Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: Michael on 22 Apr 2010 15:03 On Apr 22, 9:39 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Charlie E." <edmond...(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... :-) This link? http://www.analogzone.com/dearden_042307.pdf > > With some luck and some decent design companies, the quality problem should go > away too (crossing fingers...). Michael
From: Don Lancaster on 22 Apr 2010 16:59 On 4/21/2010 9:01 PM, JosephKK 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". The numerics come from the utilities. Not one of which is using conventional pv for net energy peaking, because the costs are obscenely gh by two orders of magnitude. Numerics appear at <http://www.tinaja.com/pvlect2.pdf> -- 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: krw on 22 Apr 2010 18:57 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:13:02 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:09:57 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:47:41 -0600, hamilton <hamilton(a)nothere.com> wrote: >> >>>On 4/18/2010 9:31 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: >>>> On 4/18/2010 7:21 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>>>> On 18/04/2010 08:02, eryer wrote: >>>>>> On 17 Apr, 21:14, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting...any link? >>>>>> >>>>>> About my first post, any suggestion? >>>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> This is like saying that PC power supplies will dissipate more power >>>>> than the rest of the PC combined. If you want to see where the market is >>>>> going on converters, look to the PC PSU market and costs for a mature >>>>> and very similar example ie 5c a Watt and 80%+ efficiency >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If a naive homeowner tries to buy a synchronous inverter for a 1500 watt >>>> system, its typical retail cost (plus shipping and installation, of >>>> course) will be around $2500. >>>> >>>> It thus gobbles gone all pv electricity sent through it and then some. >>>> >>>> There is no reason the $2500 device should cost more than $9. >>> >>>Its a free market. >>> >>>Build them and sell them for $2000. >>> >>>This would start the price war and within, says 6 weeks, the price will >>>drop to $9. >>> >>>Isn't the free market the way to go ?? >>> >> >>Nah, free markets are so last century. We're into government subsidies now. > >Don't you mean century before last? No, I mean pre-Government Motors.
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 00:01 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".
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 00:08
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:31:16 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >On 4/18/2010 7:21 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> On 18/04/2010 08:02, eryer wrote: >>> On 17 Apr, 21:14, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Interesting...any link? >>> >>> About my first post, any suggestion? >>> Thanks >> >> This is like saying that PC power supplies will dissipate more power >> than the rest of the PC combined. If you want to see where the market is >> going on converters, look to the PC PSU market and costs for a mature >> and very similar example ie 5c a Watt and 80%+ efficiency >> > > >If a naive homeowner tries to buy a synchronous inverter for a 1500 watt >system, its typical retail cost (plus shipping and installation, of >course) will be around $2500. > >It thus gobbles gone all pv electricity sent through it and then some. There is a dimensions problem here, a one time cost is being compared with a per unit time return without doing any conversions. > >There is no reason the $2500 device should cost more than $9. >Except for subsidies. If you think it is so easy, go into business and undercut all the others by half the difference and get rich. |