Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: Michael on 23 Apr 2010 14:43 On Apr 17, 1:34 am, eryer <idkfaidkfaid...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I want to realize (for hobby) a battery charger using solar cell. I've > found this sensorhttp://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? Can you build it cheaper than what it would cost to buy it? $16, 1.5W(a)12V: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=44768 $12, adjustable 3/6/9/12V: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=41427 Michael
From: mpm on 22 Apr 2010 20:18 On Apr 19, 5:59 pm, Don Lancaster <d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > 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: d...(a)tinaja.com > > Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Doesn't history show that successful technologies are successful pretty much right out of the gate? Those that take decades generally don't make it at all. In other words, winners are easy to spot. -mpm
From: mpm on 22 Apr 2010 20:21 On Apr 22, 11:29 am, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:01:38 -0700, > > > > > > "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:14:25 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...(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 > >>>>> <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 > > >>> 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It would also bankrupt the cooling fan manufacturers, courtesy of Skybuck. :)
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 22 Apr 2010 20:43 On 23/04/2010 01:18, mpm wrote: > On Apr 19, 5:59 pm, Don Lancaster<d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >> 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: d...(a)tinaja.com >> >> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Doesn't history show that successful technologies are successful > pretty much right out of the gate? > Those that take decades generally don't make it at all. eg nuclear? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 22:25
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:57:40 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >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. That is just a significant uptick in the steady progression towards ne'er-do-wells being officially made equal to productive people. |