What are some payback times for systems currently installed? - Page 8

 Yeah run away from where you don't feel appreciated.

Hindsight usually smartens people up.

---------


not as bad as having your mother teaching at the same school.

I could never get away with saying "Nah, Mum, no homework tonight", knowing
damn
well she'd already asked my teacher what I've got.

She'd drill me, too, on maths, English and whatever else she found out what
my
teacher had taught on the day.

I was always top of the class with 90% plus, and it STILL wasn't enough!!

I joined the RAAF (apprentice) when I was 15. <grin>

  On 19/12/11 7:16 PM, danny burstein wrote:

got

basic

price...say

panels.

generating

$
60 of

factors,

next

looking

books.

 

Yes you would.  You also have to use realistic values when you present your
argument.

Melodie writes about ENERGY costs


You write about DOLLAR costs


Then you write:


I don't know where you are located, but in the US, both of those numbers are
below average for electricity costs (about $
.13/kWh) as well as for insolation.

For example, in southern California, in many places, average annual insolation
is over 6 hours/day.  AVERAGE electricity costs in Los Angeles are about
$
.20/kWh and may be higher during the day with demand pricing.

Interest rates today available to the average consumer, and for the past several
years, have been well under 0.5% per year, so to use a rate of 5%, as you did,
is a significant bias.

So let us say our consumer lives in the Los Angeles, CA area where average
insolation is 5.4 hrs/day --> 1972.35 kwH/year
At $
.199/kWh (Oct 2011 average rate from the BLS) --> $
92.50 savings per year
A 10- year treasury is presently paying 2.11% --> $
4.40 per year
Net savings --> $
08.10/yr

So even the Dollar payback is positive in southern California.  The Energy
payback, which is what Melodie wrote, is much better.

Clearly, if you live in northern Canada, and pay $
.05/kWh, and make 5% on your
money, it doesn't pay.  But that was not the point being made.

 Clearly if we stretch all the figured into dream category we may actually
break even on our LOI.

Factor in the cost of moving to and living in SoCal and then recalculate
using loss of income on salary until another job is won.


--------------
"Ron Rosenfeld"  wrote in message



Yes you would.  You also have to use realistic values when you present your
argument.

Melodie writes about ENERGY costs


You write about DOLLAR costs


Then you write:


I don't know where you are located, but in the US, both of those numbers are
below average for electricity costs (about $
.13/kWh) as well as for
insolation.

For example, in southern California, in many places, average annual
insolation is over 6 hours/day.  AVERAGE electricity costs in Los Angeles
are about $
.20/kWh and may be higher during the day with demand pricing.

Interest rates today available to the average consumer, and for the past
several years, have been well under 0.5% per year, so to use a rate of 5%,
as you did, is a significant bias.

So let us say our consumer lives in the Los Angeles, CA area where average
insolation is 5.4 hrs/day --> 1972.35 kwH/year
At $
.199/kWh (Oct 2011 average rate from the BLS) --> $
92.50 savings per
year
A 10- year treasury is presently paying 2.11% --> $
4.40 per year
Net savings --> $
08.10/yr

So even the Dollar payback is positive in southern California.  The Energy
payback, which is what Melodie wrote, is much better.

Clearly, if you live in northern Canada, and pay $
.05/kWh, and make 5% on
your money, it doesn't pay.  But that was not the point being made.

 

What a cogent and well-reasoned argument!

I am destroyed and will resign.

Obviously, since we MUST factor in all of those costs in order to properly
analyze the energy and dollar paybacks, and we must also use only YOUR values
for insolation, cost of electicity and cost of money, you are clearly in the
right and further discussion is futile.