Trees versus solar panels

[4ARedOctober Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close 4ARedOctober]

The quote for a 2.6 kW Residential PV System was $18,804 total net after taxes cost of system. Our rebate incentive was $7,000 and our Federal Tax Credit was 2,000 which are already taken out of the $27,804 total cost of the system.

Annual electricity savings was estimated at $886 for a 15.3 years payback period.

Did not add up for us.

[bigfrank Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close bigfrank]

The quote for a 2.6 kW Residential PV System was $18,804 total net after taxes cost of system. Our rebate incentive was $7,000 and our Federal Tax Credit was 2,000 which are already taken out of the $27,804 total cost of the system.

Annual electricity savings was estimated at $886 for a 15.3 years payback period.

Did not add up for us.

Thats what I figured, Solar panels have always been expensive. They need to find a way to make this feasible to change over.

[wackymother Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close wackymother]

Ours wasn't going to be nearly that much; it probably wasn't as large, though. I think there were some state incentives, too.

[Guest Close monaco]

Solar power – it’s a joke.

The solar power nuts need to put down the wacky-tobacky and get with the real world. We learned in the 70’s that it wasn’t economically viable. It costs upwards of $30,000.00 to install a grid connected system to power a typical home. That’s about the average power bill over 20 years. And, 20 years is about the life-cycle of the solar system. Without government subsidies, it all just gets paid for and you have to replace it. The ultra-pure silicon needed for solar panels is getting harder to get. Why? New refining plants aren’t being built because they are poor investments. Don’t bet on a horse that the federal government has to carry. Almost 50% of the refined silicon currently comes from China. Likely to increase. How good is that for our balance of payments. Solar power is costly, inefficient, undependable, wasteful, and ugly. We should be going all out on nuclear power. It’s the only viable alternative to fossil fuel. If we’d been doing that over the last forty years, we could have told OPEC to take a hike years ago. What would that have meant to the world? Probably wouldn’t be fighting in the Middle East. Islam might not have the money for their world-wide jihad. Arab royal families wouldn’t be buying our banks, businesses and real estate. And, our standard of living might not be in such decline. Thanks to Jimmy Carter and those California and Colorado flaming liberals, we killed the golden goose and set ourselves back 40 years.

[Linda VH Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Linda VH]

They have new solar panels now that are especially good if you have a metal roof. Rather than a panel, per se, they fit into the ridges in the metal roof. The return on electricity, living in Florida, is quite good as well as the rebates. I'll keep my whacky-tobacky thank you as I HAVE researched it recently and it IS cost effective. We are looking into installing a wind turbine on our new addition and the cost for that is offset as well. Linda

[idahodude Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close idahodude]

The solar power nuts need to put down the wacky-tobacky and get with the real world. We learned in the 70’s that it wasn’t economically viable. It costs upwards of $30,000.00 to install a grid connected system to power a typical home. That’s about the average power bill over 20 years. And, 20 years is about the life-cycle of the solar system. Without government subsidies, it all just gets paid for and you have to replace it. The ultra-pure silicon needed for solar panels is getting harder to get. Why? New refining plants aren’t being built because they are poor investments. Don’t bet on a horse that the federal government has to carry. Almost 50% of the refined silicon currently comes from China. Likely to increase. How good is that for our balance of payments. Solar power is costly, inefficient, undependable, wasteful, and ugly. We should be going all out on nuclear power. It’s the only viable alternative to fossil fuel. If we’d been doing that over the last forty years, we could have told OPEC to take a hike years ago. What would that have meant to the world? Probably wouldn’t be fighting in the Middle East. Islam might not have the money for their world-wide jihad. Arab royal families wouldn’t be buying our banks, businesses and real estate. And, our standard of living might not be in such decline. Thanks to Jimmy Carter and those California and Colorado flaming liberals, we killed the golden goose and set ourselves back 40 years.

The federal government carried nuclear for quite a while before it became viable. There also still isn't a good long term plan for the waste. If storage of the waste is added to the cost of the electricity, nuclear rapidly rises in cost compared to other fuels.

Happily, technology has been steadily decreasing the cost of solar power, and while it's not terribly economically viable right now, it's getting there.

Wind is actually not much more than nuclear and continues to come down in price/watt as technology improves and mass production increases.

Finally, we have over 100 years of proven coal reserves in this country. While this is not "green", technology has also made coal cleaner over the years and it too should be part of the plan. The key is that energy production should include multiple approaches, so we don't become too dependent on any one source, like we have with oil over the years.