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.
Somebody, somewhere had to put up $15000 for your system. They lost $51,000 by not investing it. Had they invested it and just gave you a gift of paying your grid power bill for 20 yrs, they'd still be $15,000 ahead and still earning cmpd interest.
[and, yes, I understand we're ignoring inflation. But grid rates are determined by govt regs. They have not nearly kept up with inflation. When I was a kid, an electric bill represented a significantly large portion of a working class paycheck. Not so anymore, even with all the new electronic devices that we've all come to rely on. OTOH- you are conserving well and only using 750k-'hr/m-- 25% below the natl average. We'd be talking about a $25,000 investment to supply that, magnifying the computed differences.]
Somebody, somewhere had to put up $15000 for your system. They lost $51,000 by not investing it. Had they invested it and just gave you a gift of paying your grid power bill for 20 yrs, they'd still be $15,000 ahead and still earning cmpd interest.
[and, yes, I understand we're ignoring inflation. But grid rates are determined by govt regs. They have not nearly kept up with inflation. When I was a kid, an electric bill represented a significantly large portion of a working class paycheck. Not so anymore, even with all the new electronic devices that we've all come to rely on. OTOH- you are conserving well and only using 750k-'hr/m-- 25% below the natl average. We'd be talking about a $25,000 investment to supply that, magnifying the computed differences.]
I think the issue of whether an investment in a rooftop PV systems is financially advantageous to the homeowner has been settled.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
My fellow submarine veteran wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
The OP was about whether these energy sources were 'sustainable'. Not whether they could make a profit.
I do not think anyone has tried to imply that solar-power was profitable.
It presents an option to help us to get away from petroleum fuels.
Shipmate, it will be profitable when the solar panels become cheap enough! It is coming soon!
And, I support replacing all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear fission! Assuming they are operated by Navy Submariner Nukes! I would think anybody who was a nuke ET, reactor operator, etc., on a boat could easily get a job in the nuclear power industry.
I think the 4th Gen reactors sound very good. "Intrinsically safe" with passive cooling.
Shipmate, it will be profitable when the solar panels become cheap enough! It is coming soon!
And, I support replacing all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear fission! Assuming they are operated by Navy Submariner Nukes! I would think anybody who was a nuke ET, reactor operator, etc., on a boat could easily get a job in the nuclear power industry.
I think the 4th Gen reactors sound very good. "Intrinsically safe" with passive cooling.
ETs rarely have difficulty finding employment.
I would prefer to see properly designed and operated nuclear power plants to take over all commercial electricity production.
Shipmate, it will be profitable when the solar panels become cheap enough! It is coming soon!
And, I support replacing all fossil fuel power plants with nuclear fission! Assuming they are operated by Navy Submariner Nukes! I would think anybody who was a nuke ET, reactor operator, etc., on a boat could easily get a job in the nuclear power industry.
I think the 4th Gen reactors sound very good. "Intrinsically safe" with passive cooling.
Chief Engineer here. Nukes are too expensive. It's ideal for the Navy, but way too expensive for the future of land based power generation. Even 50 years into the technology, you can't get one built without huge subsidies and risk shifting away from the investors.
Last edited by DCforever; 03-25-2016 at 01:32 PM..
This OP started as a vague, poorly defined proposition. Then, after an obligatory citation of the First Law, it quickly spun into a grab-bag of preconceptions about our favorite energy sources. Obviously we all want to discuss this, but let's try to keep it a single subject or question. Can we all agree on that?
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.
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.
I would think anybody who was a nuke ET, reactor operator, etc., on a boat could easily get a job in the nuclear power industry. 
