Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 5 Jun 2010 12:18 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:46:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:17:45 +0300) it happened Paul Keinanen ><keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote in <1pqj06tmsus7rg89q90aauv4nkcp3k16o2(a)4ax.com>: > >> >>In addition to this, the utility companies want a full dam in the >>morning (and empty in the evening) to compensate for the daily load >>variations. >> >>Wind power people would like to have full dam when the wind dies out >>and sufficient dam capacity, until the wind starts blowing again. > > >I have just invented the oil-pressure generator. >You connect it to leaking oil wells, the oil flow pressure drives a generator. >;-) >No CO2 Screw the CO2. Burn the oil.
From: John Larkin on 5 Jun 2010 12:28 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:46:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:17:45 +0300) it happened Paul Keinanen ><keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote in <1pqj06tmsus7rg89q90aauv4nkcp3k16o2(a)4ax.com>: > >> >>In addition to this, the utility companies want a full dam in the >>morning (and empty in the evening) to compensate for the daily load >>variations. >> >>Wind power people would like to have full dam when the wind dies out >>and sufficient dam capacity, until the wind starts blowing again. > > >I have just invented the oil-pressure generator. >You connect it to leaking oil wells, the oil flow pressure drives a generator. >;-) >No CO2 > I once designed a controller for a natural-gas-powered generator that was used to charge a battery bank to run instrumentation and radio gear on oil rigs. They didn't ignite the gas... they just ran it through a sort of gear motor thing to drive the generator, then vented it. No CO2 generated! The mechanical engineers I was working with had convinced themselves that such a controller was impossible. All it took was a couple of comparators and a flip-flop. John
From: Jan Panteltje on 5 Jun 2010 13:27 On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:28:36 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <jduk06ptd0fm65m9lsrjm6p2iudqc6p8fs(a)4ax.com>: >On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:46:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:17:45 +0300) it happened Paul Keinanen >><keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote in <1pqj06tmsus7rg89q90aauv4nkcp3k16o2(a)4ax.com>: >> >>> >>>In addition to this, the utility companies want a full dam in the >>>morning (and empty in the evening) to compensate for the daily load >>>variations. >>> >>>Wind power people would like to have full dam when the wind dies out >>>and sufficient dam capacity, until the wind starts blowing again. >> >> >>I have just invented the oil-pressure generator. >>You connect it to leaking oil wells, the oil flow pressure drives a generator. >>;-) >>No CO2 >> > >I once designed a controller for a natural-gas-powered generator that >was used to charge a battery bank to run instrumentation and radio >gear on oil rigs. They didn't ignite the gas... they just ran it >through a sort of gear motor thing to drive the generator, then vented >it. > >No CO2 generated! > >The mechanical engineers I was working with had convinced themselves >that such a controller was impossible. All it took was a couple of >comparators and a flip-flop. > >John The 'mechanical way' sometimes involves a centrifugal thing that closes a valve. Even old Edison knew that, used to sync up his steam powered DC generators. If the flow MUST persist, then use a bypass. I dunno what is simpler, electronics or the centrifugal thing. The last is probably more reliable :-)
From: JosephKK on 7 Jun 2010 21:39 On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:55:21 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On May 31, 3:23 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2010 21:03:16 -0700) it happened Robert Baer >> <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote in >> <aNednXw0P7ZkqZ7RnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...(a)posted.localnet>: >> >> > Well, absolutely NO energy source is renewable; the sun is in a >> >downward nuclear fission / fusion path leading to iron. >> > What i looked for was an energy source that did not require energy >> >rich carbon sources (trees, oil); the other alternative would be foot >> >powered generators. >> >> Well, oil is free these days, just take a bucket and help the clean-up. >> And if you are a veggy then feet powered generators bikes0 >> are fed by your eating vegetables. >> So there really is no problem. > >Food in to energy out is not very good on a human. Back when I rode >my >bike a lot, I needed about twice the food intake if I was riding the >bike >on that day. Chances are I was making under 1KWH of energy in a day. Maybe, ISTR that metabolic idle (not moving around at all) is around 50W.
From: JosephKK on 7 Jun 2010 23:27
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:10:11 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >On 3/06/2010 1:37 AM, Don Lancaster wrote: >> 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. > >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). Wow. Did you ever get that one backwards. http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/ca/index.php http://www.nema.org/energy/demandreduction.pdf > >But that does not in itself mean that they're necessarily energy sinks, >though I'm not arguing that they're not. > >Sylvia. |