solar panel output degradation?

rote:

rote:

t hours'

ge. Which,

rrently have.

tore

ll to

past

y were protesting the construction of new nukes, they also pushed for the s tate to encourage conservation and it worked! They cut demand increases en ough that no new plants were needed for a number of years.

nt

d,

ducers

/ --

ess,

re regulated... hence, not "free" to do what they want?

d with

of.

es, then every state in the union is socialistic.

it?

se

ng! So people ended up doing without because of lower supply.

u don't even know what period I'm referring to, so how could you possibly k now what happened?

No it isn't.

Socialism = state ownership of the means of production. Communism = abolition of private property.

Cheers, James Arthur

ote:

rote:

t hours'

ge. Which,

rrently have.

tore

ll to

past

y were protesting the construction of new nukes, they also pushed for the s tate to encourage conservation and it worked! They cut demand increases en ough that no new plants were needed for a number of years.

nt

d,

ducers

/ --

ess,

re regulated... hence, not "free" to do what they want?

d with

of.

es, then every state in the union is socialistic.

it?

se

ng! So people ended up doing without because of lower supply.

u don't even know what period I'm referring to, so how could you possibly k now what happened?

Nope, you've missed it entirely.

Rather than get triggered by a word, why not address the substance: a bunch of state bureaucrat weenies playing with other people's money and lives aren't as careful with either, as is someone whose own job and pay depend on his performing well?

Cheers, James Arthur

ght hours'

rage. Which,

currently have.

store

hill to

e past

t,

any were protesting the construction of new nukes, they also pushed for the state to encourage conservation and it worked! They cut demand increases enough that no new plants were needed for a number of years.

ment

red,

roducers

ed/ --

be

iness,

are regulated... hence, not "free" to do what they want?

ted with

ge of.

nies, then every state in the union is socialistic.

nkit?

aise

dry

zing! So people ended up doing without because of lower supply.

you don't even know what period I'm referring to, so how could you possibly know what happened?

You are the one who picked the word, not me. So is it socialism or not?

te:

here's no point in filtering the outside air and not the inside air.

air, and the contaminants in the outside air are exposed to hungry insects and other bugs - not to mention the blue end of the solar spectrum during t he day.

ortunate infestations. Legionnaires disease comes to mind.

through an air exchanger. They still come in every time a door or window i s opened. Are you going to install air locks and filter everything that co mes into the home? Not using a filter on the device doesn't make your home any more of a "breeding ground". It's already full of contaminants.

t of environment that favours mould growth. Let them grow there unrestricte d and un-noticed and they spread spores in volume.

had the traditional design would have been changed to deal with it.

d, why have it at all? There would seem to be no need since the outside ai r is not a problem.

fferent issue.

of the lifeforms floating around in it can thrive and flourish.

- slightly - as has been mentioned in this thread, to make it less attracti ve for growing mould.

eded on the air coming into the building. Are you saying the filter is nee ded because the heat exchanger is an inherently worse environment than the outside?

It seems to be a great place to grow mould, unless you do something to the heat exchanger to discourage that. A filter to keep mould spores out of it isn't the only possible solution.

ir that needs to be filtered? Sounds like a great reason to not use a heat exchanger.

It's a possible reason not to use a heat exchanger, but it doesn't trump th e positive reason to use a heat exchanger - why throw away heat (or cooling ) that you have paid for?

rote:

te:

There's no point in filtering the outside air and not the inside air.

e air, and the contaminants in the outside air are exposed to hungry insect s and other bugs - not to mention the blue end of the solar spectrum during the day.

nfortunate infestations. Legionnaires disease comes to mind.

n through an air exchanger. They still come in every time a door or window is opened. Are you going to install air locks and filter everything that comes into the home? Not using a filter on the device doesn't make your ho me any more of a "breeding ground". It's already full of contaminants.

ort of environment that favours mould growth. Let them grow there unrestric ted and un-noticed and they spread spores in volume.

ey had the traditional design would have been changed to deal with it.

bad, why have it at all? There would seem to be no need since the outside air is not a problem.

e.

different issue.

e of the lifeforms floating around in it can thrive and flourish.

t - slightly - as has been mentioned in this thread, to make it less attrac tive for growing mould.

needed on the air coming into the building. Are you saying the filter is n eeded because the heat exchanger is an inherently worse environment than th e outside?

e heat exchanger to discourage that. A filter to keep mould spores out of i t isn't the only possible solution.

According to some it isn't a solution at all unless you change it very, ver y frequently. But that's not the question.

air that needs to be filtered? Sounds like a great reason to not use a he at exchanger.

the positive reason to use a heat exchanger - why throw away heat (or cooli ng) that you have paid for?

Uh, that depends on how much money we are talking about. My heat bills are not bad and none of the air exchanged is through a heat exchanger.

The real question is why anyone would want to filter the air coming in unle ss it was really, really dirty in which case the question would be, why wou ld you want to live somewhere that the air is so dirty?

They only use inside filters on heating systems to keep the dirt from clogg ing up the works. It has nothing to do with keeping the air clean for brea thing.

That may be the definition of socialism in your right-wing propaganda prime r, but socialism - as defined by the people who invented the idea - is abo ut having society work in a way that looks after the whole population.

One way of doing that is to let the state control the means of production, another is to let individual groups of workers control the organisation wit hin which they work (anarcho-sydicalism).

The USSR tried out state control of the means of production, and did it bad ly enough to discredit that approach. The Cooperative movement continues to demonstrate that anarcho-syndicalism works, but doesn't solve a bunch of s ocial problems for the people who can't find a cooperative organisation to work for.

Democratic socialism - in places like Scandinavia and Germany - demonstrat es that free-market socialism works rather better than US capitalism - whic h doesn't suite your politics, so you ignore it.

As an aspect f the leading role of communist party, which is to say a non-d emocratic society.

It's not the question that you want to think about.

Your extravagance isn't relevant.

It's not the dirt as a whole that's a problem, but the occasional mould spore that might find the heat exchanger a great place to grow and propagate.

Who are "they"? And where are their aims spelled out?

A healthy growth of mould will certainly clog up the works, and can release enough spores to make the air unsuitable for some people to breath.

"Dirt" is a little unspecific.

Such idiocies are not the exclusive preserve of the left.

Here destructive idiocies have been perpetrated by right wing governments.

That's more accurate, but here replace "state bureaucrat weenies" by "right wing libertarian-inspired governments".

East-west links spanning 4 time zones would help a lot. Also north-south links would be usable, since at lower latitudes the annual peak consumption is in the summer (due to air conditioning), while at high latitudes, the annual peak load is in the winter (heating). Thus during the summer, the panels in the north could support the consumption in the south, while in the winter, the south panels would support the north.

Your numbers are quite "optimistic".

The US annual average consumption is closer to 1.5 kW than 1 kW/person.

Getting 33 % annual capacity factor would mean constantly getting the full peak power for 8 hours each day all year, requiring 2D steerable panels. For a fixed mounted panel, the capacity factor would be 10-20 % depending on meteorological conditions.

A 20 % panel efficiency sounds like a new expensive panel. Old, cheaper and dirty panels would be 10-15 %

If panels are mounted directly on the roof, the roof tilt will also be the panel tilt and orientation. Thus the peak output happens during some hour of the day and also on some unspecified season. With a continental wide network this not a big issue since it will even out, but if the roof is too steep or too shallow for the latitude, the panel will never reach nominal capacity.

Realistically, the panel size requirement would be 40-50 m**2 per capita. With 2-3 persons/family, the roofs of all detached houses would be covered by solar panels.

However, not all families in the US live in detached houses, many live in high rise apartments, with very little surfaces towards the sun per person.

Clearly the US consumption could not be handled with roof mounted solar panels only.

snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

They need only follow a single arc. And only need singular seasonal adjustments of the arc to optimize.

Folks forget some things. We could easily use human power for many parts of a good system. This arc tracking for instance could be done by a hand spring wound counterbalance accord. Wind it up once every couple days like an old cuckoo clock. One spring box could probably power a bank of several panels. Zero power consumption. Every drop counts, right?

My idea about putting generator bikes in prison cells is a good one too. A drop in the bucket, but less idiots in the prison yard honing their criminal cons.

Sorry you are confused with the word "dirt" and seem to be obsessed by mold. No point in continuing to discuss this with you.

Enjoy.

I'm impressed. You came to that conclusion without actually completing the computation. Nice.

This is known as equatorial mount, which has been used with astronomical telescopes for centuries. It needs a (motor driven) rotational axis that is parallel to the Earth's axis. Better do the manual panel adjustments at least four times every year, once for each season.

Obviously not. Not that you can manage discussion.

You are very tiresome when you go ad hominem and stop discussing the real issue. Whatever. You don't seem to want to discuss the question I asked. As usual you only want to contradict.

My TH-stick air-parameter sensor PCB, discussed here in the past, has six sensor ICs and measures 14 parameters. We've been experimenting with its Sensirion CO2 sensor, placing five of them in a room and recording every 10m. In a 3rd-floor bedroom with local heating, we saw CO2 levels frequently reach 1500ppm, and spike at 2500ppm. We're not sure of the sensor's accuracy, but it appears CO2 levels in many, if not most homes, can often rise to levels well above the those that you've been suggesting. No discomfort was reported, but it was surprising to see.

Why would that surprise you? People turn O2 into CO2 at a not so small rat e. Essentially, most of the food you eat is turned into CO2. Picture the food you eat being vaporized with a 100+ fold increase in volume. That's a lot of CO2 in a room. Put two or three people in the same, single room fo r a couple of hours and I would expect a large increase in CO2 like you see .

In old buildings without forced ventilation, the CO2 levels can rise quite high. This is especially the case with small bedrooms. It is customary the open the window for a few minutes before going to sleep and also immediately in the morning. This will significantly improve the effective daily air exchange rate.

In greenhouses the problem is opposite. During the day, photosynthesis consume CO2 and it can drop below 200 ppm, which will stall growth during the afternoon. For this reason, CO2 is often added to restore at least 400 ppm during the day. Increasing it to 1000 ppm can significantly increase growth, but requires sufficient water and nutrients. There is no point to increase the CO2 during the night, unless strong artificial light is used.