Not forever. There's only so much fossil carbon to dig up, and we are diggi ng it up a lot faster than it fossilised. And the more we dig up, the more expensive it gets to dig out the deeply buried stuff that nobody bothered t o dig out before.
There is the point that anthropogenic global warming will probably destroy advanced industrial society as we know it quite a bit before we've dug up a nd burnt all the fossil carbon, so burning fossil carbon for fuel may remai n "relatively cheap" right up to the point where the side-effects make it i mpractical to keep on doing it - in the sense that the climate will have go ne west to the point where we can't grow food like we used to, or extreme w eather will have got to the point where we can't ship the fossil carbon fro m where we dig it up to where we wanted to burn it.
So it could remain "relatively cheap" until the real costs of burning it be came obvious to the most dim-witted right-wing nitwit, just before it kille d him (or her).
Not logical. The rule of thumb is that if you multiply the manufacturing vo lume by a factor of ten, the price per unit roughly halves. The mechanism i s rarely the same from one scale-up to the next, but some ingenious fellow will find a way.
The Germans did it a few years ago, and put pretty much everybody else out of business, and then the Chinese did it to them. Solar panels now generate of the order of 1% of the world's power, so maybe they could generate 10% eventually, halving the unit price yet again. Getting another factor of te n growth in manufacturing scale would have them generating all the world's power, which seems unlikely, not to mention requiring a spectacularly large - and obvious - investment.
Electricity is a particularly negotiable form of energy - you can't store i t (yet) but you can get it to do pretty much whatever kind of work you need .
I think he means the things that use the most electricity are using it to make heat which can be done with gas, hot water, furnace, stove, etc. Remember, they aren't doing this because they *want* to be off the grid. They don't have a choice without paying the power company millions to run power to the town. So it is more cost effective for them to use propane for the appliances that can use it and use generator or PV electric for the rest.
I don't think Propane is terribly expensive. I think most don't have it just because electric is easier.
$33,000 at 2 % interest is $660 / year or $55 a month. But bonds are not the only possible investment. Putting $33,000 in a S & P 500 index fund have historically yielded about $3000 a year or about $250 / month. But not a consistent income.
igging it up a lot faster than it fossilised. And the more we dig up, the m ore expensive it gets to dig out the deeply buried stuff that nobody bother ed to dig out before.
t became obvious to the most dim-witted right-wing nitwit, just before it k illed him (or her).
robably die of old age before fossil fuels become expensive.
They are more likely to die of starvation if fossil carbon doesn't become t oo expensive to burn as fuel. This is an estimate based on the balance of p robabilities, but one less influenced by the Koch brother's short term fina ncial interests than most of the ones you seem to have read.
Did anyone factor in the COST of materials, labor and transportation for the making of these panels, or is that yet another yet neglected (and swept under the rug) part that is not supposed to be discussed (AKA "solar power is FREE")?
Y'er welcome. It's not very accurate or complete, but it is in the ballpark needed to answer the original question. Breakeven at about
18 or so years (excluding all incentives).
I've lived in my house now for 41 years. However, you probably wanted a bigger population sample than one.
Googling, I found this page: which proclaims that about 50% of home owners are in their homes for more than 10 years, and about 28% for more than 20 years.
Further down the page, a graph shows that half the buyers move within
13-22 years depending on region. Note that this includes rental conversions.
I don't know. The ROI varies radically with the appraised values of the old and new homes, current mortgage interest rates, and location. If you tried to sell a recently purchased home in about 2010, you might have found that your could not sell for more than the mortgage payoff, resulting in a net loss on selling the house (underwater mortgage). The length of time into your mortgage also has an effect as you could be half way through a 30 year mortgage but still owe 63% of the principal. Lots of other complications that prevent me from offering a single figure for ROI on your house swap. My guess(tm) is that moving is a break even proposition when you reinvest in a similar house in the same region, minus the realtors commissions, closing costs, fees, and changes in tax basis. The increase in property taxes precipitated by a change in valuation at time of purchase is usually the deal killer. You can test this by calculating what it would cost to purchase your own house and qualify for a new loan to make the purchase.
The solar power system is just another improvement to the house that is handled by the bank appraiser at the time of sale. There may also be a home inspection involved, intended to highlight defects and maintenance problems. It's the bank appraiser that largely sets the value of your house and its improvements. You can try to sell for more than the appraisal, but if the prospective buyers cannot obtain a loan at your price, you won't be able to sell. I don't know how the appraisers currently handle solar systems and the underlying roof. My guess(tm) is that they'll take the easy route, and simply value it on the basis of replacement cost or fair market value, and then depreciate that over a 20-30 year life.
"Solar Valuation" (6MB, 145 page)
"Valuation of Solar Generation Assets"
Much more:
Skimming the above, it appears that there are multiple methods of valuing a solar power system. For example, cost, income, or market vlue. Each look like they will produce radically different appraised values. I have no idea which is favored in your area or approved by your local banks. I'll try to ask.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ging it up a lot faster than it fossilised. And the more we dig up, the mor e expensive it gets to dig out the deeply buried stuff that nobody bothered to dig out before.
y advanced industrial society as we know it quite a bit before we've dug up and burnt all the fossil carbon, so burning fossil carbon for fuel may rem ain "relatively cheap" right up to the point where the side-effects make it impractical to keep on doing it - in the sense that the climate will have gone west to the point where we can't grow food like we used to, or extreme weather will have got to the point where we can't ship the fossil carbon f rom where we dig it up to where we wanted to burn it.
became obvious to the most dim-witted right-wing nitwit, just before it kil led him (or her).
There are so many holes in that idea I dont know where to begin.
How much you get back at sale time very much depends. In UK the usual answer is zero. And connecting to grid instead of going pv increases house value massively.
g volume by a factor of ten, the price per unit roughly halves. The mechani sm is rarely the same from one scale-up to the next, but some ingenious fel low will find a way.
out of business, and then the Chinese did it to them. Solar panels now gene rate of the order of 1% of the world's power, so maybe they could generate
10% eventually, halving the unit price yet again. Getting another factor o f ten growth in manufacturing scale would have them generating all the worl d's power, which seems unlikely, not to mention requiring a spectacularly l arge - and obvious - investment.
an
re it (yet) but you can get it to do pretty much whatever kind of work you need.
Materials, labor and transportation is what sets the price of the panels you imagine the manufacturers sell them for less?
probably die of old age before fossil fuels become expensive.
too expensive to burn as fuel. This is an estimate based on the balance of probabilities, but one less influenced by the Koch brother's short term fi nancial interests than most of the ones you seem to have read.
Starvation is extremely unlikely. CO2 is added to greenhouses to increase vegetation growth.
Do homeowners in the UK take their solar panels with them when they sell their house? If there's not cost recovery, it would make financial sense to not give away the panels for free to the home buyer, and instead move the panels to the new residence.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
So how would that work? You would have to pay the costs of removal including making good the rooof and the reinstallation would have additional costs for items that could not be economically recovered (e.g. wiring and maybe mounting brackets). Additionally, what's the risk of damaging the panels during removal, storage, transport and reinstallation? In comparison to the depreciated value of the panels, its probaby not economic.
Once the property has been put on the market, removing fixtures and fittings is generally frowned upon and at that early stage, the new property isnt usually finalised (and may not even have been found yet) so there is no way of knowing if it will be suitable for a solar power installation.
Finally you've just seriously decreassed the 'green feelgood' factor of the property you arte tying to sell. The only way I can see it happening is if the prospective new owners actively dislike the panels or if the installation is ground mounted.
--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL
Much as I enjoy reading science fiction and conspiracy theories, I don't think that works. The retail price of gasoline has dropped about 25% in the last 6 months, but I don't see a corresponding surge in the purchase of gas guzzlers and Mega-SUV type vehicles. Hybrid sales have been a flat 3% of US new car sales for the last 14 years, even though there have been some rather large gasoline price fluctuations during the time period. Same with SUV sales: Basically, people don't drive cars, they wear them like a suit of clothes. It's a fashion statement, not an investment vehicle.
So has NASA: It's not a new idea. I worked out the numbers back in the 1970's as a means of dealing with nuclear wastes. The only problem is that sub-critical reactors, such as a Thorium reactor, are often lumped together with the E-Cat and Cold Fusion hype, making it difficult to separate fact from science fiction.
"Most tankless water heaters have a life expectancy of more than 20 years. They also have easily replaceable parts that extend their life by many more years. In contrast, storage water heaters last 10-15 years." Actually, ordinary water heaters have warranties of 6, 9, and 12 years, which are differentiated type the number, size, and type of sacrificial anode. If you can replace the anodes and drain the calcium buildup when needed, the water heater can last almost indefinitely. Similarly, the on demand type water heaters have similar problems with calcium deposits, which need to be removed. However, the American way is to defer maintenance until something fails, so your mileage may vary. My solution was simply to embalm my
40 gallon electric water and hot water pipe with additional insulation, and to install a timer on the tank so as to not heat water between midnight and about 4AM. Savings was an estimated 40 kw-hr/month which should have been about $6/month in savings. However, PG&E kept raising the rates resulting in an odd situation where I was using less electricity each month, but paying about the same amount per month. See spreadsheet at: Grumble.
Incidentally, the common water heater blanket helps, but is not where an electric water heater radiates much of the wasted heat. I also found it leaking heat out of the bottom of the tank, out the top, and through the hot water pipe. Insulating the hot water pipe was the most important and seemed to have the biggest effect. I had the tank sitting on a concrete slab, which was draining the heat into the slab. Some 2x6 lumber was not the best insulator, but as long as it's dry, it should work well enough. I should probably do it right: but lack the incentive to drain 400 lbs of water just to insert the styrofoam pad.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Also, the 'green feelgood' factor may well be what gets you a serious offer earlier than other comparable properties in the area, so you dont have the costs of servicing a bridging loan for a long period or risk loosing out om your preferred new property to someone with greater liquidity.
-- Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED) ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL
The way it works is the greenie seller is convinced they're an asset that h ikes the value, and insists they sell with the house partly for political r easons, but everyone else rates them as of about zero value. Why? They may work, they may not. If they do its a trivial return, if they dont its just more cost & aggro. Despite all the ecoboll, buyers have far more important priorities than saving sunshine.
Install a heat trap in the output line and insulate the vertical segment from the tank to the top of the loop. It stops the upward flow of hot water and saves a lot.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.