Home made solar cells - is this real?

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

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

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

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

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

I wonder what the exact wording is...

Thomas

Don,

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

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

All over Google.

Start with

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

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

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

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

Thanks! Rich

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

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

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

Analysis then follows per

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

See

for a tutorial.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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

No net energy = no economy.

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

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

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

See

for a tutorial.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

Completely neglecting the fact that many loads are just fine on DC, or do not require a synchronus inverter, as there is no grid to tie to.

4h/day = 8 units/day = (assuming my local electricity prices) $1.20 per day. Or 5 years, in a sunny climate.

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

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

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

Arch

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

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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

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

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

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

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

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

See ongoing comments at

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

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

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

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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

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

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

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

Finally I came up with something they could understand.

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