Is this one of the funniest things yet?
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/08/16/tampa-solar-panels-fail-meet-promises
12 jobs for 4 months, and will never pay for itself, Liberals,LOL
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/08/16/tampa-solar-panels-fail-meet-promises
12 jobs for 4 months, and will never pay for itself, Liberals,LOL
Kano
Favorite Answer
Thats what happens when decisions are based on idealogy not sound engineering principles, the whole solar/wind fiasco has been disastrous,
1 solar and wind cost 4x more than coalfired power 10x more than gas fired.
2 on average they only produce 25% of nameplate capacity.
3 They often produce power when not needed, or don't produce when needed (solar in hot desert areas is not too bad, because their power matches air conditioning demands a bit better)
4 they take up huge areas of land.
5 They cannot produce on demand and often do not supply power for long periods.
6 There is high maintenance costs
7 They need back up conventional generators for when not producing.
8 They make the rest of the generating capacity less efficient by causing them to run at lower loads or even spinning reserve.
?
This is a great piece because my company spent 1.5 million on a solar roof against my recommendation and we have a a Pfister Solar site to go to also. I don't see the electric bills but I doubt the 6 year ROI is accurate. That would mean it's saving the company 250K a year. If it's generating that much of a profit why aren't people just buying acres of land and just laying solar panels. No employees needed at all, just start raking in 250K after 6 years.
Anonymous
LOL! From your link : " ... At $27,000 per year, it would take 45 years to recover the solar panels’ costs. Accounting for inflation, it would take closer to 50 years to recover the costs. However, solar panels have a typical lifespan of only 15 to 20 years. Also, the effectiveness of the panels decreases throughout the panels’ lifespan. As a result, the Hillsborough County Courthouse solar panels are likely to return only about one-third of their inflation-adjusted cost. ... "
Spare me the "environmental virtue"! There isn't any "high-volume" sustainability in solar nor is there any high-volume sustainability in climate science (as it stands now)!
Who Dat ?
If they had put the $1,200,000 it cost for the solar installation into an index fund, they would probably have a permanent steady return of $80,000-$110,000 per year to apply to their electric bill.
Now all they've got is a constant maintenance problem plus the future cost of demolition & roof replacement in 20-25 years.
But HEY it made them feel good at the time & they'll be long gone before the bill comes due so its all good.
?
Great article BTW. One kept for the archives.
This is a typical greenie example of logic. They fail to admit failure and go on promoting their foolishness as one of great achievement. Their science reminds me of the tanks used by the French. They have 1 speed for attack and 40 for retreat.