Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (102864)	5/17/2001 5:47:52 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 436258

Apparently there have been some real breakthroughs in the technology for producing the solar panels for the photovoltaic cells within the past few years. I am reading quotes in the range of 20-25 cents per kWh - which is 3-4 times what I pay now, but not much more than people will be paying in California. Where photovoltaic cells really make economic sense is for people who live in rural areas - it's cheaper to install PV than pay to have a line run out to your property. Further, if you factor in all the costs of traditional energy, there are expenses that aren't paid by the consumer. My oil furnace doesn't have a scrubber - all the ash goes into the environment. Ever see what acid rain does to a stone or brick building? Besides which, I think they look nifty. Blue, my favorite color.:)

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (102864)	5/17/2001 4:49:20 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 436258

Congrats on getting cool post of the day!

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (102864)	5/17/2001 5:15:27 PM
From: David R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

One last question. Is the net pollution per KWH less for solar panels than other energy sources. From what I understand, the mfg process is pretty messy. The real test should be net pollution/KWH.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (102864)	5/17/2001 5:24:50 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

pretty good on some points, but ... way off on a couple >>Q3. Why is the price of the energy saved too low? A3. Directly or indirectly, the price is controlled or capped by politicians or regulators responding to media-generated protests or the threat of same, as well as trying to buy votes and collect campaign contributions.<< Q. How are rates set in most jurisdictions? A. in most states rates are still set on a ROR basis -- that's essentially cost-plus ratemaking. Q. Are rates artificially low and if so, by how much? A. Rates are not artificially low (average rates) -- but even if one accepted that premise -- no reasonable argument can be made that they are too low by 4 - 5x (i.e. what is would take to make photovolataics competitive for widespread application to residential customers.) >> Q4. Why is the price of the panel too high? A4. In part because of A3. The artificially low price of the energy to be saved limits the market demand for the panels, which in turn keeps their costs high in part due to low and inefficient manufacturing volumes << A4 is simply a non-sequitor -- the price of energy does not keep the manufacturing cost of solar panels high -- separate issue altogether. Would be manufacturers can calculate the reduction in costs stemming from spreading the fixed costs over larger and larger volumes. Either 1) there isn't the demand or 2) even considering the expected reduced per-unit cost solar cells still aren't competitive with grid supplied power ...