jacobhorne said:jacobhorne said:Solar energy and battery technology needs to improve for this to even be considered.

Going green is a fad until technology advances to break even.

These systems must be maintained(replacement parts). They are like a car, a depreciating asset.

However, people assume a payoff in x amount of years.

You must consider that electricity rates are variable and minus interest earned and your system will be old at break even point.

-my 2 cents.
It wont advance if there is no market for it. Fad or trend, It will help to advance the tech.

TJtv said:riznick said:
Many "green" products are not actually very green. They take more energy to produce than they will save in their lifespan. Such products are very FAD as the sheeple believe they are green and buy them solely for that purpose.

I hope that you're not lumping solar PV into this bucket. There is a myth out there that solar PV panels take more energy to make than they will ever produce in their lifetime. Unfortunately this myth is entirely false:Solar Energy BalanceSame thing for wind burbines manufacturing and installation, the energy breakeven period is extrememly short. What's the real problem is the economic breakeven. 5 years ago I belive solar PV's economic breakeven period is longer than its expected life. Only recently it becomes a positive PV (present value) investment.

The simple answer is TODAY, solar energy for the home is no different than buying a hybrid. It is not a sound financial decision because the break even point is at or beyond the anticipated lifetime of the equipment. As technologies advance, it may be a sound financial decision one day, just not today.

If having solar panels or driving a hybrid makes you feel good, than you have to place a value on that and that is an individual question no one here can answer.

Most here would say hookers and blow would make you feel better and have less up front cost.

I do agree that the technology is not efficient yet. The article provided in this thread about Nanosolar's innovation is interesting, and maybe there is a competitive PV system on the horizon. Unfortunately, even with a grant from Ohio up to 50% (though the amount of the grant would then be 1099ed to me as income), 30% off the rest of the system's cost as a federal tax credit, and no property tax increase on the system from the city of Cincinnati, I still can't make the numbers work. Of course, since the credits are there I'll keep poking around to see if it can benefit me (and the environment) in the FWF way, but without these taxpayer grants it couldn't even be a consideration.

nycll said:If gasoline is over $4 per gallon, a hybrid becomes good investment.

No it doesn't. There are so many ifs that have to hit right to make a hybrid a break even investment, much less a good investment, that you would be better off betting on black.

IF you drive only stop and go traffic(Hybrids actually get lower highway mpg than a comparable non-hybrid due to parasitic loses).

IF gas goes over $4 and stays there over the lifespan of the car (that is not happening in the current world economy and has only been there for a few months, ever.)

and even then it is only good for the environment IF you ignore waste issues from the battery.

Hybrids are a perfect example of all that is wrong with the environmental movement today. It is more important to look like you are doing something (and claim moral superiority) than to actually make some sacrifice. Simple fact is that a hybrid driven 50 miles a day is far worse for the environment than a Hummer driven 10 miles a day to soccer practice and the grocery store. Yet the hybrid driver can feel good while the hummer driver is shamed. No different than Al Gore and his huge utility bills and private jets.

longwood8 said:nycll said:If gasoline is over $4 per gallon, a hybrid becomes good investment.

No it doesn't. There are so many ifs that have to hit right to make a hybrid a break even investment, much less a good investment, that you would be better off betting on black.

IF you drive only stop and go traffic(Hybrids actually get lower highway mpg than a comparable non-hybrid due to parasitic loses).

IF gas goes over $4 and stays there over the lifespan of the car (that is not happening in the current world economy and has only been there for a few months, ever.)

and even then it is only good for the environment IF you ignore waste issues from the battery.

Hybrids are a perfect example of all that is wrong with the environmental movement today. It is more important to look like you are doing something (and claim moral superiority) than to actually make some sacrifice. Simple fact is that a hybrid driven 50 miles a day is far worse for the environment than a Hummer driven 10 miles a day to soccer practice and the grocery store. Yet the hybrid driver can feel good while the hummer driver is shamed. No different than Al Gore and his huge utility bills and private jets.

No different than the SUV argument of owning a SUV to do tasks that could easily be covered by another vehicle or for the one/two times per year trip. Hybrids might not make the best sense but it's a much better choice than the former.

longwood8 said:IF you drive only stop and go traffic(Hybrids actually get lower highway mpg than a comparable non-hybrid due to parasitic loses).

IF gas goes over $4 and stays there over the lifespan of the car (that is not happening in the current world economy and has only been there for a few months, ever.)Check out the breakeven time frames based on $2.91 gasoline price:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/articl...
Hybrids are a perfect example of all that is wrong with the environmental movement today. It is more important to look like you are doing something (and claim moral superiority) than to actually make some sacrifice. Stop the rant. I used the word "investment", didn't I?

Simple fact is that a hybrid driven 50 miles a day is far worse for the environment than a Hummer driven 10 miles a day to soccer practice and the grocery store. Yeah, it is simple fact. And you are the only one who realizes that?

Yet the hybrid driver can feel good while the hummer driver is shamed. No different than Al Gore and his huge utility bills and private jets.Al Gore is trying to change the system so that people will pay a fair price (higher price) for consuming Fossil fuel. Until then, he can afford his bills and I say let him.

"Conservation is a virtue, not economic policy". --Dick Cheney (?)

Whoever said that had a point. The only way to cut waste is to make wasting more expensive. See, I am all about the economics. I don't care how the hybrid drivers feel, nor how you feel about how they actually feel.

longwood8 said:....It is not a sound financial decision because the break even point is at or beyond the anticipated lifetime of the equipment. As technologies advance, it may be a sound financial decision one day, just not today.

Your statement is untrue.
A reasonable lifetime for a PV system is beyond 12 years, which is more than break even points cited above.
The break even point is subject to a tremendous amount of variation - mainly due to differences in rebates as well as differences in the cost of power.

The bottom line is that PV must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I also recommend that there are *better* more bang-for-the-buck things that can be done in advance of solar insulation that provide greater return:
Radiant barriers
Better insulation
Window shades / solar screens
Solar hot water
Then maybe solar power - via PV or turbine

nycll said:Check out the breakeven time frames based on $2.91 gasoline price:

http://www.Edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/articl...


Which proves my point. 16.2 years or 243,000 miles to break even. Way longer than the lifespan. Gas now is lower that $2.91 so it is even longer. Thanks.

nycll said:Stop the rant. I used the word "investment", didn't I?

"investments" are to save money, not make you feel superior.

nycll said:Al Gore is trying to change the system so that people will pay a fair price (higher price) for consuming Fossil fuel. Until then, he can afford his bills and I say let him.

Since when did a "fair" price equal a price higher than that set by free markets? And if he really cared, he would lead by example.

nycll said:"Conservation is a virtue, not economic policy". --Dick Cheney (?) Whoever said that had a point. The only way to cut waste is to make wasting more expensive. See, I am all about the economics. I don't care how the hybrid drivers feel, nor how you feel about how they actually feel.

Then raise gas taxes five cents a gallon each year for the next 20 years and impose a similar tax on electricity. That will directly impact energy use. Instead politicians hide behind subsidies for technologies that are not cost effective. Raise the price directly and then watch capitalism choose what works instead of letting politicians pick which company gets a handout.

nycll said:So you are not willing to pay anything extra for a house with a 7 year old panel? So to you a lower electric bill doesn't mean anything? Tell me about not knowing how to do cost benefit analysis.

It depends on where I'm buying the house, what type of panel it is, cost of electricity at the time of home purchase, etc. I'm just saying in this market it would be hard to charge a premium on a novelty item (to most people).

If there were two identical houses, one with a solar panel one without, chances are the one with the solar panel will sell for more. Sure, you have saved some electricity over the years of owning the house, but would you recoup the entire investment in the form of a higher selling price? I doubt it.