In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:12:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.

You fail to get the point, and the rest of the article.

"Two weeks ago, he bought land for the first Zero Energy America
Village, a prototype community just south of the Pinellas-Pasco border
on East Lake Road.

The project will feature 1,600- to 1,800-square-foot homes with a target
price of $250,000.

"They will be amazingly healthy, totally green, and the homeowner will
have no electric bills," said Rutenberg. "The village will be the
proudest moment of our company to date."

Considering a 1600 sq/ft house is going for less than $200k up there
in cow country if it is a real nice one (granite and hardwood kitchen
sort of thing) it is still putting $150k down against future electric
bills.

Are you saying that a 1600 square foot home outside of Tampa is going
for $50k???? Are you nuts?

http://www.realtor.com/soldhomeprice...rice-na-100000

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the maintenance costs
are and how well these collectors hold up to being hit by lightning,
100 MPH winds and flying debris.

I am still thinking about doing it myself but as long as this is a
high 5 figure or 6 figure investment, I can't make financial sense out
of it.

Yes, you and other right wingers have shown your disdain for anything
innovative and on the technological forefront.

Innovation has to have a pay-off.

Immediately? You do realize that most innovation is at first, not
financially feasible don't you? Do you think Orville and Wilbur's plane
on Kitty Hawk was immediately a financial success? Henry Ford's car?

Who was funding Orville and Wilbur? It wasn't the government.

Who was funding Ford? It wasn't the government.

What does that have to do with the statement that "Innovation has to
have pay-off"?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:43:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


I am still thinking about doing it myself but as long as this is a
high 5 figure or 6 figure investment, I can't make financial sense out
of it.

Yes, you and other right wingers have shown your disdain for anything
innovative and on the technological forefront.

Innovation has to have a pay-off.

I am really amazed at the left's fascination with alternate energy
schemes that use massive government subsidies to make them attractive.
This is the quintessential welfare for the rich at the expense of the
poor.

Do you mean like the oil industry? Or our current electric generating
facilities? They are subsidized you know....

.

Are they subsidized or regulated?

Again, both.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:05:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


I am really amazed at the left's fascination with alternate energy
schemes that use massive government subsidies to make them attractive.
This is the quintessential welfare for the rich at the expense of the
poor.

Do you mean like the oil industry? Or our current electric generating
facilities? They are subsidized you know....

The alternate energy subsidies are 10 to 20 times the subsidy for oil
and gas, (per KWH produced) depending on which you are talking about.
In gross numbers nuclear gets many times more money than oil and gas.

I notice you haven't answered about which alternate energy scheme YOU
have bought into with your own money. (other than that which was taken
without your permission by the government)
.

I have solar collectors for my pool. I have stock in First Solar, and
Future Fuel. Next I will be moving some non-performing stocks to the
electric car area. You?

Who or what produces the electricity that is put into cars?

Power companies.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article 1784401231376285256.933984bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:12:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.

You fail to get the point, and the rest of the article.

"Two weeks ago, he bought land for the first Zero Energy America
Village, a prototype community just south of the Pinellas-Pasco border
on East Lake Road.

The project will feature 1,600- to 1,800-square-foot homes with a
target
price of $250,000.

"They will be amazingly healthy, totally green, and the homeowner will
have no electric bills," said Rutenberg. "The village will be the
proudest moment of our company to date."

Considering a 1600 sq/ft house is going for less than $200k up there
in cow country if it is a real nice one (granite and hardwood kitchen
sort of thing) it is still putting $150k down against future electric
bills.

Are you saying that a 1600 square foot home outside of Tampa is going
for $50k???? Are you nuts?
I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the maintenance costs
are and how well these collectors hold up to being hit by lightning,
100 MPH winds and flying debris.

I am still thinking about doing it myself but as long as this is a
high 5 figure or 6 figure investment, I can't make financial sense out
of it.

Yes, you and other right wingers have shown your disdain for anything
innovative and on the technological forefront.


------------------------------

You and the other left wingers have shown your distain for any financial
responsibility.

I have plenty of "financial responsibility". And where do you get the
notion that I'm a "left winger"?


---------------------------

You argue the left's side. and the left seems to lack any financial
responsibility.

I argue MY side, the sane side.

What is sane about over spending for electricity, or for government?

Who's overspending for electricity? And what does the article I posted
about the net zero home have to do with government?

Why does the cost of electricity vary around the country?

What does that have to do with my question?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1493745639376183490.518525bmckeenospam-
, says...

JustWait wrote:
On 12/2/2012 12:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.


Even if it was a zero sum home. Those that can afford a 4000'+ home
should
be able to afford electricity. Part of our housing problem is all these
middle class or lower people who just needed a large mansion. Hang the
cost vs. income, I got a cheap loan!

Affording electricity has NOTHING to do with it.


--------------------------

It has lots to do with it in this case.

No, it doesn't.

Please enlighten us as to why being able to afford the electricity is
not relevant?

Because that simply NOT the point of the zero sum home. Are you really
that stupid, or just acting like it for attention?

You need to do some research on TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership

What does that have to do with this discussion?

In article 615113602376355095.324642bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 107555478376348352.875653bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 185336218376284656.888165bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1493745639376183490.518525bmckeenospam-
, says...

JustWait wrote:
On 12/2/2012 12:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.


Even if it was a zero sum home. Those that can afford a 4000'+ home
should
be able to afford electricity. Part of our housing problem is all these
middle class or lower people who just needed a large mansion. Hang the
cost vs. income, I got a cheap loan!

Affording electricity has NOTHING to do with it.


--------------------------

It has lots to do with it in this case.

No, it doesn't.
How much energy are those solar panels going to save? Consider the energy
to make a small home system. Cheaper to buy the electricity, and may even
be more energy efficient.

It's a net zero home, fool. You do know what that means, don't you?

How much energy was expended to generate the "net zero"?

You are babbling like Scotty now.....

Well how much energy did it take to make the solar panel and controls?
Will that amount of energy be recovered over the life of the panels? You
are the babbling and grasping at straws.

How much energy does it cost to build a coal fired plant? A nuclear
plant?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article 107555478376348352.875653bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 185336218376284656.888165bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1493745639376183490.518525bmckeenospam-
, says...

JustWait wrote:
On 12/2/2012 12:59 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/crdb3z9

If you really think this will be a net zero home you are delusional.
That tiny solar array won't even run the A/C for a 4500 sq/ft house.

You can pay a lot of electric bills for the half million extra this
house costs over the garden variety megabuck Rutenburg house.


Even if it was a zero sum home. Those that can afford a 4000'+ home
should
be able to afford electricity. Part of our housing problem is all these
middle class or lower people who just needed a large mansion. Hang the
cost vs. income, I got a cheap loan!

Affording electricity has NOTHING to do with it.


--------------------------

It has lots to do with it in this case.

No, it doesn't.
How much energy are those solar panels going to save? Consider the energy
to make a small home system. Cheaper to buy the electricity, and may even
be more energy efficient.

It's a net zero home, fool. You do know what that means, don't you?

How much energy was expended to generate the "net zero"?

You are babbling like Scotty now.....

Bill is talking reality and you are trying argue that the cost of the
materials, production of, installation and operation of your "net zero"
home is irrelevant when determining if it is cost effective or not.

No I'm not, but those same expenses can be said about ANY power
generating station.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:39:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article 763124344376355344.039096bmckeenospam-

Sure they are. Government requirement. How much ROI in those electric car
companies?

There is NO government requirement to produce electric cars, that is a
lie.

I guess you have never heard of California but it is the largest car
market in the US.

Google ZEV

ZEV's can be anything. I said there are no government requirements to
produce electric cars. If there is, show me.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:41:17 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


I see your First Solar is not doing so well either, down about 75%
from it's 52 week high.

Depends when you bought it.

We call that a trade, not an investment.
Are you trying to time the market now?


"Future Fuel" is a no hit on Yahoo Finance.

OK you tell me, what is the ticker symbol.

NYSE = FF


Yeah, that's what I'd use as a barometer, Yahoo Finance..... right.

Which electric car company would you invest in?

Daimler Benz.

That is not an electric car company. It is a company that may put out
a boutique electric car for millionaires to play with.

Sure it is, one of the largest holders in Tesla.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:42:08 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:57:24 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article 1784401231376285256.933984bmckeenospam-
, says...


What is sane about over spending for electricity, or for government?

Who's overspending for electricity?

Anyone who spends tens of thousands of dollars fort a solar PV system.


And what does the article I posted
about the net zero home have to do with government?

Umm, the 30% federal tax credit? (assuming it survives the "cliff"
negotiations)

There are tax credits for all forms of things, including having
children.

Welfare is welfare.
The difference is, the EIC is transferring wealth from the rich to the
poor.
The energy credit is transferring from the poor to the rich.

I would think a bleeding heart liberal like you would be against that.

That's a silly argument on SO many levels I don't know where to
start.....