Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The company is paying, yes through loans, to put in the equipment and maintain it. So why should they not get paid to do so?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The company is paying, yes through loans, to put in the equipment and maintain it. So why should they not get paid to do so?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Hello,

Because it is the worst of all possible plans, the one that places the least energy independence in the hands of the homeowner (which may in fact be all of us.)

By doing things the way they are doing it, the solar company collects revenue in perpetuity for a small initial investment.

The better route would be to give the low-interest loan to the homeowner (that's us, probably) so that the solar panels could be installed. Then, once the low-interest loan was paid off, we would have free energy in perpetuity, rather than paying money in perpetuity.

You still manufacture just as many panels, but now the benefit of doing so is more evenly distributed between the homeowner and the manufacturer, rather than almost all the benefit going to the manufacturer.

It's really just common sense, to my mind.

As for 'maintaining' the panels, they are practically maintenance free once installed. The only short-term problem they are likely to have is some kind of storm damage, and that is covered by insurance anyway. There is some power degradation over time, but this is not exactly profound, with most panels being warranted to last 20-25 years after installation without serious degradation.

So why shovel money at this Solar Company just for the honor of paying them for your electricity instead of the local power company? Much better to be paying yourself, yes?

Why can't the environment, the solar manufacturer, and the consumer ALL win in this deal? Why do we have to cut the consumer out of it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Last time I checked companies looked to make money, that is kind of there purpose. If they lose money, they tend to not be around after awhile.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:The rest of the needed equipment is also practically maintenance free, and there are no shacks full of banks of batteries. Excess power generated during the day is sold to the power company. Then power is bought back at night. Net Zero Energy, with no cost to the consumer. I saw a Habitat for Humanity build of this nature, and it's a great solution to energy cost. You get electricity all year for free.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:I'm not sure why you want to favor the solar company exclusively in this endeavor, but the better investment of my money is in purchasing the panels for the home, not in buying the power from the panel manufacturer forever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:"Nothing says then people can’t go out and buy their own solar panels. They can even get loans to do it."

So you agree with my plan, to give the low-interest loans to people (or to ourselves in this case) instead of to companies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Last time I checked companies looked to make money, that is kind of there purpose. If they lose money, they tend to not be around after awhile.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Hello,

I'm not sure how this relates to the price of Apricots in Tunisia?

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:In this case, we are the home owners. We are using public money to give low-interest loans to private companies to provide electricity to public subsidized housing.

As the home-owner AND the lender, I object to this inefficient use of my money.

We should all try to get the best deal for ourselves, and this isn't it. Yes, people should be free to choose poorly, but they shouldn't be forced to choose poorly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:Solar panels are a great idea. Paying forever for the panels isn't such a great idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Strictly speaking, they are paying for the electricity the panels generate.

The panels cost virtually nothing once installed, and the 'grid' is maintained by the power company, not the solar provider.

The equipment specific to the solar panels, wiring, and power boxes are designed to be maintenance free, such that 20-30 years are expected to transpire before maintenance is required.

So the idea of paying for regular maintenance costs is silly to me. Maybe that argument can be made for a windmill with moving parts. But this is not that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
But there appears to be no indication that the monthly charge ever gets PAID OFF. So they're making a profit for however long they keep charging after they've recouped the installation costs (and reasonable profits)...it seems it's never-ending.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I don't think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars nor the most effective use of solar technology.

It seems like a bad deal all around.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The best use of the technology is to make people energy independent.

This does not do that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Scam.

Why look for justifications to excuse conduct with obvious nefarious intent, why the reluctance to call it a scam, a sham and a ripoff ?

Cause it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
just saw a piece over on CNN.com about how their competitor Solyndra went bankrupt and is now being investigated by the Feds.


2011/09/09/technology/solyndra_fbi/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=hp_bn4

And in their piece, these folks are already alibying themselves, saying that they're NOT Solyndra, they're not crooks, they're smarter than those guys were, they make a better product.

If they wanted my money I'd run the other way like a jackrabbit. They just don't smell right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"You may make the country as a whole energy independent, but you are not going to do the same with individual. Not with the current tech. "

Hello,

Actually, it's *easier* to make an individual energy independent than a country. As the aforementioned Net Zero Energy homes illustrate.

I've seen it with my own two eyes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now, if you mean energy independence as in, 'disconnected to the grid' then you would need massive energy storage capacity. It makes more sense to use the wide world as your battery, exchanging surplusses and deficits the same way you would charge and discharge a battery bank.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now, if you mean energy independence as in, 'disconnected to the grid' then you would need massive energy storage capacity. It makes more sense to use the wide world as your battery, exchanging surplusses and deficits the same way you would charge and discharge a battery bank.

---

That is energy independence. The other is merely having a zero net cost for energy. The home still need to receive power from the grid during the night and perhaps very cloudy days.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

The 'grid' they are connected to is merely a fancy way of storing energy during a surplus and collecting it back during a deficit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

I'm curious as to how you'd define having the whole country be "energy independent" then. If zero-net cost energy isn't independence, what is?

If the entire idea is ONLY to be disconnected from the grid, I'm not sure I see where that reduces peak energy usage during the hottest times of the day. Having homes able to put power INTO the grid at such times seems like it would put an end to rolling power outages due to excess demand at peak times - your house shares power when it's most needed, and that power goes to, say, a manufacturing plant down the road that is in the middle of a busy shift. Then at night, when the manufacturing plant down the road is closed for the day and temperatures are cooler and demand is lower, you buy back power from the grid. That makes sense to me, and seems like a workable goal.

Yes, the power company pays you less for peak-time power than they charge you for lag-time power, which might be a bit unfair, but they're in business to make money, after all, not to make friends.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Then I fear you and I have radically different ideas of what 'independence' means.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:And you've outlined a set of parameters that pretty much guarantees that there will never be energy independence in the way you describe it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Perhaps then you see the Net Zero Energy proposal as a perfect Energy Symbiosis.

However, I see the process as 'independent' in the fact that you are not beholden to anyone financially.

--Anthony

---