butitsadryheat wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:I'd rather go for conservation, reduced usage. (And as BIADH says, point of use PV -- but I've inquired about that, and with subsidies, it would be 30k for my house.)

Somebody is trying to rip you off. My dad had his house done (roughly 3K sq ft, and his cost was just over $14K when he was done with rebates/tax credits, etc.) He should have it paid for in a few more years. He basically cools his house free of charge in the summer, and has tiny bills in the winter. He also has a solar water heating system, with a 100g storage tank that circulates.

MoapaPk wrote:I've read that the LADWP wants to cover Owens Lake with solar panels (PV presumably), mainly for dust abatement, with power as a side benefit. Right now they must pump a lot of water on the lakebed to meet air quality standards.

MoapaPk wrote:I've read that the LADWP wants to cover Owens Lake with solar panels (PV presumably), mainly for dust abatement, with power as a side benefit. Right now they must pump a lot of water on the lakebed to meet air quality standards.

fossana wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:I've read that the LADWP wants to cover Owens Lake with solar panels (PV presumably), mainly for dust abatement, with power as a side benefit. Right now they must pump a lot of water on the lakebed to meet air quality standards.

Makes perfect sense, pump the water from the local aquifer to remediate the damage from diverting the natural source upstream. The only redeeming thing about LADWP is that they still allow access to the Gorge.