Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Don Lancaster on 2 Jun 2010 11:37 On 6/1/2010 9:07 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/06/2010 5:05 AM, Winston wrote: >> On 5/30/2010 5:21 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >> (...) >> >>> And I _still_ think that the criteria should be the net energy return >>> over the whole lifetime of the product -- mean _after_ you take into >>> consideration the entire extract/manufacture/install/dispose cycle of >>> the panel into account, _including_ the trees you'll need to chop down >>> to make room for them and some projections of the proportion of panels >>> that will be retired early due to defects, obsolescence, vandalism, >>> remodeling, and just plain accident. >> >> If you were in the market for a generator set for an off grid home, >> would you place any importance at all on the entire life cycle of >> that device? Do manufacturers even make that information available? >> > > You need to consider Tim's comment in the context in which it was made. > > Solar panels are being pushed as a green and renewable solution. The > question is whether they are in fact such a solution. When the complete > life cycle has passed, and for a given amount of energy yielded by the > panels, are the Earth's resources actually depleted less than they would > have been had some more conventional non-renewable solution been used? > > Sylvia. Its not even remotely close. Not by a country mile. Present costs are $3.50 per peak panel watt. 0.25 per peak panel watt is required for net energy displacing renewibility or sustainability. At present, not one net watthour of pv energy has EVER been produced. The panels remain gasoline destroying net energy sinks. Absolute proof of this is that not one utility anyplace anytime is routinely using pv for peaking that is completely independent of subsidies, tax breaks, R&D effort, or other money grubbing scams. The utterly bogus papers that claim otherwise treat subsidies as assets, rather than their much larger "iceberg" liabilities. Detailed analysis at <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf> Related topics at <http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp> -- 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 2 Jun 2010 11:39 On 6/1/2010 10:01 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: > On 05/31/2010 04:12 PM, Don Lancaster wrote: >> >>> Well, I don't _know_ that green energy is a net positive enterprise or >>> not. >> >> >> I do. >> >> It misses by a country mile and clearly remains a gasoline destroying >> net energy sink. >> >> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf > > Your presentation contains the huge logical fallacy that just because > gasoline costs $3 a gallon, that a gallon of oil is automatically > extracted from the ground every time someone pays $3 for something. > Utilities force this equivalence when they contractually equate dimes and kilowatt hours. The point is that you can keep score with dollars or conventional energy. -- 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 2 Jun 2010 11:40 On 6/1/2010 10:50 PM, Robert Baer wrote: > Paul Keinanen wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:15:00 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> But in more southerly climes where peak sun corresponds with a peak >>> demand for aircon it could make more sense to have PV arrays deployed. >> >> Or use absorbtion chillers for air conditioning and avoid the >> inefficient light to electricity conversion. >> > Huh?? Possibly they mean adsorbtion chillers. A classic engineering rathole. <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/ratholes.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 2 Jun 2010 11:45 > There are many sources claiming net (solar panel) energy > payback is far greater than the energy cost of production. These claims are utterly bogus as they treat subsidies as assets, rather than as much larger "iceberg" liabilities. The key issue is addressed at <http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu10.asp#d05-31-10> > And I know people in the business making a good living at it. So do I. Including the few remaining honest pioneers that have all the arrows in their backs. And when you get them drunk enough or stoned enough, they freely admit they are stealing federal and state dollars just like everybody else does. <http://www.tinaja.com/blig/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: Tim Wescott on 2 Jun 2010 13:05
On 06/02/2010 08:39 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: > On 6/1/2010 10:01 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On 05/31/2010 04:12 PM, Don Lancaster wrote: >>> >>>> Well, I don't _know_ that green energy is a net positive enterprise or >>>> not. >>> >>> >>> I do. >>> >>> It misses by a country mile and clearly remains a gasoline destroying >>> net energy sink. >>> >>> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf >> >> Your presentation contains the huge logical fallacy that just because >> gasoline costs $3 a gallon, that a gallon of oil is automatically >> extracted from the ground every time someone pays $3 for something. >> > > Utilities force this equivalence when they contractually equate dimes > and kilowatt hours. When I'm getting my hair cut? > The point is that you can keep score with dollars or conventional energy. _Your_ point is that. _My_ point is that _your_ point relies on a logical fallacy. Never mind. If you can't see what I'm trying to say then you're a broken clock, and maybe this is one of the two times of the day that you're right. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |