Alternative Fuel Folly

metalman said:
Electricity generated from solar panels is "5-20 times more expensive than conventional electricity generation
Click to expand...

I cannot give a nod to that assumption, it is incomplete and grossly misleading. Solar and wind power is maturing and in certain circumstances already has become cost effective, with mid term paybacks after upfront costs. I am no tree hugging dork, I like the technology and hate the dirty, rotten, stinking, crooked, rat bastard utilities such as FPL - Florida Power & Light (aka Florida Plunder & Loot).

Besides, fossil fuels will not last forever. The last run-up in 06-07 in oil/gas was a bubble, but the fears of peak oil are founded in fact. If we are not there yet, we are at the doorstep. Truth is, we are probably past peak oil already. When global growth (see China, India) comes back, prices will go right back to where they were or higher.
 
redrumloa said:
metalman said:
Electricity generated from solar panels is "5-20 times more expensive than conventional electricity generation
Click to expand...

I cannot give a nod to that assumption, it is incomplete and grossly misleading. Solar and wind power is maturing and in certain circumstances already has become cost effective, with mid term paybacks after upfront costs. I am no tree hugging dork, I like the technology and hate the dirty, rotten, stinking, crooked, rat bastard utilities such as FPL - Florida Power & Light (aka Florida Plunder & Loot).
Click to expand...
In parts of MN wind is competitive to coal. This even assumes that coal prices will remain flat over 30 years. Fat chance of that happening.

Solar in Mn is a bit harder sell. But other areas of the nation such as San Diego, solar does become more competitive.

Besides, fossil fuels will not last forever.
Click to expand...
It will be more cost effective to derive more energy locally. The added plus is we'd be our own masters. Fights in the middle-east wouldn't have an economic component of ensuring low cost energy for ourselves.
 
redrumloa said:
metalman said:
Electricity generated from solar panels is "5-20 times more expensive than conventional electricity generation
Click to expand...

I cannot give a nod to that assumption, it is incomplete and grossly misleading. Solar and wind power is maturing and in certain circumstances already has become cost effective, with mid term paybacks after upfront costs. I am no tree hugging dork, I like the technology and hate the dirty, rotten, stinking, crooked, rat bastard utilities such as FPL - Florida Power & Light (aka Florida Plunder & Loot).

Besides, fossil fuels will not last forever. The last run-up in 06-07 in oil/gas was a bubble, but the fears of peak oil are founded in fact. If we are not there yet, we are at the doorstep. Truth is, we are probably past peak oil already. When global growth (see China, India) comes back, prices will go right back to where they were or higher.
Click to expand...

Agree or not, the cost analysis is correct. Solar electricity is not cost effective for anything other than remote, small power demand applications. It cost $5/W for solar panels that generate electricity for 6-8hrs/day and you can purchase electricity from your provider at $0.10-0.25 kW/hr.

Wind is the most cost effective energy alternative, but its electrical generation is too erratic, not necessarily coinciding with demand peaks.

Hydro-electric power generation is the cheapest. Coal and nuclear are the next best sources of energy for electrical generation
 
metalman said:
Hydro-electric power generation is the cheapest. Coal and nuclear are the next best sources of energy for electrical generation
Click to expand...
Nuclear is not cheap. The insurance is so expensive that only the government buys it. The waste has yet to be stored for it's effective lifespan. Throw in the $90B for Yucca Mountain. Throw in the costs to ship and military protection of waste on the way to Yucca Mountain. Nuclear quickly becomes the most expensive option. The problem here is we don't pay it up front as $kW/hr instead we pay it in the backend as additional taxes. This hides the true cost.
 
faethor said:
Nuclear quickly becomes the most expensive option. The problem here is we don't pay it up front as $kW/hr instead we pay it in the backend as additional taxes. This hides the true cost.
Click to expand...
Sorta like how you'd have to factor in the cost of both Iraq wars and all the US bases in the Middle East to properly calculate the cost of oil in America.
 
redrumloa said:
metalman said:
Agree or not, the cost analysis is correct.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. I can install a system at my house right now for less than $5/watt. For large projects, there are already $1/watt solutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar
Click to expand...

The only solar panels you can currently buy are $5/W. I've searched and the Nanosolar panels are not available to the public, and the $1/W is some ... future ... price point. BTW the $5/W cost only gets you the panels, not a working solar electrical system. Other problems, the panels take up lots of space, generate power for only 6-8 hr/day, and efficiency degrades significantly over time, battery's have a 15% converson loss and go bad over time and converting to a/c has a 15% conversion loss. If you want to go offgrid there is some fuel cell technology thats looks promising.
 
metalman said:
... battery's have a 15% converson loss and go bad over time and converting to a/c has a 15% conversion loss.
Click to expand...
No one would do batteries in Minnesota. The eletric company must pay you for any electricity you send to the grid at the rate they charge. Use the grid as your 'battery'. When you are working for 8 hours let the solar panels send power to the grid for 8 hours. When you come home draw the power back from the grid.

Why is it 6-8 hours anyway? From approx 2/1-11/1 the sunrise and sunset is 11 or more hours apart. Perhaps the max output is 8 hours of the day of the solar panels? 6 seems to be very low. Even Winnipeg Canada has all of it's year with more than 6 hours of daylight per day.

Also, don't you live south, aka more hours of sunlight per day, then moi? For example San Antonio Texas has more than 11 hours of daylight the whole year. June 22 is 14.5 hours of sunlight. If the analysis was done on 6 hours (low end suggested) if one was looking to put them on your house you best half the estimate. Because you have nearly double the daylight hours available.
 
faethor said:
Why is it 6-8 hours anyway? From approx 2/1-11/1 the sunrise and sunset is 11 or more hours apart. Perhaps the max output is 8 hours of the day of the solar panels? 6 seems to be very low. Even Winnipeg Canada has all of it's year with more than 6 hours of daylight per day.
Click to expand...

For most states its 5/8 of electrical rate.

Solar cells only produce full power only when the light rays are striking the panel perpendicular, the 6-8 hours is rule of thumb that includes a 22 degree angle cut off for a fixed panel installation set for the correct elevation, aimed south, and and an estimate of daily full sun hours (no clouds), in the spring or fall. In the summer you get another hour or two. A solar tracker can increase hours of full power output at a 20%-25% additional installation cost, if you regularly adjust the tracker and the panels to match the solar seasons. Then there is the weather, so find your days of full sun per year on a weather map. In Laredo its 315 days of full sun per year, Seattle has 152. On days its cloudy you get no power. On partly cloudy days you get reduced or no power when a cloud is overhead. A shadow that crosses any of the panels will cause the panel to drain rather than produce electricity, so cut down any tall trees that might put any shadow your panels.

In the North, wind is much more practical, but wind is a maintenance nightmare, and no power if too little wind and no power if too much wind. There are 5 wind art mobiles at the local university here, once they produced power for some wind demonstration project, now they just demonstrate spinning blades.
 
metalman said:
A solar tracker can increase hours of full power output at a 20%-25% additional installation cost,
Click to expand...
Seems like a high estimate.

On days its cloudy you get no power.
Click to expand...
Not true. Cloudy days produce reduced power. The only time you get no power would be darkness such as night.

A shadow that crosses any of the panels will cause the panel to drain rather than produce electricity, so cut down any tall trees that might put any shadow your panels.
Click to expand...
Drain or not produce? If wiring is done properly you won't put power into the panel itself, say at night for example. So there would be no drain. Yes shadows reduce production and for proper placement perhaps trees may have to be cut down.

There are 5 wind art mobiles at the local university here, once they produced power for some wind demonstration project, now they just demonstrate spinning blades.
Click to expand...
Last point first, I'm rather doubtful that a wind mobile has the durability and construction of a long term large scale wind generator installation. First point last...I''m not sure what you believe the operating range for wind turbines is. But, they do have mechanisms to limit the max they can run at. This enables them to produce power in high wind conditions. But, severe winds are problematic and wind is not 100% guaranteed. Of course that answer is contingent on where if you go. High enough up in the atmosphere there will be wind always. Link

People are creative enough to continue to work on solutions.. Low Speed Wind Turbines and more flying turbines
 
metalman said:
Obama's green jobs.

“Because of intense competition, the way wind tax credits work, the location of the wind farms and the fact that the wind often blows at night, wind farms in Texas are generating power utilities won't buy off peak. So they are paying the state’s main grid operator to accept it off peak. $40 a megawatt hour is roughly the going rate.
Click to expand...
I know you love Nukes and hate government funding. The average nuke plant in the USA has received $13Billion/each in government funded subsides. That doesn't include the nearly $100Billion more for Yucca Mountain to come from our taxes. What plans do you have to push nukes and have the private industry take up the charge without relying on the government?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0katKL0 ... ted&fmt=18

Quietrevolution

there's way more effective turbines being developed these days. I've actually seen this style in person at a show. yes, it was operating indoors. and VERY quiet.

these are made for urban areas, but I'd use them anywhere.

they have horizontal turbines on rooftops in Chicago

I have to go looking for vids of that
 
Hey that Quietrevolution qr5 turbine looks interesting and at GBP38,000.00 or $59,907.94 USD it will only take me 41.6 years to pay it off at my current $120.00 per month average power bill. That is, assuming they let me have it interest free.

Only problem I see is that I will be over 100 years old before it is paid off. Maybe I can get my great grandson to take up payments if I don't make it that long. :roflmao:
 
Perhaps you missed the point that this is a commercial application? The thing is huge. You could probably sell the excess power to all your neighbors and make a profit. I thought you conservatives were good at these sorts of money making ventures.
 
Glaucus said:
Perhaps you missed the point that this is a commercial application? The thing is huge. You could probably sell the excess power to all your neighbors and make a profit. I thought you conservatives were good at these sorts of money making ventures.
Click to expand...

Don't point that finger at me, I am pro AE when it makes sense. Solar and wind makes sense to me in many instances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top