What do you know about SOLAR energy?

[Heather in Neverland]

As part of his physics lesson, my ds built a solar-powered fan. It is really cool! As soon as the solar panel is in direct sunlight, the fan starts whizzing. So he started asking a lot of questions about WHY we don't make more use of solar energy in our city/state/country, etc.

 

I really have no idea as it is not something I have studied. Anyone care to take a jab at the question?

[Heather in Neverland]

bump

[newbie]

I am going to try a stab at it, but I am not all knowing.

 

We have looked into solar energy for our house several times. The problem is it is sooooo expensive to get it and get it started, that its impossible. What needs to be implemented, and I know i am going to get shot at, more government incentives and programs to make the initial investment cheaper.

 

Even w/rebates that they say they offer in CA. its still next to impossible. If it was easy to get, I am sure more people would have it, why not.

 

In other countries, they offer more incentives and better programs. Here, not so much, I guess thats not where the money is for large corporations. Plus, they import most solar products, there needs to be more domestic producers to cut cost. I could go on, but I am starting to ramble.

 

Bottom line, in America is initial cost and not enough programs to help the consumer.

[Caroline]

It has been 16 years since I took any graduate level solar cells class, so my information is dated. Back then, taking into account the cost of production and the lifetime of solar cells, it was not cost effective. Energy from other sources was still cheaper. Recently, the prof from whom I took this class got venture capital funds to start a solar panel production company. This event says to me that Dr. Rohatgi has figured out a cost effective way to produce solar cells. If you google his name and Georgia Tech, you might find some good information. My DH and I have been talking about adding solar panels to our home. Might be a good research project for DS14.

[Heather in Neverland]

I had a feeling it was a cost issue. Such a shame.

[dangerdad]

It also has to do with how much energy can be captured. Here in Chico, CA we have lots of sunny days, but even then the peak energy is 1 kW per square meter. Commercially available photo-voltaic panels have an efficiency of around 15% last I heard (in the lab they're above 40%).

 

There's an automated sensor in town that I can use to calculate the whole year's insolation, and then compare against my electricity bill. Last I checked, it would take over 20 square meters to collect the energy necessary to fully power our house. But then the peaks and valleys of energy delivery would require some energy storage (which adds some inefficiency as well).

 

And we already have very steady energy available for a low price, coming from the wall. If there were more nuclear plants, the price would go down even more and be just as reliable as burning coal.

 

Solar remains a nice solution if you're away from transmission lines. But that's about it unless the price can come down and the efficiency can go up.

[TammyinTN]

Here in Europe they use lots of solar energy...lots of solar panels. They also have wind turbine things....lots of those. They are much more into that here...and I know they give discounts and incentives for using them on your property.

[Liz CA]

I am going to try a stab at it, but I am not all knowing.

 

We have looked into solar energy for our house several times. The problem is it is sooooo expensive to get it and get it started, that its impossible. What needs to be implemented, and I know i am going to get shot at, more government incentives and programs to make the initial investment cheaper.

 

Even w/rebates that they say they offer in CA. its still next to impossible. If it was easy to get, I am sure more people would have it, why not.

 

 

 

We built fairly recently - about 3 years ago, and would have loved to be able to incorporate solar or go exclusively solar but the the cost was prohibitive.

We will have our well pump on solar- babystep but better than nothing.

There is also the factor of having to provide storage space for a large number of batteries if you want to power a whole house by solar.

We live in a sun drenched area and getting solar to work should not be so difficult but I don't know how it would work in areas where there is a lot of overcast, cloudy, rainy weather. Perhaps they would have to resort to wind energy.

[HollyinNNV]

The best way to find out the problems of solar energy is to research a couple of things.

 

#1 How much energy does the average consumer use. Or find out how much energy the average city (you choose the population) uses.

#2 How much solar would you need to provide the energy for that city. Figure it out by looking at how much energy solar farms provide. Especially look at the acreage of the solar farm. In other words, how many acres of solar do you need for a city or for a person.

#3 Next look at how expensive the solar farm was to build.

#4 Finally, compare the price tag to hydroelectric, nuclear and fossil fuels.

#5 For older students, look at the problems with how to store power. What will your solar city do on cloudy days? How many cloudy days does your city experience in a year?

 

After doing the math, and looking at the land required for solar farms, you'll see the bigger picture. We did this for an engineering competition. After all the research we did, I'm convinced (unless we discover new technologies) that solar will never be "the" main power source-ever. It is too expensive and requires too much land.

 

Holly

[Heather in Neverland]

The best way to find out the problems of solar energy is to research a couple of things.

 

#1 How much energy does the average consumer use. Or find out how much energy the average city (you choose the population) uses.

#2 How much solar would you need to provide the energy for that city. Figure it out by looking at how much energy solar farms provide. Especially look at the acreage of the solar farm. In other words, how many acres of solar do you need for a city or for a person.

#3 Next look at how expensive the solar farm was to build.

#4 Finally, compare the price tag to hydroelectric, nuclear and fossil fuels.

#5 For older students, look at the problems with how to store power. What will your solar city do on cloudy days? How many cloudy days does your city experience in a year?

 

After doing the math, and looking at the land required for solar farms, you'll see the bigger picture. We did this for an engineering competition. After all the research we did, I'm convinced (unless we discover new technologies) that solar will never be "the" main power source-ever. It is too expensive and requires too much land.

 

Holly

 

I am going to save this post as this is an excellent idea!

[creekland]

Like others, we've looked into it, but it's way too cost prohibitive for our house - and we live in a northern climate, so it can be iffy in winter. However, we did change our fence charger over to solar (for our ponies) and like that MUCH better. If there's a power outage, our charger still works. I'm not 100% sure it will pay for itself, but at the time we needed a new one anyway, so went with the more expensive option hoping for the best...

[RegGuheert]

So he started asking a lot of questions about WHY we don't make more use of solar energy in our city/state/country, etc.

 

I really have no idea as it is not something I have studied. Anyone care to take a jab at the question?

It's a good question! Aren't inquisitive children a blessing?

What needs to be implemented, and I know i am going to get shot at, more government incentives and programs to make the initial investment cheaper.

You are correct, you are getting shot at!:D While I agree with your basic premise that solar is not cost effective in America, my personal belief is that this is BECAUSE of too many government incentives, not too few. Last time I looked into it (during the early Bush II years), the federal government was subsidizing the coal industry to the tune of $2B/year compared with solar at $70M/year. That's a funding ratio of about 28.5:1!:confused: When you consider that these subsidies to coal/nuclear have been ongoing for DECADES, what you realize is that we pay a LOT more for traditional energy than our power bills indicate.

 

My thesis is that solar power is currently CHEAPER than both coal and nuclear power, but that we, as consumers, cannot realize this benefit since we are forced to pay for the traditional sources, whether we want to, or not.

The best way to find out the problems of solar energy is to research a couple of things.

 

#1 How much energy does the average consumer use. Or find out how much energy the average city (you choose the population) uses.

#2 How much solar would you need to provide the energy for that city. Figure it out by looking at how much energy solar farms provide. Especially look at the acreage of the solar farm. In other words, how many acres of solar do you need for a city or for a person.

#3 Next look at how expensive the solar farm was to build.

#4 Finally, compare the price tag to hydroelectric, nuclear and fossil fuels.

#5 For older students, look at the problems with how to store power. What will your solar city do on cloudy days? How many cloudy days does your city experience in a year?

 

After doing the math, and looking at the land required for solar farms, you'll see the bigger picture. We did this for an engineering competition. After all the research we did, I'm convinced (unless we discover new technologies) that solar will never be "the" main power source-ever. It is too expensive and requires too much land.

I've seen this calculation done many times, but I feel there are several fallacies included in most of them. Here are some issues I have with the above:

 

1) As mentioned above, it is important to consider all CURRENT and PAST subsidies that were applied to all technologies considered. This changes the calculations DRASTICALLY.

2) Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power are best suited for CENTRALIZED applications. In other words, you have a large power plant and distribute the power to the loads. Solar power (specifically photovoltaics) are best suited for DISTRIBUTED applications. When comparing a centralized system to a distributed system, it is important to consider BOTH the entire cost of the power plant PLUS its distribution system when you look at the cost of the centralized system. This HUGE additional cost is often overlooked.

3) It is important to consider that there are distinctive technical differences between centralized and distributed power generation systems. For instance, a centralized system can be completely brought down by a single fault (or by some small number of faults). By comparison, a distributed power system is MUCH more tolerant of faults, such that faults that occur only affect a small portion of the overall system. How often have we heard in the news about the vulnerability of our current power systems to terrorist attacks? (Please note that I am NOT saying that power from solar is more reliable than the centralized systems, just that it is much less likely to lose power to a large group at one time.)

4) It is also important to notice that there are very distinctive POLITICAL differences between centralized power systems and distributed ones. Simply put, a distributed power system puts more power in the hands of the people while a centralized power system concentrates more power in the hands of corporations and the government. (If your son wants to understand one of the most significant reasons there is not a lot more solar power in the US, he may not have to look too far beyond this point!)

5) The cost comparison of coal and nuclear to solar power often ignores the fact that coal and nuclear power BOTH rely on mining (depleting) fuel sources which are LIMITED in quantity. While we could argue endlessly about exactly when the generation of coal and/or nuclear sources will peak, the fact remains that if we geometrically increase our consumption of these resources, a peak will occur. Once the production peak of a depleting resource is reached, its cost goes up drastically in order to reduce the demand to match the reducing production curve. As such, assumptions about the future operating cost of coal and/or nuclear power plants can be DRASTICALLY OPTIMISTIC.

6) Coal and nuclear power pollute the environment SIGNIFICANTLY more than does solar power. The true cost of this assault on the environment is very hard to quantify, and it can not be fully accounted for in terms of dollars.

7) Inherent in nuclear power generation is the risk of a meltdown of the power plant, as has already occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Trust me, it can happen again, in spite of the assurances we have received to the contrary. (Because of the moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants, most existing nuclear power plants in the US are having their operational lives extended WAY beyond their original design lifetimes.) No such risk to large populations of people exists for solar power generation.

 

It is also important to understand that all of us have ALREADY PAID for the power systems which we use every day. As such, we would typically need to THROW OUT something which works perfectly well in order to change to a new power source.

 

Finally, we have had subsidized power, which makes it apparently, but not actually, very cheap, for so long that we have not yet learned how dear energy really is. As such, we are EXTREMELY wasteful of the valuable energy that we have. This is the first thing you learn when you install a new solar power system for a home: It is CHEAPER to reduce your energy consumption than the design the system for your currently-high energy usage.

 

As a result of all of this, if I were to design any government programs to correct the balance of energy technologies, I would do the following things:

 

1) Eliminate all subsidies to all energy sources.

2) Require that ALL new construction that requires an ongoing supply of energy build (or pay for) BOTH the source as well as the load. Such an approach FORCES that the optimum generation technology be employed. (Distributed power would NOT be required here, but some arrangement to pay full costs for power generation AND distribution would be required. Please note that solar-thermal technologies exist TODAY that are competitive with coal and nuclear power plants, at least in the deserts of Arizona and California.)

 

The bottom line with the acceptance of solar power, as is true with most (all?) new technologies, is that it must achieve performance that is SIGNIFICANTLY beyond the incumbent technology before acceptance becomes widespread. In my industry, the typically-accepted performance level for a changeover is 10X. In other words, our customers will not change to a new technology until the new technology is 10 TIMES better than what they are using today. For solar, I suspect it will not require a 10 times cost improvement, but I would not be surprise if it takes 5X.

 

(In case you haven't noticed, this is a subject about which I am fairly passionate! Someday I intend to quit my day job and move over to this growing industry.)

 

Thoughts?

[creekland]

Thoughts?

 

Do you know of any good sources for buying solar cells of any sort for kids to do real projects with (not toy projects). We can't redo our whole house, but my youngest (13) would love a chance at redoing parts as he could. I could easily envision this are (environmental or alternative power in general) as a field he would love.

[HollyinNNV]

(In case you haven't noticed, this is a subject about which I am fairly passionate! Someday I intend to quit my day job and move over to this growing industry.)

 

Thoughts?

 

My thought is that you've mixed so much personal opinion and politics in with your "facts" that you have made it nearly impossible to respond.

 

My other thought is that it is very cool you are passionate about this subject!

 

My final thought is that lots of people have done lots of research into this very same subject and come to vastly different conclusions.

Holly

[Heather in Neverland]

It's a good question! Aren't inquisitive children a blessing?You are correct, you are getting shot at!:D While I agree with your basic premise that solar is not cost effective in America, my personal belief is that this is BECAUSE of too many government incentives, not too few. Last time I looked into it (during the early Bush II years), the federal government was subsidizing the coal industry to the tune of $2B/year compared with solar at $70M/year. That's a funding ratio of about 28.5:1!:confused: When you consider that these subsidies to coal/nuclear have been ongoing for DECADES, what you realize is that we pay a LOT more for traditional energy than our power bills indicate.

 

My thesis is that solar power is currently CHEAPER than both coal and nuclear power, but that we, as consumers, cannot realize this benefit since we are forced to pay for the traditional sources, whether we want to, or not.I've seen this calculation done many times, but I feel there are several fallacies included in most of them. Here are some issues I have with the above:

 

1) As mentioned above, it is important to consider all CURRENT and PAST subsidies that were applied to all technologies considered. This changes the calculations DRASTICALLY.

2) Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power are best suited for CENTRALIZED applications. In other words, you have a large power plant and distribute the power to the loads. Solar power (specifically photovoltaics) are best suited for DISTRIBUTED applications. When comparing a centralized system to a distributed system, it is important to consider BOTH the entire cost of the power plant PLUS its distribution system when you look at the cost of the centralized system. This HUGE additional cost is often overlooked.

3) It is important to consider that there are distinctive technical differences between centralized and distributed power generation systems. For instance, a centralized system can be completely brought down by a single fault (or by some small number of faults). By comparison, a distributed power system is MUCH more tolerant of faults, such that faults that occur only affect a small portion of the overall system. How often have we heard in the news about the vulnerability of our current power systems to terrorist attacks? (Please note that I am NOT saying that power from solar is more reliable than the centralized systems, just that it is much less likely to lose power to a large group at one time.)

4) It is also important to notice that there are very distinctive POLITICAL differences between centralized power systems and distributed ones. Simply put, a distributed power system puts more power in the hands of the people while a centralized power system concentrates more power in the hands of corporations and the government. (If your son wants to understand one of the most significant reasons there is not a lot more solar power in the US, he may not have to look too far beyond this point!)

5) The cost comparison of coal and nuclear to solar power often ignores the fact that coal and nuclear power BOTH rely on mining (depleting) fuel sources which are LIMITED in quantity. While we could argue endlessly about exactly when the generation of coal and/or nuclear sources will peak, the fact remains that if we geometrically increase our consumption of these resources, a peak will occur. Once the production peak of a depleting resource is reached, its cost goes up drastically in order to reduce the demand to match the reducing production curve. As such, assumptions about the future operating cost of coal and/or nuclear power plants can be DRASTICALLY OPTIMISTIC.

6) Coal and nuclear power pollute the environment SIGNIFICANTLY more than does solar power. The true cost of this assault on the environment is very hard to quantify, and it can not be fully accounted for in terms of dollars.

7) Inherent in nuclear power generation is the risk of a meltdown of the power plant, as has already occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Trust me, it can happen again, in spite of the assurances we have received to the contrary. (Because of the moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants, most existing nuclear power plants in the US are having their operational lives extended WAY beyond their original design lifetimes.) No such risk to large populations of people exists for solar power generation.

 

It is also important to understand that all of us have ALREADY PAID for the power systems which we use every day. As such, we would typically need to THROW OUT something which works perfectly well in order to change to a new power source.

 

Finally, we have had subsidized power, which makes it apparently, but not actually, very cheap, for so long that we have not yet learned how dear energy really is. As such, we are EXTREMELY wasteful of the valuable energy that we have. This is the first thing you learn when you install a new solar power system for a home: It is CHEAPER to reduce your energy consumption than the design the system for your currently-high energy usage.

 

As a result of all of this, if I were to design any government programs to correct the balance of energy technologies, I would do the following things:

 

1) Eliminate all subsidies to all energy sources.

2) Require that ALL new construction that requires an ongoing supply of energy build (or pay for) BOTH the source as well as the load. Such an approach FORCES that the optimum generation technology be employed. (Distributed power would NOT be required here, but some arrangement to pay full costs for power generation AND distribution would be required. Please note that solar-thermal technologies exist TODAY that are competitive with coal and nuclear power plants, at least in the deserts of Arizona and California.)

 

The bottom line with the acceptance of solar power, as is true with most (all?) new technologies, is that it must achieve performance that is SIGNIFICANTLY beyond the incumbent technology before acceptance becomes widespread. In my industry, the typically-accepted performance level for a changeover is 10X. In other words, our customers will not change to a new technology until the new technology is 10 TIMES better than what they are using today. For solar, I suspect it will not require a 10 times cost improvement, but I would not be surprise if it takes 5X.

 

(In case you haven't noticed, this is a subject about which I am fairly passionate! Someday I intend to quit my day job and move over to this growing industry.)

 

Thoughts?

 

 

This was fascinating. We were outside yesterday testing his solar fan. A neighborhood boy came by and wanted to see what we were doing. My son began to discuss solar energy with him and depletion of fossil fuels, etc. He said "We will run out of fossil fuels some day and it is bad for our environment. But the sun is FREE! And there is lots of it! But the government probably won't switch over because coal and oil are big business. It's a bummer."

 

I thought, "Could it be that simple?" Our wastefulness/demands coupled with big profits for the "powers that be" from coal/oil equals very little possibility for solar energy on a larger scale?

[Caroline]

One of the ideas I have heard with regard to placement of solar arrays is the roofs of buildings. For example, Lockheed has a huge plant near us. If they covered the roof with solar panels, would it generate enough energy to run the plant? What about covering the roof of Walmart or Target? At least it would be a start.

 

I remember from my class, oh so long ago, that solar arrays could be hooked to the grid. When the array is producing excess energy, that is sent back to the power company to be distributed. Then when the array is not providing enough energy, the house (or whatever) gets power back from the grid, this having a hybrid power source.

 

I love the idea of solar power. Have any of you ever been to the solar car race? We went one time to the pit stop at UVA. It was very cool. UVA also had a solar powered blimp.

[RegGuheert]

 

My thought is that you've mixed so much personal opinion and politics in with your "facts" that you have made it nearly impossible to respond.

It's true. I'm willing to support my opinions, if so desired. Politics certainly plays into this discussion in a BIG way, so I would say ignore that subject at your own peril.

My other thought is that it is very cool you are passionate about this subject!

Thanks, but that's only true if I'm not being offensive in my passion. I'm sorry to have singled out your quote, but I consider the argument you put forth to be a very commonly-used straw man to prove that solar power is not currently cost-effective. My only goal here is to point out that there are other factors to consider when looking at this issue. I apologize if I have offended you.

My final thought is that lots of people have done lots of research into this very same subject and come to vastly different conclusions.

That's very true. But please keep in mind that each of us that considers this issue has different information, biases, motivations and worldviews. I suspect that some of these conclusions are not correct! :tongue_smilie:

[RegGuheert]

Do you know of any good sources for buying solar cells of any sort for kids to do real projects with (not toy projects). We can't redo our whole house, but my youngest (13) would love a chance at redoing parts as he could. I could easily envision this are (environmental or alternative power in general) as a field he would love.

My favorite place to learn about solar power is Home Power Magazine. There you will find articles which cover many aspects of solar and wind power including design projects of various sizes, many advertisements from vendors large and small and discussions of other issues such as regulations and politics. Unfortunately, they no longer offer their magazine online for free.

 

Just a word of caution: Dealing with electricity can be VERY dangerous! Solar power systems are definitely NOT an exception here. As such, please be sure that your son has some supervision in the areas of design and/or safety. I am an electrical engineer who is also familiar with electrical building codes (which DO cover solar electric installations, BTW) and would be happy to try to assist him with project ideas and/or safety issues as time permits. One project of which I am very familiar which can be done on a reasonable budget is solar barn lighting. I've designed a fairly straightforward approach which can typically be done more cheaply than burying a wire from the house. With a few exceptions, most of the parts can be obtained locally. I have installed a couple of these systems for friends, so I also have some field experience with this project.

[sgilli3]

Our new home we are about to build back in Oz - will run solely on solar and wind power.

 

Yes, it is expensive, but we are lucky that the government is offering rebates to those who install these systems

[RegGuheert]

This was fascinating. We were outside yesterday testing his solar fan. A neighborhood boy came by and wanted to see what we were doing. My son began to discuss solar energy with him and depletion of fossil fuels, etc. He said "We will run out of fossil fuels some day and it is bad for our environment. But the sun is FREE! And there is lots of it! But the government probably won't switch over because coal and oil are big business. It's a bummer."

 

I thought, "Could it be that simple?" Our wastefulness/demands coupled with big profits for the "powers that be" from coal/oil equals very little possibility for solar energy on a larger scale?

Bright kid! I like him already! :thumbup:

[RegGuheert]

One of the ideas I have heard with regard to placement of solar arrays is the roofs of buildings.

Or over the parking lots. My employer just installed a 3-acre solar-electric system over one parking lot at one of our facilities. I'm sorry, but I do not know where to find a picture of that array, but it is pretty impressive.

For example, Lockheed has a huge plant near us. If they covered the roof with solar panels, would it generate enough energy to run the plant?

Unfortunately, it would not even come CLOSE to powering the entire factory.

What about covering the roof of Walmart or Target? At least it would be a start.

Agreed, it would be a start.

I remember from my class, oh so long ago, that solar arrays could be hooked to the grid. When the array is producing excess energy, that is sent back to the power company to be distributed. Then when the array is not providing enough energy, the house (or whatever) gets power back from the grid, this having a hybrid power source.

That's true, and it is the approach which California subsidizes. Some home installations in CA that have electric vehicles can sell electricity during the daytime for around US$0.28/kWh and buy it back at night for around US$0.05/kWh. In those cases, given the amount of sun in CA, subsidies, etc., the systems can often pay for themselves in about 8 years.

I love the idea of solar power. Have any of you ever been to the solar car race? We went one time to the pit stop at UVA. It was very cool. UVA also had a solar powered blimp.

Sounds cool! No, I've never had the opportunity to do that. I do remember reading a couple of years ago that the *average* speed for the winning solar car in the race across Australia was OVER 60 MPH!

 

Thanks!

Edited June 6, 2009 by RegGuheert

[Kay in Cal]

Solar power can be cost effective.

 

Let me tell you about my best friend--she lives in Pasadena. When they bought their house, they took out a 2nd mortgage to pay for the installation of photovoltaic panels. Yes, the system cost $100,000... a big chunk up front, right? However, they got significant tax breaks.

 

They power their house (a large ranch style probably around 3000 sq ft). While their appliances are energy efficient and they use efficient bulbs, they still must use a lot of power--they have 7 computers in the office and a heated pool. Also, they power two electric cars from their solar, so hey--free gas. (Used to have a EV1 before those were crushed by GM).

 

With all that... they still make money. That's right. Their panels usually provide enough power that there is enough to sell (they have a reverse meter, and the state buys their excess power). Their reverse meter usually covers the cost of the mortgage they took out. Some months they have had to pay a small amount of power, but for the most part the savings and rebates totally cover the cost of the panels, plus some.

 

Now, this is not an "average", but an individual. Still, if I had awesome credit, and lived here in So Cal, land of sunny days---I'd be investing in a system absolutely.

 

Let me find an article about them to link:

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/going_solar/6171/

 

there are pictures of people with RAV4 electrics on this page, inlcuding them with their solar panels in the background.

 

http://www.evnut.com/rav_owner_gallery.htm

[creekland]

My favorite place to learn about solar power is Home Power Magazine. There you will find articles which cover many aspects of solar and wind power including design projects of various sizes, many advertisements from vendors large and small and discussions of other issues such as regulations and politics. Unfortunately, they no longer offer their magazine online for free.

 

Just a word of caution: Dealing with electricity can be VERY dangerous! Solar power systems are definitely NOT an exception here. As such, please be sure that your son has some supervision in the areas of design and/or safety. I am an electrical engineer who is also familiar with electrical building codes (which DO cover solar electric installations, BTW) and would be happy to try to assist him with project ideas and/or safety issues as time permits. One project of which I am very familiar which can be done on a reasonable budget is solar barn lighting. I've designed a fairly straightforward approach which can typically be done more cheaply than burying a wire from the house. With a few exceptions, most of the parts can be obtained locally. I have installed a couple of these systems for friends, so I also have some field experience with this project.

 

Many thanks for your thoughts and offer. This son is finishing up the year right now, but in a couple of weeks, I suspect we'll be in touch. We'd love to redo our barn... or even other similar projects. The economy might keep us in check financially for a little bit though.

 

Am I remembering another thread correctly to think that you are VT alumni and therefore fellow hokies? Whether correct or not, hubby and I are as well - his in Civil Eng (he has his own business now) and mine in Physics (though I only use mine to sub teach math/science in our local public high school). None of our three plan to follow hubby or myself into these realms of science, but our youngest is VERY environmentally conscious and might head that way if he gets a taste for some of it.

[RegGuheert]

Am I remembering another thread correctly to think that you are VT alumni and therefore fellow hokies?

You have a good memory! MomsintheGarden and I are both VT EEs. That's where we met!

 

Our DS19 just finished his freshman year at Tech, but there is no way he would become an EE, since both of his parents did that! :D

[Caroline]

Many thanks for your thoughts and offer. This son is finishing up the year right now, but in a couple of weeks, I suspect we'll be in touch. We'd love to redo our barn... or even other similar projects. The economy might keep us in check financially for a little bit though.

 

Am I remembering another thread correctly to think that you are VT alumni and therefore fellow hokies? Whether correct or not, hubby and I are as well - his in Civil Eng (he has his own business now) and mine in Physics (though I only use mine to sub teach math/science in our local public high school). None of our three plan to follow hubby or myself into these realms of science, but our youngest is VERY environmentally conscious and might head that way if he gets a taste for some of it.

 

My DH and I are Hokies. DH got his BS in aerospace and ocean engineering and mine is in materials science and engineering. We graduated in 1992.

[creekland]

We met at VT too - hubby graduated in '88 and I graduated in '90. We were also in the Corps...

 

We lived for so long thinking our three would go there... alas, now that they are older and pursuing different interests, it looks like none of them will. It didn't stop us from visiting on our last college trip though. I guess we were wishful thinking... (but I can't argue that their choices aren't better for their interests).

[LizzyBee]

There are some new credits for solar power. One of my firm's clients is looking into building a "solar farm" to generate power for their asphalt plant. They expect to have excess electricity that they will sell to the local electric company. The tax incentive is a federal credit of 30% x cost and NC credit of 35% x cost.

 

I don't remember how much the new credits are for individuals, but if anyone is interested you can probably find something at http://www.irs.gov.