Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by J-man

You should send him a knuckle sandwich!!!!!!! I could help if you need!! Guy is a super tool

You should send him a knuckle sandwich!!!!!!! I could help if you need!! Guy is a super tool

Fingers crossed!

It was working well and I can understand that it didn't fit into the show script as the WHOLE house was basically a disaster and the home owners were probable overwhelmed by the free reno. My system was far from their minds. The HO was hasn't made up his mind about it as there is no room anymore in the nice basement for the tank.

Originally Posted by SolarMike

Well, I finally checked out the show and they didn't even mention the solar but my piping was still there. The producers didn't want to talk to me about paying for a re-install or where the extra parts went. Oh well.......

Mike, based on what I know, you did the install and did it well. You got paid for it (I hope ). They damaged it. The guy who "hired" them is on the hook for the reinstall or missing parts - i.e. the HO. It's up to him whether he wants to go after them for the costs. Could be an extra payday for you

What a detour... 11 pages, all kinds of topics and no satisfaction. I want to be compensated for my time by the producer of this thread.... Oh well...

Dan

did Holmes' guys reinstall it or are they not done yet?

Well, I finally checked out the show and they didn't even mention the solar but my piping was still there. The producers didn't want to talk to me about paying for a re-install or where the extra parts went. Oh well.......

Sorry to hear about your familie's loss.

Originally Posted by ControlsInMT

Did I miss it? What happened to the OP checking on the equipment? Come on man! His show is only an hour long...

Sorry dude, not working much due to the passing of my father in law.....checking out Mikes handy work will have to wait a bit.

Originally Posted by amd

It makes sense for governments to subsidize r&d, but not the deployment of immature technologies.

It does if the government decides it's in the people's interest to advance that technology. With the rate of fossil fuel use on this continent, it's not such a bad idea to combine various conservation measures with alternative production methods. Good for the economy, too. Most of that money makes it back into the local economy where it gets re-taxed to death anyway.

Did I miss it? What happened to the OP checking on the equipment? Come on man! His show is only an hour long...

It makes sense for governments to subsidize r&d, but not the deployment of immature technologies.

I think some would prefer that more moeny be left in the hands of private investors, and venture capitalists and angel capital funding can subsidize these technologies.

But I tend to agree, throughout history, most cutting edge technology (usually from the military) usually required government of wealthy patron/landowner (arguably a form of government in terms of power and influence and how their gain their wealth). Without deep pockets that are not expecting a return on their investment or a product that is immediately marketable, researchers, inventors, scientists can take risks, try wild concepts and advance technology. There are few technologies used today that would have been possible from solely private investment soruces. Many of these ideas were so wild, that an private invester woudl think they were insane.

There are exceptions. R&D within companies (a "sunken cost" without a clear payback) have invented many technologies.

How about some examples:

1) Aircraft - initiall private investment, but quickly the military stepped in and funded all major breakthroughs after that.
2) Plastics - composits - Dow & Dupont were doing research, but the first major applications were for the military, later adopted for consumer markets.
3) Transportation - Rail required government aide and without it, America would not have spread out west so rapidly and much of the West coast might not belong to the USA as a result. Hard ot lay clear claim to a territory without occupying it.
4) Military. I suppose this is obvious. But government investment has a real impact on how a country emerges as a empire. There were those that felt that raising taxes for a strong Navy wasn't nesseary and we should be isolationists. We wouldn't have defeated Spain without it. And would have been crushed by Japan as well. From an R&D perspective, we started WWII with far inferior equipment and tehnology to what Japan or Germany had and only late in the war equalled and passed them.

Some good private investment examples:
1) Automobiles
2) Telecommunications - Telephone spread primarily by private investment.

Pelase correct me if I'm wrong on some of these. I'm going off my current knowledge, not doing a 2 day research project on this.

TB, Idk. I guess semantically that could be argued to be true ALWAYS. What is your definition of FREE.

As far as who pays, I pay a BUNCH of school taxes, and have no kids. There are two simple ways of looking at that.

I pay you benefit. Sort of an entitlement, short sighted view.
I pay we all benefit. I like this better. Clearly a better educated society benefits me and everyone. Lot cheaper than housing people in jails, as one example of benefit.

In the last 4 years I've watched solar panels prices do what flat panel TVs have done, and computers before them. Drop drop drop. Without the initial incentives those early adopters would not have built the market. Now incentives are so small, some don't bother.

Solar wil distribute production and produce during peak, two things that significantly reduce pressure to increase costly infrastructure. There are many serious long term cost avoidance benefits.

I think EE incentives are the reason I know building science, and anicdotally know solar and wind. They are the reason we've seen huge change in the approach to sizing, and see discussion of looking comprehensively at the home when replacing equipment. This information is being injected into this industry in a way that would never have happened without incentives.

So yes, you pay and if you don't get panels, you don't benefit.

-or-

You pay, we all benefit. How do you look at things, short or long view?

AMD; really? No investments have any guarantees? Hmmm.

Why should we have accountability? Because we can. The higher confidence you have in a return, the more likely you are to invest.

If you know anything about financial markets, cost of financing is a function of risk. If we can squeeze risk out of this work, and build consumer confidence, it could go ballistic. Banks will line up to finance, leasing might even occur, and homeowners will make decisions of affordability based on net cost.

If they do that today, and experience .38 realization, they could be financially hurt. Net cost decisions in the current market is risky business.

At what level of confidence, certainly not investment grade levels. The challenge is accountability. If there is no M&V, then there is no accountability. When there is no accountability, is there any surprise promises don't deliver?

The most recent report I could find has our program realization at .38, which rumor has it is about on par with most other state programs. If someone promised you $1000 a year and delivered $380, would you be ok with that? How about making that promise, you ok with delivering that performance to your clients?

Define "investment grade"

Seems to me as if ALL "soft asset" financial investments don't have a guaranteed rate of return, and many of them are most likely scams. Why should energy related hard investments be held to a higher standard?

In commercial/industrial applications, energy efficiency upgrades are treated like investments to the point at which larger projects can be financed by the savings directly. IE - customer gets billed the difference between actual consumption and the pre-retrofit (weather adjusted) usage.

A simple analysis of utility bills with weather/seasonal adjustments can accurately determine the actual roi; heck, software is even available to analyze utility bills.

Solar is evil? I imagine that will be the next OWS movement; go get those rich suckers who made us pay for their solar. The rich get richer and the dumb get dumber. I'm glad I'm getting older.

Nothing is free.

You and I (or the rate payers) are paying for it.


Probably both the rate payers AND you and me.

But we can feel good about ourselves.....

Nameplate installed; even if installed on the east.

Originally Posted by tipsrfine

My local Electric provider is paying $2.00 per watt installed, up to $50,000.00. They will also be renewing their purchasing of Solar Renewable Energy Credits in January. These rebates are payed after the install, so the homeowner is having to pay the total cost of the system plus installation up front, so they get to claim the 30% Federal Tax Credit for all of it, but when they get the rebates, the rebates are taxable income. How that affects a persons taxes would be based on their individual tax situation.
I actually have a homeowner that would be eligible to install a 25K solar panel system, but I have not had estimates on the labor. It would be a ground mount system, and lets just place the labor at 15K, and the system price at 50K. After paying 65K total for this system being installed, within 6 months they would receive a 50K rebate check from the Utility Co. That same year, they could claim their 30% tax credit of 19.5K. This is a 4.5K profit from day one, but whether or not that covers their taxes for the utility rebate-I don't know. Let's assume it does, for the sake of argument. We now have a homeowner with a 25K solar panel system essentially for free. Now lets take the approx. electrical savings produced by this system over the next ten years at 20K; that is a 20K ROI over ten years, but wait, there is more. Now lets factor in the increase to their homes equity as a result of the solar system, which is roughly valued at for every 1 buck in energy produced, there is a 20 dollar increase to the homes appraised value. We now have the homeowner realizing a 30K to 50K increase of equity in their home.
I don't see how going solar, in my area, is nothing but a fantastic investment.

Originally Posted by amd

^The only problem is that if even 10% of the property owners in your area sign on, the subsidies will get cancelled to control costs.

To validate a tech like this on a large scale, you HAVE to do it ignoring the government and utility subsidies - that system is not free, it is free to them. Their fellow ratepayers and taxpayers are who purchased it for them. That, as amd mentions, only works to a certain percentage of market penetration before it simply is not feasible anymore. It does have it's merits as a program, as it DOES get the systems out there, via the early adopters, and by doing so, increase the sales rate, which increases the R&D payoffs, while ultimately, makes solar a cheaper alternative.

Example non-rebates payoffs in southern California:
Example off-the-shelf solar 'kit' - 2.4kW (about 175sq.ft.) - about $6,000 delivered
annual average daily full sun hours: 6
2.4kW*6*365 = 5,256kWh/year
5,000 kWh/year * $0.35/kWh = $1,750/year electrical reduction
$1,750*10 years = $17,500-$6,000 = $11,500 ROI over 10 years... panels hold 25 year output guarantee (declining by no more than 0.7%/year - likely less than the energy rate increases over that time)