Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Jun 2010 08:42 On 03/06/2010 07:55, Martin Brown wrote: > On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >> 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 > > Junk science. >> >> Well that's nice. Now if you can just give me a couple other >> references, not written by you, I will be a believer. > > That isn't going to happen. Although the myth that solar panels never > pay back their energy investment is widespread. They may never pay back > the cost to make, install and use them over their lifetime, but that is > an entirely different matter. And the economics is shifting as someone > demonstrated there appear to be panels on the market now at $2/W. Worth keeping an eye on this price tracking site: http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm "As of May 2010, there are now 440 solar module prices below $4.00 per watt (�3.00 per watt) or 31.5% of the total survey. This compares with 426 price points below $4.00 per watt (�2.92 per watt) in April. The lowest retail price for a multi-crystalline silicon solar module is $1.74 per watt (�1.31 per watt) from a US retailer. The lowest retail price for a mono-crystalline silicon module is also $2.07 per watt (�1.55 per watt), from a German retailer. Note, however, that "not all models are equal." In other words, brand, technical attributes and certifications do matter. The lowest thin film module price is at $1.50 per watt (�1.12 per watt) from a United States-based retailer. As a general rule, it is typical to expect thin film modules to be at a price discount to crystalline silicon (for like module powers). This thin film price is represented by a 60 watt module. Note, once again, that these prices are based upon the purchase of a single solar module and prices are exclusive of sales taxes. Information on volume discounts, factory gate and PV system pricing is available as part of our consultancy services." -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Don Lancaster on 3 Jun 2010 11:15 On 6/2/2010 7:42 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:10:11 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> I don't really see the link. Certainly PV cells are an uneconomic source >> of electricity. They also produce power when it suits them (daytime, >> sunlight) rather than when it's required, which makes then unsuitable >> for peaking (or much else, indeed, without expensive resource consuming >> batteries). > >> But that does not in itself mean that they're necessarily energy sinks, >> though I'm not arguing that they're not. > > If you compare the upfront cost with their lifetime energy reception, > you'd probably find that they never break even. Good for some portable > applications or remote locations, but not much else. The overwhelming vast majority of pv cell users are happy as a clam paying over FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER KILOWATT HOUR for their electricity. pv is well suited and an excellent match to this market. Calculators, of course. <http://www.tinaja.com/etlink1.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 3 Jun 2010 11:24 On 6/2/2010 10:22 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/06/2010 12:42 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:10:11 +1000, Sylvia >> Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I don't really see the link. Certainly PV cells are an uneconomic source >>> of electricity. They also produce power when it suits them (daytime, >>> sunlight) rather than when it's required, which makes then unsuitable >>> for peaking (or much else, indeed, without expensive resource consuming >>> batteries). >> >>> But that does not in itself mean that they're necessarily energy sinks, >>> though I'm not arguing that they're not. >> >> If you compare the upfront cost with their lifetime energy reception, >> you'd probably find that they never break even. Good for some portable >> applications or remote locations, but not much else. > > You really need to be careful in your choice of terminology when > discussing this. > > In place where grid power is available, PV cells never repay the > financial cost of their manufacture. That is, absent subsidies, you > cannot sell the energy they generate for enough money to justify the > expenditure of the money invested in them. > > Whether they return all the energy used to make them is a different > question. > > Sylvia. Returning manufacturing energy is a straw man and utterly irrevelent. The TOTAL INSTALLED cost of ownership can be based on each current dime equaling a kilowatt hour of conventional energy destruction. If the panel generates two cents worth of electricity a day while amortizing three, you have a gasoline destroying net energy sink. Which is why ZERO utilities are using them for peaking independent of tax credits and similar money grubbing scams. Net return on energy for total fully burdened investment is all that counts. To date, the panels clearly remain a gasoline destroying net energy sink and are not in any manner renewable or sustainable. At present and at best, they miss by a factor of nearly fourteen. <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: Don Lancaster on 3 Jun 2010 11:26 > Depends if you want to sell the energy. > In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already > comparable to domestic grid cost. > Highly questionable. If that were the case, the utilities would immediately switch to pv for their peaking power. Did not and will not happen till costs drop dramatically. -- 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: John Larkin on 3 Jun 2010 11:26
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:15:38 -0700, Don Lancaster <don(a)tinaja.com> wrote: >On 6/2/2010 7:42 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:10:11 +1000, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I don't really see the link. Certainly PV cells are an uneconomic source >>> of electricity. They also produce power when it suits them (daytime, >>> sunlight) rather than when it's required, which makes then unsuitable >>> for peaking (or much else, indeed, without expensive resource consuming >>> batteries). >> >>> But that does not in itself mean that they're necessarily energy sinks, >>> though I'm not arguing that they're not. >> >> If you compare the upfront cost with their lifetime energy reception, >> you'd probably find that they never break even. Good for some portable >> applications or remote locations, but not much else. You've got to add the mounting stuff, the labor to hack up your walls and wire it up, the dc/ac inverter, some control electronics, the cost to remove and replace it when it makes your roof leak, the cost to remove and dispose of all that junk when it quits working. > >The overwhelming vast majority of pv cell users are happy as a clam >paying over FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER KILOWATT HOUR for their >electricity. pv is well suited and an excellent match to this market. > >Calculators, of course. > ><http://www.tinaja.com/etlink1.asp> A small lithium battery would power a calculator for 20 or 30 years and work better in dim light. A polysilicon solar cell is probably very cheap, cheaper than a lithium battery maybe. Lithium batteries run in the roughly $300 to $1000 per KWH range. John |