Posted by Tmort on August 7, 2009, 4:35 am
I'm looking into the feasability of using photovoltaics at an
industrial site. I've ferreted out some information on nanosolars
panels as I understand they are the least expensive. According to
them the payback is less than a year. My calculations show that over
the life expectancy of the panels (25 years) that the savings is not
much more than the cost of the panels even not including installation
and maintenance costs.
I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly. Could someone take a look at my
work and comment?
nanosolar $.99 per watt
1.6 x 0.8 m panel size = 142.9 watts 111.64 watts/m2 = $11 per m2
$.062088 Jun-Sep per kWh
$.049888 Oct-May per kWh Plant 46501 m2
Solar Insolation Final
kWh/m/day Temp C Efficiency kWh/m/day kWh $
Jan 1.64 -7.39 9.50% 0.16 217,346
Feb 2.45 -5.39 9.50% 0.23 324,693
Mar 3.48 0.34 9.50% 0.33 461,197
Apr 4.32 7.38 9.50% 0.41 572,520
May 5.14 14.09 9.50% 0.49 681,193
Jun 5.49 19.45 9.50% 0.52 727,578
Jul 5.79 21.67 9.50% 0.55 767,336
Aug 4.78 20.46 9.50% 0.45 633,483 $9,332
Sep 3.87 16.33 9.50% 0.37 512,883
Oct 2.55 9.79 9.50% 0.24 337,946
Nov 1.64 2.83 9.50% 0.16 217,346
Dec 1.34 -4.38 9.50% 0.13 177,587
5,631,108 $13,148.35 /yr
$,139,486.70 Total cost for panels (plus installation)
$05,579.47 per year
$07,568.88 Annual savings (less installation and
Posted by Mauried on August 7, 2009, 7:02 am
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Tmort
Not much point using Nanosolars panel prices because you simply cant
All Nanosolar have claimed is that they can make Solar panels for $ a
They have never stated they will sell them for $ a watt.
Currently, there isnt even any independant evidence that Nanosolar can
make panels for $ a watt.
Its just an unverifiable claim.
Posted by Tmort on August 7, 2009, 11:58 pm
On Aug 7, 3:02am, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:
5,631,108 $13,148.35 /yr
I was wondering about that. Things seemed a little murky. That's not
really the point of my question though. Even with nanosolars low
price, it still looks like the value of the electricity generated
isn't much more than the cost of the panels over their life (25 yrs).
It was my understanding that solar actually would have a payback
although over a long period. I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong.
Is there any rule of thumb on:
1-How much power can per generated per square meter if you know the
2-What is the price per square meter for solar, installed including
3-What is the life expectancy?
4-What are the annual maintenance costs per square meter (or watt)?
The site I am thinking of uses lots of electricity. Pretty much all
the energy savings things have been implemented. The site does have a
large footprint so I'm wondering if installing panels and selling back
to the grid could yield any net savings in costs, if not energy
Posted by Mauried on August 8, 2009, 12:48 am
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:58:21 -0700 (PDT), Tmort
Bottom line is that Solar Power is the most expensive way known of
If you have grid power, no point going solar.
Even Wind Power is better than Solar.
Solar is only good if there is no grid power, or any other
About the only way Solar works is if you are entitled to some kind of
subsidies or rebates, or can sell the power back into the grid at some
Posted by boB on August 9, 2009, 3:44 am
Well, they're not the cheapest, but potato batteries and hydrogen are
most likely way more expensive.
Not if your grid is weak.
That's a blanket statement. It's not better if you
don't have any wind.
Price of solar IS coming down. Of course, you gotta have sun in order
for it to work. Just like you have to have wind for wind and water head