Methanol and ethanol fuel cells make MUCH more sense than hydrogen.
Ok, everybody is wondering about the land bridge. Well, one of the ideas is to surround it with polyethylene lawn ponds, except for the paths leading to and from it. If we ever get around to it, we could have koi in several hundred gallon ponds with pump powered waterfalls circulating the water in between the ponds. However, right now, we are just trying to get the one twenty five gallon pond up and running. Right now its only residents are rocks and algae.
Any ways, I was trying to figure something out. So, the average square meter solar panel will produce 1 Kilowatt hour of energy a day at this latitude. The average household energy consumption in Detroit is about 500 kilowatt hours a month. That comes out to a little under 17 kilowatt hours a day. So... 17 panels at a minimum, 20 or more panels to be sure.
A square meter of solar panel runs about 750 dollars. So 20 panels, assuming you had the roof or yard space, would run you 15,000 dollars. That's a kick in the nuts. Or for you, ESC, the cervix.
However, Michigan is a net metering state. What that basically means is, you can sell your extra power to the grid. So... If you got a 3000 peak watt inverter and one panel, you could be producing one seventeenth, or about six per cent, of your power carbon free for about 3,000 dollars in equipment. Six percent is nothing to sniff at. In another six months, you can have another panel installed by not spending about five bucks a day, or 150 dollars a month. Most people might be able to eschew something in their consumption budget to save five bucks a day, especially in a two income household.
Now, you are producing 12 percent of your power carbon free. By this time, you should be seeing some kind of savings in your utility bill. More than likely, you should only need to save about 3.75, 4 dollars a day to get the third panel installed. And so it goes.
You, as a homeowner, can cut your utility costs substantially, in as little as 18 months. If you have enough roof space to produce 36 percent, or six panels, you can recoup your investment in five years. The next 20 years of the panels will be pure profit.
With careful planning, you can make money, and be part of the solution.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Christian Friedrich Schönbein
Labels:
landscaping,
solar solutions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Oooh I love ponds with koi and frogs and turtles! I want to put one in up here but unfortunently it has to be about 8 feet deep to be able to let the Koi stay out all year round, I know we could bring them in but we dont have anywhere to put them inside! Therefor to fix this problem, we are not planning a pond placement at this time!
ow! my cervix!
hmm... let's see, 15,000 dollars, to save what? i think our electric bill is about $30/month. so... in 41 years it will pay for itself. count me in!
first of all, reply to me on your blog you backbite. second of all, you have failed again, you do not have 7 years of pure profit. you have failed business math.
if tom is paying $30/month for electricity, then pays $3000 for an inverter and a panel and is now saving $3 month on his bill, that would take around 1000 months to have the panel pay for itself. if after 6 months (saving of 18 dollars, total electrical expenditure of $162) tom pays $750 for another panel for a net savings of 6 dollars/month tom is actually at this point $3,732 in the red (not counting his electricity bill he still needs to pay. in 6 more monts after he has saved a whopping $36 and payed $144 he spends $750 more for a total net (not operating) debt of $4446. in 6 more months he's saving 9 dollars a month and decideds to spend another 750... you get where i'm going with this?
in no 6 month span is the total savings going to be greater than 180 dollars. which means you are never digging out of the hole. your savings are constantly going to recoup the costs of the pannels. after you get all 11 in as you stated you have a net capital loss of 10,250.
anyhow,in this, you have a time frame of 4 years and 3 months with a graduated savings rate of around 3 bucks every six months till finally getting to 100% savings. so, by the end of your time frame, you've recouped $1286 bucks in the cost of the panels. $10250-$1286= $8964. now, here is your math gets shady. you use the figure of $47/month to sell back. yet, the panels were installed to produce electricity for my consumption of around $30/month. so the actual amount i'm selling back would be $17/month SINCE I'M USING THE REST OF THE POWER!
so, now lets revisit the revised math $8,964/17= 527 or 44 years to actually pay back the equipment cost. yes, you are in fact "saving" $30/month since you are completely off the grid, but that is in no way profit. as it is a no longer a bill. it is simply less outgo. however, after 44 years, yes, it will be pure profit. though, by that time you;ll have replaced all the panels at least once, and be looking down the barrel of replacing them again... so... good luck on seeing profits in your lifetime.
and EVEN if i accepted the $47 dollars income as cannon, lets look at that. with your 4 year 3 month time table to install, your $47 "income" leaves you with a total time of around 20 years and 3 months till the break even point. which leaves you with a realistic time frame of 4yrs 9 months till the first panel should fail. at this point you should have a profit of $2,679. the first panel would cost $750 to replace. however, the next panels would only dent your padding by $468 ea. as the 6 months up to each one allows you earn $282. so, after replacing the first 5 in 2 1/2 years you will have spent $2622. now, your $57 dollars will be gone in the next 6 months. so, after replacing panel number 6 you will be $339 in the hole.
then you stepped up the time frame for the next 5, which means each one will cost you $609 each. which means at the end of the 4yr. 3 month replacement timeframe you're now $3,384 in the red again. which will take you 6 more years to recoup.
so, to recap, using your math 4yrs 3 months to get up and going. 16 yrs on top of that till you start seeing "profit" then a 4 yr. nine month frame till the replacement period of 4 yrs 3 months then another 6 years to recoup those losses. so, 35 yrs. 3 months till you can see any true monetary benefit from the panels. all of this is of course barring any equipment failure etc. by the way, when year 50 comes around, you'll have a profit account of $8,319 and a replacement cost of $8,250. so... after 50 years you will have a profit of $69. yeah... i wouldn't use the money angle as an argument there scooter.
so a total investment of $26750 and a net return in 50 years of $69... that's a 0.26% return, or 0.0052% APY. wow. you've convinced me. don't tell me not to pee in the pool, cuz then you make me shit in the pool.
your rebuttal on my site: What are you, Ronald Reagan? Eat your Voodoo economics in another restaurant. The base cost is 3,000 dollars. Putting aside 3,000 dollars is not impossible. You can save that, or simply eat that.
Then, saving 750 dollars over six months is not impossible. You can use your lowered outgo to amortize how much you have to save over six months.
After 25 years, there is the likely chance that solar panels will either cost less, or 750 dollars will go farther.
Please tell me you don't buy cars on payment plans...
my rebuttal:
don't be daft. re read my math, i used your figures for the last half, i amortized the purchase price, and in 25 years $750 will not go further. we live in an economy of controlled inflation. this is a constant, and something i didn't feel like working into the price. also, the cost of solar panels may come down, but in doing so, that will drive the cost of electricity down so the utility companies can stay competitive. what i cited was not "voodoo economics" it's actual math, with actual figures, and actual scenarios using the numbers you gave. re read it, tell me what doesn't make sense, but before you do, STOP AND THINK. then type.
Who isn't thinking in this equation, any ways? A 15,000 dollar investment in panels with a 2,000 dollar inverter is a kick in the nuts.
A 3,000 dollar investment for the first year, and 1,500 dollars a year for nine and a half years is much easier on the wallet.
Once you cover 36 percent of your monthly electricity budget, you are basically covering all of your "always on" consumption. Your refrigerator, your DVR, your computers.
After you cover your "always on" consumption, you can moderate your variable consumption by using compact fluorescent bulbs and just not turning the tv on.
Indeed, if your family goes on a vacation or something, you could probably make money with just 36 percent of your average consumption covered.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you carp, there will be enough of a profit once the first panel fails to pay for it. Indeed, In Michigan, where solar installations are unlikely to be utilized, DTE has three choices; Natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
If nuclear plants are used, then sure, grid prices might remain at 2007 levels. That's a BIG "if".
Natural gas will continue to get more expensive. It just will.
Coal might remain cheap, but it's a bitch on the environment.
Seriously, it's not impossible or unreasonable for a staggered panel installation. Indeed, as technology gets cheaper, it probably is the best way to go.
i already laid out to you the staggered panel faults. and nuclear is the way of the future. good, clean fun. especially since last i heard they rescinded the "once through" law. funny thing is, when the founder of green peace changes his ways and straight up proclaims nuke to the be the way, and then bashes himself and other libtard barking moonbats for being the ones to halt nuke plant production... you know there's logic in it somewhere. anyhow, you're moving off topic again. what the whole situation boils down is this: your savings are not enough to warrent the solar panels. period. the more you consume, the more panels you need, the more panels you need, the higher the cost, the higher the cost the longer it will take to recoup the cost, and the less the savings per panel. i'm not trying to say that solar is bad (which, it does kinda suck) but i'm just saying your pay plan, has been disproved. i just showed you that. yeah you can argue that "carbon free" is its own reward. i say, fuck carbon, let it become sediment and then diamonds/fuel sources in a few hundred thousand years.
I would probably electrocute myself installing them.
...but yeah, the cost of the tech is coming down, huh? The efficiency going up? We'll get there soon I hope.
You guys give me a headache.
Post a Comment