they are doing..just what other people need to do.

No need to label anyone here and this is about what people are doing. If you feel what they are doing (saving money on energy), is a bad idea, then why did you spend the money on energy saving materials on your home? Can you show how what you did will save you more money than what these people did? Just because these ideas may seem new to some does not mean they don't work. Do you think the power company would have provided financial incentives just for the heck of it? I see while I was responding that you provided a lot of information on nukes. Can you refresh my memory as to why Trojan failed and all that money was wasted? And yes, I do own certain energy conservation equipment because conservation is a good thing like it or not. Disclaimer: I am not telling you or anyone else that reads this how to do anything. I am not a preacher and there is no need for me to brag about what I have done. We all choose our own path.

[Swamp Puppy]

i picked realistic money saving options for my home. low cost and high benefit. in 2 years i have already easily re-couped the cost of my initial investment for the upgrades and will continue to do so for years to come. additionally, i also spent money on all wood cabinetry (not one iota of pressboard anywhere), tiled counter tops, and hardwood window casings. the things i didn't have to cut out of my budget to afford a novelty item will greatly increase my home's value when it comes time to sell...one more Cha-Ching for me. :smile:

again..i am not opposed to conservation. i practice it where i can and don't look down on anyone for being conservative as well. practice what you preach is what i said..and i mean it. there are too many folks out there who sit back and send their 30 bucks a year to greepeace and think they are "doing something"...just as they hop into their 3/4 ton crew cab pickup or giant SUV that they use to drive across town to work...all the while the AC in their home is left on so their poor pet chinchillas don't get too hot. then these people sit back and talk about how everyone else in the world should follow their example and "get active".. bah.

anyway, back to the realistic options. whaddya think of those nuclear power plant stats. pretty darn good IMHO.

[FallRiverGuy]

During the summer, we produce most all of our electrical electricity with our photovoltaic system. Depending on the price of electricity, I figured it would take us 12 to 15 years to payoff the system. We also have a solar hot water heater, which generates all our hot water during the summer. The house was built with a passive solar design that both helps to heat the house in the winter and cools it during the summer. During the summer, our service charge is more than the price of the electricity we buy.


Photovoltaic systems are also viable for businesses. A local grocery store in Bend has 100 panels on their roof and thinks the system will pay for itself in only 5 years.

[goodkarma]

I know a few things about Photovoltaic energy.

1. I actually have a house in Central Oregon that operates 100% on solar electricity. (and natural gas) I built the house with that enegry source in mind and it works great. That said, we only use the house on weekends and vacations so it's not 100% usage and if we operate something like a vacuum cleaner we do supliment with a generator. The house is about 1000 sq/ft and operates on a single panel. The whole thing cost me about $500, including the controller, batteries, etc. This is only possible because I built the house from the beginning with this power system in mind. You could never run a conventional house on this small of a system. Sure, it has limitations. We are very careful to turn off lights and keep usage to a minimum but that is just good practice. We also can't convert much of it to 110vac so we use the invertated 110 power very sparingly such as for a TV, cell phone chargers, etc.

2. My company has supplied quite a bit of process equipment used in building solar panels. Even the companies like BP solar (British Petrolium) think that solar is a joke for the most part. The reason is, it takes so much electricity to actually produce the panel that the current pay-back is estimated at 25 years just to recoup the electricty it took to actually make the panel. (processing Silicon takes quite a bit of electricity)
The reason big companies like BP solar are in the business is for tax deductions and to claim they are working on alternative energy sources so consumers will like them.
The Canadian government actually suppliments quite a bit to companies that work on pet projects like this.
The bottom line is, we all love the notion of solar power and in some cases, such as my vacation home, it's the only power source available. That said, until they find a material other than silicon to make the panels, it will NEVER be a cost effective or energy saving resource. Yes, consumers do pay enough for these solar devices that the suppliers are making money, but right now, the fact is that in the average use, it will take 25 years to cover the cost of making the product.....turns out, that is the life expectancy of the panels.

[freespool]

That said, until they find a material other than silicon to make the panels, it will NEVER be a cost effective or energy saving resource. Yes, consumers do pay enough for these solar devices that the suppliers are making money, but right now, the fact is that in the average use, it will take 25 years to cover the cost of making the product.....turns out, that is the life expectancy of the panels.

Keep in mind this technology is in it's infantcy, with more R&D, it will surly improve.
Sounds like FallRiverGuy has a better system than you do, see we've improved already.


salmon hugger

[Swamp Puppy]

actually, they are probably about the same. GoodKarma's system is only running off of one panel. it appears that fallriverguy's system has 12-15 panels (visable) in addition to the solar water heating boxes. it's not that his is better...it's that it is sooo much larger. hence, the knock on solar power. it's not cheap and it takes massive numbers of panels to make enough electricity to be useful.

solar water heaters are neat and have been around for a long time. in fact, those heaters you see on fallriver's house are the same one's that were fairly common in Arizona where i grew up many years ago. it simply has water pipes running through those boxes that use sort of greenhouse effect to raise the temps and heat the water. just like leaving the hose out in the sunshine. it's a good way to cut back on your water heating costs for a few months a year if you live in a sunshine intensive area.

[freespool]

it's not cheap and it takes massive numbers of panels to make enough electricity to be useful.

That's funny, in the link that started this thread it didn't look like those houses had that large of an array of panels.
As for cost, as more R&D is done, the cost will go down. How about a tax insentive to go photovolaic?


http://www.sunutility.com/html_pg/solar_aircond.html



salmon hugger

[fineline]

How about a tax incentive to go photovoltaic?

Ok, here you go.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=15648
Faqs: http://www.seia.org/getpdf.php?iid=21

Remember that the energy savings ideas in the video are about more than just sun powered savings.
Don't overlook the:
Super Insulation
Modern Fluorescent lights that won't flicker.
Reflective Windows
All the other basic ideas that have been around for years.

[JustCallMeDave]

Here's an article about using panels with holograms to focus the good energy toward the collectors and the bad (like infrared) away. Quite interesting.

[Swamp Puppy]

freespool - you're right. having 15 solar panels down the entire side of one's house just SUPPLEMENT the energy consumption is not alot. my bad.

a tax incentive?? why on god's green earth should someone get a tax break to turn their house into a science fair project? what happened to all the wonderful cost savings of going photovoltaic? shouldn't that be incentive enough? this is in direct contrast to the argument that solar power is cost beneficial...if you have to PAY someone to do something, then it probably has no merits on its own.

interesting article Dave, it will be neat to see if A) they ever get this out to market. and B) if they ever manage to make their "second generation" of technology which will bring their costs down to compete with regular electric costs. even the article stated that they will have a hard time selling their first generation stuff at $2.40 a watt.

cost vs benefit once again

[Thumper]

Keep in mind this technology is in it's infantcy, with more R&D, it will surly improve.

salmon hugger

Dream on, Barney. My gosh, photovoltaic has been around and under continuous research since 1953!

http://www.southface.org/solar/solar...y-of-solar.htm

Except for very, very limited applications and in solar-intense regions of the country, photovoltaic power is truly a toy technology, and an expensive one at that. With silicon photo cells the breakeven point for even the best of the current technologies is about 25 years, which just happens to be the useful life of the panels. :whazzup:

The problem is that it takes so darn much electrical power (probably produced by coal-fired plants ) that it just costs too much to produce the panels.

Now waiddaminit! With nuclear power abundance you just might be able to reduce the costs of producing the silicon panels to the point where the breakeven point would make financial sense. Sonofagun!

See. With nuclear power, both hydrogen fuel production and photovoltaic power generation just might make sense.

A better world awaits you Freespool.

[TheKing]

I reasearched it and came up with $30k minimum to set up my home in Western Wa.and Dec thoruh feb would be dicey. My electric bill avgs about $65 a month today. I really think it works best if the home is designed for it in the first place. I would switch all of the lighting for example to 12 volt. I run my gates and outdoor lighting off of solar panels today pretty simple systems. Still thinking about the main house however.

[freespool]

a tax incentive?? why on god's green earth should someone get a tax break to turn their house into a science fair project? what happened to all the wonderful cost savings of going photovoltaic? shouldn't that be incentive enough? this is in direct contrast to the argument that solar power is cost beneficial...if you have to PAY someone to do something, then it probably has no merits on its own.

Before I answer your question, answer mine. Why are we as rate payers still paying for the aftermath of the nuke power debocile?
That's right we are still paying for Trojon and the two moth balled WWPS plants. So we're paying for something we are not getting.
Why should the government give tax breaks to alturnative energy research?
Because it's the right thing to do, that's why.
If you recall it was just about a month ago that the last person in America realized we're hooked on oil.
With this type of savy heads up leadership in our federal government, is it any wonder we are behind the rest of the world in alturnative energy technology?
We need to hit the ground running here, and make up some ground fast.
The four lower Snake River dams operate at a deficit, so giving a tax break for something worthwhile shouldn't be a surprise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041701563.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryne...ia/14303937.htm

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0524-china.html

http://www.forbes.com/energyspecial/2005...gy_gillies.html


Come on Jack, sell that nuke stock and invest in the real future. :grin:






salmon hugger

[goodkarma]

There are already tax breaks for installing solar power. Also, read my post carefully, I'm not knocking solar power, I thought enough of it to design a house around it. I actually like my system for what it does.
I'm simply stating some facts that regardless of where you live, or what your power bill is, the panels are only capable of generating enough electricity to re-pay their original manufacturing costs in 25 years.
Now, lets talk WIND POWER! That's fairly inexpensive to hook up, easy to build, and you can store it the same way you do with Solar.

[Swamp Puppy]

you are operating under the assumption that this is "worthwhile". This(solar power) is not a new technology and has been explored quite a bit over the years. most groups admit that it just isn't cost beneficial or reliable enough to waste spending money on.

you speak of "technology" and "research and development"...but WHAT technology?? WHAT R&D?? JCMD has posted the only piece of information i've seen that even hints at a possiblity of making solar power realistic and even that article concedes that currently it is not cost effective and only when their "second generation" arrives (which they conviently left out just what that is..or when it may be..which leads me to believe even they don't know.) will it even be at the same cost level as coal fired plants.

[FallRiverGuy]

Still thinking about the main house however.

You might want to consider a grid tie inverter set-up instead of an entire retrofit.

[Splash]

Thanks to all that have shared their own personal experiences in pursuing alternative energy sources. It is very enlightening.

While I am not opposed to nukes I have to wonder if it is just a way to continue energy gluttony as it can generate tremendous amounts of power.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle utilizing a combination of all of the above where applicable.

Remember, at one time the world was believed to be flat.

[fineline]

Japan likes the idea(photovoltaic), Germany likes the idea, and the Britt's are offering incentives as well,(Up to half the cost).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1954457.stm

[goodkarma]

OK, so you are assuming that world governments are making smart, informed decisions? (I'll leave that one alone)

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't matter who pays for the panels, (government or citizen) it still takes more energy to make them then they save by being used. So, looking at it from that point of view, all of the "green" people buying them are actually wasting more electricity than they are saving. (but very few do the research to know that fact)
I do think solar electricity has it's place, and I think it's really cool technology, but you really can't dispute the facts that it takes more electricity to make the panel than the panel can produce.

By the way, I can build a wind generator that will generate the same or more electricity than my solar panel and the wind generator costs about 1/2 as much to build. The problem of course is that it's not always windy. You need to be able to store the energy efficiently.

One interesting comment though regarding power usage. In our regular home where we have limitless electricity from the grid, I can't seem to get my family to cut down their usage at all, they leave every light on, let the shower run, etc. But, at our solar house where they run the risk of running out of power at night if they don't conserve, they are VERY cautious about turning off every device when not in use. If there is a big savings to be had by solar, maybe the change in mind-set regarding usage is the biggest benefit.

[TheKing]

"but you really can't dispute the facts that it takes more electricity to make the panel than the panel can produce."

I don't and I agree with the statement 100%. It's true for most "green" ideas. What attracts me to solar is being off the grid totally independant. Sat for TV and the net Cell phones and no powerline or gas line to the street.

[flyfish101]

OK look at the big picture, if only 10% of us changed how we do things.....turn off water, lights,switch to flourescents, use solar etc. Look at what a difference it could make. And swampy, don't forget there are Fed. and State incentives to switching to solar. That may offset the cost by quite a sum. And if you get lucky enough to generate too much. Well guess what? You get to sell it to P.G.E. Hmmmm...... something to think about. It may surprise us all to see what a little bit could do for us all. Without having a multi-million year hazardous material to deal with. But that's just my OPINION. Nobody has to like it.

[freespool]

Americans need to stop wasting energy, here's a few ways.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010507.html

http://www.livescience.com/environme..._day_tips.html

http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/2520

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/g...s/060417fege09




salmon hugger

[Splash]

One interesting comment though regarding power usage. In our regular home where we have limitless electricity from the grid, I can't seem to get my family to cut down their usage at all, they leave every light on, let the shower run, etc. But, at our solar house where they run the risk of running out of power at night if they don't conserve, they are VERY cautious about turning off every device when not in use.

Thank you for the prime example of the power conservation/gluttony struggle.

Waste not want not.

[fineline]

Web site for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Solar Energy Technologies program.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/

it still takes more energy to make them then they save by being used.

Can you provide a link to supporting data on cost to make them/energy used in process? I can't seem to find one. Thanks for all the input, I'm not going to buy the farm without checking it out. :smile:
Again, keep in mind the other energy saving ideas in the video as well and the probability of much higher energy prices in the future.

Oregon Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency:
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/incl...;RE=1&EE=1

I saw two huge wind power generation blades loaded on a flatbed going south on 205 just today. I guess we are not the only ones looking at options.

[FallRiverGuy]

The reason is, it takes so much electricity to actually produce the panel that the current pay-back is estimated at 25 years just to recoup the electricty it took to actually make the panel. (processing Silicon takes quite a bit of electricity)

I have thought about your statements last night and don’t' quite understand this part. My estimation to recover my cost for the entire system (panels, inverter and batteries)is 12-15 years depending on how much I can sell during the summer. The store I mentioned before thinks they can recover their costs in 5 years. The cost of the electricity to produce the panels must be included in the price to make them. Surely, after recovering the retail price of the panel, the amount of energy to produce them has also been recovered (unless they are heavily subsidized).

[Swamp Puppy]

The cost of the electricity to produce the panels must be included in the price to make them.

i'm sure it is...they aren't cheap and there isn't much too them.

i'm not sold on that particular fact myself just yet...it seems to make sense, but i am hesitant to believe statistics like that.

[TheKing]

You are also assuming you will not have to replace some or all of your system in 25 years.

[freespool]

Here is what some folks say about their ecperience with solar array panels and monitatary savings.

http://debris.com/journal/solar


What about the cost of electricity? PGE wants to give their executives a healthy raise, and to pay for it, they want to raise our rates 9.8%.
Seems like the array panels are far more pridictable in price, compared to electric rates, which seem to be skyrocketing upward.



salmon hugger

[Swamp Puppy]

lo...yeah, 'cuz i'm sure the executives of the solar power companies you envision will probably work for free.

[freespool]

lo...yeah, 'cuz i'm sure the executives of the solar power companies you envision will probably work for free.

The only differance would be solar power companies are not monopolies, which seem to have free run of the ratepayers pocket books.


The smell of Enron is still quite noticiable.



salmon hugger

[Swamp Puppy]

who says solar power won't be run by monopolies? most likely the current power companies will make the transition into the solar "world" (IF it ever becomes a viable large scale option) and you will still buy your power from the same people you do today.