Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 3 Jun 2010 23:16 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jun 2, 11:55�pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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] " >> >> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >> >> See Richards & Watt (2007) >> >> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >> >> Regards, >> Martin Brown > >Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >if SCE wants to build it. California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. John
From: krw on 3 Jun 2010 23:27 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:35:38 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:fpfg0691l2jqrqijhkfrv4bqc5gh3rmunc(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:03:10 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >> <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Are those the same people who'll pay THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT for >>>a >>>home that has thousands of extra square feet that they'll probably never >>>use? >> >> A few square million$? ;-) > >Just about. :-) > >For me if the choice were between, say... $50k for an extra room in the house >that I never expected to use vs. $50k in PV panels... I might just go for the >PV panels. PV panels will never pay for themselves. $50K invested, in a house or otherwise, will most likely. In my case it's the third (of three) bedroom, so it's sort essential. >Actually I'd probably get a $50k RV, knowing full well I'd never use it nearly >enough to make it cheaper than staying in a four-stay hotel every tiem I >travelled. :-) Not much of an RV and they're money losers, too. >> I have a bedroom, with full bath, suite (probably 400 sq ft) that's only >> been >> used three times in the year and a half I've lived here. I only paid >> $120/sq. >> ft., though. ;-) > >Knock a door into the side of the house there and rent it out? Not likely. The neighbors would have my skin >I'd seriously consider doing something like that if I were single, but being >married there's no way my wife would agree to it! Right. The neighbors would never get the chance. >In college I spent half-a-year living in this really cool old house that >looked a lot like a scaled-down version of the White House ... albeit with >only two big white pillars in front. Beautiful hardwood floors throughout, >and nice big bedrooms -- one (not mine) even had a door to a roof patio that >was another good 400 sq. ft. or so. It'd been student housing for quite some >time, though, and they'd even converted the old single-car garage into its own >little apartment. High class campus slums. ;-)
From: Martin Brown on 4 Jun 2010 04:25 On 04/06/2010 04:16, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden > <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >>> >>>> 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] " >>> >>> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer reviewed >>> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once have >>> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >>> >>> See Richards& Watt (2007) >>> >>> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >>> >>> Regards, >>> Martin Brown >> >> Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >> project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >> if SCE wants to build it. > > California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from > renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. Possibly not yet, but given that in places like California you get an aircon demand bump under peak daytime solar heat load the economics may be a lot closer to being in favour of solar power than at my latitude. Otherwise they have to fire up other expensive quick start kit in the mid afternoon to handle the peak demand for cooling. And it is win win on the warehouse a second outer skin keeping direct sunlight off the roof with an airspace behind makes the heat load on the building less. The only thing that makes solar power attractive in the UK is a market distortion that gives an annual income guaranteed by the government of around 8% of capital employed for domestic installations. I still have to decide if I will install - a very green friend has a 2kW PV array and hot water system but on an earlier (less profitable tariff). For a higher rate taxpayer these schemes are attractive. http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/ or for the prices per unit (which are pretty insane) http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/ I don't approve of these market distortions (which are even worse in Germany) but with a bank interest rate of 0.3% is is tempting.... Regards, Martin Brown
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Jun 2010 07:20 On 04/06/2010 09:25, Martin Brown wrote: > On 04/06/2010 04:16, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >> <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 11:55 pm, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2010 00:39, Bill Bowden wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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] " >>>> >>>> You can't always trust Wiki but there is also stuff in the peer >>>> reviewed >>>> literature that refute his bogus claim (which to be fair might once >>>> have >>>> been true decades ago when solar cells were *much* thicker). >>>> >>>> See Richards& Watt (2007) >>>> >>>> http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/refs/solar/Myth.pdf >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin Brown >>> >>> Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar >>> project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value >>> if SCE wants to build it. >> >> California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from >> renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic. > > Possibly not yet, but given that in places like California you get an > aircon demand bump under peak daytime solar heat load the economics may > be a lot closer to being in favour of solar power than at my latitude. > Otherwise they have to fire up other expensive quick start kit in the > mid afternoon to handle the peak demand for cooling. > > And it is win win on the warehouse a second outer skin keeping direct > sunlight off the roof with an airspace behind makes the heat load on the > building less. > > The only thing that makes solar power attractive in the UK is a market > distortion that gives an annual income guaranteed by the government of > around 8% of capital employed for domestic installations. I still have > to decide if I will install - a very green friend has a 2kW PV array and > hot water system but on an earlier (less profitable tariff). > > For a higher rate taxpayer these schemes are attractive. > http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/ > > or for the prices per unit (which are pretty insane) > http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/ > > I don't approve of these market distortions (which are even worse in > Germany) but with a bank interest rate of 0.3% is is tempting.... > > Regards, > Martin Brown A lot of the subsidies are for two reasons: a) PV costs are heavily dependent on economies of scale ie pump priming b) Places like Germany want to get a good portion of manufacturing, now and in the future. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Joel Koltner on 4 Jun 2010 13:11
<krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:ncsg061mlvgqkp8vgg15s02gd0cd2tmk3l(a)4ax.com... > PV panels will never pay for themselves. $50K invested, in a house or > otherwise, will most likely. In my case it's the third (of three) bedroom, > so > it's sort essential. PV panels might pay for themselves if you find some environmentalist-type to buy your home when you sell it... :-) But on average, yeah, I'd agree, they don't pay for themselves and having them is presently more a "lifestyle choice" and can't really be viewed as "a good investment." > Not much of an RV and they're money losers, too. $50k would get me a "good enough" RV -- I'm only interested in the smaller ones like Sprinters -- <25', still upwards of 20MPG anyway. And yes, they are money losers... but no wose than boats! > High class campus slums. ;-) It was -- before it'd been converted to student housing, the homeowner was the guy who owned the local newspaper. ---Joel |