Backyard Nuclear Reactor
I couldn't make the return on investment
(even with a 50% government subsidy and in one of the best solar sites
in the world) work for solar on my home in Phoenix, at least at current
prices and technology. Maybe I can justify a backyard nuclear reactor?
Hat tip: Another Weird SF Fan
HTRN:
PV panels are hovering about $8/watt, at least for the big Siemens panels. a Grid tie inverter is about $3K for 5000 watts.
Doing a 5Kw grid tie installation therefore, is about $43,000. And oh, It probably won't cover all your power needs, unless you're very energy thrifty.
About the only place that comes close to making sense economically(and even then it's a stretch) is Southern California(6th highest in the US) and Hawaii(the highest in the country).
Arizona, on the other hand, is below the national average.
October 22, 2007, 10:44 amFred from Canuckistan . . .:
gee, suitable for 700 ordinary people.
One of these would just about power Al Gore's house.
October 22, 2007, 1:38 pmBob Smith:
Don't forget about wasted land area. The same lefties that want us all to be squeezed like the proverbial sardines into tiny urban condos in order to "stop sprawl" and "conserve greenspace" seem oddly happy to demand we use power sources like wind and solar that take up much, much, much more land than fossil fuel or nuclear plants.
October 22, 2007, 2:08 pmmarkm:
Bob, when it's on the roof it doesn't take up land.
OTOH, I haven't tried to figure out the land, water, energy, and other resources required to *make* the solar cells, inverter, and other components of the system. I don't know if anyone could collect all that data, but if the price of a solar system reflects the resources used to make it, then the failure to make a return on investment seems to imply that it's a net loss in resources..
October 23, 2007, 12:04 pmBob Smith:
True, but a roof is woefully insufficient. You need a lot more area than that in order to reliably generate enough power.
October 24, 2007, 4:35 pm