Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bigbob

This is nothing new to me. I have known about them for a couple of years now. The problems I saw from the research I did at the time that they were not very efficient. It took about three times the surface area to produce the same amount of power as typical panels. But like most things I learned about solar power, it is not the silver bullet for energy but an alternative for particular remote applications where running a power cord was not feasible.


14 posted on 07/22/2012 1:49:36 PM PDT by mazda77 ("Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" By: Hilmar von Campe. Everybody should read it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: mazda77; bigbob; Ernest_at_the_Beach

When it comes to efficiency (4%) they’re pretty low on the totem pole. The latest solar panels can yield 17%. The price would have to be substantially lower for it to compete.

http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels

The problem with solar is that the installation cost is so high. Even if the solar panels were free, all the remaining electrical equipment, installation hardware and labor would still make it more expensive than conventional.

To cut down on these type of costs they have to design them into the house and build the house with them. Also, an additional $20K to a house that costs a couple of hundred thousands isn’t that much and you can get it financed over thirty years and you’ll have free electricity.

I don’t understand why more builders aren’t doing this.


19 posted on 07/22/2012 2:16:45 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson