Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power The Almighty Buck

Getting the Most Out of Your Green Buck? 98

Posted by Cliff from the earth-friendly-electricity dept.
batobin asks: "My dad is thinking of installing a solar photovoltaic system on the roof. After tax credits, it'll cost $12,000. In Santa Barbara, where we live, our power company grants credits when the meter runs backwards and saves the credits for 12 months, reducing our monthly power bills year round. If the contractor's math is correct, the amortization period (when our power bill savings equals the installation cost) is about 12 years. With environmental and geo-political concerns in mind, is this the best use of our money? Will reduced consumption translate into cleaner air / less dependence on fossil fuels? What other environmentally proactive investments could be made with 12 grand?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Getting the Most Out of Your Green Buck? More

Getting the Most Out of Your Green Buck?

Comments Filter:
  • From a strictly hedonistic point of view, no, there are much better things to do with the money. But some people think the pro-environmental solution is worth it, as well. So it really depends on how you weight your values. I would not go this route, although I've often thought of wind generation for a property I own. In your situation, I would try to save energy use in other areas.
    • From a strictly hedonistic point of view, no, there are much better things to do with the money.

      Twelve passive years for 100% ROI is pretty good. Especially if the system lasts for longer than that.

      Wind might be even better--although as I understand it you need a relatively considerable investment to achieve worthwhile current.
      • Except that if you put 12 grand in a money market account at 3% return, you'll have more than 12 grand in 12 years.

        You have to think of the future value of money.

        In fact, if you invest wisely, you may never catch up.
        • There's a lot of factors; what if the price of electricity from the utility company goes up during those twelve years? What if you use the solar panels to charge up your electric or hybrid car, too? :)

          On the other hand, what if new technology rolls out later that significantly reduces the cost or improves reliability/lifetime of solar technology? Like solar "mats" that withstand damage and are made more cheaply, and can be more easily installed, instead of inflexible, heavy panels? You have to wonder wheth

        • Duh (Score:2)

          by lorcha ( 464930 )
          That's why god invented home equity loans.

          Get a $12,000 home equity loan at 6% amortized over 30 years and you're paying $71.95/mo for your solar panels (it's $101.26/mo amortized over 15 years if you want to pay off faster).

          What's your electric bill? The electric bill on my house is about $100-130/mo, so I'd be saving money every month with $0 out of pocket. I could invest that $12k wherever I wanted and deduct my interest payments on my taxes. Of course, I don't live in cali, so none of this reall

          • Who said anything about taking out a loan? They asked about spending the cash now.

            I would take it out on 0% no annual fees credit cards.

            All my credit cards are on that. 0% interest, no annual fee, no transfer fee. What? Your credit is not that great?

            Then keep rolling them onto new introductory offers. I've not paid 1 cent on interest on $20,000 in 3 years.

            Now, yes, I have the money in the bank, but that's earning 3 and change (ING savings), so I can pay off the credit cards anytime.
            • You are decimating your credit score in order to earn $600/year.

              And to top it off, you aren't even using a high-rate money market account.

              But at least you feel smart, and I suppose that is what is most important.

              • My credit score is 800. I used to work in real-estate banking. Credit cards count against you if you don't have the cash to cover them, or if you're planning on using _that_ cash to use as a down payment. Credit extended and not used counts against you more.

                I have complete cash availability, and I didn't say that was the only monies I had invested.

                I'll leave the trollish comment about feeling smart alone.

                On the investment for solar panels: you're right, taking out a loan is probably best. Also, it will i
      • 1=((1+X)^12)-1

        X=6%

        Given that inflation is running at 2.4%, this is a pretty crappy return. Energy upgrades that I've done to my house have averaged ~80% annualized returns. I think you're better off taking the capital markets appreciation from $12,000 in perpetuity and investing it in:

        1) Energy saver lighting
        2) Better insulation
        3) A swamp cooler replacing air conditioning
        4) Water heater insulation
        5) Recycling services if your city doesn't provide them
        6) LCD monitors vs. CRT
        7) Efficient refrigerator, fu
    • I would not go this route, although I've often thought of wind generation for a property I own. In your situation, I would try to save energy use in other areas.

      Or, you can go another route. You can "purchase" 100 kWh blocks of wind energy for $2.50 per block [newwindenergy.com].

      While your particular residence will not be powered by wind, one of the participating grids will purchase X blocks of wind power instead of having to generate those blocks via fossil.

      - Tony
  • So ya wanna spend 12 grand to help the environment eh?

    Off hand a few other ideas:

    1) How about a hybrid gas/electric vehicle (or if you can find one, an all electric one)? They do better in mileage than all gas vehicles and do near zero emissions. Consider this one carefully though. Also 12 grand alone probably won't cover it, you're going to have finance approx. 8 grand or so.

    2) Looked at your air conditioning and/or heating systems lately? Cheaper investments, though the returns on your electr
    • An argument about hybrids: 26850 Accord EX V6 (no sat nav) 21/30 mpg 30140 Accord Hybrid (no sat nav) 29/37 mpg Price difference: $3300 Lets say you do 50/50 city/highway driving and and you get exactly what the EPA says you should get: 25.5 for the EX and 33 for the Hybrid. You drive 12,000 miles per year. So its 471 gallons per year (EXV6) and 364 gallons per year (Hybrid), or a difference of 107 gallons. At $2.10 (unleaded regular) its $224.70 more per year. You'd have to drive your hybrid for over 1
      • All true, however the primary focus I think is more Eco-Friendly than mileage (though I did seem to emphasize otherwise in my parent post). However hybrids to excel in emissions over any gas vehicle...
      • So, where does a hybrid make sense?

        In the city, where your "stop and go" driving ensures that you're running the car at its most effeciient rather than its least.

        Hybrids don't do as advertised partly because the EPA tests don't make sense for them, and mostly because they weren't designed for the long and steady runs of an American highway system.
    • "2) Looked at your air conditioning and/or heating systems lately? Cheaper investments, though the returns on your electric/gas bills won't be as much as the solar option "
      Good idea. A heat recovery system would be a good investment. Also think about a new fridge and washer and dryer. LCD tv, LCD monitor, and try and not drive one day a week. Even if it is Saturday or Sunday.
      • >try and not drive one day a week

        Don't drive to work at all. Find a job & live where you can take public transportation to work.

        -kb, the Kent who does drive on weekends.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I looked into this about 4 years ago and things might have changed since then...

    Doesn't it take more power to manufacture a solar panel than that solar panel will produce in it's lifetime? That was the primary factor in the expense of manufacturing of solar panels. So, by going solar you will save money over the years, especially when you take into account inflating energy prices. But better for the environment, not really. Possibly worse if you add in the industrial waste of t
    • No, this hasn't been true for almost 20 years.

    • Re:Solar is not so green (Score:5, Informative)

      by bbrack ( 842686 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:24PM (#13018060)
      Not true, solar panels should have a break-even point of about 2 years. Couple this with an expected lifetime of >20 years (If you're in an area where you don't get much severe weather, this could be easily double).

      http://www.solarbus.org/documents/pvpayback.pdf [solarbus.org]

      In addition, semiconductor manufacturing processes do not create nearly the amount of pollutants as in years past, and most manufacturers have very aggressive recycling policies (the company I work for recycles 85-90% of all our waste)

      That said, a hybrid/electric vehicle, more efficient appliances, even better insulation would probably provide a quicker ROI.

      Good Luck!
  • A few more considerations:

    You didn't factor in ongoing costs for maintenance and repair. I'd be surprised if you could operate the system for twelve years with no upkeep.

    Will this system change your dad's homeowner insurance premium?

    On the upside, you'll have some daytime electricity during power failures.

    • On the upside, you'll have some daytime electricity during power failures

      This is not exactly true. if you're tied into the grid in such a way so that your meter spins backwards, if the power goes out, your solar will go into the grid but you won't be powering your house with the solar that you produce. The giant pull that then happens on your solar grid won't be able to support all your neighbors and such so your house will go out to.

      I have solar on my house, a 4.5 kW system and its sure nice to have i
  • If the contractor's math is correct, the amortization period (when our power bill savings equals the installation cost) is about 12 years.

    What's the lifetime on solar panels? I would imagine there's some sort of capacitance/battery involved - in which case won't you have to replace those on a regular basis? /me r not a solar guy - just genuinely want to know

    • Re:Solar panel lifetime? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:56PM (#13018448) Journal
      You can go for a 'grid-interactive' system, which basically just has an inverter connected to both the solar panels and the grid. With grid interactive units, no batteries are needed, although there are disadvantages, chiefly that most grid-interactive systems shut off if there is no grid power.

      Basically two operating modes:

      Sunny day - the house gets its power from the solar panels, with any excess going 'into' the grid. You may get a cheque in the mail from your electricity provider for the power you send into the grid, you may not - it all depends. If you're at work 5 days a week and the house is basically empty, you should get some cash back, and with appropriately-sized panels, your power bill should zero out.

      Rainy day and nighttime - the house gets its power from the grid, and your 20 grand's worth of panels sit useless on the roof, while your neighbours mock you :-)

      Grid-interactive's probably the way to go if your existing grid supply is reliable, and your provider has some environmental smarts about it.

  • You burn MORE fossil fuels this way (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As far as we know, photo-voltaic systems are not "self-sustaining". That is, every kilowatt hour of energy your system produces in it's entire lifetime will not be more than the kilowatt hours that were used up to purify and crystallize the silicon, and make the PV system. (In the last year there has been one paper that suggested a certain type of PV might be self-sustaining, but that won't be the type you are installing.)

    To illustrate, here's a thought experiment: if every other source of energy quit w

    • Parent is very informative. I hope the mods take notice.

      I wonder if other roof-installed solar applications suffer from the same drawbacks as you mentiod (solar water heaters, for instance).

      Although, most water heaters today are powered by natural gas. It would probably be more dollar-efficient to reduce consumption of other combustables (oil, coal, etc.).

    • I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but according to this study [solarbus.org] (linked in someone's comment above in this thread, "Production photovoltaic module payback is significantly less than its expected lifetime."

    • ... every kilowatt hour of energy your system produces in it's entire lifetime will not be more than the kilowatt hours that were used up to purify and crystallize the silicon, and make the PV system.

      That is false.

      It clearly doesn't take more than $12,000 worth of energy to make a solar panel that sells for $12,000.

      If a solar panel makes more electricity than it costs to buy the panel, it's a net energy gain.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?

    • Urban legend alert! (Score:5, Informative)

      by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @10:04PM (#13018478) Journal

      As far as we know, photo-voltaic systems are not "self-sustaining". That is, every kilowatt hour of energy your system produces in it's entire lifetime will not be more than the kilowatt hours that were used up to purify and crystallize the silicon, and make the PV system.

      This is a myth [energy.gov]. After two to four years, there is a net gain. (It also fails the sniff test: if the myth were true, they would have to sell them for less than it costs to make them.)

      --MarkusQ

      • if the myth were true, they would have to sell them for less than it costs to make them

        But that's not what the parent said. He or she said it takes more energy to produce them then they will generate in their expected lifetime.

        That has little or nothing to do with the actual cost. Energy, in most forms, is still reasonably cheap.


        • He or she said it takes more energy to produce them then they will generate in their expected lifetime.

          Ok, right. But if it were to take more energy to produce than they generate, they would be sold for less than their cost to manufacture. eg If they require 1500 kw to produce, at $.15/kw, that'd be $225 in energy costs to produce. However, if they were only able to produce less energy than they required they'd only be able to save the consumer the amount they could produce eg if they max produced 1000

          • So you'd have to pay $225 to save $150

            Of course, this statement is predicated on the theory that the cost of electricity per unit of energy is uniform throughout the universe.

            I suspect that you are correct that the manufacture a PV cell typically uses less power than that cell will produce over its lifetime. (On the other hand, I imagine that running homes on PVs is a net environmental loss given the totality of the effects of the manufacturing process.)

            In any case, your logic is rotten.

            -Peter

          • So if it costs more in energy costs to produce than is saved over the course of their lifetime, when is that extra energy paid for?

            That's basically the whole point of the argument. People will still buy solar because it's supposedly better for the environment, without investigating it. It's entirely possible for them to sell them this way.

          • Ok, right. But if it were to take more energy to produce than they generate, they would be sold for less than their cost to manufacture.

            Almost certainly not. Non-rechargable batteries take more energy to produce than they generate, but batteries are still sold at a profit.

            So you'd have to pay $225 to save $150; and of course you wouldn't.

            I wouldn't, but there's a sucker born every minute. Moreover, solar panels are generally not used to power houses, but to bring power to places where running wires

          • So you'd have to pay $225 to save $150; and of course you wouldn't.

            That assumes:
            a) that all information is available to the customer.
            b) that the prospective customer has done the maths.
            c) that the customer acts rationally.

            If you ask me, those are some pretty big assumptions.

        • if the myth were true, they would have to sell them for less than it costs to make them

          But that's not what the parent said. He or she said it takes more energy to produce them then they will generate in their expected lifetime.

          That has little or nothing to do with the actual cost. Energy, in most forms, is still reasonably cheap.

          Uh, run that by me again? If X what I pay for a solar panel and Y is what it is worth to me (the net amount of reduction in my utility bills) then Y > X or I wouldn

          • Excuse me for jumping in, but allow me to play devil's advocate.

            Perhaps the inconsistency is the price of energy the PV factory pays and the price of energy a homeowner pays. Let's throw out some (fake) numbers. The PV panel is built using 100kW and will produce 80kW over its lifetime. The factory, buying bulk energy from a nearby hydro-electric plant is charged 50cents per kW.

            The company takes the panel and sells it to my dad. Our power comes from far-off nuclear, coal, and hydro plants and costs 1

            • Perhaps the inconsistency is the price of energy the PV factory pays and the price of energy a homeowner pays

              No. There is no inconsistency: just a few people who know nothing about pricing a product. The amount of energy it cost to make is a vanishingly small consideration in the price it is sold for. It's sold for what the market will bear. So if it cost $50 of electricity to make, and will generate $45 in energy during its lifetime, there's no reason the company can't sell it for $5,000 if enough peo


              • So if it cost $50 of electricity to make, and will generate $45 in energy during its lifetime, there's no reason the company can't sell it for $5,000

                But the issue is that there is no one suggesting that anyone pay $5,000 to save $45 in utility bills. All of the arguments for solar power that I've seen argue that you save more money in lowered utility bills than you spent on the panels. Therefore, the cost to you must be less than the $45 it saves in energy.

                Even if the power cost of manufacture is 1/10

                • I think it comes down to who you believe. The AC who started this line of discussion, or the two [solarbus.org] studies [energy.gov] that have been cited.

                  I guess I'm inclined to believe the panels pay themselves off eventually (the web sites say 2 years, our contractor says 12). I'm also inclined to believe that before the panels die their net environmental impact would be positive.

                  But from what others are saying, it looks like solar water, new appliances, and home insulation should take precedence.

                  • the web sites say 2 years, our contractor says 12

                    The difference is the other costs of manufacture (labor, material, etc.) and the profit they make on them.

                    But from what others are saying, it looks like solar water, new appliances, and home insulation should take precedence.

                    I'd strongly agree. And don't forget to look at things like "trip elimination"--by telecomuting and buying UHT milk (keeps for months without refridgeration) I've cut down significantly on my driving, compared to going into the o

                • People don't buy these just to be green: they buy them because over the life of the unit they expect to save money.

                  Correct: they're mostly not trying to be green. Most users of solar electricity aren't doing it so they can get off the grid and switch to cheaper power; they generally don't have ready access to an electrical grid in the first place. So the benefit they get from solar energy has a much higher cost than someone who is on-grid and looking to save money over the long haul.
                  If it costs $10,00

      • Busted! :) Thanks, parent... It always smelled funny to me but I'd never bothered to look it up.

        I wonder who started that myth... hmm, starts with "big" ends with "oil"?
      • (It also fails the sniff test: if the myth were true, they would have to sell them for less than it costs to make them.)

        Well, except for the tax credits making it possible to sell them for less than it cost to make them. At least from the point of view of the end consumer.

  • swap the car for a diesel, and run BioDiesel (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:11PM (#13017988)
    Replace your car with a diesel VW, and run BioDiesel. Producers of BioD get a tax credit for producing it, so it's competitively priced with regular dinosaur-diesel, and the slight decrease in BTUs of the fuel is mitigated by the more complete and more efficient combustion of said fuel, due to the higher cetane rating. Figure 45 mpg, and you get a real car, with a real stereo and trunk, no banks of potentially hazardous batteries to recycle in X years, and you're not sitting in the middle of a giant magnetic field while driving.
    BioDiesel solves the chicken and egg problem, and its a fuel with similar energy density to petroleum fuels, unlike ethanol, or god forbid, hydrogen.
    BioDiesel also comes close to closing the carbon cycle, since the carbon in the fuel came from the air to begin with. Because it doesn't come from the ground, there's no sulphur or metals in it.
    • BioDiesel also comes close to closing the carbon cycle, since the carbon in the fuel came from the air to begin with. Because it doesn't come from the ground, there's no sulphur or metals in it.

      Dude, the carbon in fossil fuels comes from biomass that's been heated under pressure over geological time... it's been through the atmosphere too. The cycle is just a heck of a lot longer. Your point about metals and sulfur probably has merit though.

  • Buy pollution credits? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaptainStormfield ( 444795 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:12PM (#13017994)
    You could buy $12K worth of pollution credits from these guys [cnn.com]. This would likely result in a greater net reduction in pollution, but of course you don't get any financial return on investment.

    • I thought of this too. With regard to getting a return, one might be able to sell them on the open market in 12 years. If enviro-groups continue buying credits at the current rate, supply will have shifted inward and the price will be higher.

      Of course, then you're allowing companies to pollute again. But at least mother nature got a 12 year break.

      • I believe these are futures contracts, which means they expire on a certain date. So you can hold on to them until expiration, and not actually use them, thus losing your entire investment, or you can sell them to someone else before expiration, possibly make a profit, but cause no effect whatsoever to the environment.

  • You should wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:31PM (#13018083) Homepage
    There was just recently a "breakthrough" [slashdot.org] in solar photovoltaic techonology. You may want to wait a year or two and see if that technology pans out. If so, it would be a much cheaper solution.

    And, your Dad won't be pissed when your neighbor buys a similar solar panel rig for 20% of what he paid.

    • Re:You should wait... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, I've been doing the same thing with computers. I haven't bought a new one since 1987. There's always some cool new tech just around the corner that I don't want to miss out on. I've been sitting back, waiting til the market stabilizes...
      • Point taken, but I fear that you're comparing apples and oranges. While the logic in waiting to make a computer purchase is questionable, the logic in waiting for new solar technologies (in this case) could be legitimate.

        In computing terms, this could be the equivalent of jumping from a Pentium 1 to a Pentium 4 in only a year or two.

  • Wired Article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by akmolloy ( 686919 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:36PM (#13018104)
    I just got through reading a Wired story about new Rooftop Mirror Arrays available in the fall. Unfortunately, the story isn't avail on-line until July 11: http://www.wired.com/wired/ [wired.com] The Rooftop Solar Revolution Dotcom king Bill Gross wants to sell you a high-energy, low-cost solar concentrator that will fit on your roof. And overthrow the powers that be. I have no idea if this is applicable to you, but I thought you might enjoy the info.
    • I read the article and I am still not all that comfortable with his solution. His tracking system is way cool, but using mirrors to cheaply concentrate power onto solar panels was tried years ago.

      The result was burned out panels... too much heat cooked the cells. (A utility sized concentrated solar project failed from panel burnout for example) Also photovoltaic panels are more efficient at lower temps. Hard to do with something sitting in the sun and even tougher when you a tripling the amount of solar

  • Not Worth It (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:54PM (#13018176) Homepage

    Photovoltaic still isn't economical and really is not all that green either. There are better ways to be environmentally proactive.

    • Solar hot water heaters cost about $1000 and have a 3 year ROI.
    • Replace your refrigerator with an efficient model. If you have a freezer, get rid of it.
    • Start recycling vegetable waste into compost, rather than wasting it in landfill. You can buy kitchen compost bins these days, and they don't smell, so even apartment dwellers have no excuse.
    • Catch public transport once or twice a week; reduces your carbon output more than any other change you might make.
    • Redirect water from the gutter to a storage tank for later use on the garden, rather than flushing it to the sewerage.

    Don't bother with photovolatic. Not yet. The manufacturing process is polluting and the ROI is not worth it.

    • Redirect water from the gutter to a storage tank for later use on the garden, rather than flushing it to the sewerage.

      Do you by chance happen to have a horrible mosquito problem near your home?

    • Replace your refrigerator with an efficient model. If you have a freezer, get rid of it.

      How do you freeze stuff then? Getting rid of something you actively use isn't really a solution if you don't have anything to replace it with.

  • The best answer (Score:3, Funny)

    by heinousjay ( 683506 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:13PM (#13018246) Journal
    You should donate that money to my "Pave The Earth" project. You see, once the entire earth has been paved, people will be able to drive in straight lines to their destinations. The fuel savings will be astronomical, pollution will drop dramatically, and everyone will be happier.
    • Better yet, start a project that bulldozes all roads and replaces them with rails. It'll wipe out pollution and traffic 100%, except for the industrial zones and airport. The citizens will love you for it and you'll get rich fast. At least it worked for me in SimCity.
  • Personally, I'd manufacture a still (legal for fuel purposes) for producing ethanol. you can convert most gasoline running engines to run on ethanol w/ little inconvenience. use the 12 grand for the conversion of a car/truck/lawnmower, etc... and the facilities to create and store ethanol. Check out Brazil. They've had excelllent progress with this.

  • Reduce consumption (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamstan ( 110049 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:36PM (#13018344)
    What are you using so much power for?

    Temperature control (heating and cooling) can be better done through passive means, ie: insulation, shading, ventilation, low-e windows.

    Use the kiss principle, don't buy electronic gismos for every little thing. Do more manually, the human body is designed to manipulate manual tools. Don't throw away the gifts that all those generations of evolution have given you.

    Move to a tiny apartment within walking distance of jobs, schools, restaurants, bars, theaters. Lose the car. Shop less, live more.
    • Yeah, that's it. His dad is going to sell the house he owns and move into a tiny apartment. He'd be better off flushing the 12 grand down the toilet and staying where's he is.

    • Re:Reduce consumption (Score:3, Insightful)

      by batobin ( 10158 )
      Actually, the house we have is pretty prime in terms of location. Supermarket is a 5 minute walk away, which means no car when we're not buying a ton. My dad's office is within biking distance, so on nice days he can do that.

      I appreciate your "back to the basics" approach, but I don't see the harm in modernization. There are lots of reasons to use computers, and only one way to power them. I don't suppose yours is powered by a hand crank?

  • There are other ways, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Myself ( 57572 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:42PM (#13018383) Journal
    PV is great for off-grid systems, it doesn't disrupt the local hydrology like a hydroelectric system, and it doesn't make any noise like a wind turbine. The energy per dollar is pretty poor, however.

    You'd make a bigger dent in energy usage by putting solar water heaters on your own home and the homes of several friends. They have a much more direct energy cycle and a much shorter payback period, and they're just as silent and unobtrusive as photovoltaic.

    Personally I hate fluorescent lights; they give me eyestrain and headaches, so I won't put them in all the fixtures in a room. If there's already daylight or incandescent light in a room, a CFL fixture works well as "fill-in" lighting, but never as the only source. YMMV.

    Other important steps would be to consolidate servers (VMware can help) and put as much as possible onto low-power PCs. I can't find a good CPU comparison table of FLOPs per watt, but such data should be easy to compile.

    I wonder about the embodied energy in LCD monitors, are they as expensive to produce, energy-wise, as photovoltaics? Large semiconductor devices of any sort are pretty tricky to manufacture. If anyone has this data, please link it.
    • For "mainstream" current generation CPUs, here goes (mobile Celerons use more than equivalent Pentiums when not at load, FWIW):

      Pentium/Celeron M Dothan > Pentium/Celeron M Banias > Turion 64 MT series > Mobile Sempron 90nm > Mobile Athlon 64/Sempron and Turion 64 ML series > Sempron > Athlon 64 DTR > Athlon 64 > Northwood P4 > Athlon 64 FX > Prescott P4 > Athlon 64 X2 > Pentium D

      That's, of course, rough estimates off the top of my head. VIA says that their C7 kicks Pent
  • No one seems to have mentioned the bill that is currently wending its way though California legislature. If it passes, there will be substantial incentives to putting solar power on your roof.

    You might want to put yout 12K into an eco-friendly mutual fund for a year or so to see if that pans out, then invest it into solar panels.

    Let's hear it for Arnie trying to appear a little green before the next election.
  • Alternative energy "pay back" formulae are a guess at best. Unless you have an equivalent contract with your grid electric supplier for approximately the same projected time span, with a locked in price guarantee for KWHs, you have *no idea* whatsoever what your electric bill will be years or decades down the road. Therefore, any long term alleged "payback" estimates are almost pure guesses. AFAIK this is only available (joe-residential long term price contracts, ten years) at one place in the US, in Austin
    • grrrr, if the power goes out and it is DAYTIME... go outside and Freakin do something! I have seen this response like 5 times so far in this thread and it just smacks of stupidity.

      When I lose power the only time it sucks is night-time... and then I use an eco-friendly "candle"

      Honestly, all this eco-crap makes me sick. It is all B.S. that makes people with too much money feel good about themelves. Gee... dive a Prius it only is packed to the gills with hazardous batteries... but never mind that, it's so ec
      • umm, I am a farm worker, and don't make that much money, very low in fact. I would imagine as slashdot posters go I am outside a significant amount, most likely more than you.. I also live where the grid power goes out frequently, twice in the past week for example, and having storage batteries is a good thing. I can whip on the 12 volt TV to see the weather map, run a laptop to get on the net (if the phonelines stay up and aren't noisy)if I want, run a reading light, the shortwave,etc.

        My solar is *very* p
        • OK so you live in an area with poor electricity... I live in PA in a small town and also have poor power. My power used to go out 3 times a day until recently. When it was daytime, I would use that as an excuse to get outside and do something. When it was night, I throw some batteries in a radio or read by a candle/booklight. Again, solar panels, windmills, electric cars were never a requirement to live.

          Let me ask you a question: If everyone drove a Toyota Prius, in 5 years or so when the batteries stop ho
          • I understand where you are coming from, so here's an answer. It's not the *only* answer but it's an answer. You're one dude, so am I. I can do what one dude can do. I can't change the entire world, tra la la make it better. I *can* change my personal immediate environment for the better, the much better. Ya, I got candles and oil lamps, but a nice 12 volt light or radio or tv is just so much better when the mains are borked, and it's cheaper than drycell batts. I can't just say POOF SHAZZAM and get everyone
  • No, this is not the most worthwhile use of your money. That will be $11,995.00 for my consultation fees.
  • If our government laid out a program to develop a photovoltic shingle for houses and business rooftops and began mass installations of them around the country the prices will come down due to the mass production of them.

    While not impacting the bill of a single house very much the larger impact with a large system across the country would impact our energy usage as a whole.

    Phase 1 could just be 2x2" embedded cells in shingles that go back to the recovery system until they could develop cells that could wit
  • Okay, with the used VW TDI car, you get very good mileage (40mpg or better), which is not as good as hybrids (when hybrids are at their best), BUT, you can run them on biodiesel, which you can't do with hybrids currently available in the U.S.
  • What you need to do is get two low-guage power cords, electric tape, a wire cutter, a spade, and a flashlight. PVC tube optional.

    First, measure the distance from your nearest neighbor's outdoor power outlet. Splice the two power cords so that combined they are long enough to reach from your neighbor's outlet to your connection to the grid. Be sure to splice so that both ends are male, so you can plug it in at both ends.

    Next, on the next new moon, go out with your spade and slice a trench from your grid po

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close