Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 26 Apr 2010 22:28 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:40:14 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:fpbct5tsv3hgt5oteoi5u9tm4ugcahja41(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:48:46 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >> <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Could be. What are your predictions for the types of cars that'll be common >>>in the coming decades? >> Have you ever watched the Flintstones? > >Ah, so it's a healthcare initiative as well -- daily exercise included with >every trip to the store! Ever hear of a shoe tax?
From: JosephKK on 27 Apr 2010 01:26 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:19:24 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >On 4/23/2010 8:58 PM, JosephKK wrote: >> >> An irrelevant financial calculator is not helpful. > > >I think I found your problem. > >The calculator is central and essential to net energy. Not at all, i have a fist full of them (financial and otherwise) and understand their operation well. Using them is still part of the Engineer-in-training/Fundamentals of Engineering (EIT/FE) exam. Kind of like remembering your accounting 01 course material. Remember that i pointed out a change of units?
From: JosephKK on 27 Apr 2010 09:33 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:07:31 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >On 4/24/2010 8:19 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: >> On 4/23/2010 8:58 PM, JosephKK wrote: >>> >>> An irrelevant financial calculator is not helpful. >> >> >> I think I found your problem. >> >> The calculator is central and essential to net energy. >> >> > > >There is only ONE number that matters: Avoided cost utility peaking >costs six cents per kilowatt hour and sells for ten cents per kilowatt >hour. This is the de-facto standard that establishes ALL alternate >energy economics. > >Any new net energy source MUST go well beyond parity. > >Which translates to twenty five cents per peak pv panel watt. > >There is no rocket science here. It is plain old amortization. >A present kilowatt hour is worth a present dime. >And vice versa. > >The two are fungible and interchangeable commodities. > ><http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp> Step back and rethink, what is the cost of existing facilities (before and after taxes) and what is the cost of new facilities (likewise). And the effect of the Federal alternative energy programs is to subsidize a stall in real renewable energy technology. That is what has me pissed off.
From: JosephKK on 27 Apr 2010 20:32 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:19:23 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: <snip> >Domestic users competing with the grid would, of course, demand much >LOWER panel pricing because no means of pv storage is known that is >remotely as cheap or safe or simple or effective or reliable as >synchronous inversion to the power grid. Such an offgrid market is >highly unlikely to EVER become significant. >People simply are not that dumb. Really? Consider that they elected Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Frank. > ><http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp>
From: Joel Koltner on 28 Apr 2010 12:44
"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1e0ft5hjmbb4ulcmfb32dbha7ta0a9a5nr(a)4ax.com... On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:19:23 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: <snip> >>People simply are not that dumb. >Really? Consider that they elected Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Frank. The better question would be... how many who elected Obama did so strictly on principle? I expect that many votes these days are driven by the predicted personal financial impact of the outcome, and there certainly are plenty of people who are making more money with Obama in office than they would have with McCain! |