Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Good News on Solar - Page 14

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by dold on December 23, 2005, 10:25 pm

My electricity cost is $.162, and my installed system is at $.45/w.

My breakeven, then, would be 5450 / .162 = 33641 hours.
I should see 5-6 per day, 2000 per year, 16 years.

Add in a consideration for the historic increase of 6.8% in the utility
rates, and the breakeven arrives in the 12th year.

Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA  38.8,-122.5

Posted by Johnny on December 24, 2005, 1:01 am

Even if you only break even, considering equipment lifetimes, you are still
doing us all a favor, imo.

Posted by Jeff Thies on December 24, 2005, 4:55 am
 dold@XReXXGoodX.usenet.us.com wrote:

How much power are you actually getting? Are you still connected to the
utility, if not what % is solar?

   What do you think the lifetime of the equipment is?

   That's terribly expensive, unless those are Aussie $.

   Hey, if this works for you, more power to you, literally...

   Here in the States, the most enviornmentally friendly thing we can do
is to shoot a Republican.


Posted by dold on December 24, 2005, 5:57 pm
In excess of 20 years.  I'm on grid, with no battery backup.

Which "that" is expensive?    That is an ambiguous pronoun.
The most immediate preceding noun is the 6.8% increase.  I wouldn't
expect the word "expensive" to be used there, and then it wouldn't matter
if it was Aussie.  (Figuring out where I live shouldn't be difficult for
the average reader, four lines below that breakeven statement.)

My installed cost of $450?  Someone else asked if that was still possible,
with increased panel prices.  That is my complete installed price, on a
contract signed in May 2005, panels, inverter, monitoring, labor.

My utility cost of $.162?  That's my total of the pre-solar annual billing
divided by the KWH.  The range is from .1143 baseline to summer 300%+ of
baseline at .21474.

Moving to solar and time of use metering allows me to sell summer watts to
the grid at .29372, and consume winter watts at .11472 peak.  That is
pretty effective long term storage.

It seems like at least a breakeven deal, long term.  My home appraisal is
immediately raised by $8920, but property tax evaluation is unchanged.
A good portion of the commercial power in this area is not fossil-fueled,
but I still think there is good impact from my relieving the grid of some

I realize now that I should have done solar water heating first, but that's
propane, so the PV project would have moved ahead anyway.

Wouldn't the lead leeching into the environment be a bad thing, or would
you shoot them with clean wooden arrows?  Would that be all Republicans, or
only those to the right of some particular point?  

Which "State" do you mean?  That apparently makes a bit of difference in
pricing, and attitudes towards solar as well.

My original plan for solar wasn't going to be street-visible, but I hadn't
done a proper shade survey, and the space I wanted to use was too small for
my needs.  The newer panels look nicer than old ones, and are visible from
the street, but sort of match the house.  There are three other solar
installations in my neighborhood, two visible from the street, one

Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA  38.8,-122.5

Posted by Derek Broughton on December 24, 2005, 7:58 pm
 dold@XReXXGoodX.usenet.us.com wrote:

LOL.  Yes, the lead is bad - there's a move to requiring steel or other less
toxic shot for bird shot.  Maybe that could be required for politicians,

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread