Re: Repost please: $1/watt solar panals.

recommended is over-rated or exaggerated. For example, DELCO REMY' 140A alternator is really a 80-90-amp alternator, look at its copper wire thickness(0.08" thick same a Bosch 80amp 0.08" thick) and don't believe what the label says. Also their new Chevy Volt 200mpg is a fake hybrid, what it is a

30-40miles per charge mileage, not per tank. The dumbasses in these forums are so proud of their hyped products, and they complained so much about the Chinese products. What a shame...

A dollar a watt solar panels would be totally useless, since they would simply be "paint it green" transfer payments of existing hydrocarbon or nuclear energy.

And still remain asoline destroying net energy sinks that are in no manner green, renewable, nor sustainable.

It makes no sense at all to sell a dime's worth of conventional electricity and then use that dime to buy some mythical "renewable" energy.

For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073

What's the value of fighting for the freedom of a man who doesn't want Freedom but wants Mommy?

Thanks, Rich

Don Lancaster wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

A dollar a watt solar panels would be a freaking godsend to those of us off the grid, hydrocarbon transfer or not.

With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost tied to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or payback and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the future cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly.

Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia and get a viable nuclear power program going.

Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use them to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships.

Thanks, Rich

How do you figure this? The price of panels obviously include the price of ALL the energy used in building them. If they have a payback period and last longer than that, they obviously will save energy during their lifetime. Especially since the energy to build them is not nearly the whole price.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn

breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a

real world.

I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road, possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus. And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M

jsw

Over here we pay around 15c per kWhr for mains electricity. Do the sums.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK

breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a

real world.

road,

energy surplus.

Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on in an emergency.

ed

e

You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.

I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.

You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.

I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.

OMG did you manage to read the whole thing? You might want to read a few other books before you abandon "pro-nuclear"

In the daytime.

Sylvia.

Check; rename the tech to "New, Clear".

ck

ure

m

Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel. They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.

Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the availability of cheap coal power.

Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be. I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an omlet.

Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel. They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.

Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the availability of cheap coal power.

Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be. I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an omlet.

Oh I have the book, I just haven't finished reading it. But I do have a "issues" with some of what I have read so far. I also have "the new nuclear danger" and have a few problems with that as well, although I haven't finished writing down the problems I have with it.

How many times do you need to be told that you have no value?

--
The movie \'Deliverance\' isn\'t a documentary!

breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a

real world.

the road,

energy surplus.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.

--
The movie \'Deliverance\' isn\'t a documentary!