Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 12 Jun 2010 13:07 On 12/06/2010 02:57, Don Lancaster wrote: > On 6/9/2010 3:21 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> On 09/06/2010 11:04, Martin Brown wrote: >>> On 05/06/2010 03:11, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 5/06/2010 10:41 AM, Bill Bowden wrote: >>>>> 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: >>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> I suspect that is true, but it may not hold for too much longer if >>> screen or inkjet printable semiconductors become stable enough to be >>> worth using in this application. Or some other thin film PV trick. >> >> Since Nanosolar claim that they can now manufacture PV for $0.70 per >> peak watt, and it's currently selling at around $2, it gives an >> indication of the scope for prices falling when supply finally exceeds >> demand by a large margin. The key being economy of scale. >> > > The fastest way to drop the price is to eliminate the subsidies. Not if it is economy of scale where the bulk of price dropping lies. I doubt whether PV manufacture exceeds (in area) the manufacture of LCD screens. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Paul Keinanen on 12 Jun 2010 13:46 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:04:16 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/06/2010 20:59, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 10/06/2010 20:41, Mark wrote: >>> On Jun 9, 5:58 pm, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:29:52 +0100, Martin Brown >>>> >>>> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 09/06/2010 20:54, Paul Keinanen wrote: >>>>>> At higher latitudes (Central and Northern Europe), the peak >>>>>> consumption is during the winter months, with minimal solar >>>>>> production. During the summer months, when the solar production is >>>>>> high, the consumption is low (and nuclear power plants are shut down >>>>>> for annual maintenance during the summer) and hence the price that you >>>>>> can get from the solar electricity is quite low. >>>> >>>>> I agree. PV is a dead loss at our latitude since it hardly generates >>>>> anything at all in the dull grey winters. To my amazement though in the >>>>> bleak midwinter on the few sunny days with blue skies my friends 2kW PV >>>>> array generates about 800W despite the low midday solar elevation of >>>>> just 26 degrees. >>>> >>>> Thus the zenith distance would be 64 degrees. >>>> >>>> At Christmas, the solar declination is -23.5 degrees, >>>> >>>> Thus, your friend must be living at 40.5 degrees latitude (Barcelona, >>>> Athens) latitude. >>>> >>>> In Spain, there are several solar thermal electric powerplants in the >>>> few megawatt class. >>> >>> you will know when solar PV have "made it" (become economical) when >>> you see the factory that makes them, has them on the roof and doesn't >>> use much power from the grid.. >> >> That is an excessive requirement. It becomes worthwhile when the total >> energy payback on solar is 10-100x that of manufacture. At the moment it >> is around 6-8x for PV and rising so there is hope for it yet. > >nanosolar claim an energy payback time of 1 month A company listed at some reputable stock exchange must be very careful about the wording of press releases. A company not listed can claim practically anything.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 12 Jun 2010 15:41 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:30:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Cadmium! Can they sell these in Europe, ROHS and all? > >They probably have a "do not lick" label for litigious US tourists. Uh... RoHs is a euro thing. The US banned Cadmium in the industry years ago. More proof that the whole rohs thing was a huge waste of money for the entire world. A hit this industry did not need. And there are exemptions, even for Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead. They are just not anywhere where contact is an imminent worry.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 12 Jun 2010 15:44 On 12/06/2010 20:41, Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:30:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Cadmium! Can they sell these in Europe, ROHS and all? >> >> They probably have a "do not lick" label for litigious US tourists. > > Uh... RoHs is a euro thing. > > The US banned Cadmium in the industry years ago. More proof that the > whole rohs thing was a huge waste of money for the entire world. A hit > this industry did not need. > > And there are exemptions, even for Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead. They > are just not anywhere where contact is an imminent worry. Well, I do not mourn NiCd batteries. I'll be happy when lead acid goes the same way. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: krw on 12 Jun 2010 16:03
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:44:09 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/06/2010 20:41, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:30:34 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Cadmium! Can they sell these in Europe, ROHS and all? >>> >>> They probably have a "do not lick" label for litigious US tourists. >> >> Uh... RoHs is a euro thing. >> >> The US banned Cadmium in the industry years ago. More proof that the >> whole rohs thing was a huge waste of money for the entire world. A hit >> this industry did not need. >> >> And there are exemptions, even for Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead. They >> are just not anywhere where contact is an imminent worry. > >Well, I do not mourn NiCd batteries. NiCd has its place. NiMH certainly hasn't held up its promise. >I'll be happy when lead acid goes the same way. Lead-Acid (and SLA) has its place too. No one has come up with a replacement for either one. |