Solar Panels – Several Thousand Dollars? I don't think so...

Just a quick thought... Most people may think of the cost of Solar Panels being maybe several thousand dollars per home at least.

But, when you think about mass-production and materials cost (even when you add up the cost of travel) I'm sure it's only a mere fraction of the 'retail cost'...

I think it would be more beneficial to the cause of dealing with global warming (and I do acknowledge those who do disagree...) to consider this cost in 'real terms'...

Just a thought...

I priced out about $5,000 for my roof. As it catches on, the prices will come down.

The Government could certainly help with a realistic rebate.

Who do you thinks gonna pay for your miraculous government funded rebate?

the every day citizen with their taxes.

Bingo.

"(and I do acknowledge those who do disagree...)"

Really? I disagree. Acknowledgment does not mean forcing ME to pay taxes on some science fiction that YOU believe in.

Science fiction isn't that a little uneducated? It works and saves power thats not ever arguable the only problem is that it takes a couple years to pay them selfs off.

Thats why the government might support this cause is to get the prices down. The question is would people be willing to purchase such things even with government incentive.

There are a lot of thing that we are forced to pay tax's on that don't directly benefit us. This doesn't mean that we should allow these programs to continue or that we should eliminate all of them either.


But you live in a republic awakend meaning that you only hold the same rights as the majority holds them to be. You must pay tax's to remain a citizen. But you do hold the right as a citizen in are republic to argue your point so present evidence on why solar panels are not a good idea.

But YOU as a citizen must understand that your tax dollars will only be used for what the majority thinks they should be used for. There for you will 1000's of dollars by the end of your life spent on things that you will never see. Its just how a republic works.

Instead of a rebate one might consider a tax deduction for having them. Or simply point out the fact that solar is a joke and can't used for anything for heating and electricity during the day time. While something like geothermal is unlimited and works all the time. But this is all debatable ... solar may be the answer but i don't agree that is were we should throw are money.

"But you live in a republic awakend meaning that you only hold the same rights as the majority holds them to be:

Im not going to read the rest of your post. I dont live in a republic I live in a god damn democracy where our CONSTITUTION reings supreme over all. The constitution was not desinged to give power to the greater, it was made to do that exact opposite, To protect the individual. Learn your country, then tell me about its government.

"A democracy is a form of republic as far as I know."

Correct, and I apologize for my tone. It is my belief that my founding fathers created America with the idea that every man has the chance to succeed and that every man should have an eqaul oppurtunity at that. That is what I believe the American dream is. The chance to succeed. The american dream was never meant to be a utopia where all the people succeed and everyone shares, that would be nice, but thats not america. America is great because it allows its people to fail and does not get in the way of its peoples success, or thats what I believe it was supposed to be.

That the government would spend ANY money on a science that is not yet decided to be fact or fiction is a sign that we are going in the WAY wrong direction, because it is no longer about the opportune success of the individual, it is about the appeasement of the masses, which is what I meant by my previous post. As I said, I apologizw for my tone.

If you would like to dispute with me the nature of Americas dream, feel free. Im all for conversation. But if you are going to tell me that you are going to tax me in order to get a lobbyist groups agenda accomplished, im going to call you un-american. Now, I know that a lot of people on this site are in fact not american and I am nto saying that your way is wrong, im jsut saying that it isnt america and I would appreciate it if people would stop trying to socialize a country that I BELIEVE is great because of its peoples opportunity to fail.

"the government would not be creating funding for solar technology, they would be redirecting already dedicated funding from other energy sources."

This means taxing someone (big oil) for someone elses benefit (lobbyists)

"Your precious McAin and Clinton both wanted to use tax dollars to subsidize fuel prices"

Decius, this was very insulting and cocky, I have apologized for my tone, I would appreciate it if you did the same.

I hate both of them. They both suck balls of a very different kind.

"Eliminate them from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET. If the states want to pick them up, so be it. The reason why I feel that that is ok is because state law, unlike federal law, is easy to get away from, just move somewhere else.

"majority holds them to be."

This statement still holds to be false in AMERICA. The individual holds rights here, not the majority.

"I hate both of them. They both suck balls of a very different kind."

Scratch that. They suck the same balls.

I appreciate all the comments...
One thing is that, the initial post was not about subsidies or taxes. It was about looking at cost price of something, like how much it would cost an individual who knows how to construct and install the technology and get materials 'at cost'.

In Australia, there are subsidies for solar panels, although recently being based on income-test.

Solar could provide for electricity around the clock, provided there is a way of storing (like batteries, which are currently available).

When I said I acknowledge those who disagree, I merely meant to say that not all people believe in global-warming. Global warming or no, some of the renewables seem very user friendly. For example, a solar panel or wind-powered generator, do not seem to take much upkeep or fuel. Whereas, coal and nuclear both need constant maintenance, fuel and related costs (like transporting coal from one place to another)

I apologize, I did not mean to direct any of my frastration to soemone that just wanted a little perspective. It really had nothing at all to do with you but more the other members of this site.

And I agree. If energy can be created in a low cost low polution way that will never run out... well who in the right mind would so no to that. I just don't like being taxed for attempted innovation.

Black gold I think my opinion on this subject may have been over looked by the conversions leading in a totally opposite direction.

Like i said geothermal is a very good resource that can power every country in the world all the time with stable energy if you look into this it would be much more efficient then solar.

Although solar is a great way to save money on heating (in fact I would support promotion of it for just that reason but). From what I've read batteries are very expensive to set up it large numbers. And it also losses it efficiency as the product ages.

Zachfrenzel, you're dead right about the pitfalls of Solar and batteries...
Although, I guess wind is a slightly different story...

Geothermal could be the way to go, although I wonder on it's availability for different locations, and specifically placing stations near mass populations...
Unless it's as easy as digging a whole 'til you hit magma or something...
I don't think it works like that (does it?)

Anyway, the point of the thread was to discuss the cost price vs. retail price... Nothing to do with subsidies, just cutting out the middleman, and such... Although, I guess if there is a better system, it should be at least mentioned here... With cost price, things that could be important seem more do-able...

I personally feel geothermal will be the way to go in the future. A MIT report estimated that there was enough energy in hard rocks 10 km below the United States to supply all the world's current needs for 30,000 years.

The system works by drilling two holes about 10 km down or until they hit a heat system or hot dry rock formation. If water is already present they we collect the steam generated which in turn powers turbines creating electricity or they fracture the rock between the two holes and pump water down to create that steam.

Geothermal power plants work continuously, day and night, making them efficient. It also makes geothermal energy is extremely price competitive in some areas and reduces reliance on fossil fuels

for a vitual tour of the interworkings of a geothermal power plant go to http://www.geothermal.org/virtualgeo.html

Will be taking the tour...
But, I guess it is as easy as drilling 'til you hit magma!!!

Quite the surprise... There would still be applications for other energy sources. For example, you can easily move a solar panel, perhaps (if enough energy) fly with a panel...

Geothermal seems more realistically an option now, and I hope to understand more by looking at the site (linked by CrypticTruth)...

I guess this leads us to look more carefully at batteries, especially portability, life span/recyclable, and abundance of raw materials to produce them... Batteries of course being needed for mobile uses of electricity...