Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.
in [Basics]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 28 Oct 2009 23:00 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > 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 UPSs don't cycle their batteries much, unless the power supply is very unreliable. But even so I tend to get only three years out of my SLA UPS batteries. Sylvia.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 28 Oct 2009 23:25 nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: > > 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 You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries for everyone who want to use solar? -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 23:40 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >> 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 > > > You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries > for everyone who want to use solar? > > I addressed the issue of "Short lived batteries", as bullshit, and your point is what?
From: krw on 28 Oct 2009 23:42 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:25:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >nospam(a)nevis.com wrote: >> >> 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 > > > You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries >for everyone who want to use solar? All three people?
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 29 Oct 2009 00:41
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. Cheap deep cycle batteries with a 15 year guarantee are available -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |