Solar panel discussion

TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Iriemedicine said:
I’m just saying we are all adults and this is juvenile as fuck, all I wanted was a good discussion on solar panels without any bias and with good information. No need for any toxicity or rudeness I made that very clear from the get go.
Click to expand...
And I've made them. I'm not the one deliberately misquoting people and turning the thread into a fucking 13 year old debacle.

I have shown FACTS over and over again and you two get all butthurt over it because "my friend built a system that cut his power bill by 85%".

Pal, if that were even REMOTELY possible, EVERYBODY ON EARTH would be doing it.

It isn't. At all. Not even close.

I've talked about good systems that WILL save money, that DO increase home value, that ARE a good investment for the future and you completely fucking ignore it because "in the southwest the sun is better".

Fucking really dude?

The first step to having an "adult conversation" is admitting you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about and reading facts that someone post that does.
 
Iriemedicine

Iriemedicine

Well-Known Member
I’ve seen multiple online sources that state people in my region have dropped electrical consumption 50-100% by use of solar panels, maybe that is false, I don’t know, I’m trying to find out more info and separate the good info from the bad. This is not coming from sites that are selling solar panels either. I simply stated what my electrician told me without many details roughly how much his system cost him and how much roughly it saves him per month. End of story. If these claims are false then please direct me to some information that would reiterate your claim. If you have looked at some models and set ups please link me as I am interested in the cost and capabilities of said systems. I’m not trying to fight or start fights I just don’t want a good discussion ruined by toxic vibes. Thank you.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
INF Flux said:
I was a professional asshole for many years, aware. Doesn't change the fact that Taco Mac ruined a topic. I'm sorry your friend is an asshole, not sure what that has to do with you.
Click to expand...
Yes, presenting facts that dispute your pure, made up bullshit is just a conversation killer, isn't it?
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
LOL. You really are stupid.

Since nobody but me is posting facts, here's the answer:

Intel is the single greenest business in the U.S. They use pretty much 100% green energy (and several companies do) but green isn't just solar.

It's wind and hydroelectric. Intel's solar fields cover 52 football fields. It represents roughly 28% of the power they use. The rest is from hydroelectric and wind. Nobody uses more solar than Intel does, and nobody gets 100%, or even 50% for that matter, of their power from solar.

Links (not that you'll read them) : https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/10-companies-utilizing-solar-power-support/
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intels-3-million-square-feet-solar-panels-help-heat-cool-light/
 
eyderbuddy

eyderbuddy

Well-Known Member
This thread got derailed really fast, lol.

Btw, i posted the 3kw system, from google... And just as an example of what could be bought with 10k with minimum effort.

I have no stakes in this thread

I'm out!
 
Iriemedicine

Iriemedicine

Well-Known Member
“Two comparably sized households in Californiaand Massachusetts consume the average amount of electricity for an American household, about 11,000 kWh annually. The California household needs a 7.0 kWh system to cover 100% of their energy needs. By comparison, the comparable household in Massachusetts needs an 8.8 kWh systems to cover their energy needs. Solar panel systems in California are smaller than the solar panel systems in Massachusetts but are able to produce the same amount of power because they’re exposed to more sunlight each year.”


Won’t let me post a link but I’m sure if you copy and paste the above to google you will find the article I quoted.



That’s not pertaining to my region in specific but first bit of info I saw stating that solar can potentially cover 100% of residential house hold electrical consumption in areas with constant, intense , direct sunlight. So can you please either contribute to this discussion or just get the fuck out of this thread if you have only your shitty attitude to bring to the table?
 
Iriemedicine

Iriemedicine

Well-Known Member
INF Flux said:
I was hoping to discuss the tesla roofs, Considering getting on the list. Where I am the elec and payment plan negate each other so no change to monthly bill.
https://www.tesla.com/solarroof
Click to expand...
I keep hearing more and more people talk about Tesla but I’m literally clueless as to how it works and what It’s about. I’ll have to do somemore reading. Might actually head to the library later this evening and see if they have any books on either.
 
INF Flux

INF Flux

Well-Known Member
Iriemedicine said:
I keep hearing more and more people talk about Tesla but I’m literally clueless as to how it works and what It’s about. I’ll have to do somemore reading. Might actually head to the library later this evening and see if they have any books on either.
Click to expand...
So it's lifetime guaranteed, on grid and replaces your roof. Installation is about the same as building a roof. So it makes great sense for a new home, a bit less for an older one unless you need to replace the roof (my situation in a few years)
You do have to have one of their power walls installed somewhere, but they've done a good job with making it a vertical structure so it's not such a space hog.
Aside from all that, seems to be a straight forward system and a lot of folks are stealing the design to DIY. plenty of vids on youtube about that.
I'm just dipping my toes into the solar knowledge well and am not sure the Tesla option is best, but it sure is pretty and convenient.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Iriemedicine said:
“Two comparably sized households in Californiaand Massachusetts consume the average amount of electricity for an American household, about 11,000 kWh annually. The California household needs a 7.0 kWh system to cover 100% of their energy needs. By comparison, the comparable household in Massachusetts needs an 8.8 kWh systems to cover their energy needs. Solar panel systems in California are smaller than the solar panel systems in Massachusetts but are able to produce the same amount of power because they’re exposed to more sunlight each year.”

Won’t let me post a link but I’m sure if you copy and paste the above to google you will find the article I quoted.

That’s not pertaining to my region in specific but first bit of info I saw stating that solar can potentially cover 100% of residential house hold electrical consumption in areas with constant, intense , direct sunlight. So can you please either contribute to this discussion or just get the fuck out of this thread if you have only your shitty attitude to bring to the table?
Click to expand...
Let's break this down to where it all becomes clear. This will be my last attempt to educate you folks.

The average American home uses right at 11,000 kw (10,866 to be exact) per year. That is not exclusive to California. That boils down to about 30 kw per day.

Now, a 7kw system will run you around 25,000 dollars less whatever incentives are running at the time.

That system, running full tilt will produce right at 25 kw per day on average. Of course it's lower in the morning, a bit higher at peak sun and then lower again in the evening. The important thing to remember is that it doesn't produce this AT A CONSTANT RATE.

So that right there should get you asking, "how can a system that produces 25kw per day provide 30+kw per day of power?"

It can't.

You can't run this solar system to your air conditioning system and run it full tilt non stop. It simply doesn't produce the amount of amperage needed to push that level of power. If you did do it, the AC would kill the entire system VERY quickly. Then you'd be back to square one of waiting until the next day for the sun to recharge the battery banks completely. (for the record, the typical AC unit will use about 3.5 to 4 kw PER HOUR.)

What you do with solar is power everything else: all your lighting, your TV set (provided it's not an old dinosaur projector or some other power hungry device) your computer, etc. All of your basic household circuitry.

Even with that, under normal usage your battery banks will be expended in about 6 hours to the point it will switch off to recharge, so the last few and first few hours of ever day are spent charging exclusively without ability to use, then they charge as they discharge as well to extend usage at peak hours.

Contrary to what the article states, which I could not find by the way, you will NOT get 100% of your power from that system. I think what it's trying to do is say you can get 100% of your non-appliance power (power for everything except major appliances such as AC, refrigerator, dish washer, water heater, etc.) from that system, which would hold water. You can expect to save about 1,500 to 1,800 dollars per YEAR on your power bill.

That's a far fucking cry from the 340 per month claimed at the start of this thread by somebody that will remain unnamed.

That is, in fact, the same level system we looked at installing and decided against it solely because of the money up front needed to get it going. To us, it simply wasn't worth it with the few incentives we were offered at the time.
 
INF Flux

INF Flux

Well-Known Member
Just to educate for those following along, What tacomac is doing is called a "Strawman Argument" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Basically you attack the person you are debating on an issue they never put forth. Tacomacs system was introduced tangentially by eyderbuddy and no claims were made about it by the op or anyone else. "Solar" is not restricted to that one setup but apparently Tacofuck wants everyone to pretend it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top