Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 112
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    East of Lyndon's
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    If the government didn't have codes for minimum insulation levels in homes there would be builders out there selling homes for $5,000 less with no insulation and consumers out there buying them because they are "cheaper" (not really given how much energy they use over time)

    There are states like Hawaii that mandate solar hot water, not because it is green, but because it is free energy and saves money. Most of the southern USA could get free hot water for 9 months out of the year.

    Same thing with car MPG, In the USA the Federal Government just proposed new MPG standards of over 50MPG and we have people complaining that it will "increase the cost" of car by $3,000. Short sighted given that it will save double that over the lifetime of the car. One of the military's goals is to become energy independent, hardly surprising given the volatile middle east. I for one would love to stop buying oil from countries that blow up our buildings.

    the reason the govt has to step in and control stuff like this is it is human nature to buy what looks cheap up front, even though in the long run it is more expensive to use cheap ineffcient machines.
    It's difficult to understand a lot of this nonsense. So, if the government decides that no one can spend over $100 to heat and cool their house every year it will automatically happen?? Not hardly. The whole myth of solar being so cheap is dependent on the "government" funding it. Where do you suppose the "government" gets its money??? Either it borrows it, or it gets it from people like myself that pay taxes. So does solar power save money? No it doesn't! Someone has to pay for it. They want 50 mpg cars that run clean, are comfortable to drive over long distances, are large enough to be safe, are cheap enough to afford, etc. etc. It's probably not going to happen. There has to be a trade off somewhere. The thing that's going to be funny is, for instance, in California they are setting emission standards so high that pretty soon the only trucks allowed in the state will be brand new ones with all the proper whistles and bells. Do you expect that truckers will go out and buy new trucks they can't afford just so they can go into California? Probably not!!! Then the poor bankrupt folks in California will scream when they can no longer get freight shipped to them reasonably. The truth is a fickle thing!!!
    If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem.

  2. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "So does solar power save money? No it doesn't! Someone has to pay for it."

    I made my own solar hot water panel on my roof and it has reduced my electric bill 30$ a month. it will take a couple of years to pay off, but I paid for it and it works great, thank you very much.

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    bedford ind
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendo View Post
    It's difficult to understand a lot of this nonsense. So, if the government decides that no one can spend over $100 to heat and cool their house every year it will automatically happen?? Not hardly. The whole myth of solar being so cheap is dependent on the "government" funding it. Where do you suppose the "government" gets its money??? Either it borrows it, or it gets it from people like myself that pay taxes. So does solar power save money? No it doesn't! Someone has to pay for it. They want 50 mpg cars that run clean, are comfortable to drive over long distances, are large enough to be safe, are cheap enough to afford, etc. etc. It's probably not going to happen. There has to be a trade off somewhere. The thing that's going to be funny is, for instance, in California they are setting emission standards so high that pretty soon the only trucks allowed in the state will be brand new ones with all the proper whistles and bells. Do you expect that truckers will go out and buy new trucks they can't afford just so they can go into California? Probably not!!! Then the poor bankrupt folks in California will scream when they can no longer get freight shipped to them reasonably. The truth is a fickle thing!!!
    NOT TRUE ABOUT THE ONLY VEHICLES ALLOWED IN CALIFORNIA. TRUCKS FROM MEXICO DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR STANDARDS!

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendo View Post
    The whole myth of solar being so cheap is dependent on the "government" funding it. Where do you suppose the "government" gets its money??? Either it borrows it, or it gets it from people like myself that pay taxes. So does solar power save money? No it doesn't!
    While this is true that currently solar is subsidized by state and federal governments, it is only a small percentage of what is spent on Fossil fuel subsidies. In 2009 an energy study showed that 72 Billion was spent by the government subsidizing the fossil fuels only 29 billion was spent subsidizing renewable energy sources.

    IMO The subsidies for renewable energy came at a time when the government needed to put money into the economy in ways that would pay back. This leveling of the subsidies was needed to boost research and development in renewable energy sources anyway, like the building of roads and bridges after the great depression, this was the infrastructure that needed a boost following this recession.

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    I don't know
    Posts
    2,903
    Government funding should go towards research and development, not solar installations.

    If a 40+ cent per kwh subsidy is needed for to make solar economically viable, it's not a viable technology. As it stands now, the entire "green" solar industry is just a government sponsored racket, intended to funnel money from those who can barely afford to pay their utility bills as is to people who can afford to purchase solar panels and inverters.

    The subsidies encourage people to use solar in a way that isn't beneficial; output can't be controlled so it's almost useless in grid-connected applications with no batteries.

    On the other hand, solar is great in areas where power isn't available, yet there's no subsidy anywhere for off the grid installs.

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by amd View Post
    Government funding should go towards research and development, not solar installations.

    If a 40+ cent per kwh subsidy is needed for to make solar economically viable, it's not a viable technology. As it stands now, the entire "green" solar industry is just a government sponsored racket, intended to funnel money from those who can barely afford to pay their utility bills as is to people who can afford to purchase solar panels and inverters.

    The subsidies encourage people to use solar in a way that isn't beneficial; output can't be controlled so it's almost useless in grid-connected applications with no batteries.

    On the other hand, solar is great in areas where power isn't available, yet there's no subsidy anywhere for off the grid installs.
    The timing of the rebates and tax breaks was designed to put money back into the economy. Placing it directly into the hands of researchers, while maybe advancing product development a bit faster, would bypass consumer level benefits.

    Give a rebate to someone who can afford to finance well over 50% of a solar array installation and you benefit the banks who lend the rest of the money, the installer, the manufacturer of the components, the manufacturers roll some of the profits into research and development, and the power grid gets relief during peak days.

    Agreed that while not controllable, solar does produce best during sunny days which also often are the hottest days and help power companies to not have to light off coal plants to supplement power to meet peak demand driven by A/C units.

  7. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,914
    Quote Originally Posted by vangoghsear View Post
    While this is true that currently solar is subsidized by state and federal governments, it is only a small percentage of what is spent on Fossil fuel subsidies. In 2009 an energy study showed that 72 Billion was spent by the government subsidizing the fossil fuels only 29 billion was spent subsidizing renewable energy sources.
    Tax breaks/exemptions are not subsidies. A subsidy is when the government cuts a check to help pay for something.
    Hundreds of billions are collected in taxes on petroleum products, many times the $ amount of the tax breaks the oil companies get on the exploration and extraction of the products.

    Wind and solar "renewable" energy is a boondoggle, all of our money that the government pumps into it is wasted, 100% flushed down the toilet.
    It doesn't even have the expected environmental benefit, as neither source of energy can replace even one conventional generation source, and it is an absolute nightmare for the people that actually have to manage power grids in real life.

    We need to quit flushing money down the wind and solar toilet, and invest in nuclear power.
    Maybe run our cars off CNG, and LNG, and quit sending trillions of dollars to people that want to kill us.

    Quote Originally Posted by vangoghsear View Post
    Give a rebate to someone who can afford to finance well over 50% of a solar array installation and you benefit the banks who lend the rest of the money, the installer, the manufacturer of the components, the manufacturers roll some of the profits into research and development, and the power grid gets relief during peak days.
    You realize that 100% of the money the government gives to someone to install an over priced solar system must first be confiscated from the rest of us, or as things stand now, our great grandchildren?
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  8. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    I don't know
    Posts
    2,903
    The energy sector should never be used to create jobs, since most of the money goes towards hard assets rather than labour.

    I guess it is the government's job to prop up an unsustainable debt based economy for as long as possible. Any debt created to stimulate an economy can't be serviced without creating even more debt, which can only be serviced by borrowing even more money. If you're in a deep hole, I suppose the best solution is to keep digging.

    -----------
    "
    We need to quit flushing money down the wind and solar toilet, and invest in nuclear power.
    Maybe run our cars off CNG, and LNG, and quit sending trillions of dollars to people that want to kill us."

    I don't think any country can afford to build reactors any more. I don't think there's nearly enough gas available to run even 10% of north america's cars for an extended period of time.

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,914
    Quote Originally Posted by amd View Post
    The energy sector should never be used to create jobs, since most of the money goes towards hard assets rather than labour.

    I guess it is the government's job to prop up an unsustainable debt based economy for as long as possible. Any debt created to stimulate an economy can't be serviced without creating even more debt, which can only be serviced by borrowing even more money. If you're in a deep hole, I suppose the best solution is to keep digging.
    Not to mention that the lions share of the money, and manufacturing job creation, is going to China.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  10. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    I don't know
    Posts
    2,903
    ----------------

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,914
    Quote Originally Posted by amd View Post
    I don't think any country can afford to build reactors any more.
    How much less would it cost to build one if the tinfoil hat brigades ability to tie up every step of the process for years, even decades, with endless bogus and frivolous legal actions was eliminated?
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  12. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "On the other hand, solar is great in areas where power isn't available, yet there's no subsidy anywhere for off the grid installs. "

    incorrect, Whether the solar system is on or off grid makes no difference, government tax credit is 30%. I think that is a good use of federal money, a lot better than fighting two wars in the middle east.

    "You realize that 100% of the money the government gives to someone to install an over priced solar system must first be confiscated from the rest of us"


    My solar hot water system cost around $1,000. If it was built into the new home like Hiawaii requires it would of cost even less. I'll break even in a few years and then for the next 30 or so years have free hot water.

    Do the math, solar can save you money easily if you live in the southern USA.

    Personally I think electric hot water heaters should be gradually phased out, with solar and heat pump technology we will save a lot of money.

    Funny how political this all gets. Never me a republican or a democrat that didn't like saving money on their utility bill. LOL.

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "If a 40+ cent per kwh subsidy is needed for to make solar economically viable, it's not a viable technology."

    Average residential cost per KwH is around 11 cents.
    Average utility whole sale rate is around 3 cents.
    Difference of 8 cents. Not sure what kind of math you are doing that makes it 40 cents/kwh.

    And that is only a subsidy for residential solar plants that generate excess electricity, which is a very very small percentage. Most grid tie residential solar arrays don't even generate enough energy to make the house a net zero energy user.

    In other words your statistic is wrong.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event