Solar Power

Question:

Solor powered laptop chargers have been available for quite sometime. Try a Google search for a few retailers. -david – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > My question > How good is a solar cell? > Would it be viable to have a desk with a solar panel attached so it > could charge/run a laptop and/or mobile phone? > I suppose it could use ambiant lighting but of needed an intense beam > of light could be projected from a wall. > What do you all think?

Response:

Thank you Anthony , This about answers all the questions. I suppose it is also the same reason the chocolate teapot was never a big hit . Many thanks Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > … > How good is a solar cell? > Pretty good. Most commercially sold solar PV panels run about 12 to 15% > efficiency and are guaranteed to last 20 to 25 years. > Would it be viable to have a desk with a solar panel attached so it > could charge/run a laptop and/or mobile phone? > Yes, as long as you operate it outside in the sunlight. A typical > laptop may require from 20 to 40 watts and cell phones are usually > less than a watt or two. There are many common PV panels that are > rated at 40+ watts and which measure about 1 foot by 4 feet in size. > Depending on your equipment you may only need one or two of these > panels to power your equipment. This is pretty common for RV’s. > I suppose it could use ambiant lighting but of needed an intense beam > of light could be projected from a wall. > Indoor lighting is often less than 1/100th the intensity of sunlight. > You get as much power from a solar cell as you provide light so you > will get 1/100th (or less) of the power from your panel with typical > indoor light. You would need either a much larger panel or much more > intense light. > If you use light from an electric lamp then it’s likely you will lose > 95% of the energy inside the lamp and the panel will only be able to > convert 15% of the remaining 5% (except for special situations). It’s > likely you’ll wind up with less than 1% of the electricity you started > with. You would do better to run an extension cord. > What do you all think? > I’m not at all certain what you are asking but there is a reason why > solar powered watches never caught on for coal miners. > Anthony

Response:

My question How good is a solar cell? Would it be viable to have a desk with a solar panel attached so it could charge/run a laptop and/or mobile phone? I suppose it could use ambiant lighting but of needed an intense beam of light could be projected from a wall. What do you all think?

Response:

… > How good is a solar cell?

Pretty good. Most commercially sold solar PV panels run about 12 to 15% efficiency and are guaranteed to last 20 to 25 years. > Would it be viable to have a desk with a solar panel attached so it > could charge/run a laptop and/or mobile phone?

Yes, as long as you operate it outside in the sunlight. A typical laptop may require from 20 to 40 watts and cell phones are usually less than a watt or two. There are many common PV panels that are rated at 40+ watts and which measure about 1 foot by 4 feet in size. Depending on your equipment you may only need one or two of these panels to power your equipment. This is pretty common for RV’s. > I suppose it could use ambiant lighting but of needed an intense beam > of light could be projected from a wall.

Indoor lighting is often less than 1/100th the intensity of sunlight. You get as much power from a solar cell as you provide light so you will get 1/100th (or less) of the power from your panel with typical indoor light. You would need either a much larger panel or much more intense light. If you use light from an electric lamp then it’s likely you will lose 95% of the energy inside the lamp and the panel will only be able to convert 15% of the remaining 5% (except for special situations). It’s likely you’ll wind up with less than 1% of the electricity you started with. You would do better to run an extension cord. > What do you all think?

I’m not at all certain what you are asking but there is a reason why solar powered watches never caught on for coal miners. Anthony

Response:

> > Does anybody know of a web site that gives the basics of Solar energy, like how > it works in basic form it is a subject I know nothing about and I mean NOTHING > and would like to cheers G > I went to Alta Vista at http://altavista.digital.com/ and searched for the phrase "solar energy basics" > 2,746,270 matches were found. > John Hughes

Yeah. That’s why you don’t go to Alta Vista. The boolean search does an "or", apparently, between solar and energy and basics. Instead, you go to Infoseek and search on "solar". You get a load of pages. Then you click on the button to search only those pages and enter "energy". You get less pages. You click the button to search only those pages again. You search on "basics". I think I ended up with about 17 pages. Good luck. DPH

Response:

>Instead, you go to Infoseek and search on "solar". You get a load of pages. Then you click on the button >to search only those pages and enter "energy". You get less pages. You click the button to search only >those pages again. You search on "basics". I think I ended up with about 17 pages.

Or make it quicker with "+solar +energy +basics"

Response:

Does anybody know of a web site that gives the basics of Solar energy, like how it works in basic form it is a subject I know nothing about and I mean NOTHING and would like to cheers G

Response:

> Does anybody know of a web site that gives the basics of Solar energy, like how > it works in basic form it is a subject I know nothing about and I mean NOTHING > and would like to cheers G

I went to Alta Vista at http://altavista.digital.com/ and searched for the phrase "solar energy basics" 2,746,270 matches were found. John Hughes

Response:

: >Hi, my name is Masasumi Oga. I’m new to this newsgroup. : >I’m interested in solar power. I want to know how can we get electric : >energy from solar heat. However, I don’t have any knowledge about it. : >Is there anyone who has any information on solar power? : > : >Thank you. : You get a barf load of heliostatic mirrors to reflect the sunlight onto a : target mass which has a working fluid running through it. The 5 megawatt : Luz plant used a flamable oil called therminol. You use the hot oil to : boil water to run a steam turbine. Worked great, well other than that it : took an inordinate amount of land per usable watt generated. Oh yeah & the : therminal blew up once injuring 7 people & costing millions of dollars. : Opps, also It may have required more energy to construct & maintain than : it ever produced. This is NOT the technology of today! The biggest solar termal plats are build in California cald SEGS each 80MW, all together app. 350 MW. The mirrors are build by Flachglas Solar Germany from Pilkington Group. This plants don’t use heliostatic mirrors but line focusing parabolic troughs. More info in: The Yearbook of Renewable Energies 1994 London Best Regards mt. — —–WWW http://www.heim2.tu-clausthal.de/USERS/Martin.Tschierschke/ –

Response:

> Hi, my name is Masasumi Oga. I’m new to this newsgroup. > I’m interested in solar power. I want to know how can we get electric > energy from solar heat. However, I don’t have any knowledge about it. > Is there anyone who has any information on solar power? > Thank you.

There are also photovoltaic cells to get energy from the sun. Do you know what it is ? Pedro :-)

Response:

>Hi, my name is Masasumi Oga. I’m new to this newsgroup. >I’m interested in solar power. I want to know how can we get electric >energy from solar heat. However, I don’t have any knowledge about it. >Is there anyone who has any information on solar power? >Thank you.

You get a barf load of heliostatic mirrors to reflect the sunlight onto a target mass which has a working fluid running through it. The 5 megawatt Luz plant used a flamable oil called therminol. You use the hot oil to boil water to run a steam turbine. Worked great, well other than that it took an inordinate amount of land per usable watt generated. Oh yeah & the therminal blew up once injuring 7 people & costing millions of dollars. Opps, also It may have required more energy to construct & maintain than it ever produced. — Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada -It’s okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you’re wrong you’re supposed to become enlightened & change your mind. Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.

Response:

Hi, my name is Masasumi Oga. I’m new to this newsgroup. I’m interested in solar power. I want to know how can we get electric energy from solar heat. However, I don’t have any knowledge about it. Is there anyone who has any information on solar power? Thank you.

Response:

>Hi, my name is Masasumi Oga. I’m new to this newsgroup. >I’m interested in solar power. I want to know how can we get electric >energy from solar heat. However, I don’t have any knowledge about it. >Is there anyone who has any information on solar power? >Thank you.

You get a barf load of heliostatic mirrors to reflect the sunlight onto a target mass which has a working fluid running through it. The 5 megawatt Luz plant used a flamable oil called therminol. You use the hot oil to boil water to run a steam turbine. Worked great, well other than that it to an inordinate amount of land per usable watt generated. Oh yeah & the treminal blew up once injuring 7 people & costing millions of dollars. Opps, also It may have required more energy to construct & maintain than it ever produced. — Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada -It’s okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you’re wrong you’re supposed to become enlightened & change your mind. Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.

Response:

: It covers the thin-film amorphous silicon cells currently produced by : United Solar Systems of Troy, Michigan, which achieve now a remarkable : 10.2 percent efficiency. I thought thin-film amorphous, while cheaper to produce, had a shorter lifespan and lost efficiency over time. Am I mistaken? No, you’re not. Example: I own one of Real Goods’ amorphous panels — when I bought it last year they were calling it a "10W" panel. The rating sticker on it said "max pwr 1400mA at 10V" or something — anyway, it initially did put out 14W, as per the manufacturer’s rating. However, over the first month the output decayed to approximately [the RG rating of] 10W. Over the past year, the output has gradually decreased until now, almost exactly a year after I installed it, peak output is about 4.5W. You pay more for polycrystalline or crystalline cells — but it’s more than worth it for the more durable technology. — –Craig DeForest

Response:

: There was a short article in Business Week, Nov 8th comparing solar power : to other alternative energy sources. There are also various associations : in the US and Canada which can give you more info. And there is also an interesting short article titled "Solar cells make a leap in cost-effectiveness" in Scientific American, April 94, p90. It covers the thin-film amorphous silicon cells currently produced by United Solar Systems of Troy, Michigan, which achieve now a remarkable 10.2 percent efficiency. The DOE, which is partially funding USS research, predicts that the cost of photovoltaic power besed on these panels could be brought down to 12 to 16 cents per kilowatt/-hour. A fascinating technology, at long last coming of age. __ philippe

Response:

I m working on a solar energy paper and was wondering where I could find the following: (1) GIFS of solar panels, etc. (2) good articles on the viability of solar power commercially as well as technically Azam Ali

Response:

There was a short article in Business Week, Nov 8th comparing solar power to other alternative energy sources. There are also various associations in the US and Canada which can give you more info.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Most of the studies for large scale solar power plants concluded that > it would be possible to be competative when the capital cost of the > system dropped below $1700 / kw capacity for components with a 50 year > life. > Most solar cells are rated at 5 year life — breakage being the prime > limit. > Even in the sunniest part of the US (ElPaso tx) you would only get 8 > KW hrs per day from each sq yd of collector(times 5% effiecient). Peak > power of 20 kw (100 amp – 240 volt system) would be expensive. > Imagine : 20 kw requires — 20 sq yd / .05 * cosine of latitude => 800 > sq yd per household or 4 times the area of the average house. >A more practical near term approach is to put enough cells to cover >average loads on the roof angled at about the latitude off of >horizontal. That eliminates the need for most of your multiply by >cosine of latitude fudge factor.

No as easy as you suggest. The collector area could be adjusted by angular adjustment – but the roof could not be covered because of shadowing effects. Solar Thermal Tower systems ended up with solar collectors only covering about 1/4 of the ground of the installation — the rest was space to prevent blocking sunlight to other mirrors. And as those who installed solar water heaters know — it is expensive to get a plumber to work on your roof. And it hurt to cut down the tall oak tree for more heat for the shower. >It also makes sense to size the system for average loads instead of >peak loads. That reduces it to about a 2 kw system or 80 sq yd. solid >state invertors that made 60hz power from the DC could easily sync >with the power lines so you could sell any excess pwoer to the power >company, and you would be connected to the grid when you needed more >than 2 kw power.

Except that no electric company wants to have the village idiot feeding 5000 watts into the grid with the wrong phase or power factor — there is a tendency to blow whole substations if you are not constantly monitoring what you feed into the lines. >I have a 2.2kW programable PID controller in my shop that converts >220V 60Hz 1 phase power to DC then to 220V 3 phase power at any >frequency I want from 0.5Hz to 360Hz. It cost $410. An invertor that >only had to generate 220V synced powerline frequency could easily by >1/2 the price if produced in quatity. >I don’t personally think the price of a solar cell installation makes >economic sense for somone who is on the power grid, but we are getting >closer. For the average homeowner, adding spiffy things like fuel >cells or large battery banks to the system drives the price and >maintenance up to the point where they are a long ways from making >economic sense.

Agreed that the aux equipment to balance out the few hours of peak solar production creates horrible costs — but they would have to be paid either by user with a private system — or by the utility to have standby peak power equal to total peak power produced by all networked solar systems. To pick up the load on the cold windy nights when the sun does not shine. There is no free lunch; someday the idiots in California will wake up and realize the truth, in the meantime there will be more of the same crazy ideas infecting the Ivory Towers and latte shops in the rest of the country.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> "We can produce this for less than $200 for 200 watts, making it the >>first approach that we believe can truly compete with fossil fuels," Swanson >>says of the cubes. In the future, far fewer cubes could be used for personal >>power plants. >A dollar a watt. I dont know where you live but here in Florida >I am paying $0 .10 a kw thats 10 cents for a thousand watts. In >North Carolina it was 3 or 4 cents a kw plus a demand charge during >peak nours >Ed Christie > I’m afraid Jerry is up to his tricks again. We don’t buy > electricity by the watt or kilowatt, we buy it by the > kilowatt-hour (did Jerry claim to be an engineer?). With Jerry’s > data no comparison is possible because we don’t know the life of > the fuel cell/solar panel (how many hours will it put out the > rated wattage before it fails). For now, the best we have is a > reference in the original post to three times the cost of oil and > gas. > Rochester Minnesota USA

I think you folks are misreading why I posted this article from ABC News. I posted the article because it was the first time I had heard of using solar power in combination with a fuel cell. The cost issue was irrelevant to me because this technology will only be successful if it can compete with other sources of energy. Glenn, your point is a good one, i.e. reliability. But again, let me suggest it is just another obstacle for this technology to overcome. In the end, price and performance will determine if there is widespread use of this idea. But for the sake of discussion, let us assume they can come reduce cost significantly. By the way, I think the criticism of the cost quoted in the article is accurate (could it be that once again the ABC reporter who is probably a technological dummy, is using the acquisition cost, not the recurring cost). Think of the application of this technology in the underdeveloped world. If they succeed in reducing the acquisition cost significantly (I am assuming of course the recurring cost is very small), that would mean in even the most remote regions of a country, they could have electricity. Think about how that can transform these countries if their people could have electricity. But there is another major problem for that to work and that is, the device would have require very little maintenance.

Response:

> "We can produce this for less than $200 for 200 watts, making it the >first approach that we believe can truly compete with fossil fuels," Swanson >says of the cubes. In the future, far fewer cubes could be used for personal >power plants.

A dollar a watt. I dont know where you live but here in Florida I am paying $0 .10 a kw thats 10 cents for a thousand watts. In North Carolina it was 3 or 4 cents a kw plus a demand charge during peak nours Ed Christie —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

[snip] > I don’t personally think the price of a solar cell installation makes > economic sense for somone who is on the power grid, but we are getting > closer. For the average homeowner, adding spiffy things like fuel > cells or large battery banks to the system drives the price and > maintenance up to the point where they are a long ways from making > economic sense.

Agree, but the equation differs for industrial users. F’rinstance, hereabouts several plants are getting heavily into co-generation, reducing both their dependence on the grid and their costs. The industrials have an advantage over the homeowner in that they have a heat source which they are now recognizing should be used rather than allowed to float wastefully up the smokestack. Same thing applies to solar arrays. Given the ‘average’ lot size of a suburban home, there just isn’t enough room for an economically viable array. The industrials and government, however, typically have much more real estate available. Prediction: As electricity costs escalate, more and more co-generation will become the norm, and the monopoly of the electric companies will be broken. It’s interesting to speculate on the affect this development will have on prices.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> "We can produce this for less than $200 for 200 watts, making it the >>first approach that we believe can truly compete with fossil fuels," Swanson >>says of the cubes. In the future, far fewer cubes could be used for personal >>power plants. >A dollar a watt. I dont know where you live but here in Florida >I am paying $0 .10 a kw thats 10 cents for a thousand watts. In >North Carolina it was 3 or 4 cents a kw plus a demand charge during >peak nours >Ed Christie >I’m afraid Jerry is up to his tricks again. We don’t buy >electricity by the watt or kilowatt, we buy it by the >kilowatt-hour (did Jerry claim to be an engineer?). With Jerry’s >data no comparison is possible because we don’t know the life of >the fuel cell/solar panel (how many hours will it put out the >rated wattage before it fails). For now, the best we have is a >reference in the original post to three times the cost of oil and >gas. >Rochester Minnesota USA

Most of the studies for large scale solar power plants concluded that it would be possible to be competative when the capital cost of the system dropped below $1700 / kw capacity for components with a 50 year life. Most solar cells are rated at 5 year life — breakage being the prime limit. Even in the sunniest part of the US (ElPaso tx) you would only get 8 KW hrs per day from each sq yd of collector(times 5% effiecient). Peak power of 20 kw (100 amp – 240 volt system) would be expensive. Imagine : 20 kw requires — 20 sq yd / .05 * cosine of latitude => 800 sq yd per household or 4 times the area of the average house.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "We can produce this for less than $200 for 200 watts, making it the >first approach that we believe can truly compete with fossil fuels," Swanson >says of the cubes. In the future, far fewer cubes could be used for personal >power plants. >A dollar a watt. I dont know where you live but here in Florida >I am paying $0 .10 a kw thats 10 cents for a thousand watts. In >North Carolina it was 3 or 4 cents a kw plus a demand charge during >peak nours >Ed Christie

I’m afraid Jerry is up to his tricks again. We don’t buy electricity by the watt or kilowatt, we buy it by the kilowatt-hour (did Jerry claim to be an engineer?). With Jerry’s data no comparison is possible because we don’t know the life of the fuel cell/solar panel (how many hours will it put out the rated wattage before it fails). For now, the best we have is a reference in the original post to three times the cost of oil and gas. Rochester Minnesota USA

Response:

Harnessing the Sun’s Power New Technology May Run Fossil Fuels Into the Ground By Jim Goldman ABC News S U N N Y V E I L, Cal., Jan. 6 – There’s an excitement going on in the environmental movement over the development in solar energy- a development that some hope will eventually run rings around fossil fuels. STORY HIGHLIGHTS Simple and Effective- So Far Technicians have developed a solar powered flying wing that will be able to stay aloft for six months at a time. The airplane generates all of its own energy, and stores its own energy, which has been the problem for solar up until now, and can exist completely independently of outside energy sources. Engineers say the technology that powers the aircraft could solve some of the energy industry’s biggest challenges-generating and then storing solar energy and making it cost-effective. A working prototype of a fuel cell coupled with this new, high-tech solar panels made from silicon or refined sand. The flat silicon solar panels are arranged in a cube- and that with the fuel cell ends up being about the size of a Rubik’s cube. Just 10 of those cubes would be enough to generate enough electrical power for an entire house. According to Dick Swanson, CEO of Sun Power, they’re talking about the future of power being sunlight, which is free, and sand, which is probably the most prevalent material on the planet. This is how it works: The sun’s energy splits water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day. Then, a fuel cell then brings the two gases back together to make electricity at night. "This energy storage system is actually a fairly elegant, simple system, we think," says John Delfrate of NASA. Simple and Effective- So Far The flying wing is one example which some day could be used to monitor the environment and relay telecommunications data. Power plants will be next, using thousands of solar cell cubes. "We can produce this for less than $200 for 200 watts, making it the first approach that we believe can truly compete with fossil fuels," Swanson says of the cubes. In the future, far fewer cubes could be used for personal power plants. "It takes about ten of these to power one house," Swanson says. For now, solar power still costs as three times as much as oil and gas. Analysts say that is the final challenge the industry needs to overcome before it comes a realistic energy alternative.

Response:

Does anyone out there have any good information about Solar Power for the home? I have been considering installing a Photovoltaic Solar Panel or two on the roof of the house which my wife and I are building. I am interested in just how much power these panels will produce. I have found a panel on the advertised on the Internet which claims to have a power rating on 260 watts. This is for a panel about 6 x 4 feet. I am pretty stupid when it comes to electrical consumption. Is this a significant amount of juice? Will it make a noticable impact on our electric bill? Just how much juice is 260 watts? If anyone has experience with solar power, please let me know.

Response:

> Just how much juice is 260 watts?

Well, consider a 250 watt light bulb. Just about THAT much. — Brett Carver (707) 577-4344

Response:

Cost effectiveness depends a lot on where you’re located (e.g. weather conditions, cost of power) and how you can orient the collector system. Most places where solar power is feasible have local organizations that you can contact for info and references (e.g. for contractors that have experience building solar-friendly houses). If you live in the Northern California area the Northern California Solar Energy Association (NCSEA) can http://www.ihpva.org/ncsea. Sam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Does anyone out there have any good information about Solar Power >for the home? I have been considering installing a Photovoltaic >Solar Panel or two on the roof of the house which my wife and I are >building. I am interested in just how much power these panels will >produce. >I have found a panel on the advertised on the Internet which >claims to have a power rating on 260 watts. This is for a panel about >6 x 4 feet. I am pretty stupid when it comes to electrical >consumption. Is this a significant amount of juice? Will it make a >noticable impact on our electric bill? Just how much juice is 260 >watts? >If anyone has experience with solar power, please let me know.

Response:

Get the Real Goods catalog — the firm is located in Ukiah, CA…website info about solar power plus tech support.

Response:

Humm, I’m not so sure where Kirk is getting his stats. My wife is in the energy consulting field (a mechanical engineer), and I’ve accompanied her to a couple of the Solar ‘9x conventions, so I’ll throw in my $0.02. I’m not sure where you live, but Solar ‘98 is being held in Alberquerque, NM in June, I think. Check out http://www.sni.net/solar/ > . >Does anyone out there have any good information about Solar Power > . >for the home? > Yes. Except for certain very special circumstances, (IE, when other power > sources are unavailable or hideously expensive) it’s a rip-off. I refer > here specifically to solar panels for electricity, not reasonably > plausible schemes like using solar energy to directly warm a building or > to heat (or pre-heat) water. Those can work, sometimes brilliantly. Solar > panels, on the other hand, are a hopeless disaster if conventional "juice" > is available.

The question that will help decide how much $$$ this saves is does your state allow net metering. i.e. if you generate excess power during the day, can you run you meter backwards (there are a few different schemes for this) and supply power to the power company). The advantage here is that you are giving back during the periods of peak demand/cost, and only using power from the grid during times of lowest demand/cost (night). I have heard of situations where at the end of the year the home owner comes out being owed money by the power company. If you need to buy batteries to store the power, costs go up rapidly. > . I have been considering installing a Photovoltaic > . >Solar Panel or two on the roof of the house which my wife and I are > . >building. I am interested in just how much power these panels will > . >produce. > The key question is: how long does it take for you to recoup your > investment? The nasty answer is: about 20 years if you already have > electrical power available at ten cents a kWh or less. > Note that 20 years is approximately twice the design lifetime of most > solar panels… so you will be just about half way through the payback > period when you have to go out and buy the most expensive parts all over > again.

Many of the solar panels comming out now have rated lifetimes of 30 years. > If your power costs more than .10/kWh, the payback declines > proportionately. If it costs less, the payback stretches out. Regardless, > because solar panels do deteriorate over time, the payout period is > essentially infinite: you NEVER save any money. (unless you are paying > maybe .50/kWh) > . >I have found a panel on the advertised on the Internet which > . >claims to have a power rating on 260 watts. This is for a panel about > . >6 x 4 feet. I am pretty stupid when it comes to electrical > . >consumption. Is this a significant amount of juice? > No.

I decent figure would be about 2 KW for your average home. your peak will be about this. Again the real issue is, "do you have net metering?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . > Will it make a > . >noticable impact on our electric bill? > No. > . Just how much juice is 260 > . >watts? > It is approximate 1/4 kilowatt. When the panel is running and producing > full power it will be "saving" you about 2.5 _cents_/hour. Assuming that > it can deliver full power for 8 hours a day (a hopelessly optimistic > assumption), it will thus save you a walloping 20 CENTS a day, or $73/ > year. You can never get this kind of performance in the real world — in > most cases you would not break even, ever. This is not a good investment. > And don’t forget — the panel will need an inverter to convert the low > voltage DC from the panel into higher voltage AC that your appliances > want. This wastes energy, making the payback numbers even worse. > Generally, you can take the cost of the panel and invest it in a mediocre > investment (a randomly selected stock or mutual fund) and make more than > that. > . >If anyone has experience with solar power, please let me know. > Fortunately, I can run a calculator, so I haven’t even been suckered by > the mythical savings of solar panels.

There are ways to waste money with solar, and ways to save money. Many people have a mental block against it, and you will never convince them otherwise. If you believe in the idea of solar power, go head, it will make you feel good. And when all states allow net metering, you will be ready to hook up on day one. Cheers, Sid > — > | The picture atop of this message, if present, was > | made by "Saving Face" for the Macintosh, available at: > | http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html

– Sid Hellman - Systems Analyst/Programmer – at the Passcal Instrument Center Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Response:

>I have never >heard of an actual documented instance when photovoltaic power "paid" >anybody except solar panel sellers.

Most of the PV installations I’ve heard of are in remote areas where it would cost a small fortune to bring in a power line, which changes the payback equation considerably. The exceptions to this get a lot of publicity, but they seem to be rare. Also, every PV installation I’ve ever heard of is combined with an aggressive load-reduction program, including things like special super-insulated refrigerators, all-flourescent lighting, heating systems that don’t require pumps or blowers, and sometimes even appliances (eg washing machines) that have been retro-fitted with high-efficiency motors in place of the usual induction motors. These things aren’t cheap, but watt-for-watt they’re cheaper than PV panels. If you’re on the grid, try some of this stuff first, and then see if you still want the PV panels. Also, they often include generators for backup and occasional high-energy uses (like power tools). If you’re on the grid, buy the generator first– it will come in handy during power failures.

Response:

> . Humm, I’m not so sure where Kirk is getting his stats. > From looking at the prices in vendor catalogs, and doing elementary > arithmetic. Try it sometime.

As I mentioned, the math changes dependent upon your local. > (snip) > . > . The question that will help decide how much $$$ this saves is does > . your state allow net metering. i.e. if you generate excess power > . during the day, can you run you meter backwards (there are a few > . different schemes for this) and supply power to the power > . company). The advantage here is that you are giving back during the > . periods of peak demand/cost, and only using power from the grid during > . times of lowest demand/cost (night). > The numbers do not work out on this — because your electricity costs more > to produce than the power company’s does — and they generally _buy_ your > power at a lower rate than they sell power to you at.

That is dependant on the state. Some states mandate that they buy back at wholesale, some at retail. If you are lucky enough to be one of the retail states, it makes great economic sence. And even if you have to sell at wholesale, there is always the warm fuzzy feeling you will get knowing that you are helping the environment. (said with a little bit of PC sarcasm, but I do also buy into this.) > . I have heard of situations where > . at the end of the year the home owner comes out being owed money by > . the power company. If you need to buy batteries to store the power, > . costs go up rapidly. > "I have heard of" sounds a lot like "a friend of a friend". I have never > heard of an actual documented instance when photovoltaic power "paid" > anybody except solar panel sellers.

I’ve seen talks on this subject at meetings, where the talks are based upon scientific research. Do I have it in front of me? no. So accept it if you want. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . > > . > . I have been considering installing a Photovoltaic > . > . >Solar Panel or two on the roof of the house which my wife and I are > . > . >building. I am interested in just how much power these panels will > . > . >produce. > . > > . > The key question is: how long does it take for you to recoup your > . > investment? The nasty answer is: about 20 years if you already have > . > electrical power available at ten cents a kWh or less. > . > > . > Note that 20 years is approximately twice the design lifetime of most > . > solar panels… so you will be just about half way through the payback > . > period when you have to go out and buy the most expensive parts all over > . > again. > . > . Many of the solar panels comming out now have rated lifetimes of 30 years. > Then how come they only have 10-year warranties?

Good question, but from what I’ve seen, most failures are due to misuse. i.e. walking on them, shotgun blast, etc, All it takes if one section of one panel to be damaged, and since most panels are wired in series, the entire panel is dead. (I work in environmental monitoring, where we set up sites in remote locations, run by solar panels. I’ve yet to see a panel die of natural causes. YMMV) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . > . > > . > If your power costs more than .10/kWh, the payback declines > . > proportionately. If it costs less, the payback stretches out. Regardless, > . > because solar panels do deteriorate over time, the payout period is > . > essentially infinite: you NEVER save any money. (unless you are paying > . > maybe .50/kWh) > . > > . > . >I have found a panel on the advertised on the Internet which > . > . >claims to have a power rating on 260 watts. This is for a panel about > . > . >6 x 4 feet. I am pretty stupid when it comes to electrical > . > . >consumption. Is this a significant amount of juice? > . > > . > No. > . > . I decent figure would be about 2 KW for your average home. your peak > . will be about this. Again the real issue is, "do you have net > . metering?" > The average home only uses 2kW peak? You have a peculiar notion of the > "average home". Perhaps the "average home" with no electric kitchen > appliances, no electric heating (including bathroom heat), and 100% > fluorescent lighting. 2kW is less than 9 amps — the average home is wired > for 200A service.

I’m sorry, I meant to type "above this" not "about this". The net metering issue is meant to imply if you have the grid as a backup source, you don’t need to account for peak in your solar panel purchase, only average. I just talked to my wife (the mechanical/energy engineer for those of you joining us now) She stated that with 3 kw, and good conservation habits/appliances you can handle most of your load requirements except for peak. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . > > . > . > Will it make a > . > . >noticable impact on our electric bill? > . > > . > No. > . > > . > . Just how much juice is 260 > . > . >watts? > . > > . > It is approximate 1/4 kilowatt. When the panel is running and producing > . > full power it will be "saving" you about 2.5 _cents_/hour. Assuming that > . > it can deliver full power for 8 hours a day (a hopelessly optimistic > . > assumption), it will thus save you a walloping 20 CENTS a day, or $73/ > . > year. You can never get this kind of performance in the real world — in > . > most cases you would not break even, ever. This is not a good investment. > . > > . > And don’t forget — the panel will need an inverter to convert the low > . > voltage DC from the panel into higher voltage AC that your appliances > . > want. This wastes energy, making the payback numbers even worse. > . > > . > Generally, you can take the cost of the panel and invest it in a mediocre > . > investment (a randomly selected stock or mutual fund) and make more than > . > that. > . > > . > . >If anyone has experience with solar power, please let me know. > . > > . > Fortunately, I can run a calculator, so I haven’t even been suckered by > . > the mythical savings of solar panels. > . > > . > . There are ways to waste money with solar, and ways to save money. > True. The best way to save money is to avoid photovoltaics at all cost. > . Many > . people have a mental block against it, and you will never convince > . them otherwise. > As opposed to "True Believers" who can’t stand cost-benefit analysis"

trust me, I’m not a True Believer. The problem I have with the solar engery field is that it has many "granola types" in it. They will espouse the value if making collectors out of dung and chewing gum and how it will also channel the sun god’s love through your home…. But, the field also has researchers from many companies and universities. I think you would all be surprised how many oil companies are in the business, mostly on the wings, but they are interested. When you go to one of these solar energy meetings you will see technical talks on the Stirling Engine Efficiencies right next door to talks on Straw Bale Construction (warning new flame war…) However it was these "pioneers" who kept the field alive for all those long years, so that the engineers and scientists still have something to sink their teeth into. > . If you believe in the idea of solar power, go head, it will make you > . feel good. > Good and broke. > . And when all states allow net metering, you will be ready > . to hook up on day one. > Sure — if you want to sell .50/kWh electricity for .06/kWh.

Please see my comment about wholesale vs retail on a state by state basis. Cheers, Sid – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > | The picture atop of this message, if present, was > | made by "Saving Face" for the Macintosh, available at: > | http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html

Response:

> And even if you have to sell at wholesale, there is always the warm > fuzzy feeling you will get knowing that you are helping the > environment. (said with a little bit of PC sarcasm, but I do also buy > into this.)

You’re only doing something for the environment if the net gain once you consider the environmental impact of the manufacture, installation, and operation of the PV’s amortized over the electricity generated during their life is better than that of the commercially produced electricity. This is one of the big fallacies of to a lesser extent electric vehicles and to a huge extent the abuse of Ethanol as a so-called renewable resource via the corn farming lobby. > I just talked to my wife (the mechanical/energy engineer for those of > you joining us now) She stated that with 3 kw, and good conservation > habits/appliances you can handle most of your load requirements except > for peak.

Three 3KW average is still a far cry from 260W peak. As pointed out, that depending what you are using for heat/hot-water, you may make a bigger personal cost-impact and environmental gain using your solar collecting area to generate hot water rather than electricity.

Response:

> > And even if you have to sell at wholesale, there is always the warm > fuzzy feeling you will get knowing that you are helping the > environment. (said with a little bit of PC sarcasm, but I do also buy > into this.) > You’re only doing something for the environment if the net gain > once you consider the environmental impact of the manufacture, > installation, and operation of the PV’s amortized over the > electricity generated during their life is better than that > of the commercially produced electricity.

The picture is usually gets more complicated as you look more closely. The idea of electric cars being better than fossil fuels is that you may be able to make large power plants cleaner/mile than your car. But this depends on lot of stuff including the type of power plant. When I was in grad school, we read a paper (from the 70’s I believe) that tried to rank various types of power generation according to health risk. They actually cacluated "deaths/KWH" for most major power sources. The highest? Hydro. The deaths there had to do with the worker’s deaths and the dangers in working at the dams. (this may have changed in 2 decades). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is one of the big fallacies of to a lesser extent electric > vehicles and to a huge extent the abuse of Ethanol as a so-called > renewable resource via the corn farming lobby. > I just talked to my wife (the mechanical/energy engineer for those of > you joining us now) She stated that with 3 kw, and good conservation > habits/appliances you can handle most of your load requirements except > for peak. > Three 3KW average is still a far cry from 260W peak. > As pointed out, that > depending what you are using for heat/hot-water, you may make > a bigger personal cost-impact and environmental gain using > your solar collecting area to generate hot water rather > than electricity.

My only point was that solar can be cost effective. We are only going to do it if NY State enact net metering at retail pricing. As for solar hot water, these systems generally need more maintainance than most home owners are willing to do. Cheers, Sid

Response:

> Just how much juice is 260 watts?

Well, consider a 250 watt light bulb. Just about THAT much. — Brett Carver (707) 577-4344

Response:

Get the Real Goods catalog — the firm is located in Ukiah, CA…website info about solar power plus tech support.

Response:

– Sid Hellman - Systems Analyst/Programmer – at the Passcal Instrument Center Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Response:

>I have never >heard of an actual documented instance when photovoltaic power "paid" >anybody except solar panel sellers.

Response:

> . Humm, I’m not so sure where Kirk is getting his stats. > From looking at the prices in vendor catalogs, and doing elementary > arithmetic. Try it sometime.

Response:

> Just how much juice is 260 watts?

Well, consider a 250 watt light bulb. Just about THAT much. — Brett Carver (707) 577-4344

Response:

Get the Real Goods catalog — the firm is located in Ukiah, CA…website info about solar power plus tech support.

Response:

– Sid Hellman - Systems Analyst/Programmer – at the Passcal Instrument Center Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Response:

>I have never >heard of an actual documented instance when photovoltaic power "paid" >anybody except solar panel sellers.

Response:

> . Humm, I’m not so sure where Kirk is getting his stats. > From looking at the prices in vendor catalogs, and doing elementary > arithmetic. Try it sometime.

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Trending Articles