🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hatunenDKMFn7.G6B@netcom.com>,
DaveHatunen <hatunen@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4cdr61$eir@cloner3.netcom.com>,
>Will Stewart  <will1000@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>You will find that most installations of PV systems for the home are
>>under 2 kW and run about $15k these days.

>Assuming that, on the average over a year, these panels actually
>produce 2 kw for 10 hours a day, then you would have a total annual
>energy output 7300 kwh. $15k invested at 6% will yield $900 a year in
>interest. Dividing the one by the other, this yields a cost of $0.123
>per kwh, not cheap, even in California.

1)	A more realistic number would probably be the equivalent
	of 4-5 hours peak production/day or 2920-3650 kwh ($.25-$.30).

2)	This is commonly held to be competetive with ~1/2 mile (???)
	of new grid connection, although the connect costs for 1/2 mile
	may be several times larger in difficult situations.

3)	Also scales more nicely than grid connect for smaller loads.
	(grid connect is more expensive for smaller load where PV
	scales more or less with the load).

4)	Some other advantages, in that the system functions much
	like a UPS, and is not subject to outages, which are an
	especially bad problem at grid fringes.

5)	Locally, interest in this stuff has been quite high after
	a single recent storm left ~500,000 (???) PGE customers
	without power. If you could recoup a substantial portion
	of the costs by selling back to the utility, I suspect
	the backup aspects of the system would give you a UPS
	market well before financial breakeven.

>That doesn't include any amortization or maintenance costs.

Agreed, although again, amortization of connect costs is what
makes new grid power more expensive to the consumer than standard
utility rate (locally I think about $.125) would indicate. Like
the solar, these are paid or financed by the homeowner up front.

>    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********