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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (388984)	6/5/2008 8:55:53 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575426

Joe, > Getting max per acre means that less of the earth surface is covered with these things. The next time I travel to AZ, if I see more solar panels than desert, then I'll start to worry about "max per acre." Most of the cost is construction and maintenance. Land is pretty cheap, at least out in the desert. Tenchusatsu

To: Joe NYC who wrote (388984)	6/5/2008 9:44:53 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1575426

"Maybe the distance maximizes the ROI, and gets the maximum out of each reflector at the lowest angle of the sun." Right. You have to sum over the length of the day. Because the reflectors only have one degree of freedom, your ROI declines pretty swiftly. "But, IMO, the land use should enter into the equation as well. " I am sure it does. The shown method isn't the most efficient use of land. It does, however, have a lower cost per installed kilowatt-hour. The most efficient, and cheapest over the long run, are "power towers". They have lower maintenance and produce more power per acre, but the initial cost is a lot higher.