-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:43 pm 
At the February Regent's meeting the President purposed leasing solar power panels from PNM. The panels would be installed in New James Football Field and the Juan Chacon parking lot.

No information was given on how much the lease would cost, how many panels would be installed or what the utility savings would be.

Action was tabled until the next meeting due to lack of information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:17 pm 
This sounds short-sighted. Western should get solar panels for all of its roofs and parking lots to reduce electricity costs. But it should consider purchasing them with loans or leasing them from a private company such as the one that supplied panels to the Town of Silver City. I don't think PNM would provide much of a lease deal since their incentive is not to have solar panels. PNM should be considered, especially if they are willing to forego wheeling limitations, but only when all alternatives are evaluated. I hope Western will consult solar experts and not just propose the first thing that comes to mind.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:42 pm 
I don't know much about the solar panel industry. If Western is looking at solar panels, a friend told me ... are the roofs capable of holding solar panel arrays? That might entail some survey work. That would be great if even 10% of Western's buildings could accommodate solar panels. Or, stand alone. There are many parking lots at Western ... and hello ... all over the area ... out at the County whatever building by Ace; the County Admin Building; the general parking area by Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center ... what if all of those had solar panels set up on girders ... nice shade for visitors ... solar panels sucking down that lucky old son.

The point here is: we can argue for perfection, or start carving off some territory. PNM is obviously a nasty capitalist entity and so it is focused on what ... screwing us all? Taking our money? Not sincere about solar or wind? The fact is this:

WE have one Political Party that is flat out, flat earthers who really really do NOT think there is butkus to Climate Change or Global Warming or massive ice cap melting or freaky storms, hurricanes, tornados, floods, fires ... nada. The GOP has it's political entity head so far up it's axx that it is frightening. And if recent calculations are right about Greenland and Antartica ice melting are right, by 2020, there could be some more coastal flooding. There are huge pumps running in Miami, pumping water into the ocean ... in a 69 kind of thing ... trying to keep all those high rises from flooding. And along Norfolk, VA area, home to massive U.S. Naval facilities, there are many homes with sump pumps running all the time.

Our GOP is truly dangerous. Not ONE of their 17 candidates just came out and said, yes, we are headed for some serious climatic changes. Sooooo ... with those yo yos still running the House and a near hold on the Senate, jerking around on a Supreme Court nominee, nearly a majority of Repugnicans still believing Obama is a Muslim after 8 friggin years in office ... so set on obstructing anything the man has tried ... let's see if Western can carry through with some help, guidance, and input from our local solar people. Get something going.

Drive to ABQ and look at the thousands of home, barn, out building, offices, factories ... here in NM with NO solar. None. Nada. Rien. Zero. How much does it take to try and get different municipalities that want to try a few experiments. The flood is coming. Fires are coming. Hurricanes are coming. Weird snow falls are coming. None are coming. By 2100, recent calculations say ... lots of water. I'll be dead by then. My son will be dead by then. With no kids, that could be the end of the name. But the country will be here and if we are lucky, Trump will take down the GOP and something else will emerge ... some moderation. Some willingness to cooperate. So, I say: maybe it's not pure and what is totally best ... but maybe Western will get interested. Those folks are only thinking, I think, of looking good. How to help them all look better, and get some solar going ... the power of "attraction v. promotion."

Anyway, that's enough. The experts we have here are great. We are lucky.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: curious2
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:24 pm 
Hello JE1947,

Do you have solar panels on your roof or elsewhere on your land? If yes, how long will it take you to pay off the installation costs? How much per year do you figure you have saved, and how long will it take for your savings to offset the costs of installation ( plus replenishment of parts, batteries )? Are they hail proof? how much will it cost to insure them? Are they really efficient ( profitable) if it were not for the tax breaks the government offers? You know every dime of tax that the government does not collect from Peter has to come from Paul, since the government as you know will not stop spending whether it be on warfare, or welfare. If they are really that efficient why does it take the government to persuade ( through tax breaks ) people to install them? how many of these so called green companies can survive without government help or tax breaks? The true cost of all these wonderful things are obscured as long as the government interferes, and as longs as Liberals have no clue about physics.

If you don't have solar panels, ... how come?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: elektron
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:40 pm 
Just an advisory here. In Albuquerque, where there are more panels than here, solar panels are called "the roofers' friend." This is because some homeowners have found out the hard way that the Acme Solar Panel Co. might be willing to install 20-year panels on a roof that won't last nearly that long. Panels have to come off to replace the roof. $$. Then, the panels have to go back on. $$. Or, the installers tromping around cause leaks. And, they drill holes. Lots of them. $$. Read the fine print!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:13 pm 
Solaripedia
There was no flip of a giant switch or flickering of lights. Over the last week, Florida Gulf Coast University’s long-awaited solar field has gone live, with the full 2-megawatt system now powering several main buildings on campus. As of December 2009, it is the largest working solar field operated by a university in the United States, and has opened within the same year when university officials broke ground. “It’s gone very smoothly and we’re very excited about it being up and running,” said university President Wilson Bradshaw Tuesday. “It’s now providing electricity to over 200,000 square feet of space. We’re really pleased.”

Many members of university administration are out of the office this week, including Vice President Joe Shepard, who has overseen much of the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: msauber
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:27 pm 
Curious2,
You state:
"Are they really efficient ( profitable) if it were not for the tax breaks the government offers? You know every dime of tax that the government does not collect from Peter has to come from Paul, since the government as you know will not stop spending whether it be on warfare, or welfare. If they are really that efficient why does it take the government to persuade ( through tax breaks ) people to install them? how many of these so called green companies can survive without government help or tax breaks? The true cost of all these wonderful things are obscured as long as the government interferes, and as longs as Liberals have no clue about physics. "

It appears you think that renewables need tax incentives to make it. The purpose of these breaks is (or should be) to introduce new technology into a market dominated by well established technologies, and help them get their foot in the door. Perhaps you aren't aware that the many many tax breaks the fossil fuel industry gets are manifold what the renewables get... and it's been more than 80 years they have been getting those tax breaks. How long do you think it appropriate for them to continue getting those breaks? As well as the tax breaks there are the many externalized costs that are not included, so it's not a fair playing field by any means.

Solar panels could be put upwind to an elementary school. There is no ongoing global warming from daily emissions. No asthma, emphysema. No groundwater aquifer pollution from fracking or dealing with waste products like coal ash. No leaks of methane. No seafood industry destroyed from massive spills in Alaska, the Gulf or any coastal region. Need I go on? Comparing the costs of renewables to fossil fuels needs to be inclusive of every tax break and every externalized cost. Liberal or so called conservative, it's more than physics, it's about honest economics, as if the welfare of the human population and our mothership earth matters.

As they say... Whenever there's a huge spill of solar energy, it's just called a nice day!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: curious2
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:12 am 
Msauber,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you implying that since we ( the tax payers ) endure the burden of the tax breaks that the government gives to the big oil companies, then it is justified that we should endure an additional burden imposed on us by the government when it gives a tax break for people to install solar panels? Our new health care has become a tax too. Insurance companies through the strong arm of the government are forcing you and I to buy Health insurance from "them". Health insurance is only a product. If you don't buy it the IRS will penalize you 10% of your income. What if they come up with a snake oil claimed to make you healthy ( in the guise of reducing future health costs). "You better believe it its good for you",... and convince the legislator it is good for you. New law passes, and now you have to buy that product too, or the the IRS will charge you another 5% your income.

My point was and still is that government intervention always obscures the true cost of any business practice, or technology because it chooses winners and losers (Winners are: the 5 big Insurance Companies, Banks, Oil companies, and all subsidized businesses ). I am not sure if there are any small sized winners, when it comes to health care these days: if you buy the $400 a month deal you still have to pay the first $2000 of treatment out of your pocket.

It gets worse when it comes to something like the global warming debate: It is unfortunate that the so called "scientists" on both side are ready to "modify" the result of their judgments, even lie depending on which side pays the most money to "fund" their research. Some of the so called "scientists" of today have learned from the legislators ( whose vote is up for highest bid) that since they are the modern custodians of knowledge, nobody will question their authority. And if someone does question their methodology they will try to shut them up by character assassination. In fact if you wanted to do your own research on this subject, these custodians ( who have replaced the priests who pressured Galileo to stop challenging their teachings ) will not allow you to have access to the original raw data. They will gladly provide you their fancy computer models of their predictions for the future, but not the raw facts that they supposedly used to come up with their conclusions. To really test their accuracy you have to live about 100 years more to see how many feet the oceans will rise! By the way, one of those computer models that came out in the late eighties predicted that Silver City Area will have a climate similar to Jungles of Amazon. So 100 years from now you and I will be referred to as indigenous people, endangered, and our off-springs will probably qualify for free solar panels, and mandatory free snake oil :))

When something gets so politicized the first casualty is the truth. Too much money involved. Fear mongering has become a profitable business today.

“For any reputable person or organization to be successful, that person's or organization's actions must be based on solid information, not conspiracy theories, not hearsay, not rumors, and certainly not fear mongering.”
― Mike Klepper

You may want to check the image results in this link. There is even some neat stuff about Al Gore :)
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=f ... mp=yhs-001


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:53 pm 
curious2 I'm sure Msauber will respond to your confusion over the issues but I'll try to keep this simple but obviously the Insurance companies won the healthcare war for now but this discussion is about climate and the issue of burning fossil to power vehicles and to boil water to produce electricity. Yesterday as I drove up Pope St an ally of yours accelerated his diesel pickup in front of me and produced so much black smoke that he was nearly obscured from view and made me choke for air, but hey, the government better not spend our tax dollars to deal with the problem since that doesn't, couldn't contribute to climate change.

Northwest NM is the biggest producer of US methane pollution known to produce climate change and breathing problems. As well, fracking many gas fields that produces water pollution and earthquakes but the gov better not spend any money to help fix he problem using/supporting alternative technologies according to you.

While I agree that there is great abuse of tax dollars for war and petroleum subsidies, if our tax can be used to affect change in crucial technologies than taxes and utility, travel costs could be greatly reduced and quality of life increased, wouldn't you be curious2 about that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: curious2
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:29 am 
Hello Crow,

I think you are adhering to a notion that the way a society should be organized is to have a class of wise, experienced public experts who will run things in the best interest of all. Americans historically have been deeply skeptical of this approach, and there is a good reason or it.

It is obvious to everyone that we should preserve the environment. But you should be careful and not hand in a blank check ( unchecked authority ) to the so called experts, or possibly charlatans who claim to have the solution. just like when you go to a surgeon, and they suggest a certain surgery for your condition, it is wise to get a second opinion. What sounds like a possible heart attack, could be just indigestion: Get a second opinion. Always look for hidden charges.

You agree that " there is great abuse of tax dollars for war and petroleum subsidies, if our tax can be used ..." and yet you have no problem when your additional tax dollars are put in the hands of the very same people who abused it for petroleum subsidies. Do you really hope that your tax dollars will not be abused when it comes to Solar energy?

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.


Last edited by curious2 on Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:12 pm 
American society has always waffled between two views:

One quoted by curious2 is that "a society should be organized is to have a class of wise, experienced public experts who will run things in the best interest of all." Examples could be the technocrats of the New Deal and the Great Society.

The other view is that the common man knows best and the experts are full of it. Examples include the "Know nothing" party, the Populists, and followers of charismatic leaders such as Huey Long, George Wallace, and Ross Perot.

When it comes to public policy, there is good reason to be skeptical of both these views, and to avoid extremes of either. Sometimes the common people have a point. Sometimes the experts do OK. But either group can be dead wrong.

When it comes to science, however, it's no contest. Individual scientists may be wrong. Some short-term scientific views may be mistaken. But the scientific process wins in the long run. The flat earth society and the Luddites never end up on the right side.

With climate change and the environmental movement, there are some charlatans and people who are too sure of themselves. Remember Peak Oil? It's probably coming some day, but not when many environmentalists predicted. Perhaps we'll be lucky and climate change will happen slower than predicted. Not every plan to save the environment will work. There is some reason to be skeptical on specifics.

But consider what's at stake. What if we respond to environmental problems too slowly and the earth is completely or partially destroyed or seriously degraded? On the other hand, what if we cut down on fossil fuels, change to renewable energy, and reduce pollution too fast? What if we make the earth more livable for nothing? It's better to err on the side of the earth.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: curious2
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:26 pm 
Thank you Bruce,

You put it very nicely. It is better to err on the side of the earth, but be careful who you are putting in charge of fixing it. Be very careful with how many regulations should be imposed, and who will enforce it and how. Special interest groups always have the first chance to take a good idea and turn into a nightmare. You may find this video very interesting, half way through it shows how many regulations have been imposed by the European Union by people who were not even elected. Britain is soon deciding whether to get out of the union.

it is the second video in this link.
https://goldsilver.com/video/government ... it-part-2/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:51 pm 
Curious2 this is not the place to discuss your link to the right-wing agenda but to discuss where your denial of the need to adopt alternative energy such as solar. I don't know where you've been for the last 20 years as the doctors gave their 2nd opinions over and over and the deniers keep denying so the rest of us are proceeding.

If you care to try to catch up with some of your own research try this link that monitors the modest solar array at the Visitors Center,s solar carport that between 1:00 and 1:15 pm today produced 1,424 wh of electricity and supplies about all the center needs: https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/ ... /overview; with this link you view many but not all solar panels all over the world: https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public_systems

Not covered on this site is the very large solar array at the sewer treatment plant that provide about 80% of the energy that this energy needy plant uses.

You could go by the Veterans Clinic/SW Bone and Joint and ask them how their impressive array is working out.

Or perhaps you don't really care about the planet, you sound very much like Trump standing before a California audience and telling them was never a drought and the crowd cheered on, how sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: elektron
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:22 am 
Didn't I read somewhere that the solar array at the wastewater treatment plant was out of service for many months? It seemed to have been in a city budget story. Can't locate it just now. What happened there?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: curious2
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:58 am 
Hello Bruce,

Here is some more interesting links.

First let me introduce William Happer, who is a professor of physics at Princeton University, and is is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

For further info see link below.
http://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer

Here is a testimony which is free of media hysteria,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx ... 1E3cZjirQV

Here is a related link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH4 ... LEPEY_i22P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:04 pm 
curious2: Ah yes, good ol boy Billy Happer, never saw a petroleum dollar he didn't like/want either directly or indirectly through his deniers club Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Interesting that your first link, just above, the de-smog blog exposed his willingness to take petroleum dollars from the likes of Exxon and others and if necessary launder them through his organization, perhaps you didn't read it.

Wasn't Exxon that hid their own research that proved the damage that their products were causing?

I rather not argue climate science because, like Happer, I'm not a climate scientist. Rather I like to open my eyes and see the pollution that burning coal and gas causes and how it degrades quality of life, I mentioned a couple back a few comments that you have not addressed. Over Farmington sits the largest cloud of methane in the US, wouldn't you like to live there?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:25 pm 
“Even at FGCU, the installation of the panels will take 30 years to pay back. Regenesis Power initially will foot the $17 million project cost. Florida will reimburse $8.5 million, and Regenesis can claim $5 million in federal tax credits. The company also will sign a 20-year maintenance agreement with FGCU that ultimately makes the project profitable”.

A quote from

ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/ndemers/IDS3303/.../Cost%20of%20solar.doc


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: msauber
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:49 pm 
Curious2
To revisit the first quote, it was, in part..."how many of these so called green companies can survive without government help or tax breaks? " My answer would be that most all of them would easily survive and even do well. ...if we weren't also subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. So, yes, I would be very happy to not have subsidies for the clean energy industry. The "free market" is a myth since those in power with the wealth manipulate the market with their purchased politicians doing their bidding for them to reduce market competition avoid having to comply with those burdensome clean air and water acts as the fracking industry does.
I do believe if money didn't corrupt the market and the media, that citizens would easily choose a non polluting benign source of energy vs one that treats the common air we breathe and water we drink as a depository for toxic waste products because more money can be made by doing so.

As far a climate science goes, using your own analogy of getting a second opinion for one doctors diagnosis, well over 90% of all CLIMATE scientists not only believe that humans are causing it, but continue to re-evaluate their previous assumptions as the climate warms more quickly than they had anticipated. When 9 cardiologists say you need bypass surgery, would one go to a podiatrist to get a tenth opinion and believe that one doctor who says you have nothing to worry about? At what point does one say that it would be prudent to believe the vast majority?

“For any reputable person or organization to be successful, that person's or organization's actions must be based on solid information, not conspiracy theories, not hearsay, not rumors, and certainly not fear mongering.”

...indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: sh1
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:56 am 
Thanks, Mike; very well said. If the fossil fuel industry -- or more broadly, all production enterprises -- were obliged to pay for all the externalities of their production, the advantages of clean energy would be glaringly obvious. Capitalism is great for generating innovation and producing private wealth, but left to its own devices it's even better at fouling the commons. If coal plants and oil and gas extraction outfits had to pay for all the negative impacts they pour into the environment, it's not clear they could survive at all, much less compete with solar, wind, geothermal, etc. That's why Exxon-Mobil and Chevron (aka, the Kochs) and their ilk spend billions trying to obfuscate the argument about climate change. They know full well it's real, and that fossil fuels are the major contributors to it. But if they acknowledge that, and let the political process find ways to redress it (carbon tax, even cap and trade), their future as profitable companies will be curtailed. And since they've run the world for several generations, rather than try to retool themselves into clean energy producers, they've set about trying to keep that genie in its bottle. Boatloads of websites and subsidized "research" are out there as a result of their efforts to confuse and misdirect. Don't be confused. Shelby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:06 pm 
I’ve enjoyed the conversation about solar energy in general, but I’m really interested in the solar project at Western. There is not much actual information on the project. About the only information is that it’s going to be a lease arrangement with PNM. No details on how long the lease is going to last, how much Western’s going to pay or who will own the project at the end of the lease. No information on how big the project will be or how much of the campus will be served. It appears that the transparency curtain has been closed.

It appears that the key to a project like this is the method used by Florida Gulf Coast where you get a third party to pay for the construction. That way the third party gets federal subsidies in the form of tax rebates which would be of no use to the university. So PNM builds the project and pays all up front charges and gets the tax breaks, and then charges Western a lease fee. According to the articles I read the only way the power company in Florida was able to show a profit in the project was to have a 20 year maintenance contract with the university. Do solar panels require a lot of maintenance?

President Shepard said that the solar panels are going to be put on the stone walls of Old James Stadium and some kind of structure is going to be built in the Juan Jacon parking lot which will be able to be used for shaded parking with the solar panels on the top. Will the structure be part of the project paid for by PNM or will Western have to build and pay for it? I hope it’s not going to be the multilevel parking structure that the administration has been talking about for years.

The FGCU project said that they were going to save a couple of hundred thousand a year on power. There are no follow up articles that I could find that say what the actual savings turned out to be.

There is, also, the question, is this a real economic viable project or a show project to show the University’s environment commitment. There was the same concern in Florida.

I know from the previous posts that there are a lot of posters that don’t care about the economics of the project they only are concerned that there is a green solar project. I can go along with that if the University doesn’t try to sell the project as an economic viable project. If the University is doing the project only to be green then they should say so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: samarpan
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:16 pm 
No information was given on how much the lease would cost, how many panels would be installed or what the utility savings would be.
--al milligan

Al, at the annual spring meeting on May 12, 2016 Regent's meeting more details were forthcoming.

"Regent members listened to a presentation by PNM representatives on a proposed photovoltaic system to be installed on campus in two locations. The system would reduce power usage by at least $38,000 per year once installed. WNMU would partner with PNM on a 25-year lease agreement with no up-front costs to the university."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: samarpan
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:54 pm 
WNMU is smart to invest in solar. Solar PV costs over the past 5 years have fallen more rapidly than any other energy source.

Cost in $/MWh ... Nominal change 2010-2015

- 68% ... Solar PV

- 51% ... Wind onshore

- 20% ... Nuclear advanced

- 10% ... Advanced Natural Gas combined cycle

- 8% ... Conventional Natural Gas combined cycle

- 7% ... Solar CSP (concentrated solar power)

- 5% ... Conventional Coal

+ 3% ... Wind offshore

SOURCE:
Historical summary of EIA's LCOE projections (2010–2015)

"The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project. EIA's LCOE are adjusted for inflation and calculated on constant dollars based on two years prior to the release year of the estimate. Estimates given without any subsidies."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:24 am 
I'm not against this project. But you need to know what the University is getting into. No up front costs means that Western will pay the construction costs in its lease payments and also interest on the construction costs.The University could sell bonds for the project and do it themself, there would be no up front costs. But the federal tax credits would be of no value to the University. You need to get an outside contractor to build and own the project so the contractor can get the federal tax credits. Up front or in lease payments Western is going to pay the construction costs, interest on the construction costs and profit for PNM.

But I do think that the project should be put out for bids. PNM isn't the only company that can install solar panels and might be interested in the lease arrangement. Western might be able to save a little money. In fact, PNM will probably sub contract the project.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:05 am 
the likely best solution would be for the WNMU, PNM and others take some undeveloped acreage next to the town's solar farm at the waste water plant and install the system there. this would have the highest efficiency and least cost. even though the electricity would have to be transmitted to the university over the grid, the solar would be in one spot, simplifying everything.

politics being what they are, this is extremely unlikely.

so what will happen is we'll (the citizens in aggregate) get lipstick on a pig.

as to the 30 year payback, this is ridiculous. these days , a decent system should payback in less than 10 years.

some smarty should prove me wrong.

as to the gov't: every time a new technology rolls along, the gov't gets involved somehow with the economics of it. Bruce's got it here. so arguing here about it isn't going to change much, lobby the pols and your fellow citizens to be more fully informed...somehow that might help them to make better decisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:44 am 
Is this project still active?

It was first proposed in the Feb. 4, 2016 regent's meeting. The last mention was in the May 12, 2016 regent's meeting when the President reported that the contract was not ready for the regents to vote on it.

Since then no mention of the project by the University.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: almilligan
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:55 pm 
Anyone seen any solar panels on Western's campus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:41 pm 
Al, there are none.
I bought some awhile back and the cost of the panels picked up in Phoenix was 33 cents a peak watt and I didn't buy in bulk , I just bought 4. At this low price the cost of the panels is now a quite small portion of the overall expense of the typical photovoltaic system. Since I don't have natural gas running by my house and am fairly handy, my plan was to use these panels to power my domestic hot water heater. Including a few parts from my junk box and some wire it should pay back in about 5 to 7 years. no subsidy , paperwork, just a bit of skill and some really nice, cheap panels.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group