Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.
in [Basics]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 27 Oct 2009 21:27 Don Lancaster wrote: > EHWollmann wrote: >> "Don T" <-painter-(a)louvre.org> wrote in message >> news:toWdnWVkGLbonnvXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>> Wasn't $1 a watt it was $1.98 but here it is. >>> >>> "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM(a)gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message >>> news:h95fmr$7s2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> Pull in your spam antennas. I have no connection to this company >>>> except I >>>> bought an EU-2000 from them once, and I may buy a new PV panel from >>>> them >>>> tomorrow if those prices are real. At that price, they have the >>>> SUN-130 and >>>> SUN-150. The minimum number of panels they will ship is two. I hope to >>>> drive down there tomorrow and pick up one. >>>> >>>> http://sunelec.com/ >>>> http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=357 >>>> >>>> >>>> Two years ago we were talking about a silicon & carbon shortage and >>>> impossibly growing PV prices. Is the PV industry facing over >>>> production >>>> now? How quickly things change. >>>> >>>> Vaughn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Don Thompson >>> >>> Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once, >>> and that makes me an expert. " >>> >>> There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. >>> ~Goethe >>> >>> It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; >>> it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. >>> ~Mark Twain >>> >>> >>> "Gordon" <gonzo(a)alltomyself.com> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9CB085E398BC8greederxprtnet(a)94.75.244.51... >>>> A few week ago someone posted a link to a supplier in Florida who >>>> had some >>>> solar panals available at $1.00/watt. >>>> >>>> Can you repost the link, I can't seem to find it. >> >> Be careful, when you deal with American dumbasses, everything they >> made or recommended is over-rated or exaggerated. For example, DELCO >> REMY' 140A alternator is really a 80-90-amp alternator, look at its >> copper wire thickness(0.08" thick same a Bosch 80amp 0.08" thick) and >> don't believe what the label says. Also their new Chevy Volt 200mpg >> is a fake hybrid, what it is a 30-40miles per charge mileage, not per >> tank. The dumbasses in these forums are so proud of their hyped >> products, and they complained so much about the Chinese products. >> What a shame... >> >> > > > A dollar a watt solar panels would be totally useless, since they would > simply be "paint it green" transfer payments of existing hydrocarbon or > nuclear energy. > > And still remain asoline destroying net energy sinks that are in no > manner green, renewable, nor sustainable. > > It makes no sense at all to sell a dime's worth of conventional > electricity and then use that dime to buy some mythical "renewable" energy. > > For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed. > > Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual > breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy. > > http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf Over here we pay around 15c per kWhr for mains electricity. Do the sums. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 21:32 TheM wrote: > "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM(a)gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Don Lancaster" <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed. >>> >>> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy. >>> >> Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a >> perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world. >> >> Vaughn > > I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road, > possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus. > And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology. > > M > > > Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on in an emergency.
From: Robert Baer on 28 Oct 2009 00:49 Rich Grise wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote: >> With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost tied >> to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or payback >> and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the future >> cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly. > > Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and > get a viable nuclear power program going. > > Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them > to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships. > > Thanks, > Rich > Check; rename the tech to "New, Clear".
From: miso on 28 Oct 2009 00:03 On Oct 27, 12:49 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote: > > > With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost tied > > to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or payback > > and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the future > > cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly. > > Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and > get a viable nuclear power program going. > > Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them > to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships. > > Thanks, > Rich You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy. I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.
From: "stu" no where just on 28 Oct 2009 00:23
<miso(a)sushi.com> wrote in message news:80d4465c-e5e7-4b6e-9637-598cf1eca8bc(a)m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Oct 27, 12:49 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote: > > > With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost > > tied > > to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or payback > > and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the future > > cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly. > > Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and > get a viable nuclear power program going. > > Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them > to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships. > > Thanks, > Rich You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy. I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be. OMG did you manage to read the whole thing? You might want to read a few other books before you abandon "pro-nuclear" |