Posted by Mho on December 22, 2011, 5:10 am
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>
Posted by argusy on December 20, 2011, 11:14 am
On 19/12/11 7:16 PM, danny burstein wrote:
>> On 19/12/11 3:47 PM, Mho wrote:
>> Not to put you on the spot, but 1000 * 4 * 365 * .11 divided by 100 (makes it
>> dollars, not cents) comes to $606 dollars.
> Looks like you misplaced a decimal point:
> 1000 watts/1,000 => 1 kw; 4000/1,000 => 4 kw. Now times 4 hrs -> 4 kw-hr/day
> 4 kw times 0.10 dollars =>0.40 or 40 cents/day
> 40 cents times 365 => 14600 cents. Divide by 100 => $ 146.00
> (if 11 cents per kw-hr [erlier poster mixed both terms],
> you'd see $ 160.60)
> [material underneath left for reference]
>> As I pointed out in a previous reply, I do things like this in my head, and
got
>> about $600.
>> Now without any other of your arguments to check, you've already shot yourself
>> in the foot.
>> Need I say any more about your math or reasoning - I think not
>> Graham
>>> Real easy but you would have to actually read those studies and be able to
basic
>>> math.
>>>
>>> Let's say you buy a 1000 Watts of PV panels and get them for a good
price...say
>>> $ per watt and let's not consider the mounting and inverter, hookup, taxes,
>>> permits and electrician costs to accomplish this. so we now have $,000 of
panels.
>>>
>>> Most places the insolation factor is about 4 hours +/- some.
>>>
>>> With 365 days per year (we all get that)
>>>
>>> and grid energy at say $.10 / kWh (we pay 5.8 cents plus add-ons)
>>>
>>> We now have 1000 watts of PV x 4 hours x 365 days x $.11 = $60 of
generating
>>> capacity per anum.
>>>
>>> Now your LOI on your money will come to about $000 x 5% (or more) = $00 per
>>> annum.
>>>
>>> DO some magic and pay of your $00 per annum in interest alone with your
$60 of
>>> generation income.
>>>
>>> When you're don't forget to add in the amortization of your additional
factors,
>>> the inefficiency of your electronics and maintenance costs. Don't forget how
>>> much more your roof will cost to have the panels all removed and remounted
next
>>> shingle change.
>>>
>>> There is no payback unless somebody else pays your bills and hides the costs
in
>>> everybody else's income tax.
>>>
>>> PV welfare anybody?
>>>
>>> Only somebody making profits from this can seriously promote PV without
looking
>>> foolish.
>>>
>>> Artificially high energy rates, subsidies and lower prices help balance the
books.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Actually, it really depends on how much you are paying for other sources
>>> of electricity. As other sources get more expensive, PV gets more
>>> attractive.
>>>
>>> I don't know how you can seriously claim that, given the amount of
>>> studies that have been undertaken in the last 15 years....
>>>
>>> Energy payback time is generally under 3 years, but goes as low as under
>>> 1 year if you are in a particularily high insolation place.
>>>
>>> Check out the IEA studies, PVPS, or Alsema or Fthenakis...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on December 19, 2011, 1:53 pm
>Real easy but you would have to actually read those studies and be able to
>basic math.
Yes you would. You also have to use realistic values when you present your
argument.
Melodie writes about ENERGY costs
>Energy payback time is generally under 3 years, but goes as low as under
>1 year if you are in a particularily high insolation place.
You write about DOLLAR costs
>Let's say you buy a 1000 Watts of PV panels and get them for a good
>price...say $ per watt and let's not consider the mounting and inverter,
>hookup, taxes, permits and electrician costs to accomplish this. so we now
>have $,000 of panels.
Then you write:
>Most places the insolation factor is about 4 hours +/- some.
>With 365 days per year (we all get that)
>and grid energy at say $.10 / kWh (we pay 5.8 cents plus add-ons)
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.
Posted by Mho on December 19, 2011, 5:49 pm
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
>Real easy but you would have to actually read those studies and be able to
>basic math.
Yes you would. You also have to use realistic values when you present your
argument.
Melodie writes about ENERGY costs
>Energy payback time is generally under 3 years, but goes as low as under
>1 year if you are in a particularily high insolation place.
You write about DOLLAR costs
>Let's say you buy a 1000 Watts of PV panels and get them for a good
>price...say $ per watt and let's not consider the mounting and inverter,
>hookup, taxes, permits and electrician costs to accomplish this. so we now
>have $,000 of panels.
Then you write:
>Most places the insolation factor is about 4 hours +/- some.
>With 365 days per year (we all get that)
>and grid energy at say $.10 / kWh (we pay 5.8 cents plus add-ons)
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.
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on December 19, 2011, 6:42 pm
>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.
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.
>> Not to put you on the spot, but 1000 * 4 * 365 * .11 divided by 100 (makes it
>> dollars, not cents) comes to $606 dollars.
> Looks like you misplaced a decimal point:
> 1000 watts/1,000 => 1 kw; 4000/1,000 => 4 kw. Now times 4 hrs -> 4 kw-hr/day
> 4 kw times 0.10 dollars =>0.40 or 40 cents/day
> 40 cents times 365 => 14600 cents. Divide by 100 => $ 146.00
> (if 11 cents per kw-hr [erlier poster mixed both terms],
> you'd see $ 160.60)
> [material underneath left for reference]
>> As I pointed out in a previous reply, I do things like this in my head, and