Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    It was a typo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Seth9 on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    When I was going through the calculations a second time, I realized that I forgot to multiply by 5 to account for there being 5 panels, not 1. I changed the results accordingly but missed changing the .81 KW to 4.05 KW. The 24.3 KWh is still correct.

    Also, I agree their usage is really high. They should not be running a $14000 electric bill at an office that only operates 5 days a week. Unless, they are running multiple offices with that and several servers or something. I don't know.

    With regard to the 13.5% figure, I used it because I knew that for a 13.5% level of efficiency, you could buy a relatively cheap panel that'll last 25 years ($360/panel), whereas the newer, more efficient panels that get efficiencies between 20%-30% are rather expensive to the point that they might not be the best choice economically. Their prices are still coming down because newer, more highly efficient solar panels* use very recent technology that is becoming cheaper to produce now that they're out of development, but aren't quite as cost-effective as other solar panels yet.

    *I should mention that early high-efficiency solar panels were not cost-effective because they used very expensive materials. The new ones that I'm talking about, however, look like they will be because the materials involved aren't as expensive to produce.

    Parent

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search