Maker Pro
Maker Pro

The first half megawatt

P

Peter Franks

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Force.

You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.
 
P

Peter Franks

Jan 1, 1970
0
Subsidies? I don't get subsidies. The capital investment is all mine.

I thought you said this was a business. Now you say the investment is
'all yours'.

Which is it?
 
S

sno

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

I have heard that concentrating the sun like this can cause the cells to
heat up....greatly reducing their efficiency....I do not imagine one or
two sun power increases would cause much heating...

have fun.....sno


have fun sno

--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
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.

OK, seems like it should work tho!
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
sno said:
I have heard that concentrating the sun like this can cause the cells to
heat up....greatly reducing their efficiency....I do not imagine one or
two sun power increases would cause much heating...

Also that would happen when there was a lot of sunlight around, and fairly
direct. Maybe you need just right sombination of lenses to panel for the
average sunlight in your area.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
Peter Franks said:
On 4/6/2011 12:15 PM, Giga2<Giga2 wrote:
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?

Send me the bill.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
Bill Ward said:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:15:47 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

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.

Exactly. So why take my money so someone else can buy something I don't
think improves the common good? If they want to advance their idea of
the common good, they can do it with their money. Then they're entitled
to feel superior, if that's what's driving them.

This has been decided through the democratic process. If you don't agree
with it fine but you may have to live with it.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
No, but it is one of their biggest failures, to be sure.

Perhaps but it is still part of what they do and what they *should* do imo.
"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..."

I don't see anything there that says governments may not try to influence
markets.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
No offense, but on what do you base that opinion?
For instance the NHS would be a good example. This is basically a state
controlled healthcare market in the UK, and it works pretty well (*note not
perfectly). There ia also no free market in guns here, or heroine.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
Bill Ward said:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 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

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.

Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.

Like corn ethanol, for example. Pimentel warned early on it takes more
net energy to make ethanol than you get from burning it. Or hydrogen
fuel cells. At least 16% of the energy is lost at the git-go because the
recombination is exothermic, forcing the cells to have a max eff of 84%.
The list goes on and on - ever heard of bubble memories?

Windmills were mature technology a century ago. Basic physics hasn't
changed.

Specifically right now, in Germany, in Tom's decision I see subsidies at
work for the good. It is not really a question of picking technologies in
this case. It is going to be PV, wind, etc etc, all of them are going to be
needed.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Peter Franks said:
Force.

You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.

Not at all. As long as they go quietly to court and to prison, (eventually
if they really are that obstinate), then no need for any force.
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
I thought you said this was a business. Now you say the investment is
'all yours'.

Which is it?
Why does it have to be one or the other? It's registered as a business
with the tax office and it's my start capital.
 
M

Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds

Jan 1, 1970
0
Force.

You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.

I can see you point, but it misses some context. If that rich SOB down the
street runs all of his incandescent lights continuously because he can afford
it, it generally doesn't affect me. However, and this is just to take the
example to an extreme, if his use of electricity becomes the tipping point
causing the utility to install/build more capacity in the form of generation or
infrastructure, I end up paying for this "marginal" cost. So it becomes in my
best interest to have my utility subsidize his purchase of CFLs. Once again,
this is just an extreme analogy. (bottom line is that when the electrical rates
go up, consumption generally goes down for a while at least therefore negating
the need for future plants.)
 
M

Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

and frequently does
 
V

vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds said:
You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.

I can see you point, but it misses some context. If that rich SOB down the
street runs all of his incandescent lights continuously because he can afford
it, it generally doesn't affect me.

No man is an island. There are externalities to virtually everything we do,
especially everything we consume. For example, we all have to breathe the air
pollution that your power plant spews in the process of generating your power.
Another example: The guy who drives the gas guzzler, or otherwise wastes
energy, is hurting not only his own pocketbook, but is helping bid up the price
of energy for everyone.

The world isn't a simple place. Avoid listening to the political ideas of
anyone who thinks it is.
I end up paying for this "marginal" cost.
Exactly

So it becomes in my best interest to have my utility subsidize his purchase of
CFLs.

Except the fellow in your example probably hates CFLs and has cases of
incandescent lamps hoarded down in his basement against the day they are taken
off the market. Like I said, the world isn't a simple place.

Vaughn
 
M

Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds

Jan 1, 1970
0
"vaughn" <[email protected]> said:
No man is an island. There are externalities to virtually everything we do,
especially everything we consume. For example, we all have to breathe the
air pollution that your power plant spews in the process of generating your
power. Another example: The guy who drives the gas guzzler, or otherwise
wastes energy, is hurting not only his own pocketbook, but is helping bid up
the price of energy for everyone.

The world isn't a simple place. Avoid listening to the political ideas of
anyone who thinks it is.


Except the fellow in your example probably hates CFLs and has cases of
incandescent lamps hoarded down in his basement against the day they are
taken off the market. Like I said, the world isn't a simple place.

Vaughn

Of course that's the advantage of tiered pricing
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
OK, but I meant to ask on what you base your opinion, not who agrees with
you. Here in the US, we base, or are supposed to base, our government on
the Declaration of Independence, to protect the "self evident" rights to
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution describes
the mechanism by which that happens, through the application of several
enumerated powers. The power to redistribute wealth, or subsidize, is not
one of the enumerated powers in our Constitution.

What about having an army? That is wealth taken from some to pay others so
is a kind of redistribution. Or police, or adminstrators etc.
That principle's drifted a bit from inattention, but is in the somewhat
messy process of being restored.

AIUI, your system is based on the Magna Carta and tradition. I wouldn't
presume to tell you Brits how to run your country, but do you really
think it's working out better for you now than if you hadn't turned hard
left a few years ago?

What you mean even more socialist!? Definitely not.
How long will your healthcare system and all the
other subsidies last?

UK healthcare system one of the most efficient in the world AFAIK.
We're going through a massive reevaluation of the "spend your way out of
debt" plan, and it doesn't look good.

Don't you mean 'borrow your way out of debt' lol.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
Bill Ward said:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:

On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 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

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.

Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.

Like corn ethanol, for example. Pimentel warned early on it takes more
net energy to make ethanol than you get from burning it. Or hydrogen
fuel cells. At least 16% of the energy is lost at the git-go because
the recombination is exothermic, forcing the cells to have a max eff of
84%. The list goes on and on - ever heard of bubble memories?

Windmills were mature technology a century ago. Basic physics hasn't
changed.
Specifically right now, in Germany, in Tom's decision I see subsidies at
work for the good.

I think it's way too early to come to that conclusion. I don't see any
reason it will turn out any differently this time than all the others.
It is not really a question of picking technologies
in this case. It is going to be PV, wind, etc etc, all of them are going
to be needed.

I want a subsidy for my hamster wheel generator, then.
You might get it : )
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill Ward said:
So you would only use force on those who don't go along with your plan?
You might want to rethink that, putting yourself in the place of the
victim.

If you use force to try to break the law, i.e. not pay your taxes, then I
would say the state is perfectly entitled to use measured force against you.
 
U

Unum

Jan 1, 1970
0
Then why did you make your claim? Are you subtracting all the royalties
and taxes already paid on oil both by oil companies and drivers from your
"subsidies"? If you have no actual numbers, you have no claim.

Notice that bill ward didn't dispute the premise - hidden costs that
keep gas and oil artificially cheap - but if you can't come up with
an EXACT number your claim must be invalid, lol.

Royalties and taxes already figure into the price of gas at the pump of
course, they are direct costs and not hidden, so that challenge is bogus.

The amount of money paid to subsidize fossil fuels around the
world was $557 billion in 2008, which is up from $342 billion in
the previous year. This doen't include the cost of military actions
in the middle east and environmental damages resulting from the mining,
refining, and burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf
 
Top