From: muratlanne@gmail.com
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news:i10jua5u2gc25vfbbm5v16s3rk5uor71g9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:20:38 -0400, Vaughn
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/22/2015 8:52 PM, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>> I suspect a fossil-fueled generator will be more cost-effective
>>> than a solar powered battery bank.
>>
>>In most cases I agree, which is why I have a natural gas powered
>>generator. That said, if you do the math you will see that over a
>>long
>>outage a fossil-powered generator can drink an amazing amount of
>>fuel.
>>Operated 24/7, my little Onan could easily give me a $1000 gas bill!
>>
>>Properly designed and thought out, a solar system can provide power
>>year-around, not just during an outage. Mine isn't grid-tied, but
>>it
>>lights my yard lights year-round and supplies some of my home's
>>internal
>>lighting.
>
> There is no question that running a fossil fuel generator 24/7 will
> be more expensive, in most cases, than an RE system.
>
> But the OP wrote he wanted to "ease into" solar.
>
> If one of the objectives is also backup power during an outage, then
> a whole different, and more complex series of considerations becomes
> adviseable.
>
> One of our homes is off-grid, and our fossil fuel generator
> initially ran about 400 hr/yr. Adding 2kW of PV cut that down to
> 200 hrs/yr. So that is a savings of about $500/yr in propane.
> At the time (around 2004), adding the 2kW of PV was about $13,000
> (prices have come down quite a bit since then, but I already had
> batteries and inverters, so those costs were $0), so there's not a
> good payoff. But it was worth it to me to not have to listen to the
> generator as often.
======
Have you figured the lifespan cost of batteries?
-jsw
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
