Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 22 Apr 2010 22:31 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.
From: krw on 22 Apr 2010 23:17 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:25:25 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. When the President of the United States seizes property from productive people and gives it to his political supporters it's more Venezuelan than an "uptick".
From: krw on 23 Apr 2010 19:19 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:54 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"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. Lasers are a special case. The technology's usefulness was known long before it was practical. Gordon Gould mopped up on that delay. >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. Again, not exactly the same thing. >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... Nope. Not buying that one. Networking was ready. The Internet wasn't even the largest network until the mid '80s. >On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC >operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) ....and Windoze stopped it dead. ;-) >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? TNBT should be left 100% to industry. Let the government do some basic research, if that. Government wasn't required for *any* of the examples you cited.
From: Joel Koltner on 23 Apr 2010 19:57 Hi Keith, <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:6ba4t5li7gihfbjgou9oi9ftop96dp9d0u(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:54 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>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. > Lasers are a special case. The technology's usefulness was known long > before > it was practical. Gordon Gould mopped up on that delay. Well clearly photovoltaics is incredibly useful as well, with plenty of immediate application. If someone figured out how to decimate the per-kW cost of PV panels, their growth rate would immediately jump up into the triple digits, I expect. >>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... > Nope. Not buying that one. Networking was ready. The Internet wasn't even > the largest network until the mid '80s. Perhaps... I'd have to admit it's difficult for me to really estimate what would have happened without DARPA, and on what timeline. > TNBT should be left 100% to industry. Let the government do some basic > research, if that. Government wasn't required for *any* of the examples you > cited. Agreed, government isn't required for any of this -- but I think that government can, at times, successfully speed up the development of technology and thereby increase our standard of living more quickly than would otherwise occur. Of course, they can do the opposite as well, implementing policies that very much decrease our standard of living! It all gets back to that basic question of just what "we the people" want government to do for us and it's often a slippery slope and there are an awful lot of vested interests at play -- everyone wants, e.g., a reasonably pollution-free environment, but somehow that desire gets twisted into Al Gore wanting you to pay his company for carbon credits while he flies around the country in a private jet getting fix-digit fees for giving speeches. ---Joel
From: Don Lancaster on 23 Apr 2010 19:57
On 4/23/2010 4:19 PM, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:54 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > Lasers are a special case. The technology's usefulness was known long before > it was practical. Gordon Gould mopped up on that delay. > >> 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. > > Again, not exactly the same thing. > >> 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... > > Nope. Not buying that one. Networking was ready. The Internet wasn't even > the largest network until the mid '80s. > >> On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC >> operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) > > ...and Windoze stopped it dead. ;-) > >> 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? > > TNBT should be left 100% to industry. Let the government do some basic > research, if that. Government wasn't required for *any* of the examples you > cited. As near as I can tell, NOT ONE CENT of present solar subsidies is going into new technologies that will solve the crucial net energy crisis. Instead, people are paid to put known gasoline destroying net energy sinks on inappropriate rooftops, thus SETTING BACK any possible net energy pv breakeven by many decades. A $1000 per year per kilowatt tax on any pv panel incapable of net energy would do far more good a lot faster. The quicker conventional silicon pv is flushed, the faster that net energy pv can arrive. 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 |