U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2014, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,621,311 times
Reputation: 6480

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Uhh no they did not. I have seen pricing and leases that make solar PV practical with a payback of less than 10 years. That says with the federal rebate they are profitable today.

35 years ago they were 10 years away. 25 years ago they were 10 years away. 15 years ago they were 10 years away. But now they are less than 5 years away without a rebate. And within 15 years they may get cheap enough to make hydrogen for energy storage. So you never know.

The shame is that we let the Chinese buy the market and pretty cheap. Even provided rebates that helped them rather than factory assists that made the US producers competitive. 100,000 jobs down the tubes.
Actually, they did. I was there. A homeowner could get federal subsidies for solar powered homes during the 1970s as well. Here is a tip for you: If government is footing the bill, then it clearly is not profitable.

In fact, solar panels were considerably cheaper during the 1970s than they are today, but that has more to do with inflation than anything else. In terms of buying parity, the cost is about the same. A typical home during the 1970s cost about the same as a new vehicle does today.

What is driving more people to solar panels these days has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with cutting the cost of their energy bill due to Democrats artificially inflating the cost of energy by limiting access to natural resources.

Global cooling was the motivating factor for solar power during the 1970s. Which is why it was a fad. It lasted only as long as the Global Cooling scam lasted. By the 1980s the Democrats changed their scam from Global Cooling to Global Warming and suddenly the solar panel craze died as quickly as it had started.

Democrats, during the 1970s, did not block access to our natural resources. In fact, in 1977, under Carter and a Democrat controlled Congress, the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was constructed, which produced 20% of the US' domestic oil needs for the next 20 years. It would not be until 1990 that Democrats would do an about-face and start blocking all attempts to increase domestic energy production.

Now, with Obama's war against coal and oil, Democrats are deliberately driving up energy prices sky high. Which, of course, was Obama's stated goal. So naturally people are going to start looking at alternative energy sources to cut costs. Either way, our standard of living has been significantly lowered, thanks entirely to Democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2014, 10:19 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,169,548 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Actually, they did. I was there. A homeowner could get federal subsidies for solar powered homes during the 1970s as well. Here is a tip for you: If government is footing the bill, then it clearly is not profitable.

In fact, solar panels were considerably cheaper during the 1970s than they are today, but that has more to do with inflation than anything else. In terms of buying parity, the cost is about the same. A typical home during the 1970s cost about the same as a new vehicle does today.
You are utterly and totally in error. 1975 pricing of solar panels was around $75.00 per watt. Todays price is around $0.75 per watt. That is almost exactly 1/100th of the cost.

I did technical evaluation of the panels in that time frame. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.



Quote:
What is driving more people to solar panels these days has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with cutting the cost of their energy bill due to Democrats artificially inflating the cost of energy by limiting access to natural resources.

Global cooling was the motivating factor for solar power during the 1970s. Which is why it was a fad. It lasted only as long as the Global Cooling scam lasted. By the 1980s the Democrats changed their scam from Global Cooling to Global Warming and suddenly the solar panel craze died as quickly as it had started.
More garbage. the biggest hit to utility cost was the insane deregulation of energy and the divesture of production capability by the utilities. And if you don't understand that you should really stay off the subject.

Quote:
Democrats, during the 1970s, did not block access to our natural resources. In fact, in 1977, under Carter and a Democrat controlled Congress, the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was constructed, which produced 20% of the US' domestic oil needs for the next 20 years. It would not be until 1990 that Democrats would do an about-face and start blocking all attempts to increase domestic energy production.

Now, with Obama's war against coal and oil, Democrats are deliberately driving up energy prices sky high. Which, of course, was Obama's stated goal. So naturally people are going to start looking at alternative energy sources to cut costs. Either way, our standard of living has been significantly lowered, thanks entirely to Democrats.
Boy you keep spreading it higher and deeper and reflect no understanding of what has happened. The problem coal has is much more with the natural gas freed by fracking than Obama though the EPA is a problem as well but it is the NG that is going to kill coal.

I would think over the next 20 years solar PV will substantially limit any rise in energy costs...maybe even bring it down in conjunction with fracked NG.

The Right is simply to ideological to notice the obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 19,621,311 times
Reputation: 6480
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
You are utterly and totally in error. 1975 pricing of solar panels was around $75.00 per watt. Todays price is around $0.75 per watt. That is almost exactly 1/100th of the cost.

I did technical evaluation of the panels in that time frame. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

More garbage. the biggest hit to utility cost was the insane deregulation of energy and the divesture of production capability by the utilities. And if you don't understand that you should really stay off the subject.

Boy you keep spreading it higher and deeper and reflect no understanding of what has happened. The problem coal has is much more with the natural gas freed by fracking than Obama though the EPA is a problem as well but it is the NG that is going to kill coal.

I would think over the next 20 years solar PV will substantially limit any rise in energy costs...maybe even bring it down in conjunction with fracked NG.

The Right is simply to ideological to notice the obvious.
Pure propaganda, as expected. The price per watt for solar panels in 1979 was $0.67. Cheaper than it is today. It is very evident to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Democrats have waged war against Americans and their domestic energy sources. From Obama's unconstitutional off-shore oil drilling moratorium, to the repeated blocking of opening ANWR, to the locking up 13 trillion cubic feet of coal in Utah under the Antiquities Act by Clinton, etc., etc.

Anything Democrats can do to limit Americans access to affordable energy, and to lower the standard of living for all Americans, they will do. That is their sole purpose in life - to make everyone miserable. Such is their hatred for the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 10:54 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,169,548 times
Reputation: 5399
I doubt this is worth the trouble but for those who are not hopelessly dull



I am sure the dull will have some absolutely whacky scheme why this is not true...Martians? Wide spread conspiracy by Obama to forge the data? We will see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 12:40 PM
 
287 posts, read 382,339 times
Reputation: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Pure propaganda, as expected. The price per watt for solar panels in 1979 was $0.67. Cheaper than it is today.
5/10 for effort. If you're going to troll, try a little harder next time.

Science and technology: Sunny uplands | The Economist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 12:48 PM
 
287 posts, read 382,339 times
Reputation: 678
Putting aside the political trolling/asshattery and getting back to the OP's question: I would think that something like this would only be feasible in the west where there are no harsh winters or long, dark days. I could see these working in, say, Arizona/Nevada.

That said, I couldn't ever see this taking off on a large scale. No matter how cheap and streamlined they can make this, traditional paving will always win on the price front.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 01:40 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,169,548 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjo View Post
Putting aside the political trolling/asshattery and getting back to the OP's question: I would think that something like this would only be feasible in the west where there are no harsh winters or long, dark days. I could see these working in, say, Arizona/Nevada.

That said, I couldn't ever see this taking off on a large scale. No matter how cheap and streamlined they can make this, traditional paving will always win on the price front.
Nevada and Arizona and even California have huge amounts of available open space making solar roads even less likely than in the more congested east. Much of that space in Nevada and California is convenient to high voltage distribution lines. Even if existing lines are not big enough the right of way problem is solved.

And the difference between flat and angled appropriately puts flat mounted panels at a substantial disadvantage.

It is simply an idea whose time never was. Maybe roads or parking lots in fancy developments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2014, 01:25 AM
 
384 posts, read 268,560 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That's easy to say when the taxpayer and/or other ratepayers are paying for more than half of it.
All forms of energy would be more expensive if taxpayers didn't subsidize it. At least with solar panels, it's a one-time subsidizing... whereas with fossil fuels it's a constant drain on taxpayers... not to mention how much the health issues are going to cost us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2014, 07:41 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,377,011 times
Reputation: 14840
Quote:
Originally Posted by GolfProfessional View Post
All forms of energy would be more expensive if taxpayers didn't subsidize it. At least with solar panels, it's a one-time subsidizing... whereas with fossil fuels it's a constant drain on taxpayers....
Unless they have invented a solar panel that lasts forever that would be false argument.

When you're looking at subsidies the only true measure is the subsidy per unit of production, solar panels and wind mills have a lifespan so we can assign a value to it. As far as the coal subsidy it is about 40 cents per MWh. Assuming the average person uses 1 MWh in month If the subsidies were removed someone's bill might go up 10 cents a month once you make adjustments for the percentage of power generated etc. If 100% of their power was from coal at most it's going up about 20 cents per month. Most of the coal subsidy is for R&D so it's removal has an even less impact on the market. .2% of their power was subsidized. It's a negligible amount and if the subsidy was dropped the consumer would never even notice.


Now let's look at typical scenario for a homeowner. Let's just say we need a system that is going to cost $50K that will last 25 years to produce the needed 1 MWh. Right out of the gate the feds are subsidizing that 30% and typically the state is throwing in another 20%. Fully half of their power is subsidized and it brings the costs inline with what you might be paying the power company. We're not done yet becsue many states allow these systems to generate a green credit. That is sold to the power companies to meet mandates and those costs are passed onto the ratepayer. Solar industry claims will put payback of "your" investment around 7 or 8 years when this green credit is involved.

Once the federal and state subsidies are combined with the green credit you might pay $7 or $8k for a $50K system. That's a 86% subsidy.

--------------------

Just as a side note the subsidy for gasoline when you use unit of production is fractions of a penny per gallon.

Last edited by thecoalman; 07-12-2014 at 08:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2014, 08:38 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,169,548 times
Reputation: 5399
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Unless they have invented a solar panel that lasts forever that would be false argument.

When you're looking at subsidies the only true measure is the subsidy per unit of production, solar panels and wind mills have a lifespan so we can assign a value to it. As far as the coal subsidy it is about 40 cents per MWh. Assuming the average person uses 1 MWh in month If the subsidies were removed someone's bill might go up 10 cents a month once you make adjustments for the percentage of power generated etc. If 100% of their power was from coal at most it's going up about 20 cents per month. Most of the coal subsidy is for R&D so it's removal has an even less impact on the market. .2% of their power was subsidized. It's a negligible amount and if the subsidy was dropped the consumer would never even notice.


Now let's look at typical scenario for a homeowner. Let's just say we need a system that is going to cost $50K that will last 25 years to produce the needed 1 MWh. Right out of the gate the feds are subsidizing that 30% and typically the state is throwing in another 20%. Fully half of their power is subsidized and it brings the costs inline with what you might be paying the power company. We're not done yet becsue many states allow these systems to generate a green credit. That is sold to the power companies to meet mandates and those costs are passed onto the ratepayer. Solar industry claims will put payback of "your" investment around 7 or 8 years when this green credit is involved.

Once the federal and state subsidies are combined with the green credit you might pay $7 or $8k for a $50K system. That's a 86% subsidy.

--------------------

Just as side note the subsidy for gasoline when you use unit of production is fractions of penny per gallon.
You are crawling out on a limb coalman. Solar City is offering 7.5 kw arrays here for $14,500. No state rebate in Nevada and long days of sunshine. There is the federal 30% and something from the local utility though not very much. So 7.5 * 6 *365 - 16.4 mwhs. So roughly $1,640 worth of electricity at utility rates? So a 11% return or so? And then consider the utility rates going up 3% oer annum?

And yes I know I am oversimplifying the calculation.

However after looking at it I think I am going to take the plunge..But not until 2016 just before the 30% expires. Just got to be sure to allow enough lead time as the world smells the great deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top