Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 19 Apr 2010 18:31 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:11:27 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 19/04/2010 06:09, Robert Baer wrote: > >> Yup! Just print (yet) another trillion dollars backed by NOTING... > >It's actually backed by the goodwill of China Not goodwill at all. China is screwed. They need our markets as much as we need their loans. More, in fact.
From: Don Lancaster on 19 Apr 2010 18:59 Jaded Hobo wrote: > Don Lancaster wrote: >> On 4/17/2010 1:34 AM, eryer wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I want to realize (for hobby) a battery charger using solar cell. I've >>> found this sensor >>> http://www.clare.com/Products/SolarCell.htm >>> Its output voltage is high and can be used without step-up transformer >>> (like any typical solar cell). So, i can use >>> * a typical solar cell (with millivolt output voltage) and a step-up >>> transformer >>> * this sensor >>> For you, what is the best (performance) solution? >> >> >> There is NO best solution. >> >> All of photovoltaics is an outright scam to steal state and federal >> funds. >> >> Not one net watthour of pv energy has EVER been produced! >> >> See <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf> for a detailed analysis. >> >> >> >> > and 3 computers will more than serve all the world's computation needs... > > Antoon Actually, one computer will do. It is called the "world wide web" Three might end up excessive. The point being that there are far cheaper and far more spectacular ways to destroy gasoline than by hiding the process in a pv panel disguise that is in no manner renewable nor sustainable. Having the feds hire people ( via outrageous subsidies that will take many DECADES of not-yet-here net solar energy to pay for ) to purposely destroy gasoline is ludicrous. There is not the slightest doubt that new generation pv will eventually become a net energy source. It will just take a lot longer with all the present stupidities and outright lies going on. And, of course, most of the present participants will play no role whatsoever in the emerging technologies. A detailed analysis at <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu09.asp#d06-16-09> -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
From: Charlie E. on 22 Apr 2010 12:29 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:01:38 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:14:25 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > >>On 4/17/2010 11:23 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>> On 17/04/2010 18:25, hamilton wrote: >>>> On 4/17/2010 10:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>> On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:57:14 -0700) it happened Don >>>>> Lancaster >>>>> <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote in<82u42oFov7U2(a)mid.individual.net>: >>>>>> There is NO best solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of photovoltaics is an outright scam to steal state and federal >>>>>> funds. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not one net watthour of pv energy has EVER been produced! >>>>> >>>>> Bad day? >>>> Ok, the link now works. >>>> >>>> Dons argument is what the non-green types have been saying for years. >>>> >>>> It costs too much to develop and manufacture green technologies then to >>>> stick to the 'tried-n-true' fossil fuels. >>>> >>>> He does have a point, the cost to early adapters will never be paid back. >>>> >>>> But, I think we need to start somewhere, and PV solar needs to have >>>> money to continue to develop and innovate. >>>> >>>> As time passes and science has the money to continue, they will get >>>> there. ( maybe not in my lifetime, but they will get there ) >>>> >>>> >>>> hamilton >>>> >>> >>> Current energy payback times: >>> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf >>> Payback times currently vary between 1 and 4 years. >>> >>> >> >> >>Those absurd figures make the ludicrous assumption that subsidies are an >>asset, rather than a 3:1 or higher liability. >> >>They also make the even more ludicrous assumption that each and every pv >>investment will be fully utilized for its entire lifetime. >> >>They also often fail to include the synchronous inverter costs, which in >>many situations will consume 150 percent of the value of ALL the >>electricity sent through iit. And not using a synchronous inverter, of >>course, is ridiculously more costly. >> >>Even when not absurd, a four year "payback" means that the project is a >>gasoline destroying net energy sink for the first four years. >>At year four, it upgrades to a completely pointless and totally >>worthless endeavor. Beyond four years, any intelligent or sane >>investment still completely blows it away. >> >>Because of the "eight track tape" technology level of today's systems, >>any interest whatsoever in them four years from now is highly likely to >>be zero. >> >>Their figures are an outright lie. >> >>Amortization dollars should be charged at ten cents per gasoline >>destroying kilowatt hour. Subsidy dollars should be charged at their >>true "iceberg" cost, which is at least thirty cents per gasoline >>destroying kilowatt hour, and often obscenely more. >> >>Taken overall, not one net watthour of pv energy has ever been produced. >> >>Net energy breakeven can be anticipated eight to ten years AFTER the >>average panel cost drops below twenty five cents per peak watt. >> >><http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf> > >Don, it is time to get very numeric. So far it is "they say, we say". I have often wondered if we couldn't get all the know-how of this group (SED) and just design a general purpose, high efficiency inverter of say 100 amp capacity, and then just put the design in the public domain and say "Go Build This!" and squash the over-priced inverter market. Of course, the real costs for a product like this are not building it, or designing it, but the legal and regulatory costs to get all the liability and certifications... Charlie
From: Joel Koltner on 22 Apr 2010 12:39 "Charlie E." <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote in message news:55u0t5lsd25li5401m3qg84v2vtnu3k04j(a)4ax.com... > I have often wondered if we couldn't get all the know-how of this > group (SED) and just design a general purpose, high efficiency > inverter of say 100 amp capacity, and then just put the design in the > public domain and say "Go Build This!" and squash the over-priced > inverter market. I think the Chinese will get there even without our help. Look at how dirt cheap 12V DC->120V "modified square wave" AC inverters are meant for powering laptops and DVD players or whatever in cars/RVs... Of course the quality of some of them is truly atrocious as well. Somewhere I recall seeing a web page where a guy pulled on apart and pointed out how woefully underspec'd many of the components were... :-) With some luck and some decent design companies, the quality problem should go away too (crossing fingers...).
From: Michael on 22 Apr 2010 15:02
On Apr 17, 10:25 am, hamilton <hamil...(a)nothere.com> wrote: > On 4/17/2010 10:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:> On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:57:14 -0700) it happened Don Lancaster > > <d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote in<82u42oFov...(a)mid.individual.net>: > >> There is NO best solution. > > >> All of photovoltaics is an outright scam to steal state and federal funds. > > >> Not one net watthour of pv energy has EVER been produced! > > > Bad day? > > Ok, the link now works. > > Dons argument is what the non-green types have been saying for years. > > It costs too much to develop and manufacture green technologies then to > stick to the 'tried-n-true' fossil fuels. > > He does have a point, the cost to early adapters will never be paid back. > > But, I think we need to start somewhere, and PV solar needs to have > money to continue to develop and innovate. > > As time passes and science has the money to continue, they will get > there. ( maybe not in my lifetime, but they will get there ) > > hamilton Sounds like a better idea would be to gather weeds, grass clippings, rice hulls/other ag waste, tree branches and fallen trees and burn them for fuel...? Cheaper use of solar energy... Michael |