Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Don Lancaster on 2 Jun 2010 18:24 On 6/2/2010 10:05 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > 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. > I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken. -- 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 18:27 On 6/2/2010 10:05 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > 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. Nope. ALL economic transactions have an energy cost associated with them. Sometimes that cost is obvious and fixed, such as UNLEADED $2.79 per gallon or a utilities contractual buyback agreement at ten cents per kilowatt hour. Other times, the cost might be subtle, such as AVOCADOS 79 cents each. Avocados, of course, are manufactured from diesel fuel. <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: Bill Bowden on 2 Jun 2010 19:39 On Jun 2, 8:45 am, Don Lancaster <d...(a)tinaja.com> wrote: > > 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: d...(a)tinaja.com > > Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other references, not written by you, I will be a believer. Here's another one you don't want to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics "Energy payback time and energy returned on energy invested The energy payback time is the time required to produce an amount of energy as great as what was consumed during production. The energy payback time is determined from a life cycle analysis of energy. The energy needed to produce solar panels is paid back in the first few years of use.[79] Another key indicator of environmental performance, tightly related to the energy payback time, is the ratio of electricity generated divided by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. This ratio is called the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). This should not be confused with the economic return on investment, which varies according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering techniques. Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years,[80] but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems.[74] Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[74] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and the geographic location of the system.[81] " -Bill
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Jun 2010 19:41 On 02/06/2010 23:27, Don Lancaster wrote: > On 6/2/2010 10:05 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> 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. > > Nope. > > ALL economic transactions have an energy cost associated with them. > > Sometimes that cost is obvious and fixed, such as UNLEADED $2.79 per > gallon or a utilities contractual buyback agreement at ten cents per > kilowatt hour. Other times, the cost might be subtle, such as AVOCADOS > 79 cents each. Avocados, of course, are manufactured from diesel fuel. But mostly from sunlight -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: dagmargoodboat on 2 Jun 2010 21:00
On Jun 1, 6:45 am, Frithiof Andreas Jensen <f...(a)die-spammer- die.karoshi.dk> wrote: > 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 > > True - but it is a pretty neat vehicle for transferring vast sums from > taxpayer to oligarch; what government Is All About, these sad times .... Hey Frithiof, long time no see! Welcome back. -- Cheers, James Arthur |