Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (504)	6/14/2001 4:00:53 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 1715

The risk would be shifted not to government, but to the individual taxpayer.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (504)	6/14/2001 9:26:39 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 1715

Edit...response is to Hawk's post 508 but it clearly is not the most productive, or efficient deployment of resouces for the nation over all. And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Yes but my solar comment related to the future and you are disputing the present. Good energy policy requires long term planning. I commented on someone's assertion that solar will NEVER be a viable energy source. I believe my statement was in twenty years solar will be a good alternative which I believe to be a safe bet. Ten years may be a more realistic figure. Sooner if we put our minds to it. I don't dispute that solar PV is now an expensive alternative except in limited applications...mostly where running transmission lines is prohibitive. Highway call boxes and navigation buoy's are better done with solar PV than utility power in today's market. Remote homes are also good candidates for PV power due to the cost of installing power poles. Give me the $20,000 plus spent on the power poles running to my house and I will generate enough power to run my own home without the eyesore. Granted it would not have been an option in 1985 when the house and poles were built but it would be a viable option today..at least in my situation. $16000 buys me 16 130 volt panels, add $1500 for an inverter charger and $3000 for a few batteries and I have an electrical system for $20000 without any subsidy. If I figure on six hours a day then I can generate 4380 KWh of juice per year. My last electric bill was 23 cents average per Kwh. Figure 20 cents per Kwh and it works out to about 900 bucks for the juice from the panels for a year. The $20,000 for the system amortizes to about $2200 per year at seven percent over the 25 year warranty period of the cells. So I am off by a factor of about three. There has been about a ten fold decrease in pricing over the last decade? or so. It would be reasonable to assume a threefold decrease in the next ten years. Predictions for the peak in world oil production are in the ten to twenty year range. One would assume future energy shocks will be more severe. Today's energy prices may be considered cheap by standards ten years from now. Without the six power poles my house would be worth at least $20,000 more. With the $20,000 increase in real estate value I have my juice for free. The price of solar PV is dropping quickly so the number of people who can take advantage of it increases every year. Zeuspaul