Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 00:13 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?
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 01:54 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:13:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >Robert Baer wrote: >> Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:04:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs >>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> Give me a break! >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>> ?? >>> >>> Unless I misread the web page, the plant uses molten salt as a heat >>> transfer medium. Could be a drag if it ever solidified again, no? >>> >>> If not, why not? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >>> >> Check.."heat transfer fluid will heat the molten salt" but "hot fluid >> transfers its heat energy to water, creating steam" and "If the sun is >> not shining, the fluid can be heated by the molten salt." >> So this unspecified heat transfer fluid is nominally the direct driver >> for generating steam, but molten salt is used for thermal storage. >> Definitely if the salt solidifies, there will be a major operational >> problem. > >Hmm. I suppose it might be a silicone oil, or something like that, >then. Not too many heat transfer fluids have a long life at 750 >degrees, which is why I assumed it was salt. Live steam starts to come >apart well below that, iirc, which causes hydrogen embrittlement of >everything. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs Yep, water steam gets squirrely at 450 C an breaks down in the presence of iron at 600 C. Silicone oil seems reasonable for this, though i wonder about its per degree energy transport. Maybe they are using phase change there as well? It gets kind of weird if the phase change of the storage salt is similar to the phase change of the transport fluid.
From: Joel Koltner on 23 Apr 2010 12:25 "Michael" <mrdarrett(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1f835e1f-3235-4671-ab82-cd1d22a4a8fb(a)v27g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > This link? > http://www.analogzone.com/dearden_042307.pdf Yep, that's the one. Thanks!
From: Don Lancaster on 23 Apr 2010 12:33 On 4/22/2010 7:31 PM, JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:59:00 -0700, Don Lancaster<don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > >> 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> > > Sure, there are some "numbers" there, but absolutely no backup. No > traceably to where anything came from. I meant engineering numerical or > accountant numerical, not politician numerical. ALL the numerics you could possibly want or need appear at <http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html> -- 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: Joel Koltner on 23 Apr 2010 12:38
"mpm" <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:56681aec-1de7-4f52-b0f6-8e9748d43aa6(a)t36g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > Doesn't history show that successful technologies are successful > pretty much right out of the gate? I expect you can find plenty of anecdotes both for and against this surmise. Lasers are perhaps a good example of technology that was incredibly nichey for many decades (being fragile and expensive) until someone figured out how to build a semiconductor version of one (making them cheap and reliable), and now the average person likely owns half a dozen. It also took a number of decades for gasoline to become the defacto standard for powering autmobiles -- early on kerosene, coal, and other unusual fuels were in use because gasoline couldn't be made as easily and hence was expensive; thermal cracking is what changed all that. Even the Internet as we know it today might have taken another few decades if it hadn't been for all the government DARPA funding way-back-when... On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) In general it makes sense to have the government subsidize "promising" new technologies; the tricky question is just "how much is too much?" -- when do you decide that the taxpayers have given enough in the hopes of discovering the Next Big Thing and just leave it entirely up to private industry to continue development? ---Joel |