Replies

"I saw figures on solar cells indicating that the electrical requirements of the LA basin would require panels covering an area equal to Arizona."

Since the LA basin accounts for something like 1/4 of electrical consumption in California, such a solar system could not be tied to the conventional grid. Therefore, line 6 in the table below, would have to be divided by three. In other words, you would only get 7 deliverable watts per square meter of PV panel. The cost would be astronomical. Moreover, it would consume the entire world's production of solar cells for about a decade. For these reasons alone, only California would consider such idiocy.

The Inefficiencies of Solar Power
(Based upon a horizontal PV array located at
the average continental U.S. latitude of 38º.)

ref.	source	loss (%)	power (per m²)
1.	Solar flux	-	1,368 W
2.	Atmospheric losses	45	752 W
3.	Night times losses	50	376 W
4.	Solar angle losses	50	188 W
5.	Cell conversion losses	88	22.6 W
6.	DC®AC inverter losses	10	20.3 W
7.	Net efficiency		1.5%
8.	Net energy (per m² per day)		0.5 kWh
9.	Value of energy (per m² per day)		4.3 ¢
10.	Solar panel cost (per m²)		$530
11.	Payback period		33 years

Notes:

1.	Above the atmosphere. Compare to solar constant.
2.	Loss = atmos. absorp. + atmos. reflect. + cloud absorp. + cloud reflect. See additional references: 1, 2, 3,
3.	Necessary for calculating average daily value of energy production.
4.	Effect of solar angle on efficiency. Line 4 equals 4.5kWh per day. Compare to U.S. Average Daily Solar Radiation.
5.	Shell SQ175-PC, including specified de-rating for cell temperature and irradiance level.
6.	5kW modular, certified, grid-interactive, inverter.
7.	Line 6 divided by line 1.
8.	Line 6 times 86,400 and divided by 3.6E6.
9.	From 2004 DOE stats for average U.S. residential price.
10.	Shell SQ175-PC solar panel, $699, 1.32m² area.
11.	Exclusive of installation, inverter, interest, etc.

--Boot Hill