[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[Nate Duehr]

On 5/25/2010 3:45 PM, Bear Giles wrote:
> But they're actually two faces of the same problem.  Other countries 
> (Germany, according to Thom Hartmann) have required utilities to offer 
> low-interest (or interest-free?) loans to customers for those solar 
> panels.  The utilities sell less power... but they also need to 
> produce less power.  Over time those little dinky panels eliminate the 
> need for multiple power plants.

Ahh yes, solar. The "never-ending" energy source, as long as you don't 
count the power required to make the panels.  ;-)

The need for power for the house goes down, but the need for power to 
run the solar panel plants goes up.  Is that a net/net energy trade-off, 
or is the solar panel a benefit?  (Or does it only become a net benefit 
once a critical number of them being installed/used happens?)

Solar panels do NOT operate at 100% of their original (dismal) 
efficiency for much more than 10 years "lifespan", but they're getting 
better.  Typical break-even is 20-30 years right now... so... my 
engineering/technical mind says, "not worth it yet".

This alslo means that the average person if they own a home from their 
20s through their 80s will have to replace the solar panels at least 6 
times, and we'll have to figure out if we can recycle those... or if 
they're going in a landfill. :-)

If they're lucky, the efficiency and lifespan will go up over their 
lifespan, and they'll get 20-30 years out of the last set of panels they 
put on in their 60s or 70s.

If they're unlucky, a big hailstorm like Eastern Colorado is seeing this 
year with 3" hail... will destroy the new panels in their first few 
years of operation. :-)

(The case for solar panels to be installed during new construction is 
good.  The case for solar panels when all factors are accounted for, on 
older houses, isn't so great.  I just replaced a roof and that would 
have been the opportune time to put panels on, but with 2/3's of the 
cost of the roof being covered by insurance due to storm damage, that 
was still a bill I didn't want.  $10-$20K for a panel system and 
integration to the house is something only someone who has enough money 
-- not to care -- what the electric bill is every month, can afford.  
Catch-22.  Financing the overpriced panels into the home's mortgage in 
hopes that the owner can maintain them and replace them as needed to 
increase the value of the home over a home without panels, is the 
goal... the problem is, most folks see a panel system on the roof as an 
expensive maintenance budget disaster waiting to happen, and will take 
the simplicity of the house next door without panels as a sign of HIGHER 
value... today.  We'll see if that sentiment changes over time...)

In general, though... solar doesn't meet the goal of "green" really.

That giant system on the roof of Denver's Convention Center that the 
President stood next to and smiled, as a marketing tactic for both 
himself, and solar power, paid for by taxpayers -- has a break-even date 
of the year 2032.

And it won't be producing power at any rate that's worthwhile by then.  
It'll need to be replaced... an all new taxpayer expense...

Nate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20100525/b6092b4a/attachment.html>