Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.
in [Basics]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Oct 2009 19:58 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights. The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short lived batteries. -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: TheM on 28 Oct 2009 19:26 <nospam(a)nevis.com> wrote in message news:4ae79f14$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > 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. Especially at night.... factor in batteries and invertors and its way more than 1.98. M
From: vaughn on 28 Oct 2009 20:58 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:yqadnW0BsJ4uR3XXnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short > lived batteries. Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years or more is not unheard of for a good set of lead acid batteries. In the past, I have been lucky enough to "scrounge" good used batteries from large UPS systems. In my home system I typically get another 5 years service from them. Vaughn
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 22:36 TheM wrote: > <nospam(a)nevis.com> wrote in message news:4ae79f14$1(a)news.x-privat.org... >> 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. > > Especially at night.... factor in batteries and invertors and its way more > than 1.98. > > M > > For a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights? Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 22:37
Michael A. Terrell wrote: > nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> >> After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights. > > > The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short > lived batteries. > > Tell that to my 10 year old UPS |