Posted by Sylvia Else on June 6, 2010, 2:12 am
On 5/06/2010 4:46 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
I don't see why. A payback period (which doesn't exist at anything like
current unsubsidised pricing) will also depend on location.
Posted by Ahem A Rivet's Shot on June 6, 2010, 6:16 am
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:12:05 +1000
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/
Posted by Sylvia Else on June 7, 2010, 3:13 am
On 6/06/2010 4:16 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
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.
Posted by Paul Keinanen on June 7, 2010, 4:10 am
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:18:47 +1000, Sylvia Else
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.
Posted by email@example.com on June 1, 2010, 6:49 pm
Seriously, would you trust a Harbor Freight solar cell? I don't buy
anything from that store that needs to plug into the mains.
George W. Bush had an honorable discharge and proved to be the dumbest
fuck ever to hold a political office. 'nuff said for your sig.