"Green Collar" Job Training Comes to Sierra

if solar is so great why does it need subsidies? I have looked up what it would cost to zero out my electric bill. i found that if all the tax breks come trough and I get the financing. I would not see a return on my investment for 30 years. Solar sucks

Solar power is not the answer. If all able bodied people where to ride stationary bikes that generated storable energy, we would have a HUGE supply of energy and I wouldn't have to look at so many HUGE uugly FAT AZZ people. You overweight people need get off your lazy azzez and MOVE! ha!

Is a return on investment what it's all about? Or could it also be about pumping less stuff into the atmosphere?

That said, we DO need either cheaper solar or more efficient panels. Efficiency hasn't been very high because the panel manufacturers are in the business of selling silicon, not cheap power.

nobodysfool wrote:

if solar is so great why does it need subsidies? I have looked up what it would cost to zero out my electric bill. i found that if all the tax breks come trough and I get the financing. I would not see a return on my investment for 30 years. Solar sucks

To put solar cells on the average persons home it would cost about the same as a new auto. Does an auto pay you back the money you paid for it in any amount of time?

as with any emerging market, as more people start to use solar it will get cheaper.

I think it is great that students are being given this opportunity. There is tons of room for growth in this sector, and kids would be smart to take a seriousl look at this program.

Also, as a certified installer, you are also a certified electrician, which will add to graduates' abilities to make money.

Bravo Sierra College!

Great to hear. It's about time.

Raiderfan wrote:

Solar power is not the answer. If all able bodied people where to ride stationary bikes that generated storable energy, we would have a HUGE supply of energy and I wouldn't have to look at so many HUGE uugly FAT AZZ people. You overweight people need get off your lazy azzez and MOVE! ha!

That's a great idea, actually.

Sence wrote:

<quoted text>To put solar cells on the average persons home it would cost about the same as a new auto. Does an auto pay you back the money you paid for it in any amount of time?

If you use an auto in your work, it is an integral part of the cost of doing business. If you can increase your revenue by 10% by increasing your territory (using an automobile), then you factor the amortized cost of the auto into your P&L. A more efficient auto may permit you to reduce your operating costs. That puts cash back in your pocket (and Uncle Sam's, regrettably).

Railroads replaced steam locomotives with diesel, because the operating costs were lower. Airlines determined that jet airliners were less expensive to operate over their lifetimes than the complex radial-engined airliners of the postwar period.

Barry wrote:

Is a return on investment what it's all about? Or could it also be about pumping less stuff into the atmosphere?
That said, we DO need either cheaper solar or more efficient panels. Efficiency hasn't been very high because the panel manufacturers are in the business of selling silicon, not cheap power.

Solar panels require significant energy investment to manufacture. You need to compare the energy required to manufacture the system (including inverters and batteries) to the energy returned over the operating life.

It's very easy to say we need "cheaper" solar panels. Much more complicated than putting into practice. During the '70 energy "crisis," many solar water heaters came on the market. Some were very good (SolaHart, for example), many were cheap garbage which were lost causes once the warranty expired.

I think your statement impugning solar panel manufacturers is undeserved. We're talking about a product with an expected operating lifetime of 30 years, surviving a wide range of environmental conditions.

Thin-film shows promise, but that is still a laboratory technology, nowhere near mass-production. It could reduce installed cost significantly. I am not aware of any life-test results yet.

Actually, I had a great experience with my solar hot water system. What kind of solar system did you get because I live in New York State and the payback period on my hot water system was only about three years!

nobodysfool wrote:

if solar is so great why does it need subsidies? I have looked up what it would cost to zero out my electric bill. i found that if all the tax breks come trough and I get the financing. I would not see a return on my investment for 30 years. Solar sucks

Sence wrote:

<quoted text>To put solar cells on the average persons home it would cost about the same as a new auto. Does an auto pay you back the money you paid for it in any amount of time?

Answer with a question, which cost more? Putting Gas in your car at what $4 per gallon, or using the sun for free? Let me think about that one......sun is there...use it.

Julie B wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a great idea, actually.

Home Power had an article on two volunteers who road stationary bikes for an hour a day for one year. They generated enough watts that could power your house for about 2 hours.....great idea but doesn't work. The efficiencies of motors needs to be upgraded and batteries. Solar panels are not the problem it's the 50 year old battery technology that needs development...we're getting there.