I disagree with the argument of the inefficiency of solar power. My two
arrays of PV panels generate 90% of our power over a year's time; right
now they produce about 32 kWh per day. At a California electricity
price of anywhere from $0.14 to $0.22 per kWh, I consider them cost
effective. PV panels will continue to operate indefinitely, whereas the
"tiniest generator" will continue to burn up fuel forever. The nuclear
power plants depend on a "manufacturing and installation" cost of
billions of dollars, to say nothing of the decommissioning costs in the
future. Silicon is cheap and abundant. Manufacturing PV panels is not
a "useless" occupation, unlike the production of lots of other frivolous
things that readily come to mind (SUVs, designer handbags, McMansion
houses, Hollywood movie star magazines, ad nauseum....).
HARRY WYETH
West Hartford's solar panels installed on two highschool roofs
produced 14,933 kWh of electricity in about three years. This means
that the panels generated average power of 570 W. Thus West Hartford
reaped enough electricity to keep almost six 100 W lightbulbs lit. At
a price of tens of thousand dollars. The output of these solar panels
can be matched by the tiniest generator sold at home improvement
stores for a few hundred dollars.
As to the saving of "more than 12.5 tons of carbon" - not here. Most
electricity (80 % according to NU) comes from nuclear plants in our
area. Besides, the carbon released at manufacturing and installation
of those panels exceeded the claimed reduction manyfold and is
unlikely to ever break even no matter how long this solar power
station will function and consume energy for upkeep.
Who is the winner here? The few politicians that advance their carrier
by being pro-green and pro-generating useless jobs. Who are the
losers? - all of us.
Stan Jakuba
