Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 17 Apr 2010 14:57 On 4/17/2010 2:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:20:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 4/17/2010 11:57 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Don, you're out of date: a pal of mine at IBM is doing a 30 kW peak >> system for the Saudis, using very low cost tracking technology and a new >> type of Fresnel lens concentrators that run at above 2000 suns. (The >> trick is cooling them, but he's also the guy that invented the liquid >> metal thermal interface that Apple has used on their higher end machines.) >> >> The silicon cost is trivial due to the high concentration, and the other >> costs appear quite manageable. He's getting 250W peak from a 4x7 foot >> collector on the first try, and expects to get 325W once the new Fresnel >> lenses come in. The cost is mostly in the fabrication, not the energy >> required to make the apparatus. >> > [snip] >> >> Phil Hobbs > > Man! That's so-o-o-o efficient :-D > > ...Jim Thompson It's around 16%, which isn't at all bad as an end-to-end design. There's _lots_ of desert available, if you can make trackers cheap and reliable enough. The key is (as Don notes) is to get the cost and especially the energy inputs down. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Don Lancaster on 17 Apr 2010 15:14 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> -- 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: Don Lancaster on 17 Apr 2010 15:22 On 4/17/2010 11:57 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 4/17/2010 2:52 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:20:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 4/17/2010 11:57 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: >> [snip] >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Don, you're out of date: a pal of mine at IBM is doing a 30 kW peak >>> system for the Saudis, using very low cost tracking technology and a new >>> type of Fresnel lens concentrators that run at above 2000 suns. (The >>> trick is cooling them, but he's also the guy that invented the liquid >>> metal thermal interface that Apple has used on their higher end >>> machines.) >>> >>> The silicon cost is trivial due to the high concentration, and the other >>> costs appear quite manageable. He's getting 250W peak from a 4x7 foot >>> collector on the first try, and expects to get 325W once the new Fresnel >>> lenses come in. The cost is mostly in the fabrication, not the energy >>> required to make the apparatus. >>> >> [snip] >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> Man! That's so-o-o-o efficient :-D >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > It's around 16%, which isn't at all bad as an end-to-end design. There's > _lots_ of desert available, if you can make trackers cheap and reliable > enough. The key is (as Don notes) is to get the cost and especially the > energy inputs down. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > > > An interesting and seldom noted side effect: A pv energy farm requires very little water. Thus making government and indian lands in the southwest ideal locations. An economic case can be made that ANY location with adequate water would thus have higher and better uses than siting solar panels. <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf> <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.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: Jan Panteltje on 17 Apr 2010 15:39 On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:25:32 -0600) it happened hamilton <hamilton(a)nothere.com> wrote in <hqcqu9$7ve$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >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 Yes, there are for example investors in Europe planning a solar plant in the Sahara desert IIRC. Billions have been raised, DC very high voltage lines to carry it all over Europe. With all that unrest I think the biggest obstacle is a political one. US has Mojave desert, would be a nice place for solar .. but the same greens that want solar also want to protect the bugs and snakes that live there ;-) Just wait until get get cold feet, they will change their mind. OTOH nuclear seems to be the only real option right now. And if 'electric cars' were to really happen, then all bets are off, new grid, new power plants... Dunno.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 17 Apr 2010 16:14
On 17/04/2010 20:39, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:25:32 -0600) it happened hamilton > <hamilton(a)nothere.com> wrote in<hqcqu9$7ve$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: > >> 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 > > Yes, there are for example investors in Europe planning a solar plant in the Sahara desert IIRC. > Billions have been raised, DC very high voltage lines to carry it all over Europe. > With all that unrest I think the biggest obstacle is a political one. > US has Mojave desert, would be a nice place for solar .. > but the same greens that want solar also want to protect the bugs and snakes that live there ;-) > Just wait until get get cold feet, they will change their mind. > OTOH nuclear seems to be the only real option right now. > And if 'electric cars' were to really happen, then all bets are off, > new grid, new power plants... > Dunno. That's why Spain is the ideal location. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |