Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.
in [Basics]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 28 Oct 2009 00:30 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > Even having a couple would keep the lights on > in an emergency. In the daytime. Sylvia.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Oct 2009 08:02 Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > > >> "Don T" <-painter-(a)louvre.org> wrote in message news:toWdnWVkGLbonnvXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > >>> > >>> It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; > >>> it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. > >>> ~Mark Twain > > What's the value of fighting for the freedom of a man who doesn't want > Freedom but wants Mommy? How many times do you need to be told that you have no value? -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Oct 2009 08:06 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > > 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 $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give > it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels > (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on > in an emergency. If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them. -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: vaughn on 28 Oct 2009 08:49 "TheM" <DontNeedSpam(a)test.com> wrote in message news:xEMFm.13684$ZY2.826071(a)news.siol.net... > > I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down > the road, > possibly decades. Yes, but economic break even is also an important concept. For example; PV economic break even will come far sooner for the off-grid person who is presently converting gasoline to kilowatt-hours than it would for someone contemplating a grid-tie syestem in an area with cheap electricity. > And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus. Again, maintenance is mostly an economic issue, it has less to do with net energy. That said, I agree that maintenance is an important and often overlooked factor. > And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology. Yes, but demand, and the competition that demand generates, is a main driver for improving technology. If we just fold our arms and wait for technology to improve in the absence of demand, technology improvement is unlikely to ever happen. Vaughn
From: vaughn on 28 Oct 2009 09:11
<miso(a)sushi.com> wrote in message news:35330600-a2c4-411b-a62c-c7c837113931(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste >stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel. They let >the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them >offsite, And rightly so. It is far safer to store high-level nuclear waste on-site and postpone moving it until it naturally decays to at least medium-level waste. >and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened. The problems with Yuca Mountain are far more political than scientific. The great irony is that the highly-trumpeted "nuclear waste problem" has been made insolvable my the anti-nukes. They have been very effective! Further, they refuse to realistically compare the dangers of nuclear power to the dangers of the alternatives. In the interim, the world is subjected to the ecological horror of more and more coal plants, and (statistically speaking) humans are dying form the emissions from those plants. Further, those plants also have an insolvable waste problem. Vaughn |