Fuller Wycliff
New member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2011
- Messages
- 18
- Points
- 0
Yeah Baby, that's what i'm talkin bout!!! i love this stuff.
don't be such a downer Glenn!
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Swiss town builds first solar powered ski lift
- Thread starter ALLSKIING
- Start date
Yeah Baby, that's what i'm talkin bout!!! i love this stuff.
Edd
Well-known member
Now you solar doubters are in trouble.
Bene288
New member
Electrical infrastructure needs to be largely changed to support current solar. Watt usage needs to be SEVERELY reduced to make the investment of solar power even close to worth the cost. You would need to replace every appliance you have to the most efficient model available, AND have them converted to gas. It can't support air conditioning, or the big flat screen tvs that everyone has. When your home isn't using the juice drawn from the panels it goes back into the grid. You would pretty much be supplying the power company with free energy, unless you build a battery bank (super expensive). Ideal environment also needs to play a role. We have a lot of cloudy days around here. We also have a lot of trees. I know if I wanted to put panels on my roof, I would have to take down 4 giant trees. For the average person, this may cost anywhere from $2000-$5000 for a tree company to come and remove. But that's just my situation, not everyone has trees that need to be taken down.
The savings just aren't there, I can't tell you how many times I've crunched the numbers and they don't work, especially for old homes. New homes need to be built with solar design in mind. Roof angles need to be the right pitch for optimum exposure, gable ends need to face the right direction, and electrical systems and service have to be completely updated. Tack on another 40k to your brand new home to include solar. I buy renewable energy. It's a few more cents on the watt, but it's green and I don't have to drop 20k at once for very minimal savings.
abc
Well-known member
I'm sorry. But you're totally missing the point, I'm afraid.
What does energy saving has to do with HOW electricity is generated? Why can't current appliance that uses coal/oil generated electricity use the same electricity generated by solar panel? Or do you think solar electricity has something in it that my current AC unit can't use?
No, you don't think so. I can tell. Because you're talking about more efficient appliance in the same paragraph.
So let's for a moment forget solar energy. Can that new, super-efficient frig use the old, dirty electricity generated by coal or oil? No?
Of course it could. It's already doing that. Newer frig's are using "old" electricity. So what's to prevent the old appliance to use the new electricity?
Your misunderstanding is a good reminder on why this country is so far behind the new technology of re-newable energy.
Because you and many like you are thinking solar is not able to provide ALL the energy we need, therefore we don't want it to provide PART of the energy we need either. It's all or nothing. Well, sadly, it'll translate into absolutely NOTHING!
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,715
- Points
- 83
Solar has its plus' and minus'.
My wife and I are in the final stages of getting plans done up for a house we will be building. Ive toyed with going 'off the grid' and it really is a losing proposition when you get down to the whole storing and maintaining of the whole thing. It seems the batteries are the worst culprit. There are some sweet benefits as well, notably all those power outages you guys have been getting are a thing of the past. Tied to a generator backup theres some serious benefits.
That being said we've decided on going to with a grid tie system. Fortunately for us our lot has underground lines and a pretty reliable grid anyways. The only reason we are doing so is we are building the house from the ground up and can plan ahead for it. It never will work out retrofitting a house to solar unless you want a 50k system in your backyard. In my situation my electrical needs will be low, the house will be designed well, and the overall energy demands are minimal. For a 10k investment the grid should be paying me of a couple bucks a month. Well see when its done, but based on a couple friends with similar systems the output should be what Im expecting. Im passing on the whole solar water thing, as well as batteries. To expensive and ruins the whole thing. Otherwise Im looking at a 8-10 year payback, which is still not the best, although its still about an 8% return if you want to think about it that way when taking in a couple percent for maintenance. In an ideal world you get the money back when you sell the place anyways. Another reason we went grid tie, we eventually will sell the place, the off grid cabin is a tough sell.
My wife and I are in the final stages of getting plans done up for a house we will be building. Ive toyed with going 'off the grid' and it really is a losing proposition when you get down to the whole storing and maintaining of the whole thing. It seems the batteries are the worst culprit. There are some sweet benefits as well, notably all those power outages you guys have been getting are a thing of the past. Tied to a generator backup theres some serious benefits.
That being said we've decided on going to with a grid tie system. Fortunately for us our lot has underground lines and a pretty reliable grid anyways. The only reason we are doing so is we are building the house from the ground up and can plan ahead for it. It never will work out retrofitting a house to solar unless you want a 50k system in your backyard. In my situation my electrical needs will be low, the house will be designed well, and the overall energy demands are minimal. For a 10k investment the grid should be paying me of a couple bucks a month. Well see when its done, but based on a couple friends with similar systems the output should be what Im expecting. Im passing on the whole solar water thing, as well as batteries. To expensive and ruins the whole thing. Otherwise Im looking at a 8-10 year payback, which is still not the best, although its still about an 8% return if you want to think about it that way when taking in a couple percent for maintenance. In an ideal world you get the money back when you sell the place anyways. Another reason we went grid tie, we eventually will sell the place, the off grid cabin is a tough sell.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I dont think that's what he's saying?
The fact is, solar is currently cost inefficient.
The only reason you're seeing all these "solar farms" pop up everywhere is that they are getting massive government subsidization. The same as people putting solar panels on their home in places like New York State, massive government subsidization. It's money that's just being piled on top of both the State and Federal debt.
abc
Well-known member
I do agree on the cost efficiency part. (Though the key word being "currently")
But that's not Bene288's arguement. He argued the solar panel can't drive the AC, which is assuming the panels are the ONLY source of electricity.
.
Last edited:
Bene288
New member
I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. I have no problem with solar in a farm setting. The people that outfit their home with solar panels and expect it to completely power their house without taking anything from the grid never see the savings. Having green energy is fine. But you can buy it through the current farms and grids without having to make such a big investment. What I am saying is that you cannot outfit a house with enough panels to completely run it on the average watt use. They do not yet draw the juice to completely run the average home. If you want to split it up then that's fine. But you'll still be buying from the main grid, or you would have to drastically reduce average power usage. You're assuming my stance on solar power is negative, when in fact I buy my electricity from renewable resources. If I was home I would look at my bill and tell you exactly how much of my energy comes from solar, it's most likely more than yours because I pay into renewable. WHAT I AM SAYING is that a homeowner who invests in a private solar system will have to wait 20-30 years to have it paid off. If you have the money, fine, but if you don't it's just an extra payment. Look at the cost of solar watts compared to fossil fuel watts. Solar will always be more expensive. Some things work better on the small scale, some on the large. Solar power is not yet meant to be generated on the small private scale. I've built several green homes fitted with solar panels. And after speaking to the solar contractors for god knows how many hours, and crunching the numbers, I know what I'm talking about.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Why isn't it just as bad if the local, state, and Federal government flush taxpayer money down the toilet (Solar Farms) as opposed to an individual flushing his or her money down the toilet (along with taxpayer money in home subsidies) on Home Solar?
Well then, that's quite a conundrum given that the panels only last 8 to 12 years (SEE: non-economically viable technology).
Thread delivery. :lol:
Bene288
New member
Quite a conundrum indeed. Though I think they last a bit longer than that. The solar company I've subbed out on my homes have a 20 year warranty. We'll eventually see micro inverters come on to the market and take over the old PV systems. The problem is that technology improves every year. In the 70's and 80's home sized solar systems were in the millions, now they're in the tens of thousands. In 25 years they will be even lower and with much better draw. I'm sure in 10 years they wont even be using silicone in panels, they'll have found something better and less hazardous to make. Again, if you have the money to blow on the system, go for it.
I understand a portion of my taxes goes to a solar field or a wind farm etc. So we are all probably paying into renewable resources. I pay for green energy because I choose to. We definitely need to shy away from fossil fuels, and I don't have much problem spending a few extra dollars a month on renewable. I'm about as green as they get without being stupid about it, but outfitting my house with panels and spending the money just won't pay for itself in a timely fashion. I'm definitely holding out for the technology to improve.
I have a bit of a problem with a lot of so called "green" people. The people that outfit their homes completely in concrete fiber board, all metal studs, all pvc trims and features etc. The fact is that much of this green material used creates such pollution when it's being made. Concrete fiber board is one of the leading "green" materials in home siding This is the most caustic stuff I can cut with a saw. It's awful. Concrete plants are among the biggest polluters in this country. Some of these people don't understand what they're putting into the atmosphere by ordering these green products. PVC doesn't break down, maybe over a few thousand years. Uneducated green folk will buy a house and completely outfit it with this stuff, not even thinking about what it's going to do in a landfall in 100 years where their house is demolished (for a solar field
), or the chemicals used in the plant to create PVC. They think that using wood is sacrilegious. When it's a renewable resource (when managed correctly) that breaks down over a shorter period of time. I'm not going any further, this is just the ramblings of a carpenter pertaining to the small minds of uneducated green people.
Probably wouldn't work in the NE U.S., but winters in Switzerland are actually very sunny. I remember reading that the southern parts of Switzerland/N. Italy get something like 300 days of sun/year.
It won't work everywhere, but I'd guess this area of the world has the best shot for it
