Re: Power Supplies, Saving Money, and switching vs. Linear?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:T5qdnVPt76dAc4TZRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > It is almost free once you spend the huge $ for the panel, charge
> controller
> > and battery.  However, others in the alt.energy.homepower newsgroup have
> > calculated that if you have commercial power, the payback on your
> investment
> > is something like 18 years.  Not worth it.  No business case.
>
> Well, to some the piece of mind that they're not wasting that much more in
> the way of fossil fuels is worth the investment.  It's not purely a matter
> of costs.  18 years (and more) of not being yet another fuel consumer.

The solar payback equations are often predicated on unrealistically stable
electrical rates.   In my neck of the woods, the rates have gone up and are
going up like never before.  I think the payback will come much sooner than
in 18 years in the pure business case mode.  As you point out, there's a
psychological payback, too, from not being so big a part of the overall
fossil fuel dependency problem.

I'm researching now, but the next house will mostly likely have a
southern-facing roof comprised of "solar shingles" or a similar roofing
material.  The high oil prices seem to be stimulating the flow of venture
capital into solar-based technologies once again.   It may also turn out
that a spectacular technological advance could radically alter the 18 year
"pay back" equation.  Who could have predicted the transistor 10 years
before it appeared and how it would alter the electronic landscape?  I hope
they make that advance in solar power before I sink $$$ into old technology!

--
Bobby G.