• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Traditional Install
$20,000 - $40,000
Traditional Installs are a great way to go solar if you don't mind a large up front cost. Typically systems like this will pay for them selves in 5-10 years depending on electricity usage. Because of the longer term ROI most people choose to go with a Power Purchase Agreement where you can skip the install cost and just pay for the power.

What determines the prices of a solar system:

  • Size of System
  • Type of roof (shingle, spanish tile, etc)
  • Size of roof and shade coverage
Power Purchase Agreement (Recommended)
$0 - $500
Often the most affordable way to buy solar is through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). With a PPA we do all the work of designing, installing, and maintaining your system and you agree to purchase the power you use from the panels.

If your power bill is over $150/mo going solar will usually save you money in the next month. Here are some of the benefits:

  • Easiest solution
  • Most customers reduce their monthly power bill by at least $50 (no hidden fees).
  • No maintenance costs
  • No equipment risk
  • Locked-in low-price electricity rates
The easiest way to go solar
Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) are usually the easiest and fastest way to go solar. Instead of buying and installing all the equipment and taking on the cost of maintenance, a PPA will allow you to pay for the power you use from the panels on your house. We take on the cost of installation and maintenance as long as you agree to buy power from those panels.


graph1.jpg


A sucker's game. You sign a 20 year contract to buy power that is generated from the leased solar panels at a given rate that competes with projected rate increases. Of course, the whole scam is predicated that the solar panels will generate nearly 100% of your power needs during the daytime. You pay whatever the rate to your utility company for power used provided by the utility.
 
Depends on the winter.

I've had 'em freeze solid in under an hour.

But that's what the garage and spare room are for.

.
 
In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies
Journalists discover (and misrepresent) what the oil giant has been trying to tell them for years.

Scurry on board the Exxon prosecution express. Lest they be left behind and called “deniers,” Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley,the attorney general of New York and Al Gorethis week all demanded criminal investigation of Exxon Mobil as a result of recent media “exposés.”

Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Thursday agreed, saying, “There’s a lot of evidence that they misled people.”

Not one of these worthies likely examined the evidence, which tells a story quite different from the claim that Exxon somehow concealed its understanding of the climate debate. But the hurdle rate for “investigative” journalism has apparently become low. The allegedly damning documents that the Los Angeles Times and the website Inside Climate News (ICN) claim to have unearthed were published by Exxon itself, in peer-reviewed journals, on its website, and in archives created by Exxon for public use.

Technically, the reporters wallow in the equivocation fallacy. Uncertainty about whether X=2 is not the same as uncertainty about whether 2+2=4. Acknowledging and even studying man’s impact on the climate, as Exxon has done and continues to do, is not tantamount to endorsing a green policy agenda of highly questionable value.

And that’s the real problem. Read closely and the accusation isn’t really that Exxon misled the public by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science, which are real. It’s that Exxon refused to sign up for a vision of climate doom that would justify large and immediate costs to reduce fossil fuel use.

This fantasy is summed up in the ICN series by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann,who is quoted as saying, “All it would’ve taken is for one prominent fossil fuel CEO to know this was about more than just shareholder profits.”

But wait, hasn’t this experiment been run? In the early 2000s, BP CEO John Browne began sounding a climate alarm. Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell, gave a speech warning of planetary doom. In 2007, Alcoa, GE, Duke Energy, Ford, DuPont and others endorsed a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. Yet all this failed to move the ball in two successive congresses because Senate Democrats (the second time joined by President Obama) didn’t want to be blamed for jacking up gasoline prices.

The same experiment has also been run globally. Out of 196 countries, 196 have concluded that there is no way, with current technology, to take a big enough whack out of carbon-dioxide emissions at a cost their societies would be prepared to bear.

Even Mr. Obama’s decision on Friday to nix the Keystone XL pipeline came at a time of low gas prices when he will never face voters again, and in full knowledge that his decision won’t impede Canada’s development of its oil sands.

But why stop at Exxon? President Obama is aware of the threat of climate change—he talks about it all the time—yet has presided over an expansion of oil and gas leasing. Vice President Al Gore endlessly harped on climate change—yet when confronted with a modest uptick in gasoline prices during his presidential run, insisted that President Clinton open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low.

The U.S. government controls 31% of America’s mineral rights, and has 42,000 drilling leases in effect covering 80 million acres. Federal lands produce 41% of America’s coal output. Elsewhere, governments control 100% of mineral rights. Wherever it operates these days, Exxon is mainly an agent for governments determined to realize oil revenues regardless of any climate fears.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-exxon-war-bamboozled-by-greenies-1446852517

The hypocrisy of the left and the green wackos. Big oil is the blame. Check out the who Michael Mann is; the inventor of the "hockey stick" statistical graph to bolster global warming claims.

PAGES2k_MBH991.png



From MIT Review

Global Warming Bombshell
A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago–just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
 
Surprise, Surprise.

But remember in the 1970's we were going to be frozen to death, and a mere 10 years later our goose was supposed to be cooking.

Kill them all and start over.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top