Rooftop Pv installers in Sydney area

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"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.

Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing
technology, but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or
other of a variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen,
but it's far from being a sure thing.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers of existing technology
cells is certainly a waste of money.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

David L. Jones wrote:

"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.

Is that the best you can offer? If you have nothing to say, why not just
say nothing?

Sylvia.

 

[atec 77]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Sylvia must be off with the fairies.


Is that the best you can offer? If you have nothing to say, why not just
say nothing?
pot kettle black bitch

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000db6ed$0$28930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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.



Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing technology,
but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or other of a
variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen, but it's far
from being a sure thing.

**NO. I said nothing of the kind. I said that supply - demand issues will
dictate the pricing. At present, demand outstrips supply. It's basic
economic theory. The "new thin film technologies" have been around for
awhile. They're not 'vapourware'. As supply increases, prices will fall. As
prices fall, demand increases, thus tempering supply and, in turn, prices.
It's all in my old school economics text books.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers of existing technology
cells is certainly a waste of money.

**Why? Is it better to continue to hand out taxpayer money to the coal
producers?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

Davo wrote:

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.

Coal fired stations run pretty much at full power all the time anyway,
because they have the lowest marginal cost. But they're also expensive
to build, so they don't get built unless the baseload power demand
ensures that they'll be able to run all the time.

It's natural gas and other types that are brought on and off line as
demand varies.

The backup issue arises because there has to be capacity available in
the system to supply power to the owners of PV cells whenever the latter
happen not to be generating power.

Another way of seeing how this impacts on electricty costs is to
consider the effect that the existence of PV cells has on generation
investment decisions. Because the cells displace generating capacity
when the sun is shining, they reduce the proportion of the time that
generating capacity is used. This shifts investment decisions towards
plant that has a lower capital and higher operating cost. The total cost
of power from such plant is higher, and that higher cost has to be born
by the power consuming community.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000db6ed$0$28930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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.


Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing technology,
but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or other of a
variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen, but it's far
from being a sure thing.

**NO. I said nothing of the kind. I said that supply - demand issues will
dictate the pricing. At present, demand outstrips supply. It's basic
economic theory. The "new thin film technologies" have been around for
awhile. They're not 'vapourware'. As supply increases, prices will fall. As
prices fall, demand increases, thus tempering supply and, in turn, prices.
It's all in my old school economics text books.

One would expect the supply to ramp up pretty quickly if there was a
significant buck to be made. If that's not happening, it must be because
the price is being dictated by manufacturing cost, not by demand.

Prices drop when supply increases, but supply only increases if it's
financially worthwhile.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers of existing technology
cells is certainly a waste of money.

**Why? Is it better to continue to hand out taxpayer money to the coal
producers?

I don't see any proposals to subsidise domestic coal powered generators,
nor to let consumers sell power from their domestic coal powered
generators back to the grid at inflated prices.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000f5458$0$2103$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000db6ed$0$28930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"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.


Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing
technology, but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or
other of a variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen,
but it's far from being a sure thing.

**NO. I said nothing of the kind. I said that supply - demand issues will
dictate the pricing. At present, demand outstrips supply. It's basic
economic theory. The "new thin film technologies" have been around for
awhile. They're not 'vapourware'. As supply increases, prices will fall.
As prices fall, demand increases, thus tempering supply and, in turn,
prices. It's all in my old school economics text books.

One would expect the supply to ramp up pretty quickly if there was a
significant buck to be made. If that's not happening, it must be because
the price is being dictated by manufacturing cost, not by demand.

**Once again: We're not manufacturing lead/acid batteries. Silicon fab
facilities are VERY expensive to build. A decision to build may result in
the facility being operational several years down the track. Additionally,
since the need to produce cheap PV cells is contingent upon fossil fuel
prices being high, there has been no real necessity to ramp up production
'till recently. Combine that with the stranglehold that BP has held over the
industry for many years and you have a recipe for slow development. BP's
stranglehold is faltering (thanks to Chinese production), so we may see some
big changes soon.

Prices drop when supply increases, but supply only increases if it's
financially worthwhile.

**Of course. You also need to keep in mind that BP has had defacto control
over the PV cell industry for a long time.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers of existing technology
cells is certainly a waste of money.

**Why? Is it better to continue to hand out taxpayer money to the coal
producers?



I don't see any proposals to subsidise domestic coal powered generators,
nor to let consumers sell power from their domestic coal powered
generators back to the grid at inflated prices.

**Coal producers have, for a very long time, been using the infrastructure
provided to them at taxpayer expense (road, rail, ports system). They have
also been allowed to pollute, unhindered, for a long time. It is only fair
to provide similar incentives to other, less polluting, industries.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David L. Jones]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:000db727$0$28930$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

David L. Jones wrote:
"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.


Is that the best you can offer? If you have nothing to say, why not just
say nothing?

I didn't have to offer any more, I was agreeing with Trevor's comprehensive
reply.

Dave.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:72tg82FrnhalU1@mid.individual.net...

**Coal producers have, for a very long time, been using the infrastructure
provided to them at taxpayer expense (road, rail, ports system). They have
also been allowed to pollute, unhindered, for a long time. It is only fair
to provide similar incentives to other, less polluting, industries.

No, it is only fair to make them ALL pay the total cost to the country as a
whole, including any effect of mitigating pollution, so the cheapest most
effective solution can win out in the end.
That will NOT be solar panels on house roof tops, but MAY be large solar
panel arrays connected to the grid. (or more likely a combination of *large*
solar, wind, tidal etc. solutions, rather than individual flea size
installations)

The current government rebates simply create a market for far less effective
solutions, which entail far higher installation and maintenance costs per
kWHr.
Once again it is simply Government wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to
APPEAR to be doing something!

MrT.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:49c98e23$0$7111$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:72tg82FrnhalU1@mid.individual.net...
**Coal producers have, for a very long time, been using the
infrastructure
provided to them at taxpayer expense (road, rail, ports system). They
have
also been allowed to pollute, unhindered, for a long time. It is only
fair
to provide similar incentives to other, less polluting, industries.

No, it is only fair to make them ALL pay the total cost to the country as
a
whole, including any effect of mitigating pollution, so the cheapest most
effective solution can win out in the end.
That will NOT be solar panels on house roof tops, but MAY be large solar
panel arrays connected to the grid. (or more likely a combination of
*large*
solar, wind, tidal etc. solutions, rather than individual flea size
installations)

**True.

The current government rebates simply create a market for far less
effective
solutions, which entail far higher installation and maintenance costs per
kWHr.

**Agreed. It is a really dumb idea, inhereted from the Howard government.
I'm all for solar cells, but they need to be in large arrays.

Once again it is simply Government wasting taxpayers money in an attempt
to
APPEAR to be doing something!

**Yep. Rudd is just as guilty as Howard.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:15 +1100, 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)

So the current contract offer from Integral energy to lock my current
prices for two year is a good bet?

as and PV cells continue to fall in price,

Basically, they are not falling significantly. PVs require a humoungous
factory and no one has stumped up the money for that set up unless an
existing factory has closed down.

**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.

This little boxen isn't claiming to increase panel output, Just rejig the
wiring to cut out low performing panels (shade?)

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.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:03:57 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

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.

Far different beasts. Car lead acids are not power system lead acids.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:57:25 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing
technology, but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or
other of a variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen,
but it's far from being a sure thing.

When did the price drop occur from the realisation that PV does not need
the same high quality silicon as ICs? Or has no one ever built a factory
to manufacture LowQ silicon for PV?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c997b2$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:01:15 +1100, 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)

So the current contract offer from Integral energy to lock my current
prices for two year is a good bet?

**Maybe. I doubt electricity will be falling in price anytime soon.

as and PV cells continue to fall in price,

Basically, they are not falling significantly. PVs require a humoungous
factory and no one has stumped up the money for that set up unless an
existing factory has closed down.

**China is. However, most of it's production will be soaked up internally.

**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.

This little boxen isn't claiming to increase panel output, Just rejig the
wiring to cut out low performing panels (shade?)

**Yep. There are a couple of system around, but they tend to be variations
on the same theme. Instead of using a handful of large slices, manufacturers
split the panel into dozens (or hundreds) of smaller cells. Thus, if the
panel is partially shaded, it may still deliver it's full Voltage, albeit at
lower current.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"terryc" <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c998b2$0$26373$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:57:25 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


Essentially you're saying that the predictions of falls in prices arises
not from falling costs of production of the dominant existing
technology, but from assumed drops in the production costs of one or
other of a variety of new thin film technologies. Well, it might happen,
but it's far from being a sure thing.

When did the price drop occur from the realisation that PV does not need
the same high quality silicon as ICs? Or has no one ever built a factory
to manufacture LowQ silicon for PV?

**The silicon required to produce PVs needs to be of very high quality, if
efficiency is to be maintained.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:09:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

Coal fired stations run pretty much at full power all the time anyway,

Err, AFAIK, they do not. It isn't unusual for a significant amount of
capacity to be off line for maintenance. In fact, it is essential for
reliability.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:09:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


Coal fired stations run pretty much at full power all the time anyway,


Err, AFAIK, they do not. It isn't unusual for a significant amount of
capacity to be off line for maintenance. In fact, it is essential for
reliability.

Full time when they're available to be scheduled. Other capacity spends
much of its time available to be scheduled, but off line, because its
marginal cost of operation exceeds that of the coal fired plants.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:15:40 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:09:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


Coal fired stations run pretty much at full power all the time anyway,


Err, AFAIK, they do not. It isn't unusual for a significant amount of
capacity to be off line for maintenance. In fact, it is essential for
reliability.

Full time when they're available to be scheduled. Other capacity spends
much of its time available to be scheduled, but off line, because its
marginal cost of operation exceeds that of the coal fired plants.

So. They would not have been built if there wasn't a gap in the market
that coal could not fill. It is the same for PV on suburban rooftops.
They can fill gap in the market.

The clouds part over the suburb of wankerville and all those coddled
house mums wack on the aircon. If we wait for the centralised generators
like hydro, ICE's, etc to kick in, we can have minutes of low power.

Now, if some of those roofs have PV installations, their output varies
with the sunshine and they are right on the spot to provide power where
and when needed, actually before it is needed.

You need to get off the mindless repetition of jargon. It isn't an
argument.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:72tjndFrk6keU1@mid.individual.net...

So the current contract offer from Integral energy to lock my current
prices for two year is a good bet?

**Maybe. I doubt electricity will be falling in price anytime soon.

I think the "soon" is redundant.

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:15:40 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:09:02 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:


Coal fired stations run pretty much at full power all the time anyway,


Err, AFAIK, they do not. It isn't unusual for a significant amount of
capacity to be off line for maintenance. In fact, it is essential for
reliability.
Full time when they're available to be scheduled. Other capacity spends
much of its time available to be scheduled, but off line, because its
marginal cost of operation exceeds that of the coal fired plants.

So. They would not have been built if there wasn't a gap in the market
that coal could not fill. It is the same for PV on suburban rooftops.
They can fill gap in the market.

There isn't so much a gap, as a distortion. Without massive subsidies
only a few green enthusiasts would get further than noting the price.

The clouds part over the suburb of wankerville and all those coddled
house mums wack on the aircon. If we wait for the centralised generators
like hydro, ICE's, etc to kick in, we can have minutes of low power.


Now, if some of those roofs have PV installations, their output varies
with the sunshine and they are right on the spot to provide power where
and when needed, actually before it is needed.

And when the clouds close over again, the PV output drops, but the
airconditioners are still on until said coddled house mums get round to
turning them off, thus leading to a power shortfall.

In reality, of course, the situation isn't like that. Clouds do not part
over large areas at once, and people do not react instantly. What
happens is that as the load increases the frequency tends to drop.
Generators providing frequency control (a special service for which they
get paid) then increase their output to maintain the frequency. They can
do that very rapidly because the generators are already rotating at the
correct rate. Essentially they just open the throttle to prevent the
generator from slowing down.

Sylvia.