Good numbers but they are changing !

We make the A-300 that is 20%+++ eff so the large cells will
kick up the percentage as they get into production on homes.

They are used on some of the fancy bug like cars and on NASA's
flying electric wing -

New way of making the cells and it works.

I noticed the local Green food store has a 30KW unit on their roof.

At work we have a 256KW roof on two buildings. Naturally we have a bad
position - so near the end of the airport - we have to wash them
to get the junk off from the jets leaping off the runway.

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Nearly all alternatives are efficient and viable in small
quantities. But solar electricity/hot water should be part
of all new homes (+5% cost, 2-5 yr ROI, cheaper than building
more dam/nuke/natgas plants), electric/gas hybrid cars should
be put out by every mfgr by now, and new buildings should be
made semi self-sufficient.


What is the source for the claim that solar electricity has a 2-5 yr. ROI,
Larry? The figures I've seen show a payback period of...never.

That's based on a total installed cost of $7/peak-kW, which is the
California average, based on actual systems installed. The data is taken
from the CA gov't. tax records, which they collect on the basis of tax
breaks claimed. Manufacturers' PV-module prices run $4/peak-kW. The $7 is an
average that includes systems with battery storage and those without.

Even ignoring the finite life of PV cells, the net-present-value of a solar
electric system is negative. In other words, you lose more in interest
payments than the value of the electricity they generate. And then, in
reality, they have a finite life and have to be replaced.

But I'm interested in whatever you have there.

Ed Huntress




--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder