Solar?

[faterikcartman]

[quote=sdrealtor]I’m throwing a flag here! Stop the political threadjack. This is a question about the merits of installing solar systems on homes not Cap and Trade.[/quote]

What the %$#!?

If you don’t understand the connection between Cap and Trade and the attractiveness of home PV arrays perhaps this isn’t the thread for you as I usually expect astute comments from you. I find it silly to condemn discussion of policies that will directly affect the cost of something a political high jack of a thread. Why not bash someone for mentioning federal tax subsidies when discussing whether it was a good time to buy a couple months ago. Silly.

The attractiveness of solar for non-Gaia worshipers is often in large part tied to the economic costs/returns. This is directly tied to energy costs. Energy costs are going to be tied to Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is a further abandonment of free trade. Leaders who disfavour freedom in the marketplace in favour of command and control economics are often, in other countries who have had them before us, called “Dear Leader”. This certainly can’t be that controversial as half the country voted for this sort of thing. I’m just going along to get along as I don’t want the Commissar’s apparatchiks knocking on my door for lacking deference to my better.

Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.

As an aside, I just heard our Dear Leader will be making a speech in tonight. I’ll be dog-goned if he doesn’t propound some sort of Cap and Trade scheme during this speech.

[briansd1]

[quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.

[briansd1]

[quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.

[briansd1]

[quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.

[briansd1]

[quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.

[briansd1]

[quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.

[Arraya]

[quote=afx114]Why shouldn’t we be paying more for energy? Clearly what we pay isn’t equal to the true total costs of discovery/extraction/refining/transportation/defense/environmental cleanup/etc. Yes, I understand that higher energy costs are bad for the economy, but maybe our economy should learn to survive on the true costs of energy. Wouldn’t that make it stronger in the long run? Problem is, our current economy is an energy welfare queen.

Perhaps solar/wind/etc would be much more cost competitive if we were paying the true cost for things such as oil & coal. What is the current threshold at which solar becomes cost competitive — both with and without the subsidies that oil & coal receive?[/quote]

I’ll take it even further — Price points have no way of “valuing” energy or any natural resource for that matter.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. It has a default assumption(see blind spot) that replacements will be found. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases, the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground – which lowers prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil left in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand.

Oil, in BTU terms, is the equivalent energy as a fit adult male working 40 hours a week for about a year. $20-30-40…..??? It’s completely subjective

As well as externalities, which completely exceed the scope of a pricing mechanism and would like to be forgotten by most economists and corporations, for obvious reasons — because the can’t deal with them in a realistic manner.

It’s not a sustainable system.

[Arraya]

[quote=afx114]Why shouldn’t we be paying more for energy? Clearly what we pay isn’t equal to the true total costs of discovery/extraction/refining/transportation/defense/environmental cleanup/etc. Yes, I understand that higher energy costs are bad for the economy, but maybe our economy should learn to survive on the true costs of energy. Wouldn’t that make it stronger in the long run? Problem is, our current economy is an energy welfare queen.

Perhaps solar/wind/etc would be much more cost competitive if we were paying the true cost for things such as oil & coal. What is the current threshold at which solar becomes cost competitive — both with and without the subsidies that oil & coal receive?[/quote]

I’ll take it even further — Price points have no way of “valuing” energy or any natural resource for that matter.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. It has a default assumption(see blind spot) that replacements will be found. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases, the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground – which lowers prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil left in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand.

Oil, in BTU terms, is the equivalent energy as a fit adult male working 40 hours a week for about a year. $20-30-40…..??? It’s completely subjective

As well as externalities, which completely exceed the scope of a pricing mechanism and would like to be forgotten by most economists and corporations, for obvious reasons — because the can’t deal with them in a realistic manner.

It’s not a sustainable system.

[Arraya]

[quote=afx114]Why shouldn’t we be paying more for energy? Clearly what we pay isn’t equal to the true total costs of discovery/extraction/refining/transportation/defense/environmental cleanup/etc. Yes, I understand that higher energy costs are bad for the economy, but maybe our economy should learn to survive on the true costs of energy. Wouldn’t that make it stronger in the long run? Problem is, our current economy is an energy welfare queen.

Perhaps solar/wind/etc would be much more cost competitive if we were paying the true cost for things such as oil & coal. What is the current threshold at which solar becomes cost competitive — both with and without the subsidies that oil & coal receive?[/quote]

I’ll take it even further — Price points have no way of “valuing” energy or any natural resource for that matter.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. It has a default assumption(see blind spot) that replacements will be found. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases, the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground – which lowers prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil left in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand.

Oil, in BTU terms, is the equivalent energy as a fit adult male working 40 hours a week for about a year. $20-30-40…..??? It’s completely subjective

As well as externalities, which completely exceed the scope of a pricing mechanism and would like to be forgotten by most economists and corporations, for obvious reasons — because the can’t deal with them in a realistic manner.

It’s not a sustainable system.

[Arraya]

[quote=afx114]Why shouldn’t we be paying more for energy? Clearly what we pay isn’t equal to the true total costs of discovery/extraction/refining/transportation/defense/environmental cleanup/etc. Yes, I understand that higher energy costs are bad for the economy, but maybe our economy should learn to survive on the true costs of energy. Wouldn’t that make it stronger in the long run? Problem is, our current economy is an energy welfare queen.

Perhaps solar/wind/etc would be much more cost competitive if we were paying the true cost for things such as oil & coal. What is the current threshold at which solar becomes cost competitive — both with and without the subsidies that oil & coal receive?[/quote]

I’ll take it even further — Price points have no way of “valuing” energy or any natural resource for that matter.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. It has a default assumption(see blind spot) that replacements will be found. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases, the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground – which lowers prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil left in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand.

Oil, in BTU terms, is the equivalent energy as a fit adult male working 40 hours a week for about a year. $20-30-40…..??? It’s completely subjective

As well as externalities, which completely exceed the scope of a pricing mechanism and would like to be forgotten by most economists and corporations, for obvious reasons — because the can’t deal with them in a realistic manner.

It’s not a sustainable system.

[Arraya]

[quote=afx114]Why shouldn’t we be paying more for energy? Clearly what we pay isn’t equal to the true total costs of discovery/extraction/refining/transportation/defense/environmental cleanup/etc. Yes, I understand that higher energy costs are bad for the economy, but maybe our economy should learn to survive on the true costs of energy. Wouldn’t that make it stronger in the long run? Problem is, our current economy is an energy welfare queen.

Perhaps solar/wind/etc would be much more cost competitive if we were paying the true cost for things such as oil & coal. What is the current threshold at which solar becomes cost competitive — both with and without the subsidies that oil & coal receive?[/quote]

I’ll take it even further — Price points have no way of “valuing” energy or any natural resource for that matter.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. It has a default assumption(see blind spot) that replacements will be found. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

So it is with the market. As the demand for oil increases, the increase in price signals oil companies to pump more oil out of the ground – which lowers prices again. The oil market has no information about the amount of oil left in the ground until production is unable to keep up with demand.

Oil, in BTU terms, is the equivalent energy as a fit adult male working 40 hours a week for about a year. $20-30-40…..??? It’s completely subjective

As well as externalities, which completely exceed the scope of a pricing mechanism and would like to be forgotten by most economists and corporations, for obvious reasons — because the can’t deal with them in a realistic manner.

It’s not a sustainable system.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.[/quote]

Great point. I had initially dismissed a battery array as an extravagant and unnecessary expense with high replacement costs. I am now reconsidering my earlier opinion. How things play out legislatively will likely influence our final decision. Time will tell.

There has been a call to legislative action tonight that does not include tapping other available fossil fuels or pursuing expanded domestic oil production. I assume nuclear will not be a favoured option either.

If it goes through, industries will be rocked, taxes and prices will go up, and the economy may be in even greater trouble. Uncertain times to be sure. I think solar will become very attractive to home owner’s with high energy usage profiles. Especially if they have the exposure for a large enough array and will be in the home long enough to realize a ROI directly.

Of course, water power generation faces crippling lawsuits by groups seeking to protect spawning fish and wetlands areas. Wind power generation faces crippling suits by NIMBY opponents and groups seeking to protect birds. Largely leaving solar — but have you seen the analysis that covers much of the country with solar panels and still not covering our energy needs? So either it fails, or we go back to donkeys and bicycles? These things sound great to many because people believe they can have their cake and eat it too. It is often too late once it is realized that this is not always possible.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.[/quote]

Great point. I had initially dismissed a battery array as an extravagant and unnecessary expense with high replacement costs. I am now reconsidering my earlier opinion. How things play out legislatively will likely influence our final decision. Time will tell.

There has been a call to legislative action tonight that does not include tapping other available fossil fuels or pursuing expanded domestic oil production. I assume nuclear will not be a favoured option either.

If it goes through, industries will be rocked, taxes and prices will go up, and the economy may be in even greater trouble. Uncertain times to be sure. I think solar will become very attractive to home owner’s with high energy usage profiles. Especially if they have the exposure for a large enough array and will be in the home long enough to realize a ROI directly.

Of course, water power generation faces crippling lawsuits by groups seeking to protect spawning fish and wetlands areas. Wind power generation faces crippling suits by NIMBY opponents and groups seeking to protect birds. Largely leaving solar — but have you seen the analysis that covers much of the country with solar panels and still not covering our energy needs? So either it fails, or we go back to donkeys and bicycles? These things sound great to many because people believe they can have their cake and eat it too. It is often too late once it is realized that this is not always possible.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.[/quote]

Great point. I had initially dismissed a battery array as an extravagant and unnecessary expense with high replacement costs. I am now reconsidering my earlier opinion. How things play out legislatively will likely influence our final decision. Time will tell.

There has been a call to legislative action tonight that does not include tapping other available fossil fuels or pursuing expanded domestic oil production. I assume nuclear will not be a favoured option either.

If it goes through, industries will be rocked, taxes and prices will go up, and the economy may be in even greater trouble. Uncertain times to be sure. I think solar will become very attractive to home owner’s with high energy usage profiles. Especially if they have the exposure for a large enough array and will be in the home long enough to realize a ROI directly.

Of course, water power generation faces crippling lawsuits by groups seeking to protect spawning fish and wetlands areas. Wind power generation faces crippling suits by NIMBY opponents and groups seeking to protect birds. Largely leaving solar — but have you seen the analysis that covers much of the country with solar panels and still not covering our energy needs? So either it fails, or we go back to donkeys and bicycles? These things sound great to many because people believe they can have their cake and eat it too. It is often too late once it is realized that this is not always possible.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
Brian, I appreciate your response and would only like to clarify that the attractiveness of solar isn’t just to avoid high electric bills but to ensure that I am able to continue to use the amount of electricity I choose to use — at any price — and at any time of the day.[/quote]

You might want to consider purchasing a battery array also to store your solar electricity, otherwise the utility company could still make you pay through different rates at different times of day.[/quote]

Great point. I had initially dismissed a battery array as an extravagant and unnecessary expense with high replacement costs. I am now reconsidering my earlier opinion. How things play out legislatively will likely influence our final decision. Time will tell.

There has been a call to legislative action tonight that does not include tapping other available fossil fuels or pursuing expanded domestic oil production. I assume nuclear will not be a favoured option either.

If it goes through, industries will be rocked, taxes and prices will go up, and the economy may be in even greater trouble. Uncertain times to be sure. I think solar will become very attractive to home owner’s with high energy usage profiles. Especially if they have the exposure for a large enough array and will be in the home long enough to realize a ROI directly.

Of course, water power generation faces crippling lawsuits by groups seeking to protect spawning fish and wetlands areas. Wind power generation faces crippling suits by NIMBY opponents and groups seeking to protect birds. Largely leaving solar — but have you seen the analysis that covers much of the country with solar panels and still not covering our energy needs? So either it fails, or we go back to donkeys and bicycles? These things sound great to many because people believe they can have their cake and eat it too. It is often too late once it is realized that this is not always possible.

[Author]

Posts