Rooftop Pv installers in Sydney area

[Ross Herbert]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:35:48 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

:terryc wrote:
:> Any recommendations?
:
:Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
:
:Sylvia.

Why do you say that?

Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for a
1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the current
prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid tie
inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the gov't
$8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.

Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that
electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic
selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not
just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of electricity
is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take
about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't
be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:53:37 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

:MisterE wrote:
:>> Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
:>
:> There are a few niches where it works.
:> For example a 1kilowatt system can be had fully installed for less than
:> $4,000 after goverment rebates. With the 25 year warranty it should just
:> about break even at this point.
:
:Well, even there it remains a huge waste of money - just that the money
:being wasted is the taxpayer's.
:
:>
:> Also QLD you can sell back excess power for 44c/kwhour, about 3 times what
:> it costs to buy, so you will also save some on your power bill. I was about
:> to get one installed because it worked out marginally cheaper for me, but
:> they moved the $8,000 to families that earn under $100k.
:
:I can't imagine why QLD power utilities are required to pay so much for
:it, other than political stupidity.
:
:Sylvia.

It will become Australia wide (not just Qld) after July 09 I am told.

 

[TonyS]

Sylvia Else wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations.
No different to anything else really.

Dave.


It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use grid
supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall utilisation
of the grid and the generators attached to it, which pushes up the cost
of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer of that electricity,
I have to pay more as a result.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is more to it.
I just had a 1kW system installed.
I talked to the Western Power guy who installed the new meter. He said it should
be compulsory to install PV solar on every new building, (!) maybe a little
unrealistic. Our northern suburbs (Perth) apparently are desperately short of
substation capacity and solar is helping a lot there.

If you check the power tariffs you will find that peak prices ( 25c for smart
power users) applies just in the hours where the sun is the strongest.

I consume about 4kWh/day solar energy directly. This energy doesn't have to be
produced at the power station, meaning there are no transmission or transformer
losses. Since, from memory, only about 50% of the energy produced at the station
actually reaches the consumer, this saves actually 8kwh of power station
produced energy, right?

My energy surplus that's being produced (2 -4 kwh/day)arrives at my neighbours
also nearly lossless.

And it's kind of clean energy.

Tony

 

[TonyS]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Davo wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations.
No different to anything else really.

Dave.


It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.

Sylvia.




It saves you money because in summer when loads are at their highest
running air conditioners, power is very expensive because peaking
generators are used, these are only used a few days a year and usually
run on very expensive diesel. Solar systems are ideal for reducing
peak loads in hot weather. Base load power generation is cheap,
building and running plant that might only be used a few days a year
is extremely expensive. Also, demand for power is highest during the
day when solar systems are most productive.

I don't think that works out. We can get very hot weather even with haze
that reduces the effectiveness of solar panels.

Sylvia.

Actually it doesn't reduce it a lot. Infrared is not what PV panels want.
I saw 400W (of 1.1kw max) produced on a rainy day.

Tony

 

[Sylvia Else]

TonyS wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations.
No different to anything else really.

Dave.


It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.

Sylvia.




Maybe there is more to it.
I just had a 1kW system installed.
I talked to the Western Power guy who installed the new meter. He said
it should be compulsory to install PV solar on every new building, (!)
maybe a little unrealistic.

Yes - the cost of the required subsidies would bankrupt the government.

Our northern suburbs (Perth) apparently
are desperately short of substation capacity and solar is helping a lot
there.

If you check the power tariffs you will find that peak prices ( 25c for
smart power users) applies just in the hours where the sun is the
strongest.

I'd have thought the sun would be strongest symmetrically about the
solar midday, whereas the powersmart tarif is highest (in summer)
between 11am and 5pm, which is probably when it tends to be warmest, but
is somewhat skewed away from the maximum insolation.

Having houses with solar power delays the point at which substations
need to be expanded, but power demands seem to grow inexorably (partly
due to increasing population densities), so sooner or later those
subtations need to be upgraded.

I think it's entirely possible that the money spent on PV cells would be
better spent on earlier expansion of the substations. I also note that
in Perth, winter peak periods are from 7am to 11am in the morning and
from 5pm to 9pm in the evening, presumably reflecting power being used
for heating. Solar PV cells would do little to address that.

I consume about 4kWh/day solar energy directly. This energy doesn't have
to be produced at the power station, meaning there are no transmission
or transformer losses. Since, from memory, only about 50% of the energy
produced at the station actually reaches the consumer, this saves
actually 8kwh of power station produced energy, right?

This 50% figure is certainly a myth. See

<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/07/energy-efficiency-in-the-power-grid-49238>

There was a TV advertisement the other day that tried to push the idea
that the grid is less than 50% efficient, but avoided actually saying
so, instead providing the next to useless, and deliberately misleading,
piece of information, to the effect that less than 50% of the power
going into the grid eventually reaches a light-bulb.

There seems to be a deliberate misinformation campaign in progress.

My energy surplus that's being produced (2 -4 kwh/day)arrives at my
neighbours also nearly lossless.

And it's kind of clean energy.

Except that the energy used to make the cells was unlikely to have been
"green" energy. Cell manufacture is an energy intensive process, and
manufacturers will certainly get the best power deals they can. These
cells are being produced by companies who are doing it to make a profit,
not because they are idealistic.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:53:37 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

I can't imagine why QLD power utilities are required to pay so much for
it, other than political stupidity.

No, a very good technical reason. PV systems can be quickly installed and
running and their peak production kicks in to help match that peak air
con load on really hot days. These days are giving pollies the bejesus
because widespread brownouts are political suicide.

If you can afford the loan interest, do it now.
When the aussie dollars rises against against the US, add on a battery
pack and you will not need that generator.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?

Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.

That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"

**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.

I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.

Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.

So prices will not fall.

**Indeed. Some do it, because they feel that they are making a
difference.

Screw that. Money kept in my pocket is my interest. There is some big
subsidies going atm and if it means I can save more long term, then it is
a wise investment.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:48:45 +1000, MisterE wrote:

But tell that to all the people who are spending $1000 per
year replacing inverters etc... I don't know of anyone who has PV who
hasn't had enless inverter troubles.

Thank you for that tip.

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:24:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:09 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations. No different to
anything else really.

Dave.



It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.

Err, those monstrous power stations are spinning anyway 24x7. What I
can not work out is why I can not battery bank off peak electricty.

The ones that are running 24x7 (which usually run on coal) are doing so
to supply the baseload - it's not as if there's power going spare.

Then how come they will sell it a 5.54c/KWH then?

Other
power stations, which typically run on natural gas, or are hydro
stations, only run for part of the time, to meet higher loads.

And?

However, there's nothing to stop you battery banking off peak

Do you mean it is legal to connect a bank of batteries to my off peak
supply and use that during the day?


- if you

can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the numbers
on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not just
uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.

Care to share them?

 

[K Ludger]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d76a$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:24:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:09 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations. No different to
anything else really.

Dave.



It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.

Err, those monstrous power stations are spinning anyway 24x7. What I
can not work out is why I can not battery bank off peak electricty.

The ones that are running 24x7 (which usually run on coal) are doing so
to supply the baseload - it's not as if there's power going spare.

Then how come they will sell it a 5.54c/KWH then?

Other
power stations, which typically run on natural gas, or are hydro
stations, only run for part of the time, to meet higher loads.

And?

However, there's nothing to stop you battery banking off peak

Do you mean it is legal to connect a bank of batteries to my off peak
supply and use that during the day?


- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the numbers
on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not just
uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.

Care to share them?

Don't feed the troll Terry!! ; )

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:24:43 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:09 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations. No different to
anything else really.

Dave.



It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.
Err, those monstrous power stations are spinning anyway 24x7. What I
can not work out is why I can not battery bank off peak electricty.
The ones that are running 24x7 (which usually run on coal) are doing so
to supply the baseload - it's not as if there's power going spare.

Then how come they will sell it a 5.54c/KWH then?

That's the price at which there's none going spare.

Other
power stations, which typically run on natural gas, or are hydro
stations, only run for part of the time, to meet higher loads.

And?
However, there's nothing to stop you battery banking off peak

Do you mean it is legal to connect a bank of batteries to my off peak
supply and use that during the day?

Suitably, installed, yes.

- if you
can find an economic way of doing it. However, even running the numbers
on the back of an envelope will quickly show that it's not just
uneconomic - it's hugely uneconomic.

Care to share them?

I lost the envelope. But calculate the cost of the batteries you'd need
to support your day-time load. Then calculate the amount the interest
you'd earn on the money if you didn't buy batteries. Then calculate the
diffence in cost of the electricity you achieve through changing the
times you draw power from the grid.

Finally, take into account the very limited life of batteries.

The numbers show that it's a no-brainer.

Which is why the power generation industry isn't doing it already.

Sylvia.

 

[Davo]

Sylvia Else wrote:

A person who installs solar cells is essentially using the grid as a
free backup, and their demand on the grid will be more variable, and
less predictable, than the demand of someone without solar cells. In a
truely transparent market, a person would have to pay a premium to be
allowed to buy power on the basis that they may not buy any, but are
guaranteed to be able to buy whatever amount they want whenever they
want to.

Sylvia.

This already happens in Western Australia. A premium is paid to be the
last to be dropped off the grid, and by the same token, less critical
companies drop off voluntarily when the grid is under pressure. The
pricing is done on a spot market system, with huge prices paid per
megawatt on really hot days when demand is greatest. The average joe is
protected from this to some degree by their supplier buying it on their
behalf.
The backup issue is a load of wank, since solar cell owners will be
drawing on the grid when demand is low, such as night time. Coal fired
generators are at their maximum efficiency under full load, anything
less is losing money.

 

[Davo]

Sylvia Else wrote:

TonyS wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications. There are
many reasons why people get PV installations.
No different to anything else really.

Dave.


It doesn't just cost him money. It costs me money. He'll use the PV
cells to reduce his power demand when then sun is shining, and use
grid supplied electricity when it's not. This reduces the overall
utilisation of the grid and the generators attached to it, which
pushes up the cost of the electricity that it delivers. As a consumer
of that electricity, I have to pay more as a result.

Sylvia.




Maybe there is more to it.
I just had a 1kW system installed.
I talked to the Western Power guy who installed the new meter. He said
it should be compulsory to install PV solar on every new building, (!)
maybe a little unrealistic.

Yes - the cost of the required subsidies would bankrupt the government.

Our northern suburbs (Perth) apparently are desperately short of
substation capacity and solar is helping a lot there.

If you check the power tariffs you will find that peak prices ( 25c
for smart power users) applies just in the hours where the sun is the
strongest.

I'd have thought the sun would be strongest symmetrically about the
solar midday, whereas the powersmart tarif is highest (in summer)
between 11am and 5pm, which is probably when it tends to be warmest, but
is somewhat skewed away from the maximum insolation.

Having houses with solar power delays the point at which substations
need to be expanded, but power demands seem to grow inexorably (partly
due to increasing population densities), so sooner or later those
subtations need to be upgraded.

I think it's entirely possible that the money spent on PV cells would be
better spent on earlier expansion of the substations. I also note that
in Perth, winter peak periods are from 7am to 11am in the morning and
from 5pm to 9pm in the evening, presumably reflecting power being used
for heating. Solar PV cells would do little to address that.


I consume about 4kWh/day solar energy directly. This energy doesn't
have to be produced at the power station, meaning there are no
transmission or transformer losses. Since, from memory, only about 50%
of the energy produced at the station actually reaches the consumer,
this saves actually 8kwh of power station produced energy, right?

This 50% figure is certainly a myth. See

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/07/energy-efficiency-in-the-power-grid-49238


There was a TV advertisement the other day that tried to push the idea
that the grid is less than 50% efficient, but avoided actually saying
so, instead providing the next to useless, and deliberately misleading,
piece of information, to the effect that less than 50% of the power
going into the grid eventually reaches a light-bulb.

There seems to be a deliberate misinformation campaign in progress.

My energy surplus that's being produced (2 -4 kwh/day)arrives at my
neighbours also nearly lossless.

And it's kind of clean energy.

Except that the energy used to make the cells was unlikely to have been
"green" energy. Cell manufacture is an energy intensive process, and
manufacturers will certainly get the best power deals they can. These
cells are being produced by companies who are doing it to make a profit,
not because they are idealistic.

Sylvia.

In Western Australia in summer on weekdays the load peaks at exactly
6pm, plus or minus a few minutes. Check with Western power if you don't
believe me.

Coal fired boilers in WA are about 25 to 32 percent efficient in
converting the coal energy to steam energy, then you have the turbine
and grid losses on top of that.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?

Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.

Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.

That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"

**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.

I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs rise
(as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price, demand for
PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher than they
otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every 2 years.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.

Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given size).
Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.

So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

**Indeed. Some do it, because they feel that they are making a
difference.

Screw that. Money kept in my pocket is my interest. There is some big
subsidies going atm and if it means I can save more long term, then it is
a wise investment.

**Electricity is too cheap in Australia to make it worthwhile. In places
like Hawaii, where electricity must be generated by Diesel, PV cells are a
viable competitor.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mark Harriss]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.
That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"
**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.
I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs rise
(as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price, demand for
PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher than they
otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every 2 years.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.
Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given size).
Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.
So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

**Indeed. Some do it, because they feel that they are making a
difference.
Screw that. Money kept in my pocket is my interest. There is some big
subsidies going atm and if it means I can save more long term, then it is
a wise investment.

**Electricity is too cheap in Australia to make it worthwhile. In places
like Hawaii, where electricity must be generated by Diesel, PV cells are a
viable competitor.

I see a commercially available solar cell made with a thin layer of
silicon on top of stainless steel. It's not as efficient as single
crystal silicon cells but the lower energy cost to make it and the fact
it can be made tens of metres in length make it's energy payoff period
shorter. It's only weakness is the extreme thinness of it.

So far in the lab they have compound semi cells past 43% efficiency
and climbing. I'll be very interested in seeing these come to market as
they should cost a lot less than silicon cells.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:neudnVOx0prQ9lTUnZ2dnUVZ8v2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.
That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"
**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.
I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs
rise (as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price,
demand for PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher
than they otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every
2 years. Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.
Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given
size). Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to
shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.
So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

**Indeed. Some do it, because they feel that they are making a
difference.
Screw that. Money kept in my pocket is my interest. There is some big
subsidies going atm and if it means I can save more long term, then it
is
a wise investment.

**Electricity is too cheap in Australia to make it worthwhile. In places
like Hawaii, where electricity must be generated by Diesel, PV cells are
a viable competitor.




I see a commercially available solar cell made with a thin layer of
silicon on top of stainless steel. It's not as efficient as single crystal
silicon cells but the lower energy cost to make it and the fact it can be
made tens of metres in length make it's energy payoff period shorter. It's
only weakness is the extreme thinness of it.

So far in the lab they have compound semi cells past 43% efficiency
and climbing. I'll be very interested in seeing these come to market as
they should cost a lot less than silicon cells.

**Indeed. Since silicon is the largest single expense in mono and poly
crystalline cells, thin film types should fall dramatically in price. I'd
reckon that 10% of their present price is not an unreasonable expectation.
The only impediment (if you can call it that), is increasing demand, which
is tempering price falls ATM.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Mark Harriss]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Indeed. Since silicon is the largest single expense in mono and poly
crystalline cells, thin film types should fall dramatically in price. I'd
reckon that 10% of their present price is not an unreasonable expectation.
The only impediment (if you can call it that), is increasing demand, which
is tempering price falls ATM.

There are factories being built using new processes to make solar
grade silicon as opposed to semiconductor grade silicon that should
produce it for under a third of the cost of the semi grade.

One new process that was a bit of an eye opener was a Japanese guy
who would heat window glass in a solution of salts. Glass become
conductive when hot so he could convert the silicon dioxide of the glass
into silicon by passing a current through it. I'm not sure whether the
energy cost was worth it though, unless the glass is free it may be more
trouble that it's worth.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.
That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"
**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.
I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs rise
(as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price, demand for
PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher than they
otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every 2 years.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.
Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given size).
Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.
So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

In any case, it's a mistake to assume that the price of PV cells can
keep coming down. There's a lead-acid battery in pretty much every
land-vehicle that's built. Yet they're still expensive. Some things just
cost a lot to make.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0011f4b4$0$16138$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.
That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to "invest"
**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.
I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs
rise (as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price,
demand for PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher
than they otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every
2 years. Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.
Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given
size). Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to
shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.
So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

In any case, it's a mistake to assume that the price of PV cells can keep
coming down.

**No, it's not (a mistake). Silicon costs keep mono and poly crystalline
cell prices high. Thin film cells use vastly less silicon (around 1% of the
silicon used in mono types). Amorphous cells are only marginally less
expensive than mono and poly crystalline types. It is simply economics
(supply and demand) that keeps amorphous cell prices high.

There's a lead-acid battery in pretty much every

land-vehicle that's built. Yet they're still expensive. Some things just
cost a lot to make.

**Bad example.
*Lead/acid batteries have been around for many, many decades.
*They have been mass produced for at least 90 years.
*The basic technology was mature by 1920.
*Minor improvements have occurred, which reduce costs of manufacture
slightly, but nothing major. Serious batteries still require a lot of lead.
*Lead is the major component in auto batteries. It always has been. Lead is
relatively costly.
*Supply outstrips demand and has done for many decades.


*PV cells have been around since the 1960s, but have only been mass produced
in the last couple of decades.
*The technology required to produce PV cells is prodigious (unlike lead/acid
batteries).
*Silicon is the major component of mono and poly crystalline cells. It is
expensive (after refining).
*It is a minor component of thin film cells.
*Manufacturing of PV cells is far from a mature technology.
*You can be absolutely certain that thin film cells will fall in price over
the next decade.
*Demand outstrips supply and has done for several decades.

AFTER the manufacture (and, to some extent, the installation) of PV cells
becomes a mature technology, it's cost basis will be closely related to the
materials cost, with some labour and profit added in. Like lead/acid
batteries.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:72tc2uFrdjhiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0011f4b4$0$16138$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c8d53c$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:36 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c87823$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:05:40 +1100, David L. Jones wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f7581$0$17383$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
terryc wrote:
Any recommendations?
Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
Not to someone who wants it.
I'm sure Terry is aware of the cost/payback implications.
That is part of what I want to investigate further. Given that
electricty prices are taking off and a feeling that interest rates
are
going to stay low for a while, this might be the best time to
"invest"
**Not IMO. The best time to invest will be later, when one of several
things occur:

* The cost of PV cells (amorphous) will plummet when supply comes
remotely close to meeting demand.
I have been waiting for this to happen for 20 years already.

**You'll need to wait a little (or a lot) longer. As electricity costs
rise (as they will surely do) and PV cells continue to fall in price,
demand for PV cells will increase, thus keeping prices somewhat higher
than they otherwise might be. PV cell production has been doubling every
2 years. Nonetheless, this is an interesting article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Figure on a 90% reduction in PV cell costs within 20 years.
Technology improvements could just as easily account for that. I was
reading about a little boxen from NEC that claims 25% increased output
from series strings of panels

**Don't expect massive increases in outputs from panels (of a given
size). Expect to see panels fall in price and better resistance to
shadowing.

Maybe as little as 10. It's hard to say, since as
prices fall, demand will rise.
So prices will not fall.

**Prices will fall, but the rate of fall will be mitigated by increasing
demand. It's just economics.

In any case, it's a mistake to assume that the price of PV cells can keep
coming down.

**No, it's not (a mistake). Silicon costs keep mono and poly crystalline
cell prices high. Thin film cells use vastly less silicon (around 1% of
the silicon used in mono types). Amorphous cells are only marginally less
expensive than mono and poly crystalline types. It is simply economics
(supply and demand) that keeps amorphous cell prices high.

There's a lead-acid battery in pretty much every
land-vehicle that's built. Yet they're still expensive. Some things just
cost a lot to make.

**Bad example.
*Lead/acid batteries have been around for many, many decades.
*They have been mass produced for at least 90 years.
*The basic technology was mature by 1920.
*Minor improvements have occurred, which reduce costs of manufacture
slightly, but nothing major. Serious batteries still require a lot of
lead.
*Lead is the major component in auto batteries. It always has been. Lead
is relatively costly.
*Supply outstrips demand and has done for many decades.


*PV cells have been around since the 1960s, but have only been mass
produced in the last couple of decades.
*The technology required to produce PV cells is prodigious (unlike
lead/acid batteries).
*Silicon is the major component of mono and poly crystalline cells. It is
expensive (after refining).
*It is a minor component of thin film cells.
*Manufacturing of PV cells is far from a mature technology.
*You can be absolutely certain that thin film cells will fall in price
over the next decade.
*Demand outstrips supply and has done for several decades.

AFTER the manufacture (and, to some extent, the installation) of PV cells
becomes a mature technology, it's cost basis will be closely related to
the materials cost, with some labour and profit added in. Like lead/acid
batteries.

Spot on.
Sylvia must be off with the fairies.

Dave.