|
|
re: choose your power
9 jun 1997
alan wrote:
>i wrote:
>> 40,300 kwh/28.4 kw = 1419 wh/year/peak watt or 3.9 wh/day/peak watt.
>> does detroit really have that much sun?
>
>i don't know if that figure is correct, but from a purely qualitative
>standpoint it seems detroit gets more insolation that most would suspect.
nrel shows several options for fixed flat plate collectors, the best of which
has 4.3 kwh/m^2-day as a yearly average, for collectors tilted at latitude-15
degrees, vs 6.4 kwh/m^2-day in albuquerque. panels tilted monthly in detroit
might get something like
month j f m a m j j a s o n d
tilt + + l - - 0 - - l + + +
kwh/m^2-day 2.8 3.7 4.2 5.0 5.7 6.2 6.1 5.6 4.8 3.9 2.6 2.2
for a yearly average of 4.4 kwh/m^2-day.
>> this investment seems to have a simple payback of something like
>> $8.8/(1.419 kwh x $0.10/kwh) = 62 years at retail electric rates,
>> or over 300 years at current wholesale rates...
>
>they aren't charging standard retail rates ($0.0917/kwh as of last august)
>for the solar-generated electricity. this power comes at a premium, which
>is why i refer to "investors" in my last post.
seems like the "investors" would be far better off financially putting their
money into a 5% bank savings account. what is gained by this pv "investment"?
some beneficial air pollution reduction, and an (erroneous) sense of having
helped this poor struggling industry help itself stand on it's own two feet?
while assuaging environmental consciousness to the point of continuing to
feel ok about using lots of oil for driving, lawn mowing and house heating?
nick
|
|
