Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
We're paying something like 10 cents per kWh in Portland. That's dirt cheap compared to the rest of the country and the world. The only cheaper power I've had is Washington at 8 cents.
|
I don't know that the rate would make much of a difference. Per the EIA Oregon pays 8.9 cents and the US average is 10.3 cents. I only average about $85 per month with an almost all electric house. (Only our hot water is gas, I pulled the gas furnace 2 years ago and had a heat pump installed) Even adding 10 to 15% to my rate isn't going to change my payback substantially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
This is the last sunny week of the year. We're in for 5 months of overcast after that.
|
The projections from the 3 companies that quoted my job showed the solar still covering about 1/3 to 1/2 of my usage even during our rainy season. That matches what my neighbors with solar say they are getting. In the summer I would be exceeding my needs and feeding back into the grid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
...and those figures are for nameplate output, not actual, right? That's why sendler is always on about. A nuke plant can deliver 90% of nameplate or something like that, while solar is something like 30%.
|
Yes, that is nameplate installed capacity. Nuke plants cost so much upfront that even a 90% of nameplate they cost more per kWh than coal, gas, solar, or wind.
Likewise a coal plant cost more to build, maintain, and run than a gas plant. Using the EIA numbers coal is 3x more expensive than gas.
Wind and Solar are less expensive to build out than a coal plant, less expensive to maintain, and the "fuel" is free. Using the EIA numbers wind and solar are the same price as coal per kWh at 1/3 of nameplate output when the coal plant is at 2/3rds of nameplate.
The biggest eyeopener for me was that the cost to install wind has dropped 25% and solar 67% in only 3 years.