Re: [APD] solar tanks

[Mike Szilard <szilard at sbcglobal_net>]

OK...with a south facing roof I have more than enough room for panels to 
support my entire house, with space to spare.  But unlike NorCal, SDG&E 
in San Diego has no program for a mini-producer like me to sell excess 
energy.   It's actually to my benefit to produce just less than 100%.  
Ping off-list if you want to know why.  If I could sell back, I would 
have gotten a bigger system (I have the inverter capacity, just not the 
panels...and they're the cheap part).  As it is, I'm looking at a 5-7yr 
return on investment (system paid for itself).  Regardless, I was lucky 
enough to have $16K extra that was not a loan.

As for cost...prices are falling.  A new system equivalent to mine is 
close to 30% cheaper than 3 years ago when I bought it (Gross cost, not 
adjusted for rebates, etc).  As time goes by in Kalifornia, the rebates 
are steadily decreasing.  In fact, it's almost a wash between the cost 
and rebates decreasing.

One of the new technologies is a flexible tile-like solar cell.  Looks 
like a regular composite shingle except it's a solar cell.  So now even 
aesthetics are a non-issue.  Panels like mine are warrantied for 25 
years.  The inverters are good for 5.  The inverters are the expensive 
part ($3K-$5K each).  Newer inverters can handle more KW for less $$.

When I upgrade my house (aka buy a new home), my plan is to have the 
builder work with my solar contractor to make it an integrated 
installation.  This will decrease the overall cost as well as "clean up" 
the installation.  The builder is already on board with that.  My 
opinion is that all new homes, at least in lovely areas like San Diego 
with obscene amounts of nice weather, should be required to have solar 
systems.  You'd be amazed at what this could do....

--
Mike

On 2/7/2006 1:50 PM Dennis Dietz said the following:

>i read an article in National geographic recently that stated solar 
>power with todays technology would require panels on, I forget the 
>percentages but think it was 30%... Suffice it to say if we put solar 
>panels on most of the buildings in metropolitan areas, the energy 
>produced would equal that from our coal usage and that accounts for the 
>fact that solar does not always produce.
>
>Now, solar is renewable, emits no GHGs and i belive the panels last 
>along time.
>
>I also read recently that a new technology for solar panels is almost 
>ready.  This new technology produces the same amount of energy in 10% of 
>the space and at a lower production cost.  Plus, rumor has it a new 
>technology is on the way with sprayable photocells!
>
>Course I could have read those articles wrong.
>
>If we would start spending our money and resources on alternative enery 
>  solutions rather than mucked up elections, wars, oil and all the other 
>crap we waste on the new technologies to end or drastically reduce our 
>dependancy on fossil fuels we would already have the technologies.
>
>Just me 2 cents!  I'll go back to lurking now.
>
>Dennis
>
>  and Bill D wrote:
>  
>
>>Most if not all of  those so called "savings" come at the expense of the
>>taxpayers or rate payers.
>>
>>Solar and windmill and geothermal and landfill and soybean power , etc. are
>>not economical by any measurement, and even if they were, they would produce
>>only a small amount of the energy that we need.  It is nice to dream, but
>>dreaming doesn't solve problems.
>>
>>The only solution to our growing energy problem is to bite the bullet and
>>start to build the next generation of nuclear plants.  The professional
>>naysayers have managed to block nuclear power for too long.  The time for us
>>to start making up for lost time is now.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>    
>>


_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants