Quote:
ORIGINAL: MNJOE
Quote:
ORIGINAL: bergall
Ok genius....
How many KwH are you required to produce to go 'off the grid' ?
Now that you may or may not have the answer to that, in my state, if you own a system capable
of producing > 10kw of electricity by any means, you're taxed at the rate of an energy SUPPLIER
and the benefits of ownership are negated.
What say you to that, weenie ? Where is my motivation ?
More importantly, this system will be pushed on power suppliers who will not reduce your bill one cent,
regardless of the fuel used to produce the power you consume. So we'll be off of oil or coal or whatever, and you'll still pay thru the caboose for the same power you need to run your well pump, septic pumps,
refrigerator/freezer, a/c, etc, etc, etc.
Green Retards need to make this crap applicable to the private citizen or it will die the death it
so richly deserves.
|
Outside of the fact that I made no judgments or qualifying statements on the actual issue, plus added a ( ), I took a look at some of the guidelines for interconnection and parrell power generation in and around MN (now I at least knwo the terms) and found nothing conclusive. It does appear that the federal government limits private power generation to 80 MW or less and that private power generation of 10MW or greater is not common for private ownership. It also looks like private power generation of 1MW or less is more common. The power corporation such as excel energy has control, unrestricted access and power to enforce compliance with state and federal regulations around power generation. IT read like you can set-up an agreement for how much you expect to privately generate versus pull from the power corporation entity and can determine if you are likely to generate power in excess of what you need, thus put back into the grid. It read as if the power company pays you for how much you put back into the grid based on what the expected cost to the company for the same energy would be.
With all that said, I would guesstimate that federal and state regulations would need to be ammended if this new source of energy was useable and employed.
|
and that's the entire point. While windbags like Al Gore tout all this renewable power generation, and while all these 'pundits' praise the benefits of renewable energy to high Heaven, there is not one iota of
assistance, support or legislation to support private power generation so we can 'go green' without 'running out of green'. Two years ago, I researched solar power for my home in NJ. It's a big house,
14-rooms in about 6200 square feet, plus in-ground pool and hot tub. I had previously lived in a town-house where my electric bills topped off at about 180 bucks monthly during the summer. Now, I was shellin' out between $840 and almost a grand. For me to generate 10kw (the legal limit here), the state
would pick up 75% of the cost. That meant :
a: I'd need to spend about $14k on a brand new roof
b: my 25% 'nut' for the installation would be $25k
c: I'm not off the grid, but my electrical bill would be reduced to $200 annually
d: still not off the grid
e: no effect on my 'gas' bill which, to heat the house in cold winter months, runs about $100 bucks
less per month than my peak electrical usage.
So, just to reduce my electric bill from about $6000 or $7000 annually, it'd cost me $39k, making my
ROI 100% in just about 5 1/2 years. How can anybody afford to do this, especially with the requirement
to replace solar panels every 15 years as an extra added expense ?
If ANYONE is serious about this, the limits on private power generation need to be raised, and 'our government' would need to dedicate resources to assist homeowners in installing private power generation facilities which are not cheap by any means.
The whole upshot of this is that alternative power-generation methodologies are generally out of reach
of the 'common man'. There does not seem to be any 'push' to make any of this technology available to
private citizens which I translate to mean 'government protection for power companies'. The power companies in turn, will not cut the cost of power one thin dime if/once they convert to renewable energy sources....their overhead costs can be just as great or greater than if they were paying for fossil fuel to
generate the power we need.
So, while the ability to 'store' power generated photovoltaically, this does not represent the boon to mankind it's being presented as. It's hard to get excited about something which make no affect on anything. The 'plus' of reduced air pollution is negated by the amount of maintenance (and the generated waste materials) required to maintain a commercial solar installation.
"Major discovery" from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
