 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Here is a link:
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/electric-cars-a-bad-idea-whose-time-has-come/?eiid=&rmid=2011_09_28_PLA_[P11167147]&rrid=395224738
More and more I find evidence of a campaign by which solar panels and electric cars are being demonized, as if those things are bad.
Those things are sources of independent power.
So long as a Solar Panel continues to cost the user less than the cost of the power that the Solar Panel produces so long will the Solar Panel be a competitive independent power.
Which investments work better than a Solar Panel, what is the return on investment of a Solar Panel?
The cost of the investment is the price of the Solar Panel.
If a person buys new, from a vendor, the buyer pays for a lot of extra costs compared to a person buying parts, and assembling those parts.
If the cost of buying a Solar Panel is less than the cost of paying for all the electricity produced by the Solar Panel what is that difference in power spent and power consumed?
I've read that a Solar Panel bought today can conceivably be paid off in 5 years as the cost of electricity produced adds up to the same amount as the price of the Solar Panel.
In other words.
You pay 1000 dollars for the Solar Panel.
5 years go by and you produce 1000 dollars worth of electricity with the Solar Panel.
What happens if the Solar Panel still produces 1000 dollars worth of electricity for 20 more years; since they have been guaranteed to produce for 25 years?
These are very rough mathematical illustrations of the general point; and the general answer is easy to see.
In 5 years the Solar Panel pays for itself.
The Solar Panel keeps paying out for 20 more years.
Compared to a savings account where the money saved is paying out 3% while inflation is 6% is a net loss of 3%.
Compared to a savings account the Solar Panel is a net gain of 100% after 10 years. 200% after 15 years. 300% after 20 years. 400% at the end of the projected life span (depreciation) of the investment.
Where does that report where the reporter demonizes Solar Panels get off?
Electric Cars are currently manufactured in American by Tesla Motors. Tesla Motors is a viable business despite the huge amounts of subsidies flowing to the competition in the non-competitive automobile market. It is non-competitive because of the subsidies flowing to the "socialist" (and I use that term loosely) automakers.
Where does that reporter get off?
Electricity is a power source, and independent people can now sell electricity by law, and in so doing an individual person competes with any competitor including the heavily subsidized "socialist" power companies.
Where does that reporter get off?
What is his problem?
I think he is being paid to tell lies.
You can think whatever is in your power to think.
Good luck.