Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on August 13, 2009, 10:20 am
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:31:46 +0100, Eeyore
I used the OP's figures for insolation. It should have been obvious that I
have no way of checking his DATA. And he asked to have his calculations
Again, I used the OP's figures. If his data is incorrect ... GIGO
Posted by stevey on August 16, 2009, 7:38 am
Cost per watt is a good metric for analyzing return on investment.
However, module cost only account for nominally 50% of system cost.
I could not locate a data-sheet at NanoSolar's website. What is the
9.5% efficiency value? Is it for DC or AC? Your spreadsheet is
hard to read on my screen --column alignment is off. Would you post
the analysis in .XLS or .CSV format?
5,631,108 $13,148.35 /y=
Posted by Eeyore on August 18, 2009, 3:19 am
There is no such thing as 'cost per watt' since the sun shines differently all
over the planet.
Learn some science.
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address
Posted by stevey on August 18, 2009, 4:41 pm
I took another look at your original message and can offer these
1. Adjusting for temperature effect, the production values may be
2. Adjusting for AC efficiency, assuming all system degradations
result in 20% loss,
The final yearly payback could be roughly 14% less than your
number, say $80K..
Your eventual payback period is probably 45+ years, much due to your
low kWh rates
and that you'll pay a professional contractor to design and construct
this 46500 m2
array site, at a cost of about $/W, not considering taxes,
Steve -aka solarMD PVSleuth
Posted by Eeyore on August 19, 2009, 12:31 am
< snip >
That sounds quite likely. PV solar isn't pennies from heaven.
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address