# Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds



## ScienceRocks

Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011) &#8212; The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.
Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds

Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative."

Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.

EDIT:  Copyright Compliance



			
				The Informative Link Below said:
			
		

> *Copyright Guidelines:*
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. *Never post an article in its entirety.* When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html


----------



## editec

Good news assuming that the numbers are right.

When does this good news scale up to truly cheaper solar power?


----------



## chikenwing

Advances are always good,just wondering how the will make it work at night,and when it clouds over for weeks at a time.

Batteries and inverters are expensive high maintenance  and not very green,but then there are never any free lunches are there.


----------



## Old Rocks

Chickenwing, read a little about grid parrallel solar. You put your excess on the grid for credit, and use power off the grid at night. A win-win for everybody.


----------



## flacaltenn

Who pays for the maintenance, the idling time, the personnel for the nightime PRIMARY sources that just sit there all day while the sun is out? This is NEVER calculated in the true cost of solar energy. But the need to have a PRIMARY RELIABLE 24/7 source ready to back-up solar generation deficiencies is a REAL cost that gets ignored in all of these analyses. 

The fact that people get paid for deciding to be energy producing moguls (a losing proposition in most cases even with the solar panel market temporarally crashed)  is a political artifact, not an indication of an actual generation problem getting solved..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Who pays for the maintenance, the idling time, the personnel for the nightime PRIMARY sources that just sit there all day while the sun is out? This is NEVER calculated in the true cost of solar energy.



That's because it's irrelevant. The cost of solar power is calculated as the cost of all equipment initial purchases plus maintenance divided by lifetime kilowatts produced. Just as all other forms of energy production are calculated the same way, plus fuel costs if any.

No "nighttime primary sources" are needed; all complete solar generations systems whether large-scale commercial or home rooftop, include storage batteries to provide power during times when the sun's not out. The capacity during generation times needs to be calculated with that in mind, not just current use -- and it always is.

(Home systems aren't always "complete" and sometimes rely on net-metering rather than on-site storage; however, complete solar systems exist for use off the grid and there the principle applies.)


----------



## whitehall

Most analysts are wrong and professor Pierce is right? Prof Pierce of Ontario, Canada is hardly an impartial observor or an economic expert. He is in the business , duh, of promoting solar technology. Even if the crap was as relatively inexpensive to manufacture as Prof Pierce imagines it still doesn't work efficiently enough to make it a viable source of electricity. You need a freaking football field of the stuff to fully energize a modern house.


----------



## Old Rocks

CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel

Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.

As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.


----------



## zonly1

Matthew said:


> Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011)  The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.
> Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds
> 
> 
> Dr. Pearce says some studies don't consider the *70 per cent reduction* in the cost of solar panels since *2009* . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.
> 
> Equipment costs are determined based on dollars per watt of electricity produced. One *2010* study estimated the this cost at *$7.61*, while a *2003* study set the amount at *$4.16*. According to Dr. Pearce, the real cost in 2011 is under $1 per watt for solar panels purchased in bulk on the global market, though he says system and installation costs vary widely.
> ,


Your numbers don't coincide.  In 2010 cost = $7.61 and in 2007 cost = $4.16.  There is no reduction as stated as claimed based on 2009 claim, these prior 2010 vs 2007 states prices has increased by 22.3% not the 70% in 2009 reduction claimed in your report/find.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well Z, you can pay $7.61 if you want, but for the more informed, you can get panels for under a $1 a watt, if you buy in bulk. This can be, and is being done, by people forming solar co-ops. And those with some reasonable amount of skill can install their own and keep there costs down to the point of a five year payback. Shorter payback yet, considering how much the utilities keep jacking up the price every year.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel
> 
> Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.
> 
> As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.



The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage.  That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer.  Your estimate is way way low.


----------



## Dragon

bripat9643 said:


> The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage.



You didn't look very hard. Neither did I, actually, but I found::

Solar Panels - Buy Solar Power Panels for Your Home or Business

A complete 2000-watt net-metering rooftop solar system from this site would consist of:

Panels at $1.28/watt -- $2,560
Grid tie inverter -- $165

Plus some wiring; total cost of components should not exceed $3k. That's installing it yourself, but even with installation charges you're going to go nowhere near $35k. That's outrageous.

Or you can get a 2000-watt inverter kit for under $5,000 that has everything you need.



> That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer.  Your estimate is way way low.



Two hair dryers: Average Power Consumption of Household Appliances | Alternative & Renewable Energy - ABS Alaskan, Inc.

Every appliance on this page uses less than 2000 watts except an air conditioner. But the kit I referred to above costs $2.50 per watt, so if you wanted to double that 2k wattage you're still only talking about $10k. And that's going to convenient-but-more-expensive route.

Solar keeps coming down while grid electricity keeps going up, and we're just about at crossing point now. You should applaud this, actually. Solar lends itself to a decentralized approach to energy production.


----------



## ShackledNation

I think solar power is a very promising energy source. But that does not justify using government to subsidize it. These subsidies interfere with the price of solar power, so it is hard to say for sure how beneficial solar power is in its current state. People innovate primarily to make a product cheaper so more people will buy it. If a product is cheap and bought en mass, there is little reason to innovate. Subsidies manipulate price, and can only serve to discourage innovation and rather encourage more and more subsidies to compete with other products, rather than new inventions.


----------



## zonly1

Old Rocks said:


> Well Z, you can pay $7.61 if you want, but for the more informed, you can get panels for under a $1 a watt, if you buy in bulk. This can be, and is being done, by people forming solar co-ops. And those with some reasonable amount of skill can install their own and keep there costs down to the point of a five year payback. Shorter payback yet, considering how much the utilities keep jacking up the price every year.



well oldman, i would like discussing problems and solutions but you are only offer rhetoric with tx payer subs. When you can remove the tax payer subs, you might have something to work with but l could help in implementation startup since i have a back ground in EE.


----------



## saveliberty

Yes I looked at wind and solar about three months ago.  Neither can live up to their output claims unless your in an area that has sun more than here or sustained winds over 25 mph.  The ROI was over 20 years and that included the tax credits.  Problem is, most of the companies that sell this stuff admit the product has a fifteenn year or less lifetime.


----------



## Old Rocks

Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new. 

A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.  

It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.


----------



## Old Rocks

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

42 gw of wind power installed in the US so far. Up from 2 gw in 1992. A bunch more to come as we build grid to the windy areas of the US.


----------



## daveman

whitehall said:


> Most analysts are wrong and professor Pierce is right? Prof Pierce of Ontario, Canada is hardly an impartial observor or an economic expert. He is in the business , duh, of promoting solar technology. Even if the crap was as relatively inexpensive to manufacture as Prof Pierce imagines it still doesn't work efficiently enough to make it a viable source of electricity. You need a freaking football field of the stuff to fully energize a modern house.


No, no, he's right.  We should shut down all coal-fired power plants immediately.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't look very hard. Neither did I, actually, but I found::
> 
> Solar Panels - Buy Solar Power Panels for Your Home or Business
> 
> A complete 2000-watt net-metering rooftop solar system from this site would consist of:
> 
> Panels at $1.28/watt -- $2,560
> Grid tie inverter -- $165
> 
> Plus some wiring; total cost of components should not exceed $3k. That's installing it yourself, but even with installation charges you're going to go nowhere near $35k. That's outrageous.
> 
> Or you can get a 2000-watt inverter kit for under $5,000 that has everything you need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer.  Your estimate is way way low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two hair dryers: Average Power Consumption of Household Appliances | Alternative & Renewable Energy - ABS Alaskan, Inc.
> 
> Every appliance on this page uses less than 2000 watts except an air conditioner. But the kit I referred to above costs $2.50 per watt, so if you wanted to double that 2k wattage you're still only talking about $10k. And that's going to convenient-but-more-expensive route.
> 
> Solar keeps coming down while grid electricity keeps going up, and we're just about at crossing point now. You should applaud this, actually. Solar lends itself to a decentralized approach to energy production.
Click to expand...

Does your per-watt figure include the cost of the half-billion dollars Obama flushed down the low-flow toilet on Solyndra?


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.



You want to get off the grid?  Fine.  Go for it.

But don't insist that I help you pay for it.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.



It takes that long to break even Old Rocks.  Even at that is is only providing partial power to me.  The technology simply is not advanced enough to use in my area.

Now your clearly wrong.  A coal plant lasts for far longer than 20 years.  We have one about 12 miles from here.  I was on a city council board that was responsible for a portion of that plant for six years.

I didn't say I was against alternate energy sources.  I'm against supporting them for over 20 years and still they are not commerically viable.


----------



## Old Rocks

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get off the grid?  Fine.  Go for it.
> 
> But don't insist that I help you pay for it.
Click to expand...


Did I say off the grid? Show me where I said that. 

No, a person can be connected to the grid and be producing more power than they use. And, come the end of the year, get a nice little check in the mail from the utility company. Part of which people like you will, indeed, pay for.


----------



## Old Rocks

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes that long to break even Old Rocks.  Even at that is is only providing partial power to me.  The technology simply is not advanced enough to use in my area.
> 
> Now your clearly wrong.  A coal plant lasts for far longer than 20 years.  We have one about 12 miles from here.  I was on a city council board that was responsible for a portion of that plant for six years.
> 
> I didn't say I was against alternate energy sources.  I'm against supporting them for over 20 years and still they are not commerically viable.
Click to expand...


But you don't mind the subsidies that the government has given the energy companies for triple that time? 

I did not say a coal plant only lasted 20 years. I said it had to be rebuilt in about that time. Just as the turbine on the windmills are planned for replace and rebuilding in about the same time frame.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes that long to break even Old Rocks.  Even at that is is only providing partial power to me.  The technology simply is not advanced enough to use in my area.
> 
> Now your clearly wrong.  A coal plant lasts for far longer than 20 years.  We have one about 12 miles from here.  I was on a city council board that was responsible for a portion of that plant for six years.
> 
> I didn't say I was against alternate energy sources.  I'm against supporting them for over 20 years and still they are not commerically viable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't mind the subsidies that the government has given the energy companies for triple that time?
> 
> I did not say a coal plant only lasted 20 years. I said it had to be rebuilt in about that time. Just as the turbine on the windmills are planned for replace and rebuilding in about the same time frame.
Click to expand...


Our plant is a municipally owned power plant.  It seems to be self sustaining without large increases in power costs.  We are diversifying with a new gas fired plant in Ohio as an additional power source.  The government gives us no subsidy at all.  Solar and wind do not appear to to be commerically viable except in limited areas at this time.  So why do we let government pay to install them in areas unsuited to current technology?


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get off the grid?  Fine.  Go for it.
> 
> But don't insist that I help you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say off the grid? Show me where I said that.
> 
> No, a person can be connected to the grid and be producing more power than they use. And, come the end of the year, get a nice little check in the mail from the utility company. Part of which people like you will, indeed, pay for.
Click to expand...

More rosy scenarios from the Unicorns and Rainbows crowd.  

Can you find me a regular guy who's installed solar and is selling power back to the utility company?

Oh, and just so's you know, you're paying for the military.  Suck it.


----------



## daveman

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes that long to break even Old Rocks.  Even at that is is only providing partial power to me.  The technology simply is not advanced enough to use in my area.
> 
> Now your clearly wrong.  A coal plant lasts for far longer than 20 years.  We have one about 12 miles from here.  I was on a city council board that was responsible for a portion of that plant for six years.
> 
> I didn't say I was against alternate energy sources.  I'm against supporting them for over 20 years and still they are not commerically viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't mind the subsidies that the government has given the energy companies for triple that time?
> 
> I did not say a coal plant only lasted 20 years. I said it had to be rebuilt in about that time. Just as the turbine on the windmills are planned for replace and rebuilding in about the same time frame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our plant is a municipally owned power plant.  It seems to be self sustaining without large increases in power costs.  We are diversifying with a new gas fired plant in Ohio as an additional power source.  The government gives us no subsidy at all.  Solar and wind do not appear to to be commerically viable except in limited areas at this time.  So why do we let government pay to install them in areas unsuited to current technology?
Click to expand...

So the watermelons keep voting Dem.  That's all.


----------



## rdean

The cells being developed by teams from the University of Arkansas and Arkansas State University have the potential to achieve a light-to-energy conversion rate, or solar efficiency, of 40 percent or better, according to the researchers.

The photovoltaic cells are intended for use in satellites and space instruments. Currently, the silicon-based solar cells that NASA uses in its satellites and instruments have efficiencies of only up to 23 percent, according to NASA statistics.

Solar cell breakthrough could hit 40 percent efficiency | Green Tech - CNET News

Solar technology charges forward despite Washington's backward march.

5 breakthroughs that will make solar power cheaper than coal | MNN

How many of those "lying, ignorant" scientists got that "awful" American education?


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> 5 breakthroughs that will make solar power cheaper than coal | MNN
> 
> How many of those "lying, ignorant" scientists got that "awful" American education?



I may be an uneducated conservative, but I know that coal burns at night.


----------



## rdean

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get off the grid?  Fine.  Go for it.
> 
> But don't insist that I help you pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say off the grid? Show me where I said that.
> 
> No, a person can be connected to the grid and be producing more power than they use. And, come the end of the year, get a nice little check in the mail from the utility company. Part of which people like you will, indeed, pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More rosy scenarios from the Unicorns and Rainbows crowd.
> 
> *Can you find me a regular guy who's installed solar and is selling power back to the utility company?*
> Oh, and just so's you know, you're paying for the military.  Suck it.
Click to expand...


I know a few.  But they aren't American and they live in Germany.


----------



## rdean

If we listened to conservatives, we would be rubbing two sticks together to start a fire.  They only have faith in mysticism and none in science.


----------



## asterism

Old Rocks said:


> CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel
> 
> Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.
> 
> As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.



5kw would not power a normal home.  5kw wouldn't even run the dishwasher and hot water heater at the same time.


----------



## asterism

Old Rocks said:


> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.



I'm not against solar as an idea, I'm against your assertion that it's actually viable.  It's not, yet.  If solar is so great, why don't you actually use it to power your home?


----------



## asterism

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.
> 
> A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.
> 
> It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get off the grid?  Fine.  Go for it.
> 
> But don't insist that I help you pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say off the grid? Show me where I said that.
> 
> No, a person can be connected to the grid and be producing more power than they use. And, come the end of the year, get a nice little check in the mail from the utility company. Part of which people like you will, indeed, pay for.
Click to expand...


Then why don't you do that?


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> If we listened to conservatives, we would be rubbing two sticks together to start a fire.  They only have faith in mysticism and none in science.



That's complete bullshit, but that's why you don't use solar for anything.  I use it for some stuff, it just isn't viable as a replacement for coal and natural gas yet.


----------



## asterism

rdean said:


> If we listened to conservatives, we would be rubbing two sticks together to start a fire.  They only have faith in mysticism and none in science.



If we listened to rdean, we'd never have fire at all.  Global warming you know.


----------



## saveliberty

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel
> 
> Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.
> 
> As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5kw would not power a normal home.  5kw wouldn't even run the dishwasher and hot water heater at the same time.
Click to expand...


I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.

<wallks over to filing cabinet>

Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.  July-August billing cycle it was 47kw per day.  Since you have to have power for your highest use month, it looks like you need a system 10 times what you stated Old Rocks.  $72,000 plus a 4,800 sq. ft grid.

P.S. looks like I pay about 9 cents a kw.


----------



## asterism

saveliberty said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel
> 
> Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.
> 
> As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5kw would not power a normal home.  5kw wouldn't even run the dishwasher and hot water heater at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.
> 
> <wallks over to filing cabinet>
> 
> Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.  July-August billing cycle it was 47kw per day.  Since you have to have power for your highest use month, it looks like you need a system 10 times what you stated Old Rocks.  $72,000 plus a 4,800 sq. ft grid.
> 
> P.S. looks like I pay about 9 cents a kw.
Click to expand...


That's the problem with this crop of liberals.  They are all talk and no action.  They actually think policy should be set based on their theoretical version of how things are for other people.  They never actually do it themselves, which is why they still have these views.

The sad part is that they now have one of their own in the White House and as it turns out his theoretical version doesn't bode well for the country.  But Old Rocks doesn't care, he's so much smarter, better, and greener because he votes Democrat and lives his nasty polluting lifestyle.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say off the grid? Show me where I said that.
> 
> No, a person can be connected to the grid and be producing more power than they use. And, come the end of the year, get a nice little check in the mail from the utility company. Part of which people like you will, indeed, pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> More rosy scenarios from the Unicorns and Rainbows crowd.
> 
> *Can you find me a regular guy who's installed solar and is selling power back to the utility company?*
> Oh, and just so's you know, you're paying for the military.  Suck it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a few.  But they aren't American and they live in Germany.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that meaningless interjection.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> If we listened to conservatives, we would be rubbing two sticks together to start a fire.  They only have faith in mysticism and none in science.



Sticks burn at night, too.  How much current do you get out of a solar panel at night?

Well, actually, in Spain, they figured out how:

Industria pide a la CNE que adopte las medidas oportunas contra el fraude de la energa solar | elmundo.es
According to government figures, between November and January, midwinter, the electrical system was 4,500 megawatts / hour produced by solar plants between midnight and seven o'clock , plus another 1,500 between 1900 and 2300 hours.

How are these megawatts generated? Early indications, some developers might be using solar powered with diesel generators to generate electricity, because the premiums are from 436 euros a megawatt.​
Sure is a lot of fraud in the green industry.  But "it's for the children!!", so that's okay.

Right, derp?


----------



## daveman

saveliberty said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel
> 
> Panels for under $1.50 a watt.   About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.
> 
> As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5kw would not power a normal home.  5kw wouldn't even run the dishwasher and hot water heater at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.
> 
> <wallks over to filing cabinet>
> 
> Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.  July-August billing cycle it was 47kw per day.  Since you have to have power for your highest use month, it looks like you need a system 10 times what you stated Old Rocks.  $72,000 plus a 4,800 sq. ft grid.
> 
> P.S. looks like I pay about 9 cents a kw.
Click to expand...

Roxy don't care.  It's other people's money he'd be spending.


----------



## daveman

asterism said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5kw would not power a normal home.  5kw wouldn't even run the dishwasher and hot water heater at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.
> 
> <wallks over to filing cabinet>
> 
> Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.  July-August billing cycle it was 47kw per day.  Since you have to have power for your highest use month, it looks like you need a system 10 times what you stated Old Rocks.  $72,000 plus a 4,800 sq. ft grid.
> 
> P.S. looks like I pay about 9 cents a kw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem with this crop of liberals.  They are all talk and no action.  They actually think policy should be set based on their theoretical version of how things are for other people.  They never actually do it themselves, which is why they still have these views.
> 
> The sad part is that they now have one of their own in the White House and as it turns out his theoretical version doesn't bode well for the country.  But Old Rocks doesn't care, he's so much smarter, better, and greener because he votes Democrat and lives his nasty polluting lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Well, _duh_.  It's not like he's going to give up his comforts.  That's for the proles.  

Right, Roxy?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Does your per-watt figure include the cost of the half-billion dollars Obama flushed down the low-flow toilet on Solyndra?



It certainly includes any impact that this has on the current market price of solar panels.

By the way, this price is not net of government subsidies, either. In most states and w/r/t the federal program assuming the latter still exists, the subsidy is in the form of a tax credit, so you get it the April following shelling out for the solar system. I was just quoting the market price. Any subsidies would of course reduce the cost further, making it even more competitive.

Regarding net metering, most of that is just convenience not a way to make money. Your rooftoop solar system produces energy during the day while very little is being used and "sells" it to the electric utility. The utility doesn't pay you money for this, it just records a credit. You come home, turn on the lights, cook a meal, power up your computer, etc. and use electricity from the utility that you buy with your credit. At the end of the year, if you've produced more electricity than you've used, the utility sends you a check, but it pays only a fraction of what it charges.

It's possible to run a house off the grid on pure solar, but for that you need a storage battery and during times of major use you're feeding off the battery not directly from the solar panels. So net metering basically replaces the battery. The fact that the sun doesn't shine at night is a problem long since solved, so bringing it up as if it was still a problem is just being snarky to no real purpose.

2012 will be the year that solar power crosses over and becomes mainstream.


----------



## saveliberty

Not without major advances in efficiency.  Also, I'm not sure the tax credits continue in 2012.  What energy is there to store?  If it generates only 5kw per day and a house uses 17kw or greater, you have nothing to store.  All talk and no show.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your per-watt figure include the cost of the half-billion dollars Obama flushed down the low-flow toilet on Solyndra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly includes any impact that this has on the current market price of solar panels.
> 
> By the way, this price is not net of government subsidies, either. In most states and w/r/t the federal program assuming the latter still exists, the subsidy is in the form of a tax credit, so you get it the April following shelling out for the solar system. I was just quoting the market price. Any subsidies would of course reduce the cost further, making it even more competitive.
> 
> Regarding net metering, most of that is just convenience not a way to make money. Your rooftoop solar system produces energy during the day while very little is being used and "sells" it to the electric utility. The utility doesn't pay you money for this, it just records a credit. You come home, turn on the lights, cook a meal, power up your computer, etc. and use electricity from the utility that you buy with your credit. At the end of the year, if you've produced more electricity than you've used, the utility sends you a check, but it pays only a fraction of what it charges.
> 
> It's possible to run a house off the grid on pure solar, but for that you need a storage battery and during times of major use you're feeding off the battery not directly from the solar panels. So net metering basically replaces the battery. The fact that the sun doesn't shine at night is a problem long since solved, so bringing it up as if it was still a problem is just being snarky to no real purpose.
> 
> 2012 will be the year that solar power crosses over and becomes mainstream.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.


----------



## Dragon

saveliberty said:


> I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.
> 
> <wallks over to filing cabinet>
> 
> Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.



That doesn't make any sense unless you mean KWh per day rather than KW. A watt is a measure of electricity intensity of use at a given moment, not over time. Your electric bill is usually in KWh.

If you did mean KWh, then we need to translate that into wattage in order to make a meaningful comparison. Or we could do it from the other direction. Per kw of output, a rooftop solar system will generate 8-10 KWh per day. (That's having it run during 8-10 hours of full sunlight of course.) So in order to match your low winter use, you would need about a 2 KW solar system. If you wanted to completely meet your high-end use in the summer, you'd need more like a 4-5 KW system, but that might not be a great idea; you could use net metering with a system based around your average use rather than peak use. So you could probably do fine with a 3 KW system, which according to the figures I posted earlier you could get for $4,500 or so in components, installing it yourself. Given a 20-year lifespan for your solar panels, that comes to about 200,000 KWh for that price, or a bit over two cents per KWh.


----------



## saveliberty

Dragon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just paid my electric bill a week ago.  Let me go retrieve it from the file.
> 
> <wallks over to filing cabinet>
> 
> Okay, so I averaged 17kw per day, which is a light month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense unless you mean KWh per day rather than KW. A watt is a measure of electricity intensity of use at a given moment, not over time. Your electric bill is usually in KWh.
> 
> If you did mean KWh, then we need to translate that into wattage in order to make a meaningful comparison. Or we could do it from the other direction. Per kw of output, a rooftop solar system will generate 8-10 KWh per day. (That's having it run during 8-10 hours of full sunlight of course.) So in order to match your low winter use, you would need about a 2 KW solar system. If you wanted to completely meet your high-end use in the summer, you'd need more like a 4-5 KW system, but that might not be a great idea; you could use net metering with a system based around your average use rather than peak use. So you could probably do fine with a 3 KW system, which according to the figures I posted earlier you could get for $4,500 or so in components, installing it yourself. Given a 20-year lifespan for your solar panels, that comes to about 200,000 KWh for that price, or a bit over two cents per KWh.
Click to expand...


Most people don't get full sunlight, so that is a myth.  Still, at your figures you can't generate enough power.  When I looked at all the graphs indepth, solar or wind could not generate more than 10% of my needs.  The cost was prohibitive, because in real life, it cost over 10 cents a KWh.


----------



## Dragon

saveliberty said:


> Most people don't get full sunlight, so that is a myth.



I don't know where you live. There are places where solar efficiency is reduced, but I doubt there is any place in the U.S. that the main three decentralized renewable forms of energy (solar, wind, and biofuel) are all no-gos. (There are five main types of renewable energy, those three plus geothermal and hydroelectric, but those last two don't lend themselves to a decentralized approach.) In any case, solar works find on cloudy and rainy days and in northern latitudes. There may be a slight reduction in efficiency but not as much as you might suppose.



> Still, at your figures you can't generate enough power.



Of course you can. It's just a matter of installing enough capacity. If you're using net metering, you don't even need to generate as much power as your peak use at any one moment, although if you're trying to go off the grid then you do. By the figures you presented, a 3 KW system, or 4 at the most, should cover everything. For each KW of capacity above what I posted, add $1,250 to the price of components.



> When I looked at all the graphs indepth, solar or wind could not generate more than 10% of my needs.  The cost was prohibitive, because in real life, it cost over 10 cents a KWh.



I cannot make any sense out of your first sentence. There is simply no way, given the electricity consumption you presented earlier, that a rooftop solar system could not meet that. You are hardly an energy hog. The average household uses 12,000 KWh per capita per year, which is almost 33 per day _per person_.

As for the cost, the figures I presented were for a self-installed system where you pay only for the components; naturally if you want someone else to install it the price will go up considerably. But even at that, it's come down a lot just over the last few months.


----------



## saveliberty

Dragon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't get full sunlight, so that is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live. There are places where solar efficiency is reduced, but I doubt there is any place in the U.S. that the main three decentralized renewable forms of energy (solar, wind, and biofuel) are all no-gos. (There are five main types of renewable energy, those three plus geothermal and hydroelectric, but those last two don't lend themselves to a decentralized approach.) In any case, solar works find on cloudy and rainy days and in northern latitudes. There may be a slight reduction in efficiency but not as much as you might suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at your figures you can't generate enough power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can. It's just a matter of installing enough capacity. If you're using net metering, you don't even need to generate as much power as your peak use at any one moment, although if you're trying to go off the grid then you do. By the figures you presented, a 3 KW system, or 4 at the most, should cover everything. For each KW of capacity above what I posted, add $1,250 to the price of components.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I looked at all the graphs indepth, solar or wind could not generate more than 10% of my needs.  The cost was prohibitive, because in real life, it cost over 10 cents a KWh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot make any sense out of your first sentence. There is simply no way, given the electricity consumption you presented earlier, that a rooftop solar system could not meet that. You are hardly an energy hog. The average household uses 12,000 KWh per capita per year, which is almost 33 per day _per person_.
> 
> As for the cost, the figures I presented were for a self-installed system where you pay only for the components; naturally if you want someone else to install it the price will go up considerably. But even at that, it's come down a lot just over the last few months.
Click to expand...


You are living in a theoretical world.  Take wind power for example.  Oh they tell you about great power generation.  Then when you actually look at the graphs whowing production at different wind seeds, it falls apart.  You need an average speed of 28 mph to generate most of the power they claim.  Problem is, we have a 12 mph average speed here.  It makes meaningful production a no go.  I did my research and not just listen to the talking points.


----------



## Dragon

saveliberty said:


> You are living in a theoretical world.  Take wind power for example.  Oh they tell you about great power generation.  Then when you actually look at the graphs whowing production at different wind seeds, it falls apart.  You need an average speed of 28 mph to generate most of the power they claim.  Problem is, we have a 12 mph average speed here.  It makes meaningful production a no go.  I did my research and not just listen to the talking points.



You are quite mistaken about me. I research this stuff for a living (well, part of my living).

The really good wind speed I usually see for good wind power is 20 mph, but that's referring to winds some 50 meters above the ground, not at ground level. Not every place is suitable for wind power even so; I won't say anything about your location because I don't even know where it is. A better measure than wind speed is "wind power density."

Here's a partial chart of locations for wind power in the U.S.: United States Wind Energy Resource Map

In my own location, if I still owned a home I would go solar rather than wind. You might be in the same situation.


----------



## saveliberty

Dragon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a theoretical world.  Take wind power for example.  Oh they tell you about great power generation.  Then when you actually look at the graphs whowing production at different wind seeds, it falls apart.  You need an average speed of 28 mph to generate most of the power they claim.  Problem is, we have a 12 mph average speed here.  It makes meaningful production a no go.  I did my research and not just listen to the talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite mistaken about me. I research this stuff for a living (well, part of my living).
> 
> The really good wind speed I usually see for good wind power is 20 mph, but that's referring to winds some 50 meters above the ground, not at ground level. Not every place is suitable for wind power even so; I won't say anything about your location because I don't even know where it is. A better measure than wind speed is "wind power density."
> 
> Here's a partial chart of locations for wind power in the U.S.: United States Wind Energy Resource Map
> 
> In my own location, if I still owned a home I would go solar rather than wind. You might be in the same situation.
Click to expand...


Ah, research is mostly theory.  I used the USGS site that allows you to find your wind speeds by zip code.  The charts I found for the product I researched, showed 28 mph as the speed at which their product produced the advertised power.

I live on a tree lined street with a small lot.  It is also in southern Michigan with long stretches of heavy overcast in the winter.  Neither is viable as a large supplier of my electric needs or cost effective.


----------



## Old Rocks

OK. I can see where you have a problem. Possibly this is the only year round system that you can use to defray your energy costs.

AOL Search

For summer, you can use a passive rooftop solar water heater. I have four panels on a low slope north facing roof that can heat a 16 by 24 swimming pool to a warmer than comfortable temperature on a sunny March weekend in Portland, Oregon. 

But where I intend to retire, there are about 300 sunshine days a year. And the wind is quite strong in the winter cold winter months. So both solar and wind are excellent investments. And both will be grid tied.


----------



## zonly1

rdean said:


> If we listened to conservatives, we would be rubbing two sticks together to start a fire.  They only have faith in mysticism and none in science.



I've listen to leftnutters and they would like to put us back into the stone age, horse drawn carriage, etc. As far as enhancing your iq, just cont to have your IQ play hand ball against the curb.


----------



## Dragon

The stuff I've been looking into lately as part of my job involves making your own solar panels using bulk solar cells bought at a discount and basic electrical materials. Time consuming but not difficult. It saves at least 50% of the cost of solar panels, further reducing the cost.

We aren't far from the time when all new houses will be built with a rooftop solar and/or wind system as much a standard feature as good insulation. The really cool thing is that solar lends itself so well to a decentralized approach. You CAN use it to generate power in a huge plant connected to the grid and no doubt we will do that, but by putting systems on rooftops you weaken the grip of the utility companies, which is a good thing. (We all like freedom here, right? Of course we do!)

Another interesting development comes from China. It seems that in the aftermath of all the problems with American solar companies filing complaints about Chinese product dumping, China has adopted a policy that aims to increase domestic solar consumption to 50% of the country's total production over the next few years. This is long-term good news for the environment, as China is potentially the worst polluter of all, so any greening of the country as it industrializes is to be encouraged.

Along with rising Chinese wages, it's good on the economic front, too.


----------



## saveliberty

Here's an intersting development too:

SAGINAW, Mich.&#8212; The chief executive of a California-based solar power company says a lack of market demand and costs to operate its Saginaw plant led to its decision to relocate to the northern part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. 

The Saginaw News reports (GlobalWatt CEO: We're not investing $17.7 million into Saginaw plant because of slowing solar industry | MLive.com) Friday that GlobalWatt Inc. CEO Sanjeev Chitre held a news conference in Saginaw County's Kochville Township to discuss cancelling plans to stay and grow in the area. 

Chitre says San Jose-based GlobalWatt would have paid $35,000 a month for the Saginaw location. It has moved equipment to a renewable energy product maker in Copemish, about 25 miles southwest of Traverse City. 

He called it a "manufacturing partnership." 

Chitre says GlobalWatt hasn't received taxpayer money and could return to Saginaw if the market grows and prices stabilize for solar panels.

Solar firm CEO: Saginaw plant cost too much - chicagotribune.com


----------



## usmcstinger

Why why have so many green energy companies gone broke?
Why are Chevy Volts not selling?
Spain tried to create a green driven economy. It lead  to a horrific economic failure.
While having full knowledge of Spain's fiasco, why did Obama still try to implement a green energy driven economy?

If Obama had instead used natural gas as a bridge fuel, gasoline and foreign oil prices would not have had an impact on our economy. In addition, many jobs would have been created.


----------



## Old Rocks

Residential Solar Industry Growth | Solar Panels - Green Power

A recent white paper published by SunRun discusses residential solar industry growth and includes projections for the future of solar energy.

Over the past year, the number of people with jobs in the solar industry doubled to over 100,000 in 2010.  Further increase in solar jobs will continue into 2011, with a projected rise of an additional 26%.  In short, the solar industry is creating employment opportunities faster than the overall economy in the United States.  Residential solar demand is responsible in large part for the increase in the number of solar jobs.

With more homeowners installing solar panels, demand rises for both solar products and qualified installers.  In turn, the more solar industry jobs there are, the more people are available to serve the very consumers that are wishing to go solar.  Its a positive &#8220;vicious circle.&#8221;  As described in the SunRun white paper on residential solar industry growth:


----------



## Old Rocks

Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.


----------



## uscitizen

I just cannot believe how many on the right automatically are against any alternative energy sources.
Damned luddites.

But the same person will praise any tech improvement in fossil powered vehicles


----------



## asterism

Old Rocks said:


> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.



What?

A 5kw system will handle most people's needs?  Are you high?  Break this down for me.  How will a 5kw system power a whole house air conditioner, a refrigerator, a stove, and a dryer?


----------



## asterism

uscitizen said:


> I just cannot believe how many on the right automatically are against any alternative energy sources.
> Damned luddites.
> 
> But the same person will praise any tech improvement in fossil powered vehicles



I'm not against them at all.  Find me one, I've looked.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.





Try to run your house with A/C in the summer on 30kWh per day.

What an ignorant comment.


----------



## Dragon

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to run your house with A/C in the summer on 30kWh per day.
> 
> What an ignorant comment.
Click to expand...


Comparisons of Household Power Usage

"Household electricity use: 6,000 kWh per household per year for 3 residents average per household." (=16.4 kwh per day)

Another source:

Power Consumption of a US Home

"The average household in the United States uses about 8,900 kilowatt-hours of electricity each year." (=24.38 kwh per day). The higher figure probably results because the figure above was set somewhat arbitrarily for 3 residents. Of course, smaller households, e.g. a couple with no children, would use even less electricity.

In any case, this is well within the capacity of that 30 kwh per day system. And incidentally, it is not true that it would produce significantly less energy in the wintertime. It would decline slightly not due to lower temperatures but due to shorter days; however, the areas in which the decline would be most pronounced -- far northern latitudes -- are also those areas where the use of electricity for air conditioning is least, or even nonexistent.

The consumption of that "average" house might climb above 30 kwh per day during the summer, but adequate power storage would make this an insignificant problem, since the system would produce excess power in other parts of the year. (On that basis, it might actually be overkill.)


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.



Yes, but 5kW is the maximum amount that will be available at any one time.

And that ain't much.  41 amps.  You could run only two 20-amp circuits in your breaker box.


----------



## daveman

uscitizen said:


> I just cannot believe how many on the right automatically are against any alternative energy sources.
> Damned luddites.
> 
> But the same person will praise any tech improvement in fossil powered vehicles


I can certainly believe how many leftists repeat mindless leftist talking points and insist they're true.

Wind and solar simply aren't practical in much of the nation.


----------



## Old Rocks

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but 5kW is the maximum amount that will be available at any one time.
> 
> And that ain't much.  41 amps.  You could run only two 20-amp circuits in your breaker box.
Click to expand...


Damn, this is like talking to a 2 year old.

OK, DaveBoy, note that I have consistantly pointed out that most systems are grid parallel. That means that when you are using more than what your system put out, you are taking the extra off of the grid. And when you are using less, you are putting power on the grid. Your meter is spinning backwards. Most of us are at work during the day, and the system would be putting power on the grid for the whole time. And when we use the power at night, that is the time that industry is using the least power. So, a home system that is parallel to the grid is adding power when industry is using the most, and the homeowner is using the power off of the grid when industry needs it the least. A win-win for all.


----------



## saveliberty

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but 5kW is the maximum amount that will be available at any one time.
> 
> And that ain't much.  41 amps.  You could run only two 20-amp circuits in your breaker box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, this is like talking to a 2 year old.
> 
> OK, DaveBoy, note that I have consistantly pointed out that most systems are grid parallel. That means that when you are using more than what your system put out, you are taking the extra off of the grid. And when you are using less, you are putting power on the grid. Your meter is spinning backwards. Most of us are at work during the day, and the system would be putting power on the grid for the whole time. And when we use the power at night, that is the time that industry is using the least power. So, a home system that is parallel to the grid is adding power when industry is using the most, and the homeowner is using the power off of the grid when industry needs it the least. A win-win for all.
Click to expand...


You turn your heat or A/C off while your at work dumbass?  What about retirees?  I did the math before, you're lucky to get 10% of your power needs.


----------



## Mr. H.

Check it out...

Solar power growth jumps to new record

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-power-growth-jumps-record-041433307.html

_(Reuters) - The national solar industry installed a record number of panels in 2011, more than double 2010, and is likely to see strong growth again this year, according to a new report._


----------



## Dante

solar: good idea



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- At least three other government-backed solar firms face the same challenging market conditions that brought down Solyndra, the now bankrupt solar panel maker that could cost taxpayers over $500 million.
> 
> The Solyndra bankruptcy is now the subject of an investigation and a fierce partisan fight in Congress.
> 
> The company's downfall is generally thought to have been caused by the declining price of silicon.
> 
> Solyndra haunts other government-backed solar firms - Sep. 23, 2011


----------



## Old Rocks

The solar industry is going to see many more bankruptcies. Anyone that has read the history of the automotive industry in the US can see the number of failed companies that occured in the early history of the industry. That did not cause a failure of the whole industry. It prospered, nonetheless.

It is expensive to bring a manufacturing line up to production. If during the time you are building the line, another manufacturer finds a way to produce the same product with much cheaper machinery, for far less cost in materials, you are bankrupt when your plant opens. And we are going to see much of this in solar and batteries. The technology is advancing very quickly. 

For both technologies, the future is bright, and those that are able to stay ahead of the curve will see vast profits. EVs are going to happen, and solar allows the homeowner to power both his home and his vehicle. Also, with the amount of roof space in every nation on earth, when the big jump in solar efficiency occurs, nobody will be able to afford to leave that space unused.

For the home owner, the EV will provide not only transportation, but emergency backup when the grid goes down. These technologies are win-win for those that wish for more individual and economic independence.


----------



## Old Rocks

New Electric Car Battery Could Double Capacity and Halve Cost

New Electric Car Battery Could Double Capacity and Halve Cost


Well, this is an exciting bit of news for green drivers. Envia Systems has come up with a new battery technology that could give a $20,000 electric car a range of 300 miles to a charge. Yes, please?

The General Motors-backed Envia Systems has come up with a new process that creates a battery with an energy density of 400 watt-hours per kilogram. To put that in perspective, the lithium cells found in most electric cars today only pack about 100-150 Wh/kg. Even the batteries on Tesla's forthcoming Model S only pack in around 240Wh/kg. In terms of cost, when it was first produced, the Nissan Leaf's battery cost around $375 per kilowatt-hour. The Envia battery is projected to cost just $125 per kilowatt-hour.


----------



## daveman

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save Liberty, for your information. A 5 kw system means that a high noon, the system will put out 5 kw. Over the course of a summer day, it will put out as much as 30 kwh. In the winter, much less. A 5 kw systme will handle most people's needs. You really need to do more research before you make really dumb comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but 5kW is the maximum amount that will be available at any one time.
> 
> And that ain't much.  41 amps.  You could run only two 20-amp circuits in your breaker box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, this is like talking to a 2 year old.
Click to expand...

If you had anything to back up your arrogance, you might be interesting to talk to.

"Being a liberal" isn't sufficient.

I worked with power generation and power systems for 20 years with the Air Force.  I think that gives me a little more experience to speak from than a guy with a Mother Earth News subscription.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Matthew said:


> Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011)  The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.
> Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds
> 
> Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative."
> 
> Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.
> 
> EDIT:  Copyright Compliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Informative Link Below said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Copyright Guidelines:*
> Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. *Never post an article in its entirety.* When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html
Click to expand...


then why can't any of them make a profit even with hundreds of billions from us?

sorry, this flies in the face of reality


----------



## Mr. H.

Old Rocks said:


> New Electric Car Battery Could Double Capacity and Halve Cost
> 
> New Electric Car Battery Could Double Capacity and Halve Cost



Halve cost, will travel.


----------



## saveliberty

Still as unreliable a source as ever though.


----------



## Dragon

Two Thumbs said:


> then why can't any of them make a profit even with hundreds of billions from us?



Many of them do. There are lots of profitable solar-power companies out there. You are focusing on the failures (of which there are ALWAYS bound to be some) to reinforce what you want to believe. (Although I still don't understand why you want to believe it.) That isn't the whole picture, and it's not representative of the whole picture. Renewable energy is a growing industry, on the whole quite successful and likely to become much more so in the future. On the way, some companies will fail. Many will succeed. And that's what's happening right now, too.


----------



## saveliberty

The "successful" ones sell in Europe.  That's another whole layer of subsidy.


----------



## kwc57

rdean said:


> The cells being developed by teams from the University of Arkansas and Arkansas State University have the potential to achieve a light-to-energy conversion rate, or solar efficiency, of 40 percent or better, according to the researchers.
> 
> The photovoltaic cells are intended for use in satellites and space instruments. Currently, the silicon-based solar cells that NASA uses in its satellites and instruments have efficiencies of only up to 23 percent, according to NASA statistics.
> 
> Solar cell breakthrough could hit 40 percent efficiency | Green Tech - CNET News
> 
> Solar technology charges forward despite Washington's backward march.
> 
> 5 breakthroughs that will make solar power cheaper than coal | MNN
> 
> How many of those "lying, ignorant" scientists got that "awful" American education?



I can't wait to see the trains, planes and automobiles running off of solar and wind power.  I bet they will be awesome!


----------



## Dragon

saveliberty said:


> The "successful" ones sell in Europe.  That's another whole layer of subsidy.



Why do you keep saying things like this when you don't know what you're talking about? Obviously you WANT to believe what you're saying; what I don't get for a second is why. Consider that renewable energy, much more so than fossil fuels or nuclear power, is amenable to a decentralized approach in which every homeowner is responsible for and in control of his own energy production, and no longer at the mercy of utility monopolies and government regulators. Isn't that a good thing? Why in the world would you prefer a centralized, necessarily monopolistic and heavily regulated energy system to that? I don't get it.

Anyway, the solar and wind industry is growing by leaps and bounds in the United States, not just in Europe. And by that I mean the customer base and the rate of sales. So, no. You're wrong.


----------



## saveliberty

Your economic interests in promoting solar power is noted.  I have done the research.  Apparently you are reading only information provide to you.


----------



## Mr. H.

This is neat:

Solar power station in Spain works at night - Yahoo! News

_As a result, the plant produces 60 percent more energy than a station without storage capacity because it can work 6,400 hours a year compared to 1,200-2,000 hours for other solar power stations, he said._


----------



## sealybobo

saveliberty said:


> Your economic interests in promoting solar power is noted.  I have done the research.  Apparently you are reading only information provide to you.



This just in.  China is subsodizing its solar companies and those chinese companies are selling them below cost on the US Market.  This is hurting the American solar industry.  

I believe they said if this continues, tariffs will be imposed.  

I'm watching the Nighly Business Report on tv.


----------



## saveliberty

sealybobo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your economic interests in promoting solar power is noted.  I have done the research.  Apparently you are reading only information provide to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just in.  China is subsodizing its solar companies and those chinese companies are selling them below cost on the US Market.  This is hurting the American solar industry.
> 
> I believe they said if this continues, tariffs will be imposed.
> 
> I'm watching the Nighly Business Report on tv.
Click to expand...


...and we still can't make them at 7 year breakeven point.


----------

