Re: Solar for EV charging (was: Who Elected These People?!)

[William Korthof <wkorthof@earthlink.net>]

>What about wind power?  I saw a Whisper 3000 for 5k.   20 Seimens panels
>that would cost 13k had the same output.  Wouldn't wind power be a viable

Siemans SP100 100 watt panels can be purchased out the door 
for $400. With California incentives, the net cost is about 
$150 per 100 watts of nameplate capacity. 

If you can justify the cost of the inverter for its UPS 
functionality, the economics for PV can look pretty good. 

In CA, the average residential and small business 
customer can now install PV with a for a reasonable 
price and with a reasonably good payback. 

In So Cal Edison territory, residential rates are rising 
to about $0.13/kwh for the below-baseline tier, $0.15 for 
the second tier (up to 130% of baseline), $0.20 for the 
third tier (up to 200% of baseline), and $0.25 for all 
additional usage. For reference, the baseline allocations 
are roughly 400 kwh/month (gas appliances) or 600/month 
for an all-electric residences. 

/wk


>source if your area is windy.  I think the only problem with the wind power
>is the noise and the one I saw in Hopland, Ca was quiet.  Lawrence
>Rhodes....
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "PETER VANDERWAL" <peterv@peoplepc.com>
>To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:28 AM
>Subject: Re: Solar for EV charging (was: Who Elected These People?!)
>
>
>> The problem is not the real estate, it's the cells themselves.  At this
>> point in time the cost to manufacturer them exceeds the cost of all the
>> electricity they can generate in the next 20 years.  Since most cells are
>> only rated for 20 years, and PG&E isn't going to wait 20 years to break
>even
>> anyway...
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Tim Clevenger <tclevenger@hotmail.com>
>> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:36 AM
>> Subject: Solar for EV charging (was: Who Elected These People?!)
>>
>>
>> > Hi Bob,
>> >
>> > Hey, if I change the subject line, will that make this on-topic again?
>> :-)
>> >
>> > I'm a big fan of solar.  With all of the commercial buildings and houses
>> in
>> > this country, you'd think we could find a place to stick solar where it
>> > won't cover agricultural land.  Fortunately, the areas that get the most
>> sun
>> > (Southwest US) also have the most otherwise unusable land.
>> >
>> > Another option for solar is those solar roof shingles.  They provide the
>> > roof with the same weather and damage protection as regular shingles,
>and
>> > are usually warranted for 20-25 years (the same as an average roof.)
>> >
>> > It won't be enough to charge an EV.  Heck, it may not even be enough to
>> > cover your air conditioner.  But if it cuts in half the load that all of
>> > these homes would be generating anyway, maybe California COULD get by
>with
>> > just the wind and hydro we have.
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > -----
>> > From:  Bob Horvath <bob_judy_horvath@yahoo.com>
>> > To:  ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>> > Subject:  Re: Who Elected These People?!
>> > Date:  Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:12:29 -0800 (PST)
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > So with that, here's what I have to add:
>> > - really significant portions of our electricity from solar cells
>> > will take up too much valuable agricultural land
>> > - but every rooftop should have solar panels!
>> > - really big windmills cause serious "noise pollution"
>> > - but every windy place should have windmills, big if unoccupied!
>> > (yes, the energy industry has been subsidized, and my little
>> > unsubsidized windmill will take 10 years to pay for itself, if itlasts)
>> > - even hydro power (i.e. dams) can have serious environmental
>> > consequences, but we need to weigh them rather than say "never"
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>