If solar panels were so outrageously inefficient, there wouldn't be a market for them, even with thousands of dollars worth of government subsidies.
I've heard of installations of a single panel being installed on a house cutting electric costs down by 10-15%. Not bad, for a single panel.
Solar is making huge strides, but nuke power is where it's at, to the max. Put one in every coastal community in Michigan and power the continent.
That's the most outrageously stupid post I've ever seen you make. You obviously know littlle about solar arrays. At least you have the foresight to understand that atomic power is the clean answer but coal will still be king way past our generation simply because of the stigma associated with reactors and the fact that coal is very plentiful in North America and it supports a large contigent of the population.
One panel might cut your usage 10-15% if you use one 15 watt light bulb in your home and nothing else.
Ever price a polycrystaline solar panel Mr. Fly? Somehow I don't believe you ever did.
A 50 watt panel will set you back about 400 bucks. That's 50 watts at 14.5 VDC, not 50 watts at 110 VAC. You have to convert the 14.5 VDC to AC by way of storage batteries and inverters and inverters are notoriously inefficient so your lone 50 watt panel probably produces 30 watts of useable 110 VAC power...and only when the sun shines. Other times, you run on storage batteries..expensive batteries no less.
Now if you are referring to one array of say 12 panels x 50 watts nominal, it could offset your residential usage but the input cost would be close to 10K to get the physical plant set up to produce the power and that would only offset
, not replace your consumption with a green alternative.
If you want to be green on a budget, heat your hot water with a passive array. Lots cheaper and quicker payback plus it too qualifies for Obama's rebate.