But 600 W (rounded off) of consumption, 24/7, is 8.64 kWh per day, or
259 weekly. At California rates of $0.24 per kWh (which many people pay
at only the third of five tiers of rates) that is $62 per month. Or
$745 per year. With tax credits and rebates, it doesn't take that long
to amortize one's net investment. Also, 14933 kWh from two sets of
panels over three years seems pretty puny. With one set of 20 panels we
generated 4400 kWh in one year--but I realize that this is not
Connecticut either.
This won't change the world, but it saves money and if everyone did it,
it would make a worthwhile change.
HARRY WYETH
Stan Jakuba wrote:
Jim:
Interesting hobby you have, collecting all that weather info.Your
conclusion of:
average insolation 165.02 W/m2 (10 min average)
has not persuaded your relatives?
I suspect, they have relatives in this town then. The insolation here
is 160W/m². Some time ago I published this observation:
<West Hartford's solar panels installed on two highschool roofs
produced 14,933 kWh of electricity in about three years. This means
that the panels generated average power of 570 W, enough to keep
almost six 100 W lightbulbs lit.>
Amazingly, the flood of disapproving responses ignored, all of them,
the basic fact that powering six lighbulbs for 3 yeas is not going to
make any difference to anybody, not even the schools, nor the U.S.,
nor will it impoverish the sellers of "foreign oil." Impossible people
to deal with. I guess it is a religion with them. Do not take our
faith away with just plain facts.
Well, not all of them are idealists. Many entrepreneurs I know are in
it because "someone will spend the budget anyway" a budget approved by
ignorant politicians. "So why not me."
Stan
