Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ikka
"There are certain assumptions that are not accurate in all cases. For instance, in the part of PA where I live..."

That is correct, the data shown in post #26 don't hold true for PA, due to the much lower solar energy levels there, solar cell performance will be much lower than the national average and lower than show in my table.   (source)

"And the pricing of the panel, listed at $699, can be much less if you are a careful shopper."

Citation please...

--Boot Hill

39 posted on 01/28/2005 6:43:26 AM PST by Boot Hill (How do you verbalize a noun?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Boot Hill
I know I have seen prices for less, right now I can find the 167W (almost the same as 175W) for $612 ... source is here: click here
57 posted on 01/28/2005 7:03:45 AM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: Boot Hill

"That is correct, the data shown in post #26 don't hold true for PA, due to the much lower solar energy levels there, solar cell performance will be much lower than the national average and lower than show in my table"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the losses due to the angle of the sun can be negated pretty simply by tilting the solar panel up, can't they? I can't think of any good reason to have all these solar panels installed perfectly horizontal.

OTOH, the more northerly areas tend to have a lot more cloud cover, and snow on the panels will certainly negate their usefulness, although if they have a slick surface and the panels are tilted up at 45 degrees or more, I suspect most snow might just slide right off.


99 posted on 01/28/2005 11:16:00 AM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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