Something sounds very screwy here. I only looked at the first case study--the guy claims that 5 years ago he paid $45,000 to get his electric vehicle AND the PV system that is on the roof of his garage. He also claims that this PV system powers his whole house and his car. He claims the loan he took out to pay for all this has monthly payments less than his previous electric and gas bills, so his payback period was zero.
I'll bet the hemp wearing crowd is shouting ""stick it to the man!" already.
I didn't do the whole $$ per watt math, but the numbers do not sound right.
If we assume the car cost was $25k, then the amount he spent onthe PV system (panels, batteries, inverter, controller, wiring, installation, etc) was $20k.
From another site (
Solar Photovoltaic Industry Cost and Price Trends) I read:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Typical kWh usage by homes in three selected US average homes is shown below. For example, in a Sacramento, California home, it would cost around $16-$20,000 . . . to satisfy around 25% of that home's energy needs." (emphasis added)
So, if this is right (and it sounds close), then it seems very unlikely that a $20K PV system is running a normal home AND providing all the juice he needs for his car. He's either not being honest, or the only lights in his house come from hand-cranked LED flashlights, or his costs were reduced by subsidies--probably provided by taxpayers. I suspect the answer is subsidies. That's something not mentioned in the article, and it is a significant point. Especially as the guy is bashing the tax gimmies given to oil companies.
"I can't hear you, brother. Pull your snout out of the trough for a minute and say that again."
[/FONT]