----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >From what I've read in Physics Today, it is going to be very hard to > > > > squeeze out added efficiencies. Everything that I see indicates > > that we need to do a lot of fundamental research before there is a > > breakthrough. So, money should be spent on basic solid state physics, > > not applications of present technology, IMHO. > > What about rural areas and developing countries? I think remote, not rural is where the break even is. From http://www.go-solar.com/Pvinsolation.html I got the average sun hours as 4.8/day. If you factor in the fact that the cells rarely operate at peak efficiency, you are talking close to 4 kwH production per day for a $10,000 unit. If we assume an 8% interest rate, and 20 years amatorization, we are talking about $1020/year in costs. Plus, there will be maintenance costs, so I'd put the yearly cost at $1300/year. This is for a system that produces 1460 kWh/year. That comes to just over $1.00/kWh. There are locations where this works out, but they are remote, not just rural. There is some limited use in developing countries, but this is a very high price for power. My "daughter"'s family is on the grid in Zambia, I know that. Dan M. Might it not be > worthwhile to spend money on solar applications for those areas, since > you aren't competing with the grid, you are competing with the costs to > BUILD a grid, which makes solar look much more competitive. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
