GE pushing into the solar industry.

[momeNt]

LOL. Republicans really do live in a fantasy world don't they? Somehow you people have convinced yourself that solar energy is failing.

Get a brain, morans, it's free energy after the initial investment, and the only practical way to be off grid in a big portion of the country (hint hint for you gold burying paulbots).

Umm, the gold buying paulbots aren't really republicans. And the ones that can afford it already have a solar equipped house on arable land with bunkers for their food, ammunition, and gold.

Trust me no need for the hint to paulbots, maybe teapublicans or republicons could use the hint though.

 

[hal2kilo]

what's up with this? Why are they pushing into an industry falling apart in the USA? I am wondering what kind of perks they're getting from this. Does anyone have any info? Pretty weird that it would be GE, who is buddy buddy with our presidential administration which just made a big blunder in loans. Confusing.

Alex, what is "they have been in the energy business since the company was founded" for a thousand dollars.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This whole thread with the OP claiming solar is failing.

You have proof of this? Not that proof would overcome a deeply felt convistion.

 

[hal2kilo]

This whole thread with the OP claiming solar is failing.

You have proof of this? Not that proof would overcome a deeply felt convistion.

No the whole purpose of this thread has nothing to do with solar energy but something to do with the must be another Solyndra type thingy.

Keep throwing stuff at the wall. See if it sticks.

 

[xj0hnx]

It is the absolute worst way to generate power for the cost. Initial investment cost takes 15-20 years to recoup at which time the panels have outlived their lifespan and have to be replaced. Spend $30K for power for 20 years to spend another $30k for the next 20 years. No thanks.

At $30,000 for 20 years that comes out to $125 a month, which is a hell of a lot lower than most people's electric bill. Even if you had to spend the extra $14K it still averages to less than $200 a month.

 

[rcpratt]

At $30,000 for 20 years that comes out to $125 a month, which is a hell of a lot lower than most people's electric bill. Even if you had to spend the extra $14K it still averages to less than $200 a month.

This is by far the worst way I have ever seen energy costs compared. Good god.

Compare the cost per MWh to different energy sources, if you want. It's not that hard.

 

[xBiffx]

Solar energy still has a little ways to go to become a viable energy source. Maybe if you had the technology and prices that we see today 20 years ago it would have been worth it back then. Yes, solar has come down considerably in price. Yes, the technology has seen vast improvements. But solar is still not a readily available energy source for the masses.

The fact that manufacturer's need government subsidies and then even fail shows us that its got some time yet. When electronic manufactures can start mass producing and with competitive pricing, meaning more than a handful of manufacturers need to be involved, then we will start seeing it a lot more. Right now, its still a niche market that a consumer can only partake in by going to a specialty supplier and installer, who in turn has a small number of manufacturers to buy from.

Give it time. I was born and raised in Nevada and for a while there was talk of taking huge swaths of desert and turning them into a giant solar farm, one big enough to supply the entire country's energy needs. The only thing stopping it was the pricetag (it would take decades upon decades to pay for itself), but that was years ago. Now, things are cheaper and technology being better, it would be much smaller. Might become reality in the very near future.

 

[xj0hnx]

This is by far the worst way I have ever seen energy costs compared. Good god.

Compare the cost per MWh to different energy sources, if you want. It's not that hard.

Not saying it's a good way to do it, just saying his argument based simply on cost of equipment is fail. It would come out even better as the cost per kWh went up.

 

[lothar]

At $30,000 for 20 years that comes out to $125 a month, which is a hell of a lot lower than most people's electric bill. Even if you had to spend the extra $14K it still averages to less than $200 a month.

Because if you have solar panels installed, you still won't have to pay an electric bill?

You seem to be missing that big part.
Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours like it is for most people(typical American works a 9-5 job right?), solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

 

[xBiffx]

Because if you have solar panels installed, you still won't have to pay an electric bill?

You seem to be missing that big part.
Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours, solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

Ignorance is bliss eh? If you do it right, the utility company starts PAYING YOU instead of you paying them. Also, with solar, you absolutely have power at night as well. Its called a battery bank that stores the energy for evening and cloudy days. I don't care about your efficiency argument. It doesn't matter since most households consume a small fraction of the energy at night than they do during the day. If you aren't eliminating your electric bill by going solar then you simply aren't doing it right.

 

[lothar]

Ignorance is bliss eh? If you do it right, the utility company starts PAYING YOU instead of you paying them. Also, with solar, you absolutely have power at night as well. Its called a battery bank that stores the energy for evening and cloudy days. I don't care about your efficiency argument. It doesn't matter since most households consume a small fraction of the energy at night than they do during the day. If you aren't eliminating your electric bill by going solar then you simply aren't doing it right.

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.
Solar produces energy and adds to the grid during the day.
Electric utility company reimburses you for at the "lower" day rates since that's when your energy was produced and when you added to the grid.

Most Americans work a 9-5pm job.
How exactly is it possible to use more during the day? Unless they're one of those morons that leave their Cable box/DVR, AC and heater on all day without changing the temperature limits for when they are home(or will be home) even when they're not there.

Solar panels doesn't have enough efficiency for me yet. It even becomes worse when you remove the government subsidization which won't last forever due to federal and state budget cuts.
Since solar is so efficient for you, why are we wasting money on subsidization?

 

[sunzt]

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.
Solar produces energy and adds to the grid during the day.
Electric utility company reimburses you for at the "lower" day rates since that's when your energy was produced and when you added to the grid.

Most Americans work a 9-5pm job.
How exactly is it possible to use more during the day? Unless they're one of those morons that leave their Cable box/DVR, AC and heater on all day without changing the temperature limits for when they are home(or will be home) even when they're not there.

Solar panels doesn't have enough efficiency for me yet. It even becomes worse when you remove the government subsidization which won't last forever due to federal and state budget cuts.
Since solar is so efficient for you, why are we wasting money on subsidization?

Households don't use more energy during the day, but on a whole more energy is used during the day because of businesses, industry, and manufacturing. So overall energy consumption is reduced during the night.

 

[IronWing]

GE has been in solar for years, even before the recent push.

This. BP announcing that it was getting out of solar might be enticing to GE to move in in a bigger way but they have been in solar for decades.

But not this:

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.

In the p[laces I've lived that have differential pricing, night rates were always cheaper than day. Businesses tend to use a lot more power than residences and use most of it during the day.

 

[K1052]

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.
Solar produces energy and adds to the grid during the day.
Electric utility company reimburses you for at the "lower" day rates since that's when your energy was produced and when you added to the grid.

Incorrect, peak usage is during the day. Rates are lowest in the 9PM to 7AM range IIRC.

Grid tied solar actually feeds power into the grid when utilities need it most and potential reimbursement to the owner of the solar equipment is highest.

 

[lothar]

Households don't use more energy during the day, but on a whole more energy is used during the day because of businesses, industry, and manufacturing. So overall energy consumption is reduced during the night.

Oops...Forgot about them.

 

[thepd7]

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.
Solar produces energy and adds to the grid during the day.
Electric utility company reimburses you for at the "lower" day rates since that's when your energy was produced and when you added to the grid.

Most Americans work a 9-5pm job.
How exactly is it possible to use more during the day? Unless they're one of those morons that leave their Cable box/DVR, AC and heater on all day without changing the temperature limits for when they are home(or will be home) even when they're not there.

Solar panels doesn't have enough efficiency for me yet. It even becomes worse when you remove the government subsidization which won't last forever due to federal and state budget cuts.
Since solar is so efficient for you, why are we wasting money on subsidization?

Link to sources? I'm genuinely curious who's right about the rates and none of y'all actually have sources to back it up (it is P&N so I guess I shouldn't expect too much).

 

[xBiffx]

Energy is more expensive at night than during the day because most Americans use more energy then than during the day.
Solar produces energy and adds to the grid during the day.
Electric utility company reimburses you for at the "lower" day rates since that's when your energy was produced and when you added to the grid.

Most Americans work a 9-5pm job.
How exactly is it possible to use more during the day? Unless they're one of those morons that leave their Cable box/DVR, AC and heater on all day without changing the temperature limits for when they are home(or will be home) even when they're not there.

Solar panels doesn't have enough efficiency for me yet. It even becomes worse when you remove the government subsidization which won't last forever due to federal and state budget cuts.
Since solar is so efficient for you, why are we wasting money on subsidization?

Sure the grid is taxed during the times when most Americans are home doing stuff. Yes that would be around the hours of say 6-10 everyday. That's 4 hours, maybe some of that in darkness, meaning batteries. The rest of the night they are sleeping and consuming no energy so the batteries work fine here. Then they charge during the day when they are at work consuming little energy at home again. That's why there is an overall surplus that can charge batteries and then get sold back to the grid.

You made the argument that you can't get rid of your electric bill when going solar. You haven't proven this is true. All you have done is say that power is more expensive at night, so what. If you are on solar, who gives a shit what others pay from the grid.

I stated in an earlier post that solar has a ways to go to become viable for the masses. I haven't contradicted that statement in any way. If you can afford the equipment and have the capability to go solar then its out there. It will eventually pay for itself, its just a matter of how long that return takes. You were trying to say that solar is crap because you still have to pay for electricity. This is simply not true and is not a reason at all for not going solar. If you think it is still not efficient enough to warrant the cost, fine, but that's just your opinion. The effectiveness of solar is left to each consumer to decide for himself.

 

[bfdd]

LOL. Republicans really do live in a fantasy world don't they? Somehow you people have convinced yourself that solar energy is failing.

Get a brain, morans, it's free energy after the initial investment, and the only practical way to be off grid in a big portion of the country (hint hint for you gold burying paulbots).

solar in the USA is a failing industry. Has been for years because of idiots like you who think it's free energy.

Announced yesterday that they will be building a plant outside of Denver for these; employ 350 people.:thumbsup: That do not have to live in PRC

Construction jobs - 2011-2012
Manufacturing jobs 2012

Will help Colorado

this is what I am talking about. I thought everyone knew they were going this direction? GE came out a little while ago saying they wanted to build a plant in the USA, just not where or what capabilities.

also my point of the thread is to find out if any of you know if and if so what kind of perks they're getting from the white house for going this direction. It seems kind of weird to me that GE who doesn't currently make solar panels in the USA would want to start after the recent failures and high costs. If we killed the HUGE subsidies on solar most of these projects would vanish over night and IMO the high subsidies are holding back innovation to keep costs up. But that's just my opinion.

 

[rcpratt]

Because if you have solar panels installed, you still won't have to pay an electric bill?

You seem to be missing that big part.
Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours like it is for most people(typical American works a 9-5 job right?), solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

Uh, no. How do you think pumped storage works?

 

[Moonbeam]

Gas, coal, oil and nuclear get massive government subsidies.

 

[xBiffx]

Gas, coal, oil and nuclear get massive government subsidies.

And?

I don't disagree with subsidies, I disagree with subsidies that do nothing or fail to produce something. Those subsidies that you brought up fulfill our energy needs. Solar can't do this, yet. Someday it will and solar subsidies will be productive then.

 

[bfdd]

Gas, coal, oil and nuclear get massive government subsidies.

the only one I kind of support on that is nuke and that's mostly due to security reason. Gas, coal and oil haven't needed subs in awhile. Though I have a feeling some coincide with environmental regulation for good behavior.

 

[lothar]

Is there some kind of figure, statistics, or research on household solar panel use?
I'm pretty sure the majority of households aren't breaking even on their investment(even after you include subsidization).

Solar panels also seems to have the "flash memory" depreciating effect.
Efficiency is improving very fast(but it's still not at a good enough level yet)...It would be stupid for me to put $30k cash down and a year later there's a 20% efficiency improvement over previous models. Leasing seems stupid because at the end of the day, you won't own the panels.

 

[lothar]

Gas, coal, oil and nuclear get massive government subsidies.

How much energy/dollar of subsidies do they produce compared to solar and others?

 

[K1052]

Is there some kind of figure, statistics, or research on household solar panel use?
I'm pretty sure the majority of households aren't breaking even on their investment(even after you include subsidization).

Solar panels also seems to have the "flash memory" depreciating effect.
Efficiency is improving very fast(but it's still not at a good enough level yet)...It would be stupid for me to put $30k cash down and a year later there's a 20% efficiency improvement over previous models. Leasing seems stupid because at the end of the day, you won't own the panels.

A lot depends on location. If you live in a region that receives a lot of sun every year with minimal cloud cover (much of the southwest) you'll reach payback and then some. In Montana....probably not so much.