Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 9:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.



Another issue with solar at one time was the long term efficiency of the
panels ...

At one time a solar system would be rated at producing "X" amount
of electricity when new but it dropped off significantly
after years of use.

It could be that the photovoltaic materials used have improved in the
past 10 to 15 years.




The photovoltaic material did not degrade much, was the “ glass� covering
the cells that degraded.

On 10/23/2018 2:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 9:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.



Another issue with solar at one time was the long term efficiency of the
panels ...

At one time a solar system would be rated at producing "X" amount
of electricity when new but it dropped off significantly
after years of use.

It could be that the photovoltaic materials used have improved in the
past 10 to 15 years.




The photovoltaic material did not degrade much, was the “ glass� covering
the cells that degraded.



The cover glass on the newer panels have a thin film coating on them
that enhances the panel's energy collection. It wears out in time due
to weather and other environmental factors.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.


I have 25 panels. About $27k in the end, not including fed tax credit.
Needed a new meter box, which adds about 3k. About 7k at max output.
Other day was looking at it, when final inspection was done and was getting
5.7k. California has very high utility prices. California makes the
utility buy at highest rate. Which is 43+ cents an KWh. I have a time of
Use plan and 11pm to 6am weekdays is 12.3 cents a KWh. Mine is an EV1
plan, electric vehicle. You can see the plans on the PG&E website.

If you mean your $27k is after they knocked off 30% from the feds
($38-39k total) you are a tad over $4 a watt your price. Mine was more
like $6 a few years ago but that was before you knocked off the 30%
the feds give you. It may be pretty much the same. I am guessing the
cost in Florida is still less than California so it might be lower if
I got a new quote. I can't imagine what I would have to pay $3k for,
just reworking the meter can tho.
They only wanted to put a back feed breaker in my main panel, in the
slot where my generator is now. The electrical work was minimal. FPL
would come and swap my meter for one that logs reverse current,
assuming mine doesn't now using the existing socket. (we did get new
"smart" meters since that quote)

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.


I have 25 panels. About $27k in the end, not including fed tax credit.
Needed a new meter box, which adds about 3k. About 7k at max output.
Other day was looking at it, when final inspection was done and was getting
5.7k. California has very high utility prices. California makes the
utility buy at highest rate. Which is 43+ cents an KWh. I have a time of
Use plan and 11pm to 6am weekdays is 12.3 cents a KWh. Mine is an EV1
plan, electric vehicle. You can see the plans on the PG&E website.

If you mean your $27k is after they knocked off 30% from the feds
($38-39k total) you are a tad over $4 a watt your price. Mine was more
like $6 a few years ago but that was before you knocked off the 30%
the feds give you. It may be pretty much the same. I am guessing the
cost in Florida is still less than California so it might be lower if
I got a new quote. I can't imagine what I would have to pay $3k for,
just reworking the meter can tho.
They only wanted to put a back feed breaker in my main panel, in the
slot where my generator is now. The electrical work was minimal. FPL
would come and swap my meter for one that logs reverse current,
assuming mine doesn't now using the existing socket. (we did get new
"smart" meters since that quote)

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


No, before the Fed knock off. I think the amount now is a flat $7500.

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:58:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.


I have 25 panels. About $27k in the end, not including fed tax credit.
Needed a new meter box, which adds about 3k. About 7k at max output.
Other day was looking at it, when final inspection was done and was getting
5.7k. California has very high utility prices. California makes the
utility buy at highest rate. Which is 43+ cents an KWh. I have a time of
Use plan and 11pm to 6am weekdays is 12.3 cents a KWh. Mine is an EV1
plan, electric vehicle. You can see the plans on the PG&E website.

If you mean your $27k is after they knocked off 30% from the feds
($38-39k total) you are a tad over $4 a watt your price. Mine was more
like $6 a few years ago but that was before you knocked off the 30%
the feds give you. It may be pretty much the same. I am guessing the
cost in Florida is still less than California so it might be lower if
I got a new quote. I can't imagine what I would have to pay $3k for,
just reworking the meter can tho.
They only wanted to put a back feed breaker in my main panel, in the
slot where my generator is now. The electrical work was minimal. FPL
would come and swap my meter for one that logs reverse current,
assuming mine doesn't now using the existing socket. (we did get new
"smart" meters since that quote)

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

The problem is they are also paying you for their infrastructure. The
actual value of the electricity is far less than the retail price. In
most places where they don't have a regressive plan like yours they
only reimburse the value of the electricity they sell you, at the same
rate they would pay any other supplier.

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

The problem is they are also paying you for their infrastructure. The
actual value of the electricity is far less than the retail price. In
most places where they don't have a regressive plan like yours they
only reimburse the value of the electricity they sell you, at the same
rate they would pay any other supplier.


We pay a $10 a month line fee to the power company.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 03:10:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

The problem is they are also paying you for their infrastructure. The
actual value of the electricity is far less than the retail price. In
most places where they don't have a regressive plan like yours they
only reimburse the value of the electricity they sell you, at the same
rate they would pay any other supplier.


We pay a $10 a month line fee to the power company.

That sounds like the franchise fee.

This is my bill with the line items described

NEW CHARGES
Rate:RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

Customer charge:$7.98

A fixed monthly amount to cover
the cost of the meter, billing and providing customer
service. It is applicable whether or not electricity is used
in a given month.

Non-fuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.063990)
$143.33
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.074150)

Non-fuel charge*
includes:
Base energy charge:
The costs other than fuel to
produce and deliver electricity, including the cost of
operating power plants and maintaining the grid.
»
Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) Charge:
Cost of programs designed to reduce electric demand
and consumption.
»
Capacity Cost Recovery Clause (CCRC):
Cost for
purchasing electricity from non-FPL owned resources
as well as certain nuclear-related expenses.
»
Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC):
Cost to meet environmental laws and regulations.

FuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.022930)
$58.17
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.032930)

Fuel charge
includes:
The cost for fuel required to
provide each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.

Electric service amount 209.48

Storm charge 2.57
Storm charge*
Used to repay the bonds issued during the
2004 and 2005 hurricane restoration efforts and to partially
replenish the storm damage reserve fund for future storms.

Franchise charge 10.07
Franchise charge*:
FPL competes with municipalities
and county governments for the right to serve electric
customers. If a local government chooses, it can enter
into a contract with FPL that enables the government
to charge residents a contractual amount, the franchise
fee, in exchange for its agreement to not form an
electric utility for the term of the franchise.

Gross receipts tax 5.44

Taxes and charges 18.08

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 03:10:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

The problem is they are also paying you for their infrastructure. The
actual value of the electricity is far less than the retail price. In
most places where they don't have a regressive plan like yours they
only reimburse the value of the electricity they sell you, at the same
rate they would pay any other supplier.


We pay a $10 a month line fee to the power company.

That sounds like the franchise fee.

This is my bill with the line items described

NEW CHARGES
Rate:RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

Customer charge:$7.98

A fixed monthly amount to cover
the cost of the meter, billing and providing customer
service. It is applicable whether or not electricity is used
in a given month.

Non-fuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.063990)
$143.33
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.074150)

Non-fuel charge*
includes:
Base energy charge:
The costs other than fuel to
produce and deliver electricity, including the cost of
operating power plants and maintaining the grid.
»
Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) Charge:
Cost of programs designed to reduce electric demand
and consumption.
»
Capacity Cost Recovery Clause (CCRC):
Cost for
purchasing electricity from non-FPL owned resources
as well as certain nuclear-related expenses.
»
Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC):
Cost to meet environmental laws and regulations.

FuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.022930)
$58.17
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.032930)

Fuel charge
includes:
The cost for fuel required to
provide each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.

Electric service amount 209.48

Storm charge 2.57
Storm charge*
Used to repay the bonds issued during the
2004 and 2005 hurricane restoration efforts and to partially
replenish the storm damage reserve fund for future storms.

Franchise charge 10.07
Franchise charge*:
FPL competes with municipalities
and county governments for the right to serve electric
customers. If a local government chooses, it can enter
into a contract with FPL that enables the government
to charge residents a contractual amount, the franchise
fee, in exchange for its agreement to not form an
electric utility for the term of the franchise.

Gross receipts tax 5.44

Taxes and charges 18.08





Does not look like solar would pay in Florida. Here, the cheapest rate is
the nighttime off peak of $0.123 and peak of $0.43.
I am an EV1 plan now.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/index.page

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:02:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 03:10:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:

If the PoCo is paying you full retail for the power, the rest of the
customer base is subsidizing your panels.
Typical regressive democrat thinking. Tell poor people you are looking
out for them, then use their money to subsidize a guy rich enough to
cough up 30 grand. The fair price would be the interchange rate at
that time of day, not the retail rate.


The power is really generated during Peak Pricing time. So it is really
sold at time of day rate. I doubt the panels are productive at 3am even
with a street light by my house.

The problem is they are also paying you for their infrastructure. The
actual value of the electricity is far less than the retail price. In
most places where they don't have a regressive plan like yours they
only reimburse the value of the electricity they sell you, at the same
rate they would pay any other supplier.


We pay a $10 a month line fee to the power company.

That sounds like the franchise fee.

This is my bill with the line items described

NEW CHARGES
Rate:RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE

Customer charge:$7.98

A fixed monthly amount to cover
the cost of the meter, billing and providing customer
service. It is applicable whether or not electricity is used
in a given month.

Non-fuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.063990)
$143.33
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.074150)

Non-fuel charge*
includes:
Base energy charge:
The costs other than fuel to
produce and deliver electricity, including the cost of
operating power plants and maintaining the grid.
»
Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) Charge:
Cost of programs designed to reduce electric demand
and consumption.
»
Capacity Cost Recovery Clause (CCRC):
Cost for
purchasing electricity from non-FPL owned resources
as well as certain nuclear-related expenses.
»
Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC):
Cost to meet environmental laws and regulations.

FuelFirst 1000 kWh at $0.022930)
$58.17
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.032930)

Fuel charge
includes:
The cost for fuel required to
provide each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity.

Electric service amount 209.48

Storm charge 2.57
Storm charge*
Used to repay the bonds issued during the
2004 and 2005 hurricane restoration efforts and to partially
replenish the storm damage reserve fund for future storms.

Franchise charge 10.07
Franchise charge*:
FPL competes with municipalities
and county governments for the right to serve electric
customers. If a local government chooses, it can enter
into a contract with FPL that enables the government
to charge residents a contractual amount, the franchise
fee, in exchange for its agreement to not form an
electric utility for the term of the franchise.

Gross receipts tax 5.44

Taxes and charges 18.08





Does not look like solar would pay in Florida. Here, the cheapest rate is
the nighttime off peak of $0.123 and peak of $0.43.
I am an EV1 plan now.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/index.page

I just looked and my rate this summer is better than I thought
Total bill/KWH ends up being less than 11 cents.
$227.56 / 2070kwh = 10.99 cents Sept
$225.49 / 2103kwh = 10.72 cents Aug