Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 114   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 57752 times)

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #440 on: August 07, 2019, 01:26:29 pm »

What is so delightful about all these questions is that all of us have beliefs, but none of us really know.

Belief, in general, precedes rationalization. But rationalization almost invariably supports the initial belief. Sure, our ideas change, and we like to think it's because we've carefully researched things and the facts have changed our minds, but this is a delusion. What happened was that the zeitgeist surrounding us changed. Either our social/family circle changed, or the set of things our family and friends actually believe has evolved and changed. Change in "what everyone knows" does occur, but it in general does not occur within a single person, as an event within that person.

It is a gestalt that emerges from the community. Well-positioned media can, with a delicate touch, introduce gradual change. From The Atlantic to Fox and Friends, media manipulates our ideas, and we think we're being rational.

Even an apparently simple question like "Is the carbon footprint of Wind Power positive, negative, or neutral?" is fractally complex in several dimensions, and admits nothing even slightly resembling a factual answer. Further, it isn't even a relevant question. The relevant question would be "If we reconfigured our society around wind and solar power, could such a society simultaneously resemble our current one, while being carbon-footprint-negative?" which is a vastly more complex and unknowable question than the first one.

Basically, we believe the things we believe because they fit in with the world view we hold because of stuff our Dad told us.

I certainly believe the things I believe, but I am not so foolish as to imagine they're factual. I think my after-the-fact rationalizations are pretty solid, but there's no denying that I almost never rationalize away a previously held belief. Either my Dad was eerily right about everything, or I've probably got some stuff wrong. I just don't know which stuff.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #441 on: August 07, 2019, 01:28:23 pm »

Can you suggest a way that this could be physically possible?

I can't, but ...

Here is Environmentalist Stewart Brand Touching On It Though

Note, he does say he is for wind and solar on roof tops and other areas that wont effect already existing natural habitats.  But he is still very grounded in that fact that the foot print and diluteness really make wind/solar an impossibility. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #442 on: August 07, 2019, 01:33:27 pm »

What is so delightful about all these questions is that all of us have beliefs, but none of us really know.

Belief, in general, precedes rationalization. But rationalization almost invariably supports the initial belief. Sure, our ideas change, and we like to think it's because we've carefully researched things and the facts have changed our minds, but this is a delusion. What happened was that the zeitgeist surrounding us changed. Either our social/family circle changed, or the set of things our family and friends actually believe has evolved and changed. Change in "what everyone knows" does occur, but it in general does not occur within a single person, as an event within that person.

It is a gestalt that emerges from the community. Well-positioned media can, with a delicate touch, introduce gradual change. From The Atlantic to Fox and Friends, media manipulates our ideas, and we think we're being rational.

Even an apparently simple question like "Is the carbon footprint of Wind Power positive, negative, or neutral?" is fractally complex in several dimensions, and admits nothing even slightly resembling a factual answer. Further, it isn't even a relevant question. The relevant question would be "If we reconfigured our society around wind and solar power, could such a society simultaneously resemble our current one, while being carbon-footprint-negative?" which is a vastly more complex and unknowable question than the first one.

Basically, we believe the things we believe because they fit in with the world view we hold because of stuff our Dad told us.

I certainly believe the things I believe, but I am not so foolish as to imagine they're factual. I think my after-the-fact rationalizations are pretty solid, but there's no denying that I almost never rationalize away a previously held belief. Either my Dad was eerily right about everything, or I've probably got some stuff wrong. I just don't know which stuff.


Nice deflection, but what should I expect.  I have never seen you ever actually argue a point with real data and evidence.  You always fall into the, I'm right, your wrong and don't dare ask me to prove myself. 

As the left like to say, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."  There are plenty of fact on what wind and solar can actually do.  We are not talking about some abstract subject here, or something that is so very complex it is hard to nail down anything, like macro economic theory. 

It's pretty simple.  This is how much solar and wind farms on average produce, this is how much land they take up, and you very easily figure out the shear amount of land needed to produce all the energy we need from wind/solar, which is an eye popping figure.  Compare that to nuclear, which is not so eye popping. 

You can also look at all of the admitted to work-arounds to get wind/solar to work, like the land needed and storage solutions, and compare that to the much smaller needs of other base line power productions.  Once again, the pluses are not on the wind/solar side. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 01:38:56 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #443 on: August 07, 2019, 01:42:57 pm »

The point is that arguing any of this crap with "data and evidence" is a lost cause. It's not even hard to conduct an analysis based on hard facts and evidence that produces whatever result you like, because these questions are fractally complex. Vested interests on all sides of these issues have produced millions of words of such analysis, complete with charts and graphs, each study produces, to nobody's surprise at all, precisely the result most favorable to the relevant vested interest.

You'd think we'd have learned something from the extensive scientific research proving that cigarettes are harmless, but apparently not.

Neither you nor I truly has the capacity to thoroughly evaluate any of this material, and if we did we're use our skills and knowledge to produce yet another imperfect study which, to nobody's surprise at all, produced the result we wanted. So, it turns into a war of "well, there's THIS study that.." and "aha! That study foolishly assumed..." and so on. It does not end, and it does not make even a slight feint in the direction of truth. It's just masturbation.

I don't actually know what the way forward is, it is pretty disheartening to watch.

Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2824
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #444 on: August 07, 2019, 01:45:26 pm »

 

LOL, this apocryphal story is at the very beginning of the automobile industry, but with wind/solar ...

Arguably wind power production has been around since the Dark Ages, but insofar as producing electricity the first wind turbine was introduced in 1850.  Solar cells were first discovered in 1839 by French scientist Edmond Becquerel.  So, both industries have been around long enough where an objective historical view can be had.

Maybe. But advances in materials science may produce great changes than we think now, and they're not easy to predict. Not that long ago, photographers in pubs were saying that we'd never have full-frame digital sensors at reasonable prices. :)

This discussion is taking place in an era where, for some reason, lots of people have convinced themselves that oil prices will remain low forever (or at least till we die), and that alternate technologies will not improve to any great extent in either generation or storage capacity. Continent-wide electricity generation will continue to comprise many modes of generation. Solar and wind will work where they work and will not work where they don't work. I am not sure I understand why we're having such a vehement debate, it's as if someone's ideology was at stake. We choose appropriate engineering solutions, that's what we always do, with some trials and errors along the way. If oil ever hits $200 per barrel, everything will change. When have things not changed?

It's not as if our governments are bankrupting themselves to force alternate sources down our throats while starving Big Oil. So far as I can tell, Big Oil is doing fine. As for the complaints that governments shouldn't be interfering in this, I tend to ignore that because people change their minds very easily on that when it suits their own wallet. (Just check out all the tax subsidies for pro sports. I bet if you took a survey, everyone of those team owners calls themselves free-market capitalists.) The suitability and scalability of alternate sources need to be investigated and government is best placed to do that kind of long-term research. No one else will. So a few jurisdictions implement solar and wind and in 25 years we'll look back and figure what went wrong and what went right.

And yes, you're probably right about nuclear energy. So let that industry do its own marketing, but my gut tells me that they're going to have a difficult uphill struggle. A culture has emerged that believes in magical thinking, where objective data and facts don't seem to exist anymore. We created this monster, now we have to lie in bed with it, to mangle a metaphor.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 01:48:55 pm by Robert Roaldi »
Logged
--
Robert

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #445 on: August 07, 2019, 01:49:38 pm »

There was a group of blacksmiths having a brew at a pub in 1905. They started to discuss those new-fangled automobiles. Have you seen one yet?, one guy said. They're noisy, smelly, go too slow, and need someone on board who knows how to repair one every hour or so. They can't travel on our muddy roads and the tires burst all the time. And they scare all the horses. And what's worse, they need gasoline. Where can you get gasoline? What do people think is going to happen, that we're going to dig up oil from deep holes all over the planet, refine it in huge factories and ship it to corner stores in every city for people to buy when they need it? That's going to cost a king's ransom, no one has the money to build all that. It's a joke, it'll never happen.

(This story may be apocryphal.)

It was done by Private Industry not government.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #446 on: August 07, 2019, 01:54:11 pm »

The point is that arguing any of this crap with "data and evidence" is a lost cause. It's not even hard to conduct an analysis based on hard facts and evidence that produces whatever result you like, because these questions are fractally complex. Vested interests on all sides of these issues have produced millions of words of such analysis, complete with charts and graphs, each study produces, to nobody's surprise at all, precisely the result most favorable to the relevant vested interest.

You'd think we'd have learned something from the extensive scientific research proving that cigarettes are harmless, but apparently not.

Neither you nor I truly has the capacity to thoroughly evaluate any of this material, and if we did we're use our skills and knowledge to produce yet another imperfect study which, to nobody's surprise at all, produced the result we wanted. So, it turns into a war of "well, there's THIS study that.." and "aha! That study foolishly assumed..." and so on. It does not end, and it does not make even a slight feint in the direction of truth. It's just masturbation.

I don't actually know what the way forward is, it is pretty disheartening to watch.

Once again, apples to oranges.  You cant do a controlled experiment on smoking.  Well, actually you could, but it would be highly immoral.  Looking at raw data on wind solar is much more straight forward. 

Furthermore, to suggest we cant actually determine any hard truths completely negates modern science and the scientific method.
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2824
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #447 on: August 07, 2019, 01:54:58 pm »


It was done by Private Industry not government.

Like Enron? Or AIG? Leyman Brothers?  :)

Logged
--
Robert

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #448 on: August 07, 2019, 01:55:51 pm »

Sure, but at what point do you stop and start trying something else.

I agree, and a simple litmus test is when commercial companies start investing in production units (they may start investing during research already, but that doesn't guarantee success).

This is the current real time situation in the Netherlands regarding wind production:
https://windstats.nl/statistieken/

The cost of these installations is dropping, so newer installations have a reduced break-even period (and/or more output over its life), and the latest (sea-based) windpark consessions are totally without subsidies. That's a signal to me that the proposition is financially viable.

Another interesting practical statistic is that newer placements have an increasing tip height (higher windspeeds at higher altitude).

Quote
Insofar a hydrogen, I agree, it looks promising, so long as it can become efficient.  Remember, splitting water requires so much energy that we dont use it and nearly all commercial hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.

Well, nothing tried, is nothing learned.

In my town, a test is being prepared together with the Energy Agency in charge of the network to transform natural gas lines to deliver hydrogen gas instead in a part of the municipality. That will be an interesting learning curve. It's an interesting location, in a foresty area not suitable for wind power generation, and at our approx. 52-degree latitude solar energy is not an optimal solution. Solar is an excellent complementary source with a 10-year payback period, at current energy prices. During the summer period, individual homeowners are selling their electricity surplus back to the energy company.

City buses and an increasing number of transportation companies, are converting to (hydrogen fuel cell) electric vehicles to reduce city emissions, as diesel engines are banned. Things are moving in the right direction, and not just because it makes economic sense.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #449 on: August 07, 2019, 01:57:54 pm »

The point about the cigarette studies was that you can make a study that proves whatever you like. You'd think people would be a lot less trusting. I guess people ARE less trusting, but they still tend to trust the studies that purport to prove whatever it is that they believe, and to deny the results of the others.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #450 on: August 07, 2019, 02:02:13 pm »

Maybe. But advances in materials science may produce great changes than we think now, and they're not easy to predict. Not that long ago, photographers in pubs were saying that we'd never have full-frame digital sensors at reasonable prices. :)

This discussion is taking place in an era where, for some reason, lots of people have convinced themselves that oil prices will remain low forever (or at least till we die), and that alternate technologies will not improve to any great extent in either generation or storage capacity. Continent-wide electricity generation will continue to comprise many modes of generation. Solar and wind will work where they work and will not work where they don't work. I am not sure I understand why we're having such a vehement debate, it's as if someone's ideology was at stake. We choose appropriate engineering solutions, that's what we always do, with some trials and errors along the way. If oil ever hits $200 per barrel, everything will change. When have things not changed?

It's not as if our governments are bankrupting themselves to force alternate sources down our throats while starving Big Oil. So far as I can tell, Big Oil is doing fine. As for the complaints that governments shouldn't be interfering in this, I tend to ignore that because people change their minds very easily on that when it suits their own wallet. (Just check out all the tax subsidies for pro sports. I bet if you took a survey, everyone of those team owners calls themselves free-market capitalists.) The suitability and scalability of alternate sources need to be investigated and government is best placed to do that kind of long-term research. No one else will. So a few jurisdictions implement solar and wind and in 25 years we'll look back and figure what went wrong and what went right.

And yes, you're probably right about nuclear energy. So let that industry do its own marketing, but my gut tells me that they're going to have a difficult uphill struggle. A culture has emerged that believes in magical thinking, where objective data and facts don't seem to exist anymore. We created this monster, now we have to lie in bed with it, to mangle a metaphor.

I just want to solve climate change as fast as possible, but also don't want to see the environment destroyed from clear cutting for wind/solar farms.  This is why I am so passionate about it. 

It is just all the data shows nuclear plants are better than energy farms at both, so why bother with wind/solar farms. 

Insofar as solar panels on roofs, sure, sounds good.  Until you figure out it is twice as expensive as producing electricity on solar farms which are 4 times as expensive to produce energy than nuclear, so solar panels are 8 time (3 stops) more expensive then nuclear.  I just feel it is a waste of money. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #451 on: August 07, 2019, 02:04:28 pm »

The point about the cigarette studies was that you can make a study that proves whatever you like. You'd think people would be a lot less trusting. I guess people ARE less trusting, but they still tend to trust the studies that purport to prove whatever it is that they believe, and to deny the results of the others.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Alright, alright, you got me. 

I'll agree some people, and, sometimes, many people, will choose to ignore the evidence that disagrees with their already determined "truths." 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #452 on: August 07, 2019, 02:10:37 pm »

I agree, and a simple litmus test is when commercial companies start investing in production units (they may start investing during research already, but that doesn't guarantee success).

This is the current real time situation in the Netherlands regarding wind production:
https://windstats.nl/statistieken/

The cost of these installations is dropping, so newer installations have a reduced break-even period (and/or more output over its life), and the latest (sea-based) windpark consessions are totally without subsidies. That's a signal to me that the proposition is financially viable.

Another interesting practical statistic is that newer placements have an increasing tip height (higher windspeeds at higher altitude).

Well, nothing tried, is nothing learned.

In my town, a test is being prepared together with the Energy Agency in charge of the network to transform natural gas lines to deliver hydrogen gas instead in a part of the municipality. That will be an interesting learning curve. It's an interesting location, in a foresty area not suitable for wind power generation, and at our approx. 52-degree latitude solar energy is not an optimal solution. Solar is an excellent complementary source with a 10-year payback period, at current energy prices. During the summer period, individual homeowners are selling their electricity surplus back to the energy company.

City buses and an increasing number of transportation companies, are converting to (hydrogen fuel cell) electric vehicles to reduce city emissions, as diesel engines are banned. Things are moving in the right direction, and not just because it makes economic sense.

Cheers,
Bart

Sure, but without any government incentives, or at least not any that are larger then competing technologies.  And anyway, you Dutchmen have always been pretty good with windmills. 

If the newer installations work so well, hopefully you will be able to show us the technology and not be like Belgian style beers brewed outside of Belgium, always seeming to lack something.   
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4194
    • advantica blog
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #453 on: August 07, 2019, 03:32:45 pm »

I just want to solve climate change as fast as possible, but also don't want to see the environment destroyed from clear cutting for wind/solar farms.  This is why I am so passionate about it. 

It is just all the data shows nuclear plants are better than energy farms at both, so why bother with wind/solar farms. 

Insofar as solar panels on roofs, sure, sounds good.  Until you figure out it is twice as expensive as producing electricity on solar farms which are 4 times as expensive to produce energy than nuclear, so solar panels are 8 time (3 stops) more expensive then nuclear.  I just feel it is a waste of money.

I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #454 on: August 07, 2019, 03:42:02 pm »

Like Enron? Or AIG? Leyman Brothers?  :)


No like Ford.  They helped create the auto industry and also created an effective assembly line.  And FOrd raised their employees salaries above what the rest of the country was paying without "minimum wage" laws.  Also, Ford did not take a dime from the government like General Motors and others did in 2009 because the latter's unions and the companies needed to be bailed out. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #455 on: August 07, 2019, 03:58:20 pm »

I agree, and a simple litmus test is when commercial companies start investing in production units (they may start investing during research already, but that doesn't guarantee success).

This is the current real time situation in the Netherlands regarding wind production:
https://windstats.nl/statistieken/

The cost of these installations is dropping, so newer installations have a reduced break-even period (and/or more output over its life), and the latest (sea-based) windpark consessions are totally without subsidies. That's a signal to me that the proposition is financially viable.

Another interesting practical statistic is that newer placements have an increasing tip height (higher windspeeds at higher altitude).

Well, nothing tried, is nothing learned.

In my town, a test is being prepared together with the Energy Agency in charge of the network to transform natural gas lines to deliver hydrogen gas instead in a part of the municipality. That will be an interesting learning curve. It's an interesting location, in a foresty area not suitable for wind power generation, and at our approx. 52-degree latitude solar energy is not an optimal solution. Solar is an excellent complementary source with a 10-year payback period, at current energy prices. During the summer period, individual homeowners are selling their electricity surplus back to the energy company.

City buses and an increasing number of transportation companies, are converting to (hydrogen fuel cell) electric vehicles to reduce city emissions, as diesel engines are banned. Things are moving in the right direction, and not just because it makes economic sense.

Cheers,
Bart
NYC already has 800 of its 5800 buses operating on natural gas LNG.  Some of these 800 buses will be switched to renewable methane which comes from decomposing garbage New Yorkers throw out in our dumps.  As an aside, most of the latest standards for pollution in all the world's cars was imposed by the USA (mainly California).  Just to point out the even without Paris, America is at the leading edge of reducing pollution and making energy have less impact on the environment.  Frankly, if government got out the way and stopped picking favorites that they subsidize, private industry would help move us to the most efficient and practical saving the most money yet providing the best technology to reduce emission of CO2 and pollutants.

"Renewable natural gas (aka RNG or Biomethane) made from the biogases produced by decomposing organic waste can be used as a substitute for conventional CNG in any of the 800 CNG buses in the MTA’s 5,800 bus fleet. Better yet, the combination of this ultra-low-carbon fuel and new “near-zero” emission engine technology is a true climate and clean air winner, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% or more and reducing health-threatening particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 90% compared to the cleanest diesel engines."

https://energy-vision.org/city-council-letter-rng-for-nyc-buses/

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #456 on: August 07, 2019, 04:04:39 pm »

Alright, alright, you got me. 

I'll agree some people, and, sometimes, many people, will choose to ignore the evidence that disagrees with their already determined "truths." 
Even if we were able to release all the pertinent facts without tainting them with spin, you'd still be faced with "feelings" and "emotions".  For example, how much money should be spent on cancer research vs. reducing pollution?  How mush should we spend on each?  There are limited resources for everything we want to do.  WE all draw a line in these matters.  For example, should you install 3 smoke detector in your home or 6?  Well, 6 seems like it would protect your family more, and it will.  But the marginal percentage of safety let's say 5% is a decision you make in your gut.  You may want the extra money required for going out to dinner or buying a new pair of shoes for your kids.  These are all feeling type decisions that can't be quantified with statistics.  A government is faced with a similar situation.  Where should tax money be spent?  We fight about these things all the time.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4500
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #457 on: August 07, 2019, 04:12:31 pm »

I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.

If there were no tax incentives and government rebates, this would not be that much of an issue for me.  If someone wanted to pay the full price for solar panels installed on their roof, even given the fact that it is 8 times more expensive then nuclear and fossil fuel power generation, that is on them. 

The problem I have is that a large part of the expense is being covered by the government, aka all of us.  All of the data points that this is a waste of money when nuclear is a clearly better option.  So that is the problem I have; why are we allowing them to waste money on technologies that don't work as well as others. 

Just goes back to Alan's point of the government picking winners and losers, and artificially inflating bad technologies. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #458 on: August 07, 2019, 04:18:07 pm »

I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.
Solar helps the individual homeowner reduce their cost for energy.  But from a societal standpoint, the advantages are questionable.   

Subsidies and rebates the homeowner and solar companies get are paid by others that could be used elsewhere on other more important projects.  There are also upkeep costs of carbon based plants that require to be maintained and used when its dark.  Those costs are also passed on to others who use the grid. So basically, you're just transferring wealth from generally poorer people to the more wealthy who can afford to install solar or who live in stand-alone single-family homes.   Finally, if the overall reduction in CO2 is not enough to make a difference in climate change, then what's the point of spending all that money?  It would be better spent on cancer research. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11250
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #459 on: August 07, 2019, 04:37:57 pm »

I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.
Les, before you consider solar, you should have your house surveyed to see where the energy deficiencies are.  You may find that upgrading insulation and installing double pane windows will save you more money on heating and cooling than adding solar.  Those things should make your house more valuable when you sell it.  My house is so efficient insulation wise (it's relatively new), that it doesn't pay to install solar, even with rebates and tax incentives.  Also, you have to look at things like: are you using electric to heat or natural gas?  It's a lot cheaper to heat with gas. So if you have electric heat and/or electric cooking, the value of solar goes up.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 114   Go Up