Home made solar cells - is this real?

[Tim Wescott]

A country mile is not nearly enough.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.

Actually I did read it. And for the most part I agreed with it.

But by your $ = gallons of gas equation a country mile -- or even a long
driveway -- _is_ more than enough for a small enough application. If I
need one watt to power a gizmo that's a mile from the nearest power pole
I'm going to pay $3000 to $10000 for the privilege of having a place to
plug it into the grid. On a perpetual loan that's about $120 to $400 a
year, and I still would need to pay around $240 per year to keep it lit up.

A 1-watt capable solar cell, battery and inverter are going to come in
less than that, even here in Oregon in the winter, and even accounting
for replacing things as they wear out. So with _your_ net $ = net
watt-hours equation, that solar cell _does_ provide a net gain.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

 

[Don Lancaster]

A 1-watt capable solar cell, battery and inverter are going to come in
less than that, even here in Oregon in the winter, and even accounting
for replacing things as they wear out. So with _your_ net $ = net
watt-hours equation, that solar cell _does_ provide a net gain.

A solar calculator is a good example of such a system you propose.

Whose operating cost is typically FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS per KILOWATT HOUR
for the electricity produced.

(fifty cents of retail value for the array vs one watthour of actual
lifetime use)

The energy sink loss of small pv systems is utterly outrageous when
amortization is properly done.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Ian Stirling]

A solar calculator is a good example of such a system you propose.

Whose operating cost is typically FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS per KILOWATT HOUR
for the electricity produced.

(fifty cents of retail value for the array vs one watthour of actual
lifetime use)

The energy sink loss of small pv systems is utterly outrageous when
amortization is properly done.

If it'd take 1000Kwh (add up gasoline costs, proportion of workers
per-capita energy use for the time they are installing it, ...) to pull
a mains cable for (say) a wi-fi router on a mountaintop, surely you have
to take that into account, compared with the energy costs of a solar cell,
and battery replacement every 5 years?

 

[Zak]

For research, or education, yes.
In order to use it, and avoiding buying one, no.

I wonder what the exact wording is...


Thomas

 

[Jim Thompson]

A solar calculator is a good example of such a system you propose.

Whose operating cost is typically FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS per KILOWATT HOUR
for the electricity produced.

(fifty cents of retail value for the array vs one watthour of actual
lifetime use)

The energy sink loss of small pv systems is utterly outrageous when
amortization is properly done.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

Don,

The was something in the papers these past few days about APS building
a plant that used solar "tube" steam generation. But I can't find it
now. Maybe you know of it?

...Jim Thompson

 

[Don Lancaster]

Don,

The was something in the papers these past few days about APS building
a plant that used solar "tube" steam generation. But I can't find it
now. Maybe you know of it?

...Jim Thompson

All over Google.

Start with
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/09/about_parabolic.html

The classic trough is called a Winston Collector which is self-tracking
over a fairly wide solar input angle.

Large focused systems tended to fall into disfavor three decades ago
because (despite much higher efficiency than photovoltaics) their
economics totally sucked.

One highly touted system could not produce enough electricity to run the
air conditioning in its own instrumentation building.

--
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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Rich Grise]

If it'd take 1000Kwh (add up gasoline costs, proportion of workers
per-capita energy use for the time they are installing it, ...) to pull
a mains cable for (say) a wi-fi router on a mountaintop, surely you have
to take that into account, compared with the energy costs of a solar cell,
and battery replacement every 5 years?

I think he's talking about the energy it "costs" to _make_ them. They
don't come up out of the ground photovoltaic, you know. ;-) Although, if
they last, say 100 years, it'd probably eventually pay for itself.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Archilochus]

What possible use could you have for a solar cell?

NOT ONE NET WATTHOUR OF CONVENTIONAL SILICON PV ELECTRICITY HAS --->
EVER <--- BEEN PRODUCED.

I have not read your links yet, but isn't ANY form of energy production
a net loss? If we look at the life of a barrel of oil all the way from
its home under the sands of Saudi Arabia, through every step until it
reaches the outlet that powers the computer letting me type this
message, the investment in energy in that oil must be HUGE! All the
machinery, workers, food, ships, processing chemicals, transport
infrastructure and on and on.

OK - gotta turn off the PC after thinking about it too much...

Arch

 

[Don Lancaster]

I think he's talking about the energy it "costs" to _make_ them. They
don't come up out of the ground photovoltaic, you know. ;-) Although, if
they last, say 100 years, it'd probably eventually pay for itself.

Thanks!
Rich

The "making" energy cost is utterly trivial compared to the full burden
TOTAL SYSTEM amortization costs. Most modern cells will return three to
five times their construction energy.

This, of course, is not nearly enough (by at least an order of
magnitude) for net energy breakeven when the full system is properly
amortized and accounted for.

In net energy states, current dimes and current kilowatt hours may be
treated as absolutely fungible and interchangable.

Analysis then follows per http://www.hsh.com/calc-amort.html

The price of the synchronous inverter alone today guarantees a net
energy sink. It is not possible to put enough pv derived electricity
through a 2 kw $2500 synchronous inverter to pay for the properly
accounted for and fully burdened inverter, let alone produce any usable
output. Assuming TOTALLY FREE panels.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.

--
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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

I have not read your links yet, but isn't ANY form of energy production
a net loss? If we look at the life of a barrel of oil all the way from
its home under the sands of Saudi Arabia, through every step until it
reaches the outlet that powers the computer letting me type this
message, the investment in energy in that oil must be HUGE! All the
machinery, workers, food, ships, processing chemicals, transport
infrastructure and on and on.

OK - gotta turn off the PC after thinking about it too much...

Arch

I think everyone is getting themselves thoroughly confused over
energy-out/energy-in... the important figure-of-merit is
COST/unit-energy to produce. PV is one of the worst, water turbines
one of the best.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Don Lancaster]

I have not read your links yet, but isn't ANY form of energy production
a net loss? If we look at the life of a barrel of oil all the way from
its home under the sands of Saudi Arabia, through every step until it
reaches the outlet that powers the computer letting me type this
message, the investment in energy in that oil must be HUGE! All the
machinery, workers, food, ships, processing chemicals, transport
infrastructure and on and on.

OK - gotta turn off the PC after thinking about it too much...

Arch

Net energy resources fundamentally DEFINE and DRIVE the economy.
Economics is a minor subset of thermodynamics.

No net energy = no economy.

It takes about one quart of old gasoline to deliver one gallon of new.
Thus oil today is clearly a net energy resource.

Not one net watthour of properly accounted, fully burdened, and subsidy
free conventional silicon pv electricity has ever been produced. Thus
conventional silicon pv always was, is now, and is highly likely to
forever remain a gasoline destrolying net energy sink.

Newer CIGS technology may eventually get us as much as ONE THIRD of the
way towards net energy renewability and sustainability.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.

--
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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Ian Stirling]

The price of the synchronous inverter alone today guarantees a net
energy sink. It is not possible to put enough pv derived electricity
through a 2 kw $2500 synchronous inverter to pay for the properly
accounted for and fully burdened inverter, let alone produce any usable
output. Assuming TOTALLY FREE panels.

Completely neglecting the fact that many loads are just fine on DC, or
do not require a synchronus inverter, as there is no grid to tie to.
4h/day = 8 units/day = (assuming my local electricity prices) $1.20 per
day.
Or 5 years, in a sunny climate.

 

[Don Lancaster]

Completely neglecting the fact that many loads are just fine on DC, or
do not require a synchronus inverter, as there is no grid to tie to.
4h/day = 8 units/day = (assuming my local electricity prices) $1.20 per
day.
Or 5 years, in a sunny climate.

There is no known pv solar storage system available today that even
remotely approaches the economy of synchronous grid storage. When
properly full burden accounted.

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Ian Stirling]

There is no known pv solar storage system available today that even
remotely approaches the economy of synchronous grid storage. When
properly full burden accounted.

Assuming of course grid storage is possible.
Many solar installations are made simply because it's not.

 

[Archilochus]

OK, I think I see the difference. I have to admit to being skeptical
about the quart to gallon ratio for gasoline production. The actual
numbers would take a lot of research, and unfortunately the info could
be easily skewed to suit almost any desired outcome.
There's also the issue about funding new research - it may be that if
nobody buys the net loss solar equipment of today - no cash will be
spent on reseaching new - more efficient ideas.

Arch

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Assuming of course grid storage is possible.
Many solar installations are made simply because it's not.

Just down the street is a pair of "School crossing, 20 MPH" signs
with flashing lamps that operate for several time frames during the
school day. They are both solar powered. One has the 120/240 power
lines right overhead, and the other is beside a convenience store, less
than 100 feet from the 120/208 three phase drop. Their excuse was that
since it had to be battery backed, it had to be solar powered.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Don Lancaster]

OK, I think I see the difference. I have to admit to being skeptical
about the quart to gallon ratio for gasoline production. The actual
numbers would take a lot of research, and unfortunately the info could
be easily skewed to suit almost any desired outcome.
There's also the issue about funding new research - it may be that if
nobody buys the net loss solar equipment of today - no cash will be
spent on reseaching new - more efficient ideas.

Arch

The quart per gallon is thoroughly documented on the web.
The point remains that oil is one of very few and thoroughly documented
highly net energy sources.

There is no point whatsoever in buying gasoline destroying net energy
sinks and placing them on roofs.

Everybody KNOWS exactly what is needed.
And conventional silicon pv clearly ain't it.

Each new conventional silicon panel that gets installed SETS BACK
ultimate net energy renewability and sustainability.

A $10,000 fine per nonconforming panel would do much more to advance
renewability and sustainability.

See ongoing comments at http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu06.asp

--
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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Don Lancaster]

Just down the street is a pair of "School crossing, 20 MPH" signs
with flashing lamps that operate for several time frames during the
school day. They are both solar powered. One has the 120/240 power
lines right overhead, and the other is beside a convenience store, less
than 100 feet from the 120/208 three phase drop. Their excuse was that
since it had to be battery backed, it had to be solar powered.

And the true cost per kilowatt hour for this system is?

--
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: [email protected]

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

And the true cost per kilowatt hour for this system is?

Do you really think the state government would make that data easily
available? Not only is each installation expensive, they replace the
batteries every couple years which does nothing to help lower the total
costs.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Carl Smith]

And with individuals who refuse to accept that there is a fundamental
thermodynamic reason involving exergy why electrolysis for bulk hydrogen
energy flat out ain't gonna happen.

This reminds me of another message board I read. (Yes, message
board, one of those vile web based things, not a Usenet group.)
Someone was saying that they had a design to run a car on water.
What they thought they were going to do was use a battery to do
electrolysis of water to H and O2, and then burn that in the
engine. Oh, and I guess they planned on recharging the battery
with an alternator on the engine.

Now that message board isn't populated with engineers, so I have
to give them a bit of slack.

I tried explaining six ways from Sunday why this wouldn't work.
I said it would take more battery power to make the H and O2
than the energy you'd get back by burning it in the engine, so
you'd be better off just running an electric motor from the
battery. I said that you couldn't make an electrolysis system
that could produce the hydrogen fast enough to run the engine
continuously and still have it fit in the car. They just didn't
understand and/or believe me.

Finally I came up with something they could understand.

When you burn hydrogen, what do you get? Water. And you get
the same amount of water that you started with before you broke
it into H and O2. So your exhaust is the same fuel, and same
amount, that you started with. So you have a system where you
can stick your exhaust pipe in the gas tank and never run out of
fuel. I think they finally got it that the energy isn't coming
from that fuel.