KR Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:57:18 GMT) it happened
wrote in :

....snip...

Add that in, and the cost of a $15000 system is
much worse - over 30,000 in a 25 year, 7% mortgage.

You have to take into account that the cost of a kWh from
the grid in 25 years will be a LOT higher too, if there
still is a grid during and after WW3 that is.

That's silly economics. I do not have to take into account the
cost of electricity in 25 years. I can wait. Solar cells are
becoming cheaper too. When the cost of the solar cell is less
than the cost of power from the grid I can switch, saving all of
the negative amortization inbetween, and have a *new* system in
25 years, just as you're in need of replacing yours. ;-)

My guess though, is that solar cells for the individual will
never become cheaper than power from the grid, since the power
company has access to the same technology and a *lot* better
financing possibilities. ...and they don't have to have the pay-
back in my lifetime.

They have access to the tech, BUT, they also have to maintain the
distribution system. Since my electricity has been unbundled,
roughly half of my cost per Kwh goes to the distribution co., not the
producer. Ice storms, drunk drivers, blown line fuses all cost money.
As well as the personel and associated benefits packages,
transportation costs of materials, etc. for maintaining the lines.
All this is avoided cost on home solar.

And...
www.solaraccess.com/news/story?storyid=6482

talking about a new discovery:

"A solar cell with the simplest possible physical structure could
achieve 50 percent efficiency or better, far higher than any yet
demonstrated in the laboratory."

It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.

--
Jerry wa2rkn no email @ present