California schools $120M solar project
in [Design]
|
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot on 6 Jun 2010 02:16 On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:12:05 +1000 Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 5/06/2010 4:46 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:18:47 +1000 > > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Figures for output are peak numbers, but anyone running the financials > >> knows that you have then to apply data relating to insolation, which > >> are location dependent. > >> > >> The figure of $/peak watt is much more useful in practice. > > > > It depends entirely on whether you're comparing panels or > > working out payback periods. > > > > I don't see why. A payback period (which doesn't exist at anything like > current unsubsidised pricing) will also depend on location. That is precisely the point - compare panels use $ per peak watt, calculate payback - use $ per watt at average insolation in chosen location. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
From: krw on 6 Jun 2010 11:58 On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:59:11 -0600, Steve Ackman <steve(a)SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote: >In <b67ebc7f-ac61-4be0-ba69-5d3c277bbd94(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, on >Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry, pomerado(a)hotmail.com >wrote: > >> You shouls have seen Across the Fence around noon on Ch. 3 when you >> were living in Vt. >> >> I remember after my grandmother first got TV in the old farmhouse in >> North Fayston sitting with her at lunch eating fried egg sandwiches >> watching that show. > > Just a bit of trivia re: VT... > >1) It was the last state to get a TV station. Last state to have a McD's in the state capitol, too. >2) There were still entire towns as late as 1965 that >had no electricity. The bulbs in Montpillier are still pretty dim. 3) Largest percentage of unpaved roads in the country 4) Looniest liberals in the country (No Nancy, you're not the looniest)
From: Sylvia Else on 6 Jun 2010 23:13 On 6/06/2010 4:16 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:12:05 +1000 > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 5/06/2010 4:46 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:18:47 +1000 >>> Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Figures for output are peak numbers, but anyone running the financials >>>> knows that you have then to apply data relating to insolation, which >>>> are location dependent. >>>> >>>> The figure of $/peak watt is much more useful in practice. >>> >>> It depends entirely on whether you're comparing panels or >>> working out payback periods. >>> >> >> I don't see why. A payback period (which doesn't exist at anything like >> current unsubsidised pricing) will also depend on location. > > That is precisely the point - compare panels use $ per peak watt, > calculate payback - use $ per watt at average insolation in chosen location. > If panel price were quoted in terms of $ per watt at some notional average location, then you'd have to back caculate the peak price before calculating the actual price for your specific location. So having the peak price to start with would be much more useful than the average price for an arbitrary place. Sylvia.
From: Paul Keinanen on 7 Jun 2010 00:10 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:18:47 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >Figures for output are peak numbers, but anyone running the financials >knows that you have then to apply data relating to insolation, which are >location dependent. You would also have to check the solar spectral response (varies e.g. by the air mass) at a specific location and match that to a particular solar panel spectral response. The solar panel peak output is measured with an artificial "sun" with a specific power level and a specific spectral response. Unless the local spectral response match that of the artificial sun, there will be some variations in the actual panel output.
From: JosephKK on 9 Jun 2010 06:06
On Mon, 31 May 2010 06:02:23 -0500, "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote: >Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district >spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. >I did a Google search and can't find any info. >The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, >so I'm curious. > Anybody know more about it? > Mike > Stick "CREB" into the search engine. |