SOLAR ENERGY MAY SOON GET MUCH CHEAPER
in [Physics]
|
Prev: neutrino oscillation
Next: math solution, fyi
From: JD on 13 Jun 2010 13:55 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics JD <JD(a)somewhere.con> wrote: >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>> In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, >>>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >>>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >>>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >>>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >>>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >>>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. >>>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >>>>> >>>>> <snip rest> >>>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? >>>> >>>> http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm >>> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. >>> >>> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do >>> with the raw material cost to build it. >>> >>> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV >>> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. >> Are these permits and installers the price of >> getting subsidies? > > Umm, no, they are the price of having building codes to make sure your roof > doesn't blow away with the solar panel in the first windstorm. > >> What if one can do the job with one's own funds >> and labor? > > In the US and most first world countries, attaching to the local grid will > require a licensed electrician and in many places just running wires through > your house will require one unless you want to void your homeowners insurance. Who said I want the grid. I want to be OFF the grid. I have built three houses from scratch and, when the inspections were made, there were no problems. They were to be on the grid. How much different would the inspections be for off-grid constructions? > If you just want to put lights in a barn, you could do it yourself. > >>> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about >>> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction >>> of the panel cost. >> The info that started this thread suggests a much >> lower cost because of >> the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual, >> time will tell. > > Reread the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: > > "The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is > composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component." So, to sum up the first post of this thread it was "Much ado about nothing." > If in fact effiency goes up less panel area would be required and the system > cost should come down, if. > > One day we may see something more substantial than yet another press release, > but personally I've been waiting for that to happen for several decades, so > pardon me if I'm a bit dubious. > >
From: jimp on 13 Jun 2010 14:09 JD <JD(a)somewhere.con> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics JD <JD(a)somewhere.con> wrote: >>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>>> In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, >>>>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >>>>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >>>>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >>>>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >>>>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >>>>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. >>>>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>>>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip rest> >>>>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? >>>>> >>>>> http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm >>>> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. >>>> >>>> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do >>>> with the raw material cost to build it. >>>> >>>> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV >>>> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. >>> Are these permits and installers the price of >>> getting subsidies? >> >> Umm, no, they are the price of having building codes to make sure your roof >> doesn't blow away with the solar panel in the first windstorm. >> >>> What if one can do the job with one's own funds >>> and labor? >> >> In the US and most first world countries, attaching to the local grid will >> require a licensed electrician and in many places just running wires through >> your house will require one unless you want to void your homeowners insurance. > > Who said I want the grid. I want to be OFF the > grid. I have built three houses > from scratch and, when the inspections were made, > there were no problems. They > were to be on the grid. How much different would > the inspections be for off-grid > constructions? That depends on your local building code and any insurance provisions. Most people want power 24X7, which is rather expensive to achieve with solar power when you are totally off the grid. A diesel generator would be cheaper. >> If you just want to put lights in a barn, you could do it yourself. >> >>>> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about >>>> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction >>>> of the panel cost. >>> The info that started this thread suggests a much >>> lower cost because of >>> the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual, >>> time will tell. >> >> Reread the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: >> >> "The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component." > > So, to sum up the first post of this thread it was > "Much ado about nothing." At this point it is just another press release for a technology which may or may not prove to be marketable. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: GEOD998 on 13 Jun 2010 20:04 Subidies only help to keep prices high-get the gov out of alt en and put it into the hands of entrepreneurs-and let the market sort itself out.I cant think of one gov alt en project that isnt a target for ridicule.And I've been in favor and involved in alt en since the 80s ,so you know what fun it is for right wing talking heads > Are these permits and installers the price of > getting subsidies?
From: jimp on 13 Jun 2010 20:47 In sci.physics GEOD998 <geod998(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Subidies only help to keep prices high-get the gov out of alt en and > put it into the hands of entrepreneurs-and let the market sort itself > out. As all the "green" energy sources cost several times what conventional energy costs, the elimination of subsidies would mean all the "green" producers would go bankrupt. So yeah, the market would sort itself out. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Robert Scott on 14 Jun 2010 08:22
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:47:46 -0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics GEOD998 <geod998(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Subidies only help to keep prices high-get the gov out of alt en and >> put it into the hands of entrepreneurs-and let the market sort itself >> out. > >As all the "green" energy sources cost several times what conventional >energy costs, the elimination of subsidies would mean all the "green" >producers would go bankrupt. > >So yeah, the market would sort itself out. > >Jim Pennino What are you arguing? That permanent subsidies are a good thing? If the green energy sources are permanently costing several times what conventional energy costs, then either: 1. Green energy should be abandoned as it is a waste of resources, or 2. The "costs" of conventional energy do not adequately represent the true costs to society (in terms of pollution, etc.), and if we properly passed those costs on to the consumers of conventional energy, then alternate energy might become cost-effective by comparison. If (2) is correct, then the solution is not to subsidize green energy, but to remove subsidies from conventional energy and to make conventional energy pay the real cost to all of us for its use. The only defensible role for subsidies is to briefly jump-start a technology that has some hope of becoming self-sustaining. And even that role is questionable, since how does a government know what will be turn out to be a good bet and what will be a waste? Robert Scott Ypsilanti, Michigan |