Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Jun 2010 19:59 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:11:29 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><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... :-) You'll just as easily turn off a realist. I suppose some people like pink living rooms and black bed rooms, too. >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! 20MPG? I suppose so, if you pull it yourself. It's got no engine. I'd like a bus, but it's not going to happen. It would be great for three months, traveling around the country. Then I'd get sick of it. A friend lives in his six months of the year. Not a chance. >> High class campus slums. ;-) > >It was -- before it'd been converted to student housing, the homeowner was the >guy who owned the local newspaper. University owned? Seems pretty inefficient.
From: Joel Koltner on 4 Jun 2010 20:15 Hi Keith, <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:eg4j06tlsbftsvkisn3dkg0kfgpcq5rg2l(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:11:29 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>PV panels might pay for themselves if you find some environmentalist-type to >>buy your home when you sell it... :-) > You'll just as easily turn off a realist. I suppose some people like pink > living rooms and black bed rooms, too. I don't think a "realist" is necessary going to put much financial value on PV cells, but I'd be surprised if it actively dissuaded them for buying otherwise. Heck, pools -- which are generally considered to neither add nor subtract valuation from a home -- strike me as worse: You pretty much *have* to maintain them, or else drain them and then make darned sure no one can fall in. > 20MPG? I suppose so, if you pull it yourself. It's got no engine. Sprinters have engines, although the ones that get 20MPG are pretty anemic, it would seem. Then again, as far as I can tell it's the dream of many men to become old farts whose RVs slow to <45MPH while going up hills so as to hold up traffic for miles behind on single-lane highways, isn't it? :-) > I'd like > a bus, but it's not going to happen. It would be great for three months, > traveling around the country. Then I'd get sick of it. You might be able to find someone who'd give you a good deal on a long-term rental? I mean, you're likely still talking >$10k, but probably an order of magnitude less money than buying one and then turning around a year later and selling it. > A friend lives in his > six months of the year. Not a chance. I used to work at a company where the bookkeeper lived in a full-size (class A) RV, and had done so for a number of years (and he wasn't that old -- mid- to late-'40s, I'd guess). He made that decision after having gotten divorced... and discovering that his wife was getting all of the house. "Never again!," he said... >>It was -- before it'd been converted to student housing, the homeowner was >>the >>guy who owned the local newspaper. > University owned? Seems pretty inefficient. No, it was some private party -- I'm not sure who, as the place was being run by a property management service, and hence we never met the actual owner. ---Joel
From: Bill Bowden on 4 Jun 2010 20:41 On Jun 3, 8:16 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden > > > > <wrongaddr...(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.xmlemail: 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 How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb question? -Bill
From: krw on 4 Jun 2010 20:57 On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:15:23 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Hi Keith, > ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:eg4j06tlsbftsvkisn3dkg0kfgpcq5rg2l(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:11:29 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >> <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>PV panels might pay for themselves if you find some environmentalist-type to >>>buy your home when you sell it... :-) >> You'll just as easily turn off a realist. I suppose some people like pink >> living rooms and black bed rooms, too. > >I don't think a "realist" is necessary going to put much financial value on PV >cells, but I'd be surprised if it actively dissuaded them for buying >otherwise. They certainly aren't going to give them any value, so your house is going to be overpriced. >Heck, pools -- which are generally considered to neither add nor >subtract valuation from a home -- strike me as worse: You pretty much *have* >to maintain them, or else drain them and then make darned sure no one can fall >in. It depends on the area. In some areas you can't sell a house without one. In others it's a toss-up. >> 20MPG? I suppose so, if you pull it yourself. It's got no engine. > >Sprinters have engines, although the ones that get 20MPG are pretty anemic, it >would seem. ??? http://keystone-sprinter.com/ >Then again, as far as I can tell it's the dream of many men to become old >farts whose RVs slow to <45MPH while going up hills so as to hold up traffic >for miles behind on single-lane highways, isn't it? :-) Single lane? That's going to get interesting. ;-) >> I'd like >> a bus, but it's not going to happen. It would be great for three months, >> traveling around the country. Then I'd get sick of it. > >You might be able to find someone who'd give you a good deal on a long-term >rental? I mean, you're likely still talking >$10k, but probably an order of >magnitude less money than buying one and then turning around a year later and >selling it. Good point. Maybe my boss... ;-) >> A friend lives in his >> six months of the year. Not a chance. > >I used to work at a company where the bookkeeper lived in a full-size (class >A) RV, and had done so for a number of years (and he wasn't that old -- mid- >to late-'40s, I'd guess). He made that decision after having gotten >divorced... and discovering that his wife was getting all of the house. >"Never again!," he said... ;-) I know of a contractor who lives in one. He drives to where the contract is and sets up in a RV park. >>>It was -- before it'd been converted to student housing, the homeowner was >>>the >>>guy who owned the local newspaper. >> University owned? Seems pretty inefficient. > >No, it was some private party -- I'm not sure who, as the place was being run >by a property management service, and hence we never met the actual owner. Ah, "Student housing" normally means university owned. Privately owned college housing == slums. Students don't generally take care of residential housing; owners don't either.
From: tm on 4 Jun 2010 20:59
"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote in message news:7bcce739-36b1-4dc0-96b5-5641086c3cb5(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Jun 3, 8:16 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden > > > > <wrongaddr...(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.xmlemail: 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 How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb question? -Bill They would need to get their water from *cough, cough* Arizona. :) Tom |