SI
SI
discoversearch

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: bentway who wrote (835904)2/11/2015 3:03:36 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576163
 
The point is that if you cannot use solar to cover 100% of the use cases, then it isn't worth doing at all...

Or something.



To: bentway who wrote (835904)2/12/2015 1:28:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576163
 
Bentway,
Once the initial cost of the installation is amortized, their is ZERO fuel cost and the most minimal of maintenance.
Yes and no.

Of course there is zero fuel cost, but maintenance is going to be up there simply because of the sheer number of panels you have to maintain.

Yes, wear and tear happens to solar panels despite the lack of moving parts.

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News