John Adams Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 This article says that the CA gov't has spent 4.5 million (so far) outfitting 52 homes with solar panels that will provide a house with heat during the winter. Do that math. That's about a 850,000$ per home. They should be able to recoup that cost at about the time the sun goes supernova. Expensive Garages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Hippies kick ass. I'm kind of curious as to how much was spent on the system used in the latest "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." The house was built in California for a family of eleven (one family of six Polynesians had taken in 5 black kids whose parents had died) and the rebuilt house was SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the old but would use 70% less energy. The Governator heard about the deal and showed up for a photo op. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 This article says that the CA gov't has spent 4.5 million (so far) outfitting 52 homes with solar panels that will provide a house with heat during the winter. Do that math. That's about a 850,000$ per home. They should be able to recoup that cost at about the time the sun goes supernova. Expensive Garages 291407[/snapback] When I do the math, it comes out to about $85,000 per home. Granted, that's still a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 When I do the math, it comes out to about $85,000 per home. Granted, that's still a lot of money. 291456[/snapback] And you'd be correct. John signs his signature boldly but his math skills are somewhat lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. 291493[/snapback] You forget, solar power = hippies = RJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. 291493[/snapback] Solar energy isn't a bad thing, it's just that it requires too much money to implement (maybe not $85k a house, but you could drop $45k easy), and it still won't get you 'off the grid'. You're spending money on a system that won't last past the time it takes to break even on it (you'll have to replace panels and batteries). If there's any hope of widespread use and acceptance, someone will have to design a more efficient and durable Photovotaic cell. If they can generate enough electricity and last long enough to break even after say, 2 to 3 years, I think people would accept that. I personally can't afford it right now. How about nuclear power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 And you'd be correct. John signs his signature boldly but his math skills are somewhat lacking. 291457[/snapback] Well, at least he has his law degree to fall back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 there is a light rail system in trenton new jersey that costs somewhere around $45 per rider per ride. edit: the number is $77 per rider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Well, at least he has his law degree to fall back on. 291524[/snapback] You know what's sad. I am an engineer by undregrad and scientist in grad school... who practices law as my job. In adding the multiple of 10, I must have thought I was billing a client for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Solar energy isn't a bad thing, it's just that it requires too much money to implement (maybe not $85k a house, but you could drop $45k easy), and it still won't get you 'off the grid'. You're spending money on a system that won't last past the time it takes to break even on it (you'll have to replace panels and batteries). If there's any hope of widespread use and acceptance, someone will have to design a more efficient and durable Photovotaic cell. If they can generate enough electricity and last long enough to break even after say, 2 to 3 years, I think people would accept that. I personally can't afford it right now. How about nuclear power? 291523[/snapback] There are different kinds of solar panels, including solar hot water panels. Those last for quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo 65 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. 291493[/snapback] Yup that's part of the Cheney energy program. They are also taking away tax credits for buying hybrids, but leaving them for buying a vehicle as useless and wasteful as a Hummer. Rule of thumb with Bush policy: anything Dick Cheney is involved with is bound to be an idiotic disaster. Well I hope you wingers are happy. You finally killed the good bishop. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050330/1037154.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 You know what's sad. I am an engineer by undregrad and scientist in grad school... who practices law as my job. In adding the multiple of 10, I must have thought I was billing a client for a second. 291743[/snapback] That's okay. Remember in Canada they use the metric system, so nothing adds up the same... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Yup that's part of the Cheney energy program. They are also taking away tax credits for buying hybrids, but leaving them for buying a vehicle as useless and wasteful as a Hummer. Rule of thumb with Bush policy: anything Dick Cheney is involved with is bound to be an idiotic disaster. Well I hope you wingers are happy. You finally killed the good bishop. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050330/1037154.asp 291755[/snapback] Typical "full of crap" post from one of our resident wackos. Currently in place are $2500 tax credits for hybrids bought since 2000. That is in effect until 2006, when it drops to $500. Nothing says it can't be raised or extended, nor that it won't be. In fact, the energy bill that the Democrats have filibustered contained tax credits from $500-$3000 for taxpayers who bought fuel efficient cars (not just hybrids). Don't let facts get in the way of your silly partisan rants, though. As far as the "Hummer loophole" - that too was a bipartisan rider put in place to ease the burden on farmers by giving them the ability to buy new heavy (over 6K lb GVWR) vehicles. Gotta hate the fact that smart people take advantage of the government when they don't get it right, since it's inverse of how the system usually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Well, looks like they're well on their way with wearable solar cells that make you a walking cell phone charger: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000263038315/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hippies kick ass. 291427[/snapback] A great American philosopher of the late 20th and early 21st century once said... I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts! --Eric Cartman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. 291493[/snapback] IBM's first computer chips were funded by................................. You guessed it. IBM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo 65 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Typical "full of crap" post from one of our resident wackos. Currently in place are $2500 tax credits for hybrids bought since 2000. That is in effect until 2006, when it drops to $500. Nothing says it can't be raised or extended, nor that it won't be. In fact, the energy bill that the Democrats have filibustered contained tax credits from $500-$3000 for taxpayers who bought fuel efficient cars (not just hybrids). Don't let facts get in the way of your silly partisan rants, though. As far as the "Hummer loophole" - that too was a bipartisan rider put in place to ease the burden on farmers by giving them the ability to buy new heavy (over 6K lb GVWR) vehicles. Gotta hate the fact that smart people take advantage of the government when they don't get it right, since it's inverse of how the system usually works. 291977[/snapback] Hey Durwood I knew I could coax you out with some bread crumbs. Btw I love your recent thread where you cited the whole downfall of WNY by the closing of some cheezy-ass prew pub in suburban Rah-cha-cha! Give that man subpoena power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hey Durwood I knew I could coax you out with some bread crumbs. Btw I love your recent thread where you cited the whole downfall of WNY by the closing of some cheezy-ass prew pub in suburban Rah-cha-cha! Give that man subpoena power! 292412[/snapback] Your reading comprehension skills are as rudimentary as your politics. Quick, create another handle and log in from the Public Library while pretending you have a "friend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 are also taking away tax credits for buying hybrids, but leaving them for buying a vehicle as useless and wasteful as a Hummer. Actually, the hummer loophole is being closed this year so your post isn't 50% wrong as AD had speculated, it's 100% wrong. good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts