🚀 go-pugleaf

In sci.physics jg <jg@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9/03/2013 10:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Surfer <no@spam.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:03:58 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
>>>> to actually save power as in generate it for home use
>>>> Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. I have seen houses with two sets of panels, one
>>> orientated to generate peak power from morning sun and the other to
>>> generate peak power from afternoon sun.
>>>
>>> Such a setup requires more panels, but extends the period of time over
>>> which useful power is available.
>>
>> And runs the cost up to where it is absolutely guarantied that it will
>> never pay for itself.
>>
>> But if you want to throw your money away in the delusion that you are
>> saving the planet, go right ahead.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Given the performance and financial returns of ours, I have no doubt 
> more would be better.
> From our experience, contra facing panels are likely to extend the 
> productive time for perhaps only 2 1/2 hours - assuming the first choice 
> was the best face, the gain in hours might not exceed the most kw's.
> Might have been done more because they were running out of roof area.
 
Perhaps in the Outback with no building codes, no UL requriments, no
building inspectors, and do it yourself labor.

But not anyplace in the USA.



 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino