Lower solar panel/wind turbine prices allow wider applications, hence a great help to a greener mother earth!
More Pages:
- Solar Turbines: Wind Turbines? (5/21/2011)
- Solar Turbines: What Are The Drawbacks To Using Wind Turbines Or Solar Panels For Providing All Power To A Home? (4/24/2011)
- Solar Turbines: What Industry Has More Growing Jobs And Is Growing Faster?? Wind Turbines Or Solar Panels? (5/7/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Would Adding Wind Turbines And Solar Panels To Utility Poles Be Feasible To Replace Current Electricity? (4/24/2011)
- Solar Turbines: What Type Of Education Would One Need To Install Solar Panels And Small Wind Turbines? (5/7/2011)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Affordable Solar Energy website.
Hope this helps.
go to http://www.lindsaybks.com/index.html
they sell books on how to build solar panels and wind turbines, along with a lot of other things that could help you live off grid. And a lot of the books were things that could be made with turn of the century (1900 not 2000) technology
Wind turbines on top of roofs, http://www.ettridgewindturbine.com/
and shingles for solar panels http://www.oksolar.com/roof/
could be affordable if the energy companies would buy the energy from the consumer at the same rate as the consumer pays. In other words, the consumer only pays for net consumption of electricity using a 2 way meter. http://www.solarwarrior.com/net-metering.html
This would go a long ways toward making the technologies viable. This was done in Oklahoma and California, http://www.solarwarrior.com/puc2827.html
and it did have that effect.
The problem is that if the power companies do not allow that kind of price structure, the consumer depends on expensive high maintenance batteries to store the generated energy for later use. http://cgi.ebay.com/2-KINETIK-KHC2400-POWER-CELL-CAR-AUDIO-BATTERIES-HC2400-/390186916036?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
By using the power at the source, miles of transmission lines are not required. Currently, producers of solar and wind power are required to use either the miles of transmission lines, or the batteries. Both are deal breakers.
If cheap batteries could be made and sold, that would also make a huge difference.
It also makes a difference if solar shingles are used for the roofing, thus saving the cost of the original shingles.
Edit @Feed the Dead:
First, there is little environmental or other reason for taxpayers to be willing to subsidize the cost of solar or wind.
Second, the ROI depends on the method you use.
1) Storing energy in Batteries:
Price:
- Panels: $ 9900
- Installation: $ 1500
- Batteries: $ 5000
- Converters: $ 200 – http://motors.shop.ebay.com/__?_from=R40&_trksid=m39&_nkw=DC+to+AC
- Other: $ 1000
===========
$ 17600
1650 Watts for 8.4 hr/day net sun = 14 KWH/day
1650 Watts for 2 hr/day net cloudy = 3 KWH/day
Sunny Daysyr/yr = 200
Cloudy Days/ = 165
KWH/yr = 3350 produced
After conversion at 90% efficiency = 3015 KWH/yr
After stroing in a battery, taking it back out and converting it again at 65% efficiency = 1960 KWH/yr
Savings at $ 0.20/KWH = $ 392/yr
ROI = 2.2%
—————
2) Selling back your electricity to the grid and offsetting the installation cost by using your panels as your original roofing.
Savings in Installation = $ 700 (includes price of 2 way meter)
Savings in Batteries = $ 5000
Savings in Converter = $ 100
========================
Savings = $ 5300
Price = $ 17600 – $ 5300 = $ 11800
3015 KWH/yr * $ 0.20 = $ 603/yr
ROI = 603/11800 = 5.1%
It takes 20 years to recover the investment, unless the house is sold first. Then, the enhancement should up the price of the house by the depreciated amount remaining in your investment.
If you do not use batteries, the system should last more than 50 years representing a depreciation of $ 236/yr. This drops the actual savings to only $ 367 for an actual ROI of 3.1%.
Otherwise, the batteries will have to be replaced every 3 years representing an additional annualized cost of $ 1667 per year plus installation. That is greater than any savings in energy you could possibly hope for.
Inflation does not matter since the price of electricity should go up at the same rate, and thus, the ROI indicated is inflation adjusted already. An after inflation after tax ROI of 3.1% is usually considered economically viable.
DISCLAIMER:
1) Adjust the figures for where you live. Check out Modest Proposal’s answer.
2) Normally, projects like this have hidden costs that are not shown above. A 24% increase in installed cost is normal. That would further cut the after tax, after inflation Return On Investment estimate to only 2.4%
3) Compare this to after tax, after inflation returns on other normal investments, and factor in the risk difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks_for_the_Long_Run#Principles
For the period 1871 – 2001:
Low Risk = bonds = 1.8% ROI
High Risk = stocks = 5.4% ROI
For the period 1982 – 2001:
Low Risk = bonds = 5.1% ROI
High Risk = stocks = 6.1% ROI
government handouts
Make someone else chip in to cover the cost.
http://www.atlantasolar.com/product_info.php/products_id/1969?osCsid=js2u7ccijb1bpqi5ostd83pju1
For $ 660 you can buy a 110 watt solar panel. How that translates into useable energy, I can’t say for sure.
watts= volts x amps and other variants of this equation can show how affordable it is.
110w/ 110v = 1a
110w/ 15a = 7.3v
5 panels
550w/ 110v = 5a
15 panels
1650w/ 110v = 15a
At 62.5×25 inches, call it 5 feet by 2 feet. You need 150sq ft of roof, no problem.
$ 9,900 worth of panels, plus installation.
How long will it take to pay for itself?
Answered mainly to respond to – at those rates, and assuming that a kilowatt•hour for the household would cost $ 0.20, it would take about 13.7 years to break even.
1 kWh = 3,600,000 J = $ 0.20
$ 9900.00 / $ 0.20 = 49,500
49500(3,600,000 J) = 1.782e11 J
The solar panels would give 1650 watts, or 1650 J/s:
(1.782e11 J) * (1 s/1650 J) = 1.08e8 s = 30,000 hours = 1250 days. Assume half of each are dark for night, and half of days are cloudy. This means it might as well be 5000 days, which is about 13.7 years. Pays off if you’re planning on living in the house for your life (or a good part of it), but not if you’re moving about.
Depending on where you live actually, you can use the measured number of cloudy days to change the answer. According to this chart for instance:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/cldy.html
living in Yuma, Arizona would be a good thing since they have 242 clear days and 71 partly cloudy days (do the panels work on partly cloudy days?). Anyways, the cities that have over 200 clear days are:
Phoenix, AZ – 211
Yuma, AZ – 242
Bishop, CA – 201
Las Vegas, NV – 210
Cities that have half or more clear days:
(Above mentioned)
Tucson, AZ – 193
Bakersfield, CA – 191
Fresno, CA – 194
Los Angelas C.O., CA – 186
Sacramento, CA – 188
Stockton, CA – 184
El Paso, TX – 193
Gary F: just a minor thing I’d like to point out is that a 10% inflation rate is an extremely high rate, economy-crushing in some cases. Inflation averages at about 3% for a safe rate; currently as well, inflation is about 1%, though it’s been fluctuating a lot recently. The peak within the last 20 years has been just under 7%.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm
>>>They were initally so lame (and this is related to their general paranoia) that they cut deals to place the turbines before they secured corridor access to substations.
Load gun, cock it, aim at foot, shoot.