<p>Can anyone guess why PV as a viable alternative energy source is not being championed by the Government? Why isn’t Exxon/Mobile all over it?</p>
<p>Bandit, you could make the same argument about buying a house at all - why not rent instead? How’s your betting on the likelihood that electricity will cost less in, say, six years than it does now? What effect do you suppose having a PV installation which generates 7500 kWh per year would have on the resale value of your home if the cost of electricity goes to $.50 per kWh? $1? A major portion of electricity generation in America comes from natural gas. As the price of natural gas keeps rising - as it does - so does the price of electricity. And what “better” do you figure will come up than a non-polluting, free-fuel source of perpetual energy? Kryptonite? I realize that there’s a lot of crystal-ball gazing involved in making an investment in something which will generate value over a period of decades, instead of just renting the output from current income instead, but that’s how people have historically amassed wealth, isn’t it? One thing which may change is that the price of PV may go down.</p>
<p>Or it may go up. 
</p>
<p>Around here (sunny California) you will generate about 200 kWh per year per $1000 invested, before federal tax credits and state subsidies, 300 kWh per year per $1000 invested after subsidies. It’s pretty easy to figure the payback at various kWh price points. Even when the cost of 30 year mortgages was below 6% (meaning that you could borrow at 6%, tax deductible, and generate power back at a ROI of 9.5%, tax-free) it never even occurred to most people around here to consider including PV in their planning process. And I do mean “never ocurred.” I never met a single person who told me that they had considered including PV in a new home design, but decided against it for one reason or another. But I have talked to many who never even gave it a moment’s thought. (Retrofitting existing homes is a different matter.)</p>
<p>Poetsheart - California Gov. Schwartzenegger (Republican!) has vowed to see a “million solar roofs” - eventually.</p>
<p>If PV’s make sense, then people will install them without the need for legislation. If the return is marginal, then tax credits make sense. That was already tried many years ago. I bought a house with solar panels for hot water. I could not see much benefit. Most people take showers at the end of the day and/or first thing in the morning. Since the sun was not shining, that meant electric hot water. A year or two after I bought the house the water tank started to leak. The tank needed to be replaced at about 3-4x the cost of a conventional tank. Next winter, the solar panel froze. It was not designed to be repaired and so that needed to be replaced. I will be one of the last to rush into expensive new technology and when I do I will look for a reputable company and a long term warranty.</p>
<p>By the way, how many square feet of solar panels would it take to keep up with a 5 ton air conditioner?</p>
<p>poetsheart: two things.</p>
<p>1) The liberals whine about us being too “selfish” but never say a word about China or India and their oil consumption - especially if this leaded gasoline thing is true.</p>
<p>2) Do you have proof about 100 MPG existing?</p>
<p>edad, rule of thumb is that garden variety panels produce about 10 watts per square foot. But you don’t need to meet 100% of your load. The advantage of a “grid-tie” system is that it just supplements your other source of juice. On a cool sunny day you are pushing electricity into the grid during daytime, drawing it back at night. If you have a big AC load you may still be running your meter forward during the day - just not as fast.
I don’t recommend that people here shoot for 100% solar - given our tiered electric rates where the first 300 kWh per month are 11 cents per kWh, then 22 cents per, and anything above 600 kWh is 33 cents, my recommendation is to try to design a system to be just big enough to supply all the “expensive” power - that which the house is projected to use above 12 kWh per day, roughly. That gives the best ROI.</p>
<p>neverborn:
- Regardless of my politics I don’t have a lot of influence over what people do in India or China. If I did, I might have something to say about it. As it is, instead of doing nothing I’m looking after the things I can do something about.
- No, he doesn’t. It’s an old wives tale.</p>
<p>Houses don’t depreciate to nothing after a life of 20-30 years. In fact, most appreciate considerably over the years. Buying cars that cost $50,000 is what doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>I considered PV and solar hot water several times over the years. That’s why I know the numbers.</p>
<p>neverborn…yes, we liberals do complain about China, like all the time, they own our debt, btw, and well as increasing usage of fuel</p>
<p>China has a huge polution problem and is growing exponentially with few checks…so yeah, we think about it and complain…</p>
<p>And my wife is a crack Boggle player. You blew my cover Xiggi. Seriously, we cook on the grill at least every other day in the warmer months and even in the winter when it’s not raining.<br>
I’m planning to build one of those nice outdoor kitchens at the Virginia house some day. I just have to figure how to keep the bugs out in the Summer.</p>
<p>If you buy the right car for $50k it can make an OK investment. Of course it will be over 30 years old with no airbags and no CD player.</p>
<p>Let’s see if I have this figured out:
5 tons of A/C x 12000 = 60000 BTU
60000 BTU x 0.293 = 17580 watt
17580 watts x 0.1 = 1758 square feet</p>
<p>I guess you are right. You would not be able to handle all of the power consumption. Not to mention any additional use such as refrigerators and house lights, you could barely make a dent.</p>
<p>I think I will stick with my original assessment: fuzzy liberalism.</p>
<p>Maybe I need more facts. What would be the cost of say a 1000 sq feet of PV’s?</p>
<p>Just to let you us liberal conspirators are a little behind schedule. By now, we were hoping to come around and confiscate everybody’s SUVs. But we got sidetracked sneaking gay Hispanic pro-global warming scientists over the border to get married in MA before Congress passes that silly amendment and before the big fence goes up.</p>
<p>In the meantime, we’ll keep feeding the mainstream media misleading stories and you guys keep stealing elections, OK?</p>
<p>“Can anyone guess why PV as a viable alternative energy source is not being championed by the Government? Why isn’t Exxon/Mobile all over it?”</p>
<p>In the case of Exxon, that is easy to answet. Spell L-E-E-R-A-Y-M-O-N-D. He probably would have sued his mother had she even pronounced the term alternative energy. He made billions for Exxon, but would probably -and should- have been booted had he not retired.</p>
<p>On the other hand, check BP Solar at <a href=“http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260[/url]”>http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260</a></p>
<p>Yes, that is the same company as British Petroleum, the comany that says, “The world expects more. We think we can do more” and "Economic growth and social progress both require access to energy, but can tomorrows energy be cleaner than todays? We believe the answer is yes "</p>
<p>In November 2005, BP announced its plans to invest $8 billion over 10 years in a single new business called BP Alternative Energy. This new business aims to lead the market in low carbon alternative power generated from the sun, wind, natural gas and hydrogen, as well as using our skilled trading teams to boost our wholesale marketing of cleaner electricity worldwide. </p>
<p>Shell is doing the same: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br&FC3=/rw-br/html/iwgen/about_shell/other/other_energy_0616.html[/url]”>http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br&FC3=/rw-br/html/iwgen/about_shell/other/other_energy_0616.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar[/url]”>http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar</a></p>
<p>British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell … is there a pattern?</p>
<p>PS The government has been and is a champion of solar energy and PV. However, you have to remember that government does not necessarily equate with constructive or intelligent support.</p>
<p>One of the local farmers installed a very large, very expensive European-built wind turbine. He may be getting his money back in publicity. It has had so much downtime that his plight made the local news. Most Sundays I drive past his farm. The turbine has been down most of the winter. Lately it has been running maybe one day out of four.</p>
<p>edad, if your 5 ton central air system consumes 17.5 kilowatts forget about the solar panels - your first step is to get a new AC! Realistically, a modern 5 ton system should require about 5,000 watts of power. (I think your math got a little “fuzzy” there ) Which is to say, a PV array about 20 feet by 25 feet would meet the maximum demand from that appliance if you kept it on nonstop - on a sunny day. But like I said before, you don’t have to replace your entire electrical consumption with PV. (I’m not sure why you seem to think you do.) Every kilowatt which is produced on your roof lowers your electric bill, and reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses and pollutants you are responsible for. But 400 to 500 square feet of PV will supply most of the annual electric needs of most homes. (Less than that for Barron’s apparently. I gotta check out the weather out there.) The meter will run back and forth most days, ending up with a modest net consumption at the end of the year.</p>
<p>Bandit: If you’re equating PV with rooftop water tanks you’re really not keeping up. That’s like saying you didn’t like your typewriter so you’re not about to buy one of those fancy “computers”. Hey - they both have keyboards, right? </p>
<p>Barrons: You can say that again. One of our family’s better recent investments came from my older son buying a '72 Mustang for $3300, driving it for three years, and selling it for $5600!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/residential/residential_pv_successes.htm[/url]”>http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/residential/residential_pv_successes.htm</a>
<a href=“http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/residential/residential_pv_paybacks.htm[/url]”>http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/residential/residential_pv_paybacks.htm</a></p>
<p>
Photovoltaics and solar hot water heaters are obviously different. Heating hot water with a collector is much more efficient than generating electricity then heating it.</p>
<p>True - if all you want is hot water. But if you want something to run your air conditioner, computer, TV, microwave, etc., grid-tied photovoltaic actually serves to generate power which is consumed and replaced all the day long. A solar water heater heats up your water and then… well, it sits there, being hot, until you use it. edad’s right - if you run the dishwasher in the evening then shower in the morning a solar water heater isn’t much use. The power generated by a grid-tied PV system is always consumed, and more generated, and consumed, and so on.</p>
<p>Ok, in the interest of intellectual integrity, I have to come clean and admit that I never actually saw any hard evidence proving that technology was ever developed which would allow a car to get 100 miles to the gallon. It’s apparently an urban legend that’s been circulating in some form or other for decades. But like millions, I indulged in lazy thinking and bought the story becaused it seemed entirely plausible to me that the oil industry and government would act to suppress such technology if it did exist. I should “just say no” to conspiracy theories—problem is, sometimes the cloak and dagger stuff really does happen…</p>
<p>Just don’t ask me to site a specific example right now. I’m still feeling somewhat lazy…:p</p>
<p>I’m a “she” btw.</p>
<p>In that case, it’s an old husband’s tale. ;)</p>
<p>kluge: I double checked my figures and cannot find an error. The 0.293 conversion factor is merely a conversion of units. Since A/C units are substantially less than 100% efficient, additional energy is required. Also, I am not sure about your figures for the energy output of PV’s. I suspect this is based on maximum sunlight with the sun directly overhead. I am also sure that the output does not compensate for the loss of available sunshine due to cloud cover. In many parts of the US, including where I live, available sunshine averages about 60% of possible sunshine. Finally, the sell back model only works because virtually no one is using PV (or wind) generation. If a large amount of energy was being generated from PV or wind, there would be serious problems with generation when the sun was not shining or the wind was not blowing. Power companies would still need capacity to carry the full load not to mention the potential disruption of the power grid due to sudden changes in sunlight or wind.</p>
<p>If we are hoping to reduce use of petroleum and NG, I would look at low tech solutions. In the NE a lot of energy goes into heating homes. Insulation in most homes is very poor. Even new construction leaves a lot to be desired and energy losses could be easily cut in half with minimal additional costs. Builders are not motivated because any additional expenses would cut into their profits.</p>