Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 2, 2010, 11:20 pm
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:01:29 +0100, Martin Brown
I picked a module that I know several of my neighbors have purchased.
Occasionally the same site I mentioned has modules for even less.
The downward trend for PV is likely to continue, same as the upward
trend for grid energy. Which makes long-term estimates silly if they
don't include some allowances.
A better argument is that PV generally requires other hardware that
increases the basic cost.
Some might be selling for $00 per W. If you were buying, which would
you seek out? Here's the thing - the people who are buying find the
low prices, and the people who seek to discourage others from buying
find higher prices.
Nonsense. I've lived off-grid for ~15 years. My costs for the solar
portion (including batteries, inverters, trackers, etc, but not
counting sweat equity), were ~ $3 per watt. PV was ~$ back then.
Inverters were similar to current prices, but batteries were less.
Again, no kidding?
Sure. Most people use Wh and specify location, application, and
everything that's required to make it all work. Dollar per W is a
Yes, several posters here (AEH), including me, have used that outfit,
and many have purchased at ~$ per watt. Choices at the low end of the
price scale are sometimes limited though. A friend had to pay a little
over $ a few months ago to get modules with a voltage that fit his
application. And some of the best deals are on stuff that isn't UL
rated, which can be an issue.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org on June 3, 2010, 1:11 am
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:20:37 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
Smart money (government need not apply) waits on the sidelines to see where
the crossing is, if any.
Posted by Paul Keinanen on June 2, 2010, 8:11 pm
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:35:00 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
Unfortunately the Earth does not constantly turn the same face against
In places close to th equator with only rare clouds (such as Sahara)
with dual axis tracker, in principle the nominal power would be
avaible 50 % of the time, thus the average cost would be $/W.
However, the air mass losses close to the horizon will limit the full
power time to 8-10 hours a day, thus at least $/W in ideal cases.
For fixed installations in ideal cases 1/4 of the peak power would be
available on average (hence $/W) .
For higher latitudes, the winter atmospheric losses will reduce the
available power significantly, even with ideal orientation.
In many places, there are those pesky things called clouds ....
This will further reduce the annual energy output and hence increase
While 5 % may be a lot, but on the other hand, can you buy a system
with a solar panel mounted on a dual tracker capable of surviving
snow/ice/sand storm/hurricanes for $/W (peak) ?
Posted by Sylvia Else on June 5, 2010, 2:18 am
On 2/06/2010 9:56 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
You're forcing a comparison of apples and oranges if you use that approach.
Figures for output are peak numbers, but anyone running the financials
knows that you have then to apply data relating to insolation, which are
The figure of $/peak watt is much more useful in practice.
Posted by Ahem A Rivet's Shot on June 5, 2010, 6:46 am
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:18:47 +1000
It depends entirely on whether you're comparing panels or working
out payback periods.
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/