California schools $120M solar project
in [Design]
|
From: vaughn on 1 Jun 2010 14:45 "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:86l057F8g6U4(a)mid.individual.net... >z wrote: >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >> news:YcKdnVzaNLRnrJjRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: >>> vaughn wrote: >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:86j7pjF9i7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels >>>>> already represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as >>>>> they are, have already been obtained. >>>> Not so, especially not so at the consumer level. At the consumer >>>> level PV panels remain a nitch product, so lack of retail competition >>>> and huge shipping costs because of a lack of any local distribution >>>> channel presents significant barriers. >>>> >>>> Vaughn >>> >>> Harbor Freight sells several panels & systems. They do mail order >>> and have a lot of retail stores in the US. >>> >>> <http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?category=&q=s >>> olar&limit=32> >> >> OUCH! the larger panels there are 6-8 dollars a watt > > > Much better deals to be had: > > http://www.amazon.com/Sunforce-39110-123-Watt-High-Efficiency-Polycrystalline/dp/B000MS8SHM > That is still $5.00 per watt, and then you STILL have to pay for shipping. There are far better deals to be had, but shipping can be a deal killer.(See http://sunelec.com/ ) My point was that you can probably find several places within driving distance to buy (say) roofing materials, but you will be lucky to find even one place that stocks a variety of PV panels. That one place will have no completion, so no reason to offer you the best deal. When you buy a heavy/bulky item from a local vender, it has likely arrived by the pallet load via a bulk shipper. Then you just pick it up and take it home, or pay a small amount to have your order delivered the "last mile".. When you buy that same heavy/bulky item from a remote retailer, they have to custom pack it, and then send you your order via an expensive retail shipper. That huge expense at the end of the distribution chain KILLS any economy of scale that may have occurred earlier. The consumer will rarely get a fair shake until an item truly becomes part of the mass market. Vaughn
From: miso on 1 Jun 2010 14:51 On May 31, 7:33 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > On May 31, 4:02 am, "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote: > > > Yesterday I heard a radio story about the California School district > > spending $120 million to put solar energy in/on schools. > > I did a Google search and can't find any info. > > The numbers I heard didn't seem cost effective, > > so I'm curious. > > Anybody know more about it? > > Mike > > California is a very sunny place. In a lot of it, just a little gain > from > some solar heat can save you from having to turn on the furnace. > Since > schools are generally large buildings, the volume to surface area is > large > so the solar heating system doesn't have to be all that big per > student. > > Solar electric can make sense if you sell the excess power into the > grid. > Storage makes it not make sense. It takes about 12 years for a solar > power > system to pay for its self assuming you get a mortgage to buy it. If > you > have cash today, it makes a good way to invest for the future because > after > the system has paid its self off, you will get several year of use > before it > needs to be replaced. The school day is poorly scheduled to take advantage of any solar energy. They start way too early in the day.
From: Martin Brown on 1 Jun 2010 15:00 On 01/06/2010 19:00, Joerg wrote: > z wrote: >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >> news:YcKdnVzaNLRnrJjRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: >>> vaughn wrote: >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:86j7pjF9i7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels >>>>> already represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as >>>>> they are, have already been obtained. >>>> Not so, especially not so at the consumer level. At the consumer >>>> level PV panels remain a nitch product, so lack of retail competition >>>> and huge shipping costs because of a lack of any local distribution >>>> channel presents significant barriers. >>> >>> Harbor Freight sells several panels & systems. They do mail order >>> and have a lot of retail stores in the US. >>> >>> <http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?category=&q=s >>> olar&limit=32> >> >> OUCH! the larger panels there are 6-8 dollars a watt Some element of price gouging unless they are fancy ones. > > > Much better deals to be had: > > http://www.amazon.com/Sunforce-39110-123-Watt-High-Efficiency-Polycrystalline/dp/B000MS8SHM > > > But I guess schools must buy at a union shop and use union labor to > install, so ... $4/W is about where it starts to get interesting. But PV is pretty much a none starter economically unless you get some kind of install grant and a ludicrous price for the electricity generated. And yes there are fraudsters "generating" way more "solar" electricity than the PV array they installed could possibly manage (even on cloudy days). It took the suits in charge of the green refunds a while to catch on... One thing I will say was that I was surprised how well they did on on a cold clear winters day in the UK. The cold more or less compensated for the low angle sun and the array managed nearly 50% of rated output. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Michael A. Terrell on 1 Jun 2010 17:53 z wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > news:YcKdnVzaNLRnrJjRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > > > > > vaughn wrote: > >> > >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > >> news:86j7pjF9i7U1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> > > >> > I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels > >> > already represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as > >> > they are, have already been obtained. > >> > >> Not so, especially not so at the consumer level. At the consumer > >> level PV panels remain a nitch product, so lack of retail competition > >> and huge shipping costs because of a lack of any local distribution > >> channel presents significant barriers. > >> > >> Vaughn > > > > > > Harbor Freight sells several panels & systems. They do mail order > > and > > have a lot of retail stores in the US. > > > > <http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?category=&q=s > > olar&limit=32> > > OUCH! the larger panels there are 6-8 dollars a watt And no shipping if you buy them at a local store. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Jun 2010 19:56
In article <Xns9D8A63E218A0Czyadayadayada(a)216.196.97.130>, z wrote: >"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >news:YcKdnVzaNLRnrJjRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > >> vaughn wrote: >>> >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:86j7pjF9i7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> > >>> > I don't believe in these alleged economies of scale. Solar panels >>> > already represent a large industry. The economies of scale, such as >>> > they are, have already been obtained. >>> >>> Not so, especially not so at the consumer level. At the consumer >>> level PV panels remain a nitch product, so lack of retail competition >>> and huge shipping costs because of a lack of any local distribution >>> channel presents significant barriers. >>> >>> Vaughn >> >> Harbor Freight sells several panels & systems. They do mail order >> and have a lot of retail stores in the US. >> >> <http://www.harborfreight.com/catalogsearch/result/index/?category=&q=s >> olar&limit=32> > >OUCH! the larger panels there are 6-8 dollars a watt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png : It appears to me that Philadelphia gets year-round-average insolation of 175 watts, at least 170 per square meter. Compare that to the 1 KW per square meter that I have some impression that solar cell arrays are rated at... That sounds to me like 34-47 dollars per watt in Philadelphia, if the panels are laid horizontally. I am guesstimating that by making them facing 40 degrees south of zenith (towards "high noon" sun on days of the equinoxes), an improvement of 40% of the 30.5% high-noon-equinox improvement would be achieved on year-round-average. Maybe tilt them to face 37-38 degrees south of zenith because the sun is up and out more in the spring and summer than in the fall and winter. Maybe tilt them to face 2-3 degrees north of the celestial equator and 7.5 degrees east of "high noon meridian" to take advantage of the fact that on average during daytime there are more clouds after noon than before. (I am aware of "morning fog / foggy low cloud" exceptions to this "general rule"). At this rate, I expect about a 15% improvement by optimizing how the solar panels are aimed. Without further optimization to motorize them and get them to track the sun. So, I see good opportunity of a Philadelphian to get the cost down to $29.50-$41 per watt. Considering that a Philadelphian pays nowadays about 14.5 cents per KWH of electricity at "residential rate", excluding the surcharge for consumption past 750 KWH (I hope I got that right, too lazy at this moment to dig out a recent electric bill) per month during a defined air conditioning season. At this rate, even a Philadelphian who wears nice cool summer dresses in the house and uses fans rather than air conditioners and tolerates subtropical to often-worse-hot weather well and frets more about winter than summer and who lives in a rowhouse (good for stealing some climate control from any more-climate-control-needy next-door neighbors) would have a $29.50-41-per-watt solar panel paying for itself in 41 / .000145 hours, which works out to... About 23-32 years, assuming inflation in electricity cost is the same as inflation of cost of cost of whatever else a homemaker has to pay. If one does all maintenance required and in the likely event the solar panel and the likely-associated DC-AC inverter (at maybe 90% efficiency) keeps on truckin', then it's 25-35 years to pay for itself, and 50-100 years to double the invested money. ===== Suppose sun tracking with at least one motor is deployed, at consumption of 5% of the output of the solar panel. At that rate, I have liking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png Philadelphia above atmosphere year-round-average appears to me to achieve about 315-320 watts per square meter of insolation, while at ground level appears to me to achieve 170-175 watts per square meter. That makes me think "at this rate" that 1 KW per square meter of direct sunlight is degraded to 530-555 watts per square meter of a solar panel that tracks the sun, before loss from electrical power consumption of devices to track the sun and before correction for maybe 40% of the time there is significant cloud cover that at least mostly destroys optimization of sun-tracking (as a "representative figure"). At this rate, I have a liking for 95% of 60% of the way from 175 to 320 watts per square meter to be divided by 175 watts per square meter... 42% improvement of rate of return, down to 70.3% as much time to get money back to you - as in about 16-22.5 years to pay for itself, or about 32-45 years to double your money should you have no expense at maintaining the system that long. (If the system requires rechargeable batteries, plan on additional expense because such bateries have a high rate of expiring in less than 32 or even 16 years.) If you double your inflation-adjusted money in 16.6667 years, then the annual rate of return is 3% above the effectively-actual inflation rate. I seem to think that the total rate of returns of major stock index funds, especially "total stock market" ones, have done better from 1970 to now or would have if they were in operation according to their stated rules should they have been in existence in 1970 - I would guess likely even in UK, let alone USA! For that matter, fair chance even from the roughly-1970 high to the 2009 low! (second-worst 39 years of USA stock market - behind the 39 year stretch starting at or a bit before the 1929 high. I seem to think that stretch had USA total stock market outpacing "official inflation" by 4-5% with reinvestment of dividends, minus the ~.3% annual expense ratio that a good index fund like Vanguard "Index Total" should have and that Vanguard achieves.) -- - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |