On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:32:47 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: >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.
Third world energy consumption is generally a lot less than western use. this also has to be considered when considering the economy of solar power in these countries. >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. The rule of thumb I have heard is if a single dwelling is more than 1 mile from grid power, it is cheaper to generate on site. Of course since countries using the metric system are more efficient, this reduces to 1km ;-) Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
