Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 23 Apr 2010 23:43 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:17:36 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >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". Ah. So the liberal wing nuts have partially accomplished their goal of making America a third world economy. Damn, i should have been a better citizen and campaigned against Obummer more vigorously.
From: JosephKK on 23 Apr 2010 23:58 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:33:37 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >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> An irrelevant financial calculator is not helpful. Show some traceability on the numbers you present.
From: Robert Baer on 24 Apr 2010 00:20 JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:17:36 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> 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". > > Ah. So the liberal wing nuts have partially accomplished their goal of > making America a third world economy. Damn, i should have been a better > citizen and campaigned against Obummer more vigorously. There is always impeacment..work on the basis of the un-constitutional "Health" bill for starters..
From: krw on 24 Apr 2010 00:23 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:20:48 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:17:36 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>> 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". >> >> Ah. So the liberal wing nuts have partially accomplished their goal of >> making America a third world economy. Damn, i should have been a better >> citizen and campaigned against Obummer more vigorously. > There is always impeacment..work on the basis of the >un-constitutional "Health" bill for starters.. Not likely with Nancy and Harry steering the ship.
From: Paul Keinanen on 24 Apr 2010 02:35
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:19:12 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:54 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>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... It would have looked different and possibly quite more costly, if the telephone operators would have got their way as the main stream. Any trunc lines would still be TDMA and the capacity would be expressed in telephone circuits (i.e. multiples of 64 kbit/s). E-mails would be delivered with the hierarchical cumbersome X.400 addressing. Any packet switching would still be handled with X.25 with 64 byte segments. >Nope. Not buying that one. Networking was ready. The Internet wasn't even >the largest network until the mid '80s. Apart from telecom company greed, I see no problems, implementing HTML and more modern services upon this infrastructure. >>On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC >>operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) Yes, the commercial success of PC-DOS/MS-DOS may have retarded the devolpoment somewhat. 16 bit mini computers used used multitasking in the 60/70's on a regular basis, I have used and maintained various real time kernels in the 80's with 8 bit processors such as 8080/8085/6809. PC/MS-DOS is quite similar to the program loaders used in the 1970's on Intellecs and Excorcisers microprocessor development systems. >...and Windoze stopped it dead. ;-) What is wrong with MS Windows ? IMHO, NT 3.51 was the best OS Microsoft has ever produced, kind of a nice toy VMS. I am still thankfull that I invested two extra 16 MiB memory cards, when upgrading from WfG 3.11 to NT 3.51 instead of waiting a few weeks for the Win95 release :-). |