Posted on 05/11/2014 11:23:57 AM PDT by Nachum
The wording in the OP is horrendous. This gives us a clue that the drop-outs in the WH don't know what they're talking about concerning PC global warming climate change and electric cars.
I don't get that. Here, In WA State where Google and all are putting in the big data centers next to Columbia River dams, the cost is about 6 cents.
The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Of course, to get the output I reported in #18, the panel orientation has to track the sun — and even then it isn’t going to be for very many hours each day once you get much away from June in the northern hemisphere.
Maybe the WH can dedicate the output from the solar cells towards recharging their smartphones, to be able to keep issuing those important policy Tweets ...
But that’s not averaged over 365 24 hr days, counting cloudy days. I have a 1 kW bank of panels that’s just fine for running some critical electronics (internet hardware, a laptop and ham radio full time with just enough reserve for another couple of part-time usage radios.
But that’s not averaged over 365 24 hr days, counting cloudy days. I have a 1 kW bank of panels that’s just fine for running some critical electronics (internet hardware, a laptop and ham radio full time with just enough reserve for another couple of part-time usage radios.
The OP doesn’t work for the Black House; he is a ‘conservative’ commentator. The WH setup is probably fine engineering wise (for a wing of the White House or something), but the implementation was done for its symbolism not its energy.
Sounds about right. The panel must be fixed mount?
Yup, 45 degree roof, aimed pretty much south. 44 degrees north.
Thanks for correction.
But it remains that one reason that conservatives are unnecessarily struggling to protect the Constitution is because so many "conservative" journalists evidently don't know the federal government's constitutionally limited powers any better than they understand basic physics.
It always surprises me that we are north of northern New England and parts of Canada. But the latitude lines do not lie.
That's #63 100 watt incandescent bulbs for those in Rio Linda.
The site has an update (which matches what FR engineering types have posted):
“UPDATE: A commenter below noted…
“This article makes a number of fundamental errors in its analysis. First and foremost is the confusion between power (kilowatts or kW) and energy (kilowatt-hours or kWh).
“KW is the instantaneous power, or in this case the “rated” instantaneous power of the PV array, or the most it would put out under ideal conditions. Energy is that power over a period of time. For example, 6 kW over three hours equals 18 kWh of energy.. Since Washington gets an annual average of about 5.5 hours of equivalent full sunshine on a tilted array surface, the “energy” from the array would be the “power” times the equivalent sunshine hours. Kilowatts times hours equals kilowatt-hours. There are some other factors such as temperature effects and the efficiency of converting from DC to AC, so it is easiest to use one of the web-based calculators.
“Using the NREL “PVWatts” program (http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) for calculating energy from a PV system, the 6.3 kWp White House system system would produce about 100,000 kWh per year, which works out to roughly 27 kWh per year, which works out to roughly the average household usage quoted in the article.
They should put their calculator down and quit digging....
/johnny
and they will prolly pay for themselves in thirty or forty years...
"Given how little energy will be generated, it’s no surprise that the administration has declined to state just how much the taxpayer shelled out for it."
Transparency and all that. Nothing but effing crooks, the whole lot.
When even the cook notices the errors...
Perhaps the author should have gone to culinary school.
I just went and looked at my bill. With the add ons (distribution, customer, etc) my residential electricity comes to .08628 per KWH. Without the add ons, my residential kwh cost would only be .06284 per kwh.
The 93 cents the City said it pays was from a newspaper article about ditching the solar panels at the park. I know commercial rates are higher here than residential, but that figure in the newspaper must have been wrong. It probably should have been .093 per kwh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.