Replies

Dude? Your age is apparently catching up to you.

My premise is that "solar energy from the sun" is similar to moonbeams and windmills. It will not pay back your investment, despite "Tax credits" and other market manipulations. Your "1600 sq ft of panels is MUCH larger than most roofs have to offer to the southern exposure, and then must be IDEALLY situated.

I am quite familiar with solar (20+ years in "free hot water", but my only recommendation goes to H2O, with PV only to power the circulating pumps. With "free hot water", you can heat a house, or take a hot bath. A windmill for pumping water will provide a tank full of potential energy transference and something to quench a thirst. PV, at this time, is still a loser financially, and is only good for those locations far off the grid. But, the use of electricity in those places must be mitigated by propane, wood, or some other replaceable fuel appliances, because of total home needs. The selling back to the utility company only applies in locales where it is permitted, and most places above the Mason-Dixon line are SOL, due to lack of sufficient sunshine.

As for a 20 year guarantee on those Kyocera panels, I can suggest you look at (BP Solar closes Maryland factory, despite promising growth) BP Solar. They now import Chinese cells, as do many other "American" companies.

Wind energy is made possible by your friends at General Electric, and the Chicago Mafia. It is also a loser, but has lots of proponents from "Warshington" (as the locals call it!)...

Already chilled, thanks. My A/C is running fine! (BTW, I cited the German study...)

In the current economic climate I agree that wind and solar are losers in terms of financial investment. The rules of scale will put the utility provider ahead of the individual in nearly every case.

If you are intending to subsist away from infrastructure service however, more needs to be considered and invested. Return on investment wanes in priority in relation to survival.

In locals where there is no electric grid, solar (with significant storage capacity) & wind mechanical (if feasible) combined with a reliable generator to take up the slack is being used by a significant number of households.

Often low tech is the way to go in these circumstances. A primary consideration is site selection, where water source, gardening, and solar availability are priorities. Can you develop a shallow well? Is there room for waste disposal? etc.

I believe the OP had subsistence in mind based on subsequent posts.

Man, you just can’t let it go...

Follow the poster I was replying too...

He’s said it would take “acres of solar panels” to power a 12kW A/C system... My point was it takes far less area than that claimed to do so...

Some of us own land... We don’t have to, or want to, put something like that on our roof...

Nowhere did I suggest the economics of it made sense.

You are wrong about subsidies and tax breaks not ever making it possible to break even for an individual though. The subsidies and tax breaks are the only reason it can work, but it is BAD economic policy.

I can get 100% payback in about 10 years including the cost of the money - if I were to become a taxpayer moocher. I have plenty of sun and my energy demand is biggest when it is shining - for cooling. The majority of my electricity costs about 35 cents a kWh. My electric bill is nearly a grand a month. You do the math...

I will say, as efficiency increases, costs go down and utility prices continue to rise it could make economic sense at some point in the future.

And thanks for the grammar correction... My grammar isn’t the best... Sorry...