Maker Pro
Maker Pro

The first half megawatt

T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
This is interesting. Whereabouts in central Europe are you located Tom.
How much sun relative to say the south UK?
About the same latitude - Germany.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vaughn said:
"Pretty much" yes, but it's the exceptions that kill you. Most inverters
incorporate both fans and electrolytic capacitors. Neither of those items
last forever, either will cause failure.


50 years is wildly optimistic. There are too many things that can happen
to any installation. Some of them have little or nothing to do with the
robustness of the design. Equipment can get zapped by line surges or
lightning, can get wet, stolen, attacked by bugs or rodents, displaced by
home repairs & renovations; the list goes on...

Sure but the actual devices in themselves seem like they should be very
robust.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
Then there's the question whether the roof it's mounted on will last 50
years. It's written off after 20 years anyway. How much do you worry
whether your new car will last 20 years or 50 years?

Even if the roof needs replacing it would be easy enough to remove the
panels, refurbish them (probably just give them a good clean and new
contacts) and put them back up afterwards. And they will protect the roof
presumably.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
About the same latitude - Germany.

To be fair latitude isn't the only factor here. Cloudiness is also
important. I lived in Germany and summers were much longer and warmer and
even winters were brighter (tho colder) in general.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
Peter Franks said:
On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still
be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

I do. And I choose things that are far more effective than me spending
$50K on PV.

That is probably a matter of opinion.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
Peter Franks said:
On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

Who decides what's the "general good"? Isn't that what the market is all
about?
I would say the individual themselves must decide what they are to do, for
the general good or otherwise.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
1) The initial cost has not been reduced; it has merely been shifted from
one demographic to another.

2) Governments are not instituted to 'create markets' or to control
economies of scale.

That is part of their role.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
(Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
one group by force and giving to another.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a community and we
all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are not
willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need various other
incentitives rather than a sense of community.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price

So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
given a bit of a nudge IMHO.

and doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never
pay their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all
fuel bills
and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
increase.

If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why
everyone else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?


These are tough times for many people though. The government has said
it will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of savings
(around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess.
Reducing the
guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be completed
by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012"
but add
... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."

Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
to around £5 billion in 2020

Good, could be more though!

(Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
one group by force and giving to another.

There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
doesn't.

One of the unappreciated and perhaps unintended consequences of subsidies
is the destabilizing positive feedback it causes. Those who get
subsidies constitute a special interest group, who then reinvest some of
the subsidies in buying politicians who will increase the subsidies in
exchange for campaign donations. Look what's happened to corn ethanol.

That is true, there are often unintended consequences.
If it needs subsidies, why do it? Private investors are savvy enough to
make a buck or two on new businesses, since when are bureaucrats better
investors than the private sector?
To do with speeding up that process.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still
be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price

So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
given a
bit of a nudge IMHO.

and doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered when
deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous Feed in
tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they would never
pay
their way. Currently these measures are adding around 15% to all fuel
bills
and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
increase.

If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why everyone
else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?


These are tough times for many people though. The government has said
it
will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of savings
(around
10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is anyone's guess. Reducing
the
guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be completed
by
the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until April 2012" but
add
... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."

Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to amount
to
around £5 billion in 2020

Good, could be more though!

(Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$ from
one group by force and giving to another.

There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it doesn't.

Like nuclear power for example? Who pays for solving the problem of
permanent waste storage? And who indemnifies the cost of an accident?
A recent estimate of the cost of a major catastrophe like Fukushima, were
it to happen in western Europe was of the order of trillions of dollars.
The utilities are incapable of insuring this risk.

There are all sorts of subsidies, some more obvious than others. The fact
that nuclear doesn't need to pay for clean-up and compensation AFAIK, is
one.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Falcon said:
Falcon said:
[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price

So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
given a bit of a nudge IMHO.
nd doing so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
electricity prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be
considered when deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without
generous Feed in tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation
they would never pay their way. Currently these measures are adding
around 15% to all fuel bills and that's expected to rise significantly
as penetration levels increase.

If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why everyone
else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?

You don't mean everyone should be 'grateful', you mean everyone should
help
'pay for them'. Call me old-fashioned, but frankly that's not the way I
like to do business with pensioners or people on benefits.
Yes, because hopefully we will all benefit in the longer run. You can argue
whether this will be true but not that everyone would benefit from virtually
free-energy!?
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
I don't, as I've said, for specific and appropriate locations. Personal
PV is a choice that I fully support (sans government subsidies). However,
it does have its limits, esp. during nighttime/overcast/low solar incident
times that require an alternative baseload power source. Again, personal
PV is a /supplemental/ power source.

This has nothing to do w/ my assertion that renewables will never suffice
as a general baseload power source.

OK but isn't it pretty obvious that if lots of households and smaller energy
users are using such systems for large amounts of their electricity then the
large power station output will be available for baseload purposes?
Personally I think we will have nuclear as an ongoing technology I just
don't support a MASSIVE expansion of it around the world. It would seem that
gas is relatively clean and abundant source for baseload, one which will
reduce rapidly with every new PV, mini-hydro, tidal, wind etc etc
developement.
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sure but the actual devices in themselves seem like they should be very
robust.

I heard a story recently about an installation in Spain where thieves
took the copper wiring. But that could happen to any kind of electrical
installation, not just solar panels.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
There are some figures here -
http://www.climatedata.eu/continent.php?cid=150&lang=en

The south coast of England is even sunnier, despite all rumours to the
contrary.
Shocking! Do you know why concentrated solar, using lenses to intensify the
light, isn't being used yet? Surely you *could* make these panels 10x more
efficient just by incresing their collection area by 10x for the same
silicon!? Just print a sheet of lenses the same size and at the focus of
each a small 'panel' a tenth the size of the current silicon.
 
P

Peter Franks

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
On 4/6/2011 1:36 AM, Falcon wrote:

[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still
be worth quite a lot in 15 years?

No.

Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of the
price?

Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price and
doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices.

Cost isn't the issue, cost /effectiveness/ IS.

As soon as they are cost effective, I'll install them.

At current prices, they are NOT cost effective, so why would I install
them?


Maybe to do something for the general good?

I do. And I choose things that are far more effective than me spending
$50K on PV.

That is probably a matter of opinion.

Probably not.

How about this for a change: since you are so pro-environment for doing
things for the general good, why don't *you* pay for my PV system?
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
Shocking! Do you know why concentrated solar, using lenses to intensify the
light, isn't being used yet? Surely you *could* make these panels 10x more
efficient just by incresing their collection area by 10x for the same
silicon!? Just print a sheet of lenses the same size and at the focus of
each a small 'panel' a tenth the size of the current silicon.
I have heard of such a technology - a sheet of plastic embedded with
"fly's eye" lenses covering the matrix carrying the PV cells. The idea
is that the smaller PV cells at the focus point can use a more expensive
but more advanced technology.
I don't know what the official brand name is, if any. The disadvantage
is that the panel needs to be steerable to be effective, and you will
still need the same area as a normal PV panel. As the current conversion
efficiency is around 10-15%, you would need super performance cells of
100% efficiency to justify a 10:1 magnification.
 
P

Peter Franks

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK I did, and its still wrong. Economics 101. Economies of scale are very
real, especially as they apply to emerging technology.. That's why we have
these cheap computers, that's why most of us can afford to own cars.

Are you saying that cars/computers were initially cheap?

"The *initial cost* has not been reduced"!
No, that's your opinion. It's a defensible opinion, but still just an
opinion. Many will disagree with you. (I've been to school on this stuff,
I know.)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men...
 
P

Peter Franks

Jan 1, 1970
0
That is part of their role.

No, but it is one of their biggest failures, to be sure.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men..."
 
Top