Posting in Architecture
A recent survey found the majority of Americans would go solar -- that is, if cost weren't a factor. Turns out, their perception of upfront costs might not align with reality.
Ninety-seven percent American homeowners overestimate the cost of installing solar, according to a recent Harris interactive poll that illustrates public perception remains a major obstacle to adding more residential renewable energy to the grid.
The online poll, conducted on behalf of residential solar power company SunRun, found folks want to go solar. Nearly eight out of 10 of those who don't already have solar panels say they would install a rooftop array if cost were not factor. But according to the survey, the perceived costs are wildly out of whack with the real expense of installing solar. (See new note below)
Forty percent of the 2,200 adults surveyed think installing solar requires $20,000 or more in upfront costs. Only three percent accurately understand that installing solar can cost less than $1,000 upfront, which is possible because companies like SunRun, SolarCity and Sungevity all offer solar financing that allow homeowners to lease the panels without putting any money down. SunRun's solar power service, also known as third-party-owned solar, is structured similarly to its rivals. The company owns, insures, monitors and maintains solar panels on the homeowner's roof. In return, the homeowner pays a monthly rate over a 20-year period.
Market share for third-party solar has grown, particularly in California where it reached 75 percent of the home solar market in February of this year. In Massachusetts, the share for third-party solar is more than 80 percent.
Note: Based on some comments, I thought I'd add more information about solar leases. A solar lease is essentially a power purchase agreement or PPA. Utilities often enter into PPAs to buy power generated from large-scale solar and wind farms.
How it works
Generally, homeowners sign a long-term agreement between 10 and 20 years. Customers agree to pay a monthly fee for the solar electricity. That fee should be at a lower rate (on average over a year) than what the customer is currently paying their utility. In return, the solar provider takes on the responsibility and cost of installation and maintenance of the panels.
Solar leasing experiment
Out of curiosity, I recently went through the process of getting a quote for a solar system. Here's what I found out:
The solar provider suggested I install a 6 kilowatt system (the average residential is 5 KW). If I skipped the lease option and bought the system outright it would cost roughly $38,000. State and local rebates and federal tax credit would cut $13,000 off the price. In the end, I would spend $25,000.
If signed up for the lease, those state, local and federal incentives would go to the solar provider and my fees would be lower as a result.
If I put $0 down, my lease payment would average $115 a month and my electricity bill would average $17, for a total cost of $132 a month. Without solar (this information is based on eight months of my utility bills), I would pay an average of $91 a month. So, under that scenario, I'm actually spending about $500 more a year. The lease payments would be subject to annual increase of 2.9 percent.
To be clear, since I've lived in my current house for less than a year, I'm missing the most important months (summer) of utility bills. With a full year of my own electricity consumption information, I'd expect those numbers to shake out a little differently. I wouldn't expect massive savings, but I would probably break even or see a small reduction in my energy bill.
Leasing would be a good option for folks who consume a lot of power, have high electricity bills (I'm an energy efficiency nut and thereby my bills are below average) and live in areas where there are local and state incentives.
So what happens if you move? According to the solar provider I checked out, you can assign the lease to the new homeowner, if they pass a credit check, you can prepay the remaining lease payments and assign the benefits and non-financial obligations to the new owner; purchase the system; or prepay the remaining lease payments and have the panels removed for no additional fee.
Photo: Flickr user Jeda Villa Bali, CC 2.0
Apr 26, 2012
I have had a ~ 5kWh solar system ( 4 * 135W panels) on a boat for about 10 years and looked at getting a system for my house in SoCal. At the time, costs were around $30k before rebates. That was when solar systems were much more expensive. Panels were 3 times the cost they currently are per Watt. Cost of my boat system - ~$4,000 for panels,
I am leasing my solar panels in NYC. It was $0 downpayment, they took care of all the paperwork and provide full maintenance. My panels are producing more electricity than we are consuming. They provide a "performance guarantee", so if panels produce less than promised, they write a check for the difference. They provide a free quote without a site visit, they see your roof through Google Earth. If you move, they will move the panels for free or you can transfer the lease to the new owners. They panels are fully insured, free of charge. They also provide warranty for the roof against any leaks. They do everything, I just pay my lease. You can go to www.sungevity.com You can use referral code 94755 so that you get $1000 gift card.
As the study has founded that peopleâs perception always remains the main hurdle in installing solar projects, I think their minds must be shaped. http://theseverngroup.com/
Oh, solar *panels*! I will soon be hipster enough to use an adjective as the noun. Installing solar panels is quite simple and effective. We've been doing it for many years in Canada. There are also leasing options and the connection to the grid which helps pay for the overall costs.
My average monthly bill is only 115/mo this wouldn't make since to lease for that amount. Cheaper for me to put up a few panels with small system myself.
LED Lighting Company Cost & Price isn't the only misconception about solar out there. Technology, quality, and environmental impacts are all also misunderstood.
There's absolutely no such thing as a $0 down solar lease or PPA and here's why. A requirement of both of these financing programs is that you agree upfront to give the leasing or PPA company your 30% federal tax credit which is worth thousands of dollars as well as any other financial incentives. The CEC currently reports an average system price of $6.07 a watt. Even if you subtract a generous 50 cent per Watt rebate, that's still $5.57 per Watt. At that price a 6 kW solar system would yield a federal tax credit of $10,026.00! And that $10,026.00! will go into the leasing company's pocket instead of yours. Now that's real smart of you leasing proponents. With a $0 down loan instead of a lease, you'll get to keep the 30% federal tax credit as well as all other applicable financial incentives for yourself and the interest on your payments will be tax deductible and you'll own your solar system instead of renting it, for a much greater return on investment. As was previously mentioned, today you can purchase and own a complete, name brand, grid tie solar system for only $1.66 a watt before incentives, which is as low as 1/3 the cost that you'll pay with the 30% federal tax credit that you'll forfeit and the 20 yearsâ worth of escalating lease payments. There is no magic to this. Cut through all the smoke and mirrors by simply adding up your leasing payments, including any payments escalator, then insist....no, demand that the leasing company disclose the amount of the tax credit to you. Add in the amount of the federal tax credit and then add in any applicable cash rebate. This is the true cost of the solar system that you're about to lease. If that cost exceeds $3.00 a watt before incentives or $2.10 a watt after incentives for a purchased system then you're probably paying too much for renting that solar system from the leasing company. Visit http:www.solarlease.com if you want to learn more about the pitfalls of a solar lease or PPA.
I think it is one way investment. because Solar energy is the cleanest and greenest source of renewable energy. Solar Panel harnesses the energy of the sun light and converts it into usable electricity. With depleting energy resources it is necessary to use solar energy as an alternate resource. The solar systems are widely used for power supply of residence, remote villas, resorts, island, villages, water pumping, bill board lighting, communication base, camera monitoring, and whatever cases which are in need of power. From: http://www.savanasolar.com/
If those people building new stuctures would take into consideration a combination of active , and passive solar designs properly oriented could be at or near net Zero. or at least ALARA even if not intalled at the beginning if the architecture is there much easier to install when the time is right . any agreement should be reviewed carefully remove rose colored glasses PS installing PV panels on a high roof complicates cleaning and resultant expense Remember storm damage damage could put you out of business . solar is not right for every location , like in the woods .. you'ld be surpised to see some of the installations like that . A complete waste of tax money I have one like that down the block from me . One thought about using new ground for a solar farm . try the pv panels on a self storage facility , already flat roof , one story and the facility would probably make some money and not have a storm water run off issue .
Solar energy and wind turbines are supposed to be "green", and to help us not worsen the global warming that our consumption of fossil carbon guarantees. But the real cost includes the subsidies offered, and the benefits need to be measured against that cost. One of the best locations on the USA for solar power is Southern California, and I think that SCE is an enthusiastic adopter of it, and wind, and geothermal. Being close to the Ring of Fire, it turns out that the best performance of their "renewables" portfolio comes from geothermal. It delivers a production ratio from its faceplate capacity far higher than the others. What is little known about tectonic energy is the fact that it comes from the radioactivity of Earth's very long lived radioisotopes. Solar is better than wind, because PV energy does tend to come when the air conditioning load peaks. The wind "bloweth when it listeth" according to ancient observations. But SCE confesses that to replace the San Onofre nuclear plant with wind turbines or solar panels is a hopeless idea. On the other hand, Ontario province in Canada has in ten years replaced thousands of megawatts of coal burning with equivalent nuclear power, at great improvement even just to the smog-producing pollutants, let alone the millions of tons of CO2.
The entire traditional "renewable energy" populace overestimates the quantity of energy obtainable from the sun's primary activity. By far the only significant contribution to the USA's electricity demand, from solar power, is the hydropower from the snows and rain that fall in the mountains of the West. The reason is that solar power is dilute. In the old days, camera film needed full sun. If you have such a meter, you can see how very much less sunlight there is when a light cloud cover obscures the sun. But when the sun evaporates one kilogram of water, the water vapor carries 2257 kiloJoules of energy. That's as much energy as 2,257 kilowatt-seconds. When one kg. of water falls through 100 metres, it can deliver to your turbine just less than one kiloJoule. For those not familiar with the metric system, a dam with a height of 100 metres is about 325 feet high. So a pretty big dam regains less than one 2,000th of the solar energy supplied by evaporating the water. We get about half as much energy from hydroelectricity in the USA, as we do from nuclear power plants. It is nevertheless far more significant than all the solar, wind, and reliably renewable biomass contributions -- ethanol from corn, and biodiesel, cost a great deal in fertiliser whose feedstock is methane. Wood does not count as renewable if it comes from the clearing of suburban, or other, woodland. Energy from "waste" cannot be counted as a source that we would wish to increase. The reason that hydroelectricity makes a significant contribution, is that the energy collector is whatever area of the Pacific Ocean has supplied the water vapor.
Solar leasing or solar fleecing ? You decide. The solar leasing companies want your roof so that they can take your 30% federal tax credit worth thousands of dollars. They will also take any and all other financial incentives such as cash rebates and REC credits. In exchange you'll only get a 10 to 15% reduction in your electric bill after you factor in the lease payments and you'll be stuck with 20 yearsâ worth of lease payments on forever ageing solar equipment that you can't sell because it won't belong to you. In fact after making 20 yearsâ worth of lease payments, if you want to keep the system, you'll have to buy it from the leasing company at fair market value. And good luck ever selling your home with a lease attached to it. What home buyer will want to assume your lease payment on used equipment when they can buy a brand new, state of the art system for as little as 1/3 the cost of your lease payments. Today you can buy a complete, name brand, grid tie solar system for only $1.66 a watt. And that's before any incentives. Instead of a solar lease why not get an FHA $0 down solar loan so you can keep the 30% federal tax credit and all the other financial incentives for a much better return on your investment. Oh, and that discount that the leasing company is offering you, who do you think is paying for that in the end? Right, how generous of you.
NYS rebate incentives (NYSERDA + NYISO) & Fed levels take a $30K system and make it ~$5K for a for about the max output on a house - ~7,000 kWh. The grid based system(s) handed out by places like Solar Liberty (an award winning up-state NY based installer) basically gave us a quote that breaks down into 0% interest / $0 down for 12 months so the rebates would have enough time to come back. The rebates end in 2017 (start of '17, end of 2016 for install). The problem why we didn't want to do it, is because the cost of modification to our older home's electrical which tacked on an additional $2K to update - a common problem. So $7K (worst case) ~93 efficiency average over the entire year still would take us 9 years to recoup the cost based on our electrical bill and usage from the last 12 months. We plan on moving and saving the money for the a new house in 2016 so we can take advantage of the rebates. However, if it wasn't for the NYSERDA + Fed dollars, the cost of a system cleared $28-30,000 USD. Let me say that again - $30,000 for an install for a system (BEFORE REBATES). If it wasn't for SL providing the 12 month plan (so we could wait for our rebates) I'd basically say there was NO WAY we were going to install this system. Even when the rebates end, they will probably be curtailed to 1/2 of what they are now. But how can you say that the cost is NOT an issue? Again, I ask where the # comes from? Until suitable materials increase the solar efficiency to more than max 30% (that guy from MIT is scewing his results btw ... ) to around 50-70% of engine-to-tire energy efficiency, this article is nothing more than fluff for us.
Where I'm from, we have a very bureaucratic FIT program that makes solar a publicly lead program not privately lead by service companies. It's a shame and an embarrassment. Lots of great material in this article, I'll share it on @energy_mobile for #SUNday - solar stories all day every Sunday!
Based on $38K for 6kW of capacity this solar installation would bear a capital charge of roughly $0.94 per kwh to provide its investors a 10% return. 6 kWh of combustion turbine combined cycle generation has a similar charge of around $0.03. Adding the fuel and maintenance charge the utilities cost to supply is around $0.07 per kWh. Granted there are distribution costs associated with the delivery infrastructure but they arent more than a couple of cents or I wouldnt be able to buy natural gas based electricity delivered to my house for less than $0.10 per kWh. Somehow you would be paying the distribution charges anyway since you can count on solar power part of the day. To give you a rate that nets out anywhere near commercially generated power someone is getting a lot more money from somewhere (which may be you paying more than they disclosed at some point). I suspect more govt subsidy somewhere and you would be stuck with larger charges as well. Also note that most sources suggest that PV must be replaced at least every 10 years based on declining performance. All in all, this analysis still shows that solar is not competitive in any reasonable form for people who are not in remote locations with large connection costs , just want to be green at any costs or are living in a large RV off road.
So what if you can lease it with 0 down, if its overpriced by 5 to 10 times what everyone else in the world is paying, its a rip off.
Yes we need to work for the benefit for the mankind and use all advanced technologies. Solar power is just one of alternative power, we can also use the wind. [url=http://no.women-girls.com/]russiske damer[/url]
Now that summer's over, I'd be interested in knowing what your adjusted rates (using a full year of utility bills) would be? And solar is only one part of the utility equation: have you looked at the cost of a solar-powered hot-water heater? Unless you live in the desert, chances are you can't depend on solar for all your hot water needs, but you should be able to "pre-heat" the water and so reduce your costs.
True. In adittion, pioneers would go solar just by their beauty and self-suficiency, but 90% rest of population have to be animated by subsidies and step by step as the economies of scale and economies of knowledge improve, price will be cheaper and there will be no need of subsidies. Nowadays, california solar benefits can let us work with less gross margin per client but more clients. I mean, less benefits per client, but more clients. Prices are getting better and quality is improving. Competition is increasing and that leads to a better product for the customer. I look at Soltec in [url=http://www.soltecenergies.com]SoltecEnergies[/url] and the solar panels are made in usa and inverters made in usa. If all the component are made in usa, defenitely, national economy should go up! So, I totally agree with "radio.va7dh@", subsidies are needed to kick start solar energy!
The nike mercurial sl is a dance aerobic sneaker that has all of the features that were mentioned above. Manywomen love this shoe because it is able to provide everything that they require in this shoe and it alsocan be had for a very affordable price.The Nike Musique FeaturesHere are some of the features of this wonderful sneaker. It has all that is needed for any danceaerobics class. Flexibility is one of The Musique is very lightweight [url=http://www.soccerforcleats.com/] Nike Mercurial victory VIII [/url]and supportive, this is courtesy of synthetic leather and a light meshupper. There is also midfoot strapping that allows for support during the different routines. The shoe has extra stability, courtesy of double-lasted forefoot and heel. There is a Phylon midsole that is able to give lightweight cushioning. The rubber outsole gives excellent traction. There is a pivot point on the forefoot of the shoe Well it seems that a lot of people love the Nike Shox Navina. The shoe is solid and it is perfect forrunning, for use in the gym or casual wear. [url=http://www.soccerforcleats.com/] nike mercurial talaria v [/url]The shoe works very well, but what many people seem to be blown away by are the varying colors that are available
As those dead dinosaurs in the dirt dry up, electricity rates will continue to climb. All those myopic tree huggers will be jumping for joy!
"If it were a good idea it wouldn't need a subsidy." Not always true - subsidies work, and sometimes not for better. In 1905 there were an estimated 350,000 solar hot water heaters in use in southern California and Arizona. If you wanted a hot bath I guess you could chop wood and heat a bucket, but it was a lot easier and cheaper to install a Day and Night Solar Water Heater Company device on your roof. The development of oil and gas deposits in California led utilities in both states to offer free gas water heaters to homeowners, if they connected to the new lines. In a "private" industry subsidized stroke the solar water heater business in those two states went out of business. And then we the taxpayers started paying for energy company exploration tax breaks (subsidies) and environmental cleanup costs (also taxpayer funded through costs passed on by oil companies.) It's not evil - it's just business. But to counteract a perceived private interest group advantage it takes a public willingness to fund policy changes.
No, not unless 100% of Americans estemate costs of installing solar in the first place. You can't over-estimate something you don't estimate. My ROI for solar is... never. I have a 1450sf house in hot-as-blazes Texas. I keep it comfortable in the summer, running my efficient A/C in a house with radiant barrier, a white roof, solar glass, etc. It's quite energy efficient, and I have already cut my electicity use by >40%, so that my peak summer use is only about 1100 Kwh a month, and that's for 2-3 months a year. During cool months it's about half that. If solar cut my energy use by 500Kwh per month, I would save about $60.... for three months. Even if I saved $700 a year, how long would it take to pay of a solar system? LOL
...is deceiving. Whether the cost is "up front" or later down the road, if the ROI isn't worth the "overall" cost, then it is not worthwhile to install solar energy products. Then we have the other "costs". Government subsidies are a "cost" factor. Whether the person receiving the subsidies is paying just some of this additional "cost" or everyone else is putting up the money, government subsidies directly "cost" everyone. I personally believe that technology will eventually make solar energy worthwhile. But to try to make it seem like the cost factor is not a problem is just downright deceiving.
For some reason the vast amount of the public believe that solar energy is totally out of reach. With the technology advancements, Diy guides, many have already converted to solar at a cost of only a fraction of what many are led to think just the way the power companies want it. http://solarpowerenergy1.om/blog/
We are in LA and have leased a SunRun system. Our daily average cost has gone from $2.72 to $.32. The price of electricity WILL be going up. We could purchase the system at any point - for instance if we sell and the buyer does not want to take over the contract. I wanted to go solar to be green but also to save money and to have a slightly better chance of surviving when the energy crisis deepens. I don't mind contributing to the Varengo/SunRun venture because I want to see solar on every sun exposed roof in LA.
I am a proud photon farmer, with a 3.5KWh Aleo array on my roof. Here's some simple advice. If a third party can install these, charge you less per month for your electricity, and still make a substantial profit, CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN. Heck with "green" rhetoric. If - and this is a big "if" - you have the setting for solar and the savings to buy, it's the best investment decision you will make this millennium. If your savings account is making .05% on your twenty grand, you're making banksters richer and losing ground to inflation. I am in sunny Southern California, so your situation will be different, but I spent $20K up front for my solar. LADWP rebated over $6K back in less than three months, and the feds gave me about $4k in tax credits, so all in I spent only about $9K. My electric bill was about a hundred a month. My gas bill about $50. My solar panels have been running my meter backwards since the install late last year. I turned off my gas heater and put a couple electric oil filled Kenwoods around the house. My electric bill is now zero and my gas bill has been cut in half. The panels shade the biggest, sunniest section of roof on my house, so the attic stays much cooler, too. The math: $9,000 invested. $125 a month saved X 12 months = $1500 annual savings on my investment. --------------------------------------------- 6 years to recoup investment. But this is not the whole picture. That $1500 savings is tax free - if I bought a vending machine that paid $1500 a year and applied that to my electric bill, it'd be taxable income first. Savings are not taxable, so $1500 saved is about $1900 earned in my tax bracket. And when the panels are paid off, I own the asset and will earn with it for an additional 19 years guaranteed. Bottom line: where else are you going to invest nine grand for a guaranteed $1500 a year "income," tax free? If rates go up ( I know.."when" not "if") your investment goes up, too. You WILL have an electric bill, guaranteed, without solar. You won't have one, guaranteed, with solar.
I don't see solar power taking off until the Electric Utilities are willing to partner with homeowners. Where I am the solar would supplement the power consumption but would not be enough for all our needs.
CEEYESSAAR, all you have to do is take away the subsidies and you will see a different picture. Without subsidies all forms of renewable energy are substantially higher over the lifespan of the equipment. That is no myth. I began installing solar hot water systems in Southern Cal in the 70's and they were only cost effective while the government provided the %55% tax credit. Once the tax credit was dropped only people who wanted to save the planet by spending excess of money bought the systems. I live off-grid, not because it is cheaper because it is not. I live off-grid because of the high level of insanity currently controlling the country and I would rather not have to deal with it.
They've managed to replace the filthy output of nearly all their coal burning by getting 58% of their electrical energy demand from nuclear Candu plants. In ten years, the smog problem has disappeared from most of their big cities. They could do even better with reactors based upon the USA's Integral Fast Reactor project, which owes quite a lot to the Canadian-born Charles Till. Such a reactor with a 20.7 tonne load of nuclear fuel can run at 100 MW for 20 years, with no operator intervention at the reactor, replenishing fissile isotopes as they are consumed, and requiring about 1.7 tonnes of fission waste to be factory- replaced by 1.7 tonnes of un-enriched, even "depleted" uranium, and be good for another 20. That's two gigawatt-years of energy, for less than two tonnes of short-lived waste products -- and the reactor is immune to the TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima type crash, called a meltdown. The secret is metal fuel and liquid metal coolant, and of course the fast breeder design.
It is one of a group called Rum, Eigg, Muck, and Barra. It is 2.5 miles wide, and hosts at present 38 people in 10 families. They just received a grant from a Lottery to build a system of electrical storage (battery I presume), 30 kilowatts of solar (off the west coast of Scotland??) and six 5 kW wind turbines. Total system cost, almost 980 thousand pounds sterling. At an optimistic production factor of 33% for the wind, and a good deal less for the solar, maybe they're guaranteed, if the battery storage is really good, 15 kW at all times. Anyone care to work out the cost per kWh?
The British Empire ruled the world with a very advanced wind technology, called the Royal Navy. But there is a painting by Turner, very moving, of the Fighting Temeraire being tugged to her last berth to be broken up. Nelson's fleet defeated Napoleon's at Trafalgar, and Temeraire came to the aid of his flagship at a crucial point. The painting depicts the demise of that technology, symbolized by a dirty little coal fired steam tug. To my mind, it illustrates the impossibility of replacing with wind turbines the "alternative energy" that displaced sailing ships. The U.S. Navy has a fleet of capital ships that use a truly alternative technology. Our carriers and submarines are powered by nuclear engines. They can sail for years without refueling.
It doesn't matter when a year starts, it's still a full year... The estimate for a full year stays the same (duh)... What weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers? Try to keep up with the rest of the class.
Is that (if you own your own and don't lease), whatever you don't use, you can sell to the grid. Making money off the excess and getting that ROI fairly fast, especially if your house IS that energy-efficient in the first place.
Not so. Subsidies are needed to get things in motion, get some examples out there on roof tops. If you don't see some neighbors with solar in operation you too will not be interested. Also, with very few solar systems in place there are few suppliers carrying product and so competition is very low. As interest widens the cost will come down for photovoltaic panels. It has already happened at the manufacturing level. Lots of panels being manufactured in Asia to compete with the likes of Semens panels, etc. So, yes subsidies are needed to kick start some of these good things. I live in SW Canada and we get a fair amount of rain and cloud but even so photovoltaics can produce a reasonable output. I just talked to a relative in England that had 14 each 250 watt panels on his home in a grid tie system and expects it to pay for itself in about 6 years. Petrol is expensive there and so is other forms of energy. It may not be sunny Spain but still bright enough to be adequate for the task.
"My solar panels have been running my meter backwards since the install late last year. I turned off my gas heater and put a couple electric oil filled Kenwoods around the house" Why not add a solar thermal rig and dump the Kenwoods? You'll get more heat and generate more power.
So your setup was made affordable on the backs of taxpayers and utility rate payers. 6 years to recoup YOUR investment. When do I get mine back?
How about the subsidy that fossil fuels receive by not having to pay the cost that the pollution they produce? How about the subsidy that nuclear power receives when the government guarantees the loans made to construct them and limits the liability the owners are exposed to in case of a major event? Don't kid yourself, all energy sources are subsidized in one way or another.
Wouldn't happen to be sodium would it? If so there are good reasons for keeping clear. Hot metals have a tendency to oxidise when exposed to air. Some are "energetic" in doing so. It's better to look at molten salts as they're already in a low energy state. Both ways are a lot better than the boiling water reactors we currently use - inherent thermal limits mean that generaton is only 35% efficient. Metal or salts allow things to run much hotter, which improves turbine efficiency quite a bit. (Not to mention you can sell waste heat or put it to use driving freezing systems (electrolux cycle, etc. Suitably sited, a good plant can and should provide district-wide heat/cooling facilities)
... and just when you thought sail power was dead, there's this: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/a-new-age-of-sail-clipper-ships-are-back-in-business/25356 :)
Do factor in the cost of waste and storage and the environmental impact, etc... You know, the entire cost of ownership???
And I would also say that we need laws that require the utilities to buy that power at the same cost they charge other customers for it based on the times it is produced. The sun is making power during peak usage times when consumers are charged more for it. It is not fair to pay people half of what they would be charging if they didn't have solar and were drawing power instead of making it.
...A "good idea" that we now know isn't, and yet still gets subsidized because of the "feedback loop" that gets established with all subsidies.
...because enough folks pushed the pencil and saw installing the solar panels worked for their personal investment. The focus of the subsidy in this case is two-fold: to make it more attractive when individual households push the pencil, but also for the utility, who may not have to build the new power plant that would otherwise be needed to address peak power needs if enough folks didn't produce their own.
Xiamen Mutual Prosperity (MP) Trading Co., Ltd. MP cultures:Adhering to western freedom and fraternity together with Chinese traditional culture to set up a bright,civilized ,happy ,passionate atmosphere for business. MP ideas:Tolerance, integrity ,thanksgiving,responsibility. We are always trying our best to realize the new commercial civilization. MP makes full use of modern science and technology,keep improving product quality and users' experience for one brighter world and one dream of better life. MP clients from industry ,reputed food discounters,hardware store chains,lighting fixture manufacturers,electrical distributors ,end customers and last but not least the environment : With our products they all beam with joy Worldwide. At MP lighting,you'll find our goal is your solution-to continually seek out emerging technologies and design innovative products the lighting needs of tomorrow. At MP ,we're changing the way you think about the lighting. We hope we establish a long-term stable relationship; We hope that our cooperation is win-win.
You are correct about other energy sources being subsidized. Why must the American navy keep shipping lanes open and protect oil tankers and cargo ships from pirates. It is unbelievable these multinational companies have the gall to ask the American taxpayer by way of the high defense budgets to pay to protect their products from being hijacked on the trip back to USA. Need to add the cost of keeping military bases such as the 5th fleet in Bahrain and other countries where the people do not want us. To stay in these countries not only cost us billions of dollars, but ends up costing us our security because we have backed dictators for our gain but at the expense of the people of these countries. One needs only to look at what happened in Iran in 1953. People need to understand that in 1953 the CIA & M6 interfered with Iran???s leadership.If you want to read what happened search Operation TPAJAX. We need to remove our troops. Let the oil companies pay to keep the shipping lanes open. That way people will find out what the true cost of a barrel of oil actually costs. Many other countries also need this oil, again why are they not at least paying the USA to keep shipping lanes open This is just another handout to the oil and gas companies. If you add military costs, cleanup cost and environment damage to the cost of nuclear, oil, gas and coal, people would understand the least expensive energies are renewable
[url=http://mp-lamp.cn/][b]MP[/b][/url] LED tube lights is using MCOB Patented Technology lighting source, are energy efficient lighting in shops, restaurants, hotels, offices and homes. [url=http://mp-lamp.cn/productgrouplist-218731364/LED_Bulb.html][b]LED tube lightings[/b][/url] Much safe for the consumer and contain no harmful environmental elements.
For those of us who cannot afford solar, even the lease options, where is MY ROI on MY tax dollars? My rates still go up even if a new plant is not built. The 1 percent get richer. Where is MY MONEY?