T
Terry Collins
Guest
budgie wrote:
Installed?
Tiles or panel?
Installed?
C
Caliban
Guest
Trevor Wilson wrote:
I was hoping to get my hands on a few (out of container loads) of
perfectly good 60W solar panels recovered from obsolete communications
sites. However they were all destroyed to prevent the market being
flooded with cheap second hand panels.
Too bloody true.
I was hoping to get my hands on a few (out of container loads) of
perfectly good 60W solar panels recovered from obsolete communications
sites. However they were all destroyed to prevent the market being
flooded with cheap second hand panels.
C
Caliban
Guest
Phil Allison wrote:
As usual you don't have a clue.
P
Phil Allison
Guest
"Caliban"
** As usual, you dont have one fact to save your life.
Like any troll.
............... Phil
** As usual, you dont have one fact to save your life.
Like any troll.
............... Phil
C
Caliban
Guest
That's rich. A sociopath calling me a troll. Bwahaha, nice one.
M
Mike Harding
Guest
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:27:06 +1100, Caliban <null@void.com> wrote:
just guessing?
Mike Harding
Is that really true (and can it be proven?) - or are you
just guessing?
Mike Harding
L
Landline
Guest
TT <sigh> your information is not only totally misleading it is totally
incorrect.
www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf
Some bed time reading for you.
Solar is great on SOME suburban roofs. Depends on the occupiers of the
house and their power use.
Payback generally is 7 to 9 years.
"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
incorrect.
www.homepower.com/files/pvpayback.pdf
Some bed time reading for you.
Solar is great on SOME suburban roofs. Depends on the occupiers of the
house and their power use.
Payback generally is 7 to 9 years.
"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
L
Landline
Guest
Where do you manage to dig up this type of crap - UNBELIEVABLE
BP Solar far from have the market by the balls.
I am damn sure BP Solar wishes they did have the solar market to themselves.
What makes you make such ridiculous statements.
"Caliban" <null@void.com> wrote in message
news:crldjj$24gf$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
BP Solar far from have the market by the balls.
I am damn sure BP Solar wishes they did have the solar market to themselves.
What makes you make such ridiculous statements.
"Caliban" <null@void.com> wrote in message
news:crldjj$24gf$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
L
Landline
Guest
Try $6.50 a watt
"budgie" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news
qprt0pqi5d9mcfk5mlieo0srojo3l9408@4ax.com...
"budgie" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news
qprt0pqi5d9mcfk5mlieo0srojo3l9408@4ax.com...
L
Landline
Guest
Panel $6.50w How many do you want?
"Terry Collins" <terryc@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:41DE087D.AAEE5DFF@woa.com.au...
"Terry Collins" <terryc@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:41DE087D.AAEE5DFF@woa.com.au...
L
Landline
Guest
Whole page and URL's about PV and wind energy payback
http://www.mymethow.com/~joereid/pv_payback.html
http://www.mymethow.com/~joereid/pv_payback.html
C
Caliban
Guest
Mike Harding wrote:
Australian sites due to incompatibility with broadband networks. This
equipment was donated to a poorer nation.
The company I work for won the contract to reinstall this equipment.
Due to the considerably smaller number of sites required there was a
huge surplus in equipment (also due to the geographical location of the
sites less solar collecting area was required).
A few members of our company (including me) tried to obtain a small
number of the surplus solar panels but were denied. The reason given by
my boss was the one I have stated. I have worked with him for 5 years
and in my opinion he is a reputable, honest, and ethical man and I have
no reason to doubt him.
I'd like something to be done about this sort of wasteful destruction
but doubt anything can be done due to contractual obligations.
Due to confidentiality agreements signed, proof of the destruction of
these items may be hard to come by, but I will ask.
If I can not come up with the required proof, feel free to ignore my
story, it's precisely the sort cover up that was intended to happen.
A system of radio telephony devices was recently removed from remote
Australian sites due to incompatibility with broadband networks. This
equipment was donated to a poorer nation.
The company I work for won the contract to reinstall this equipment.
Due to the considerably smaller number of sites required there was a
huge surplus in equipment (also due to the geographical location of the
sites less solar collecting area was required).
A few members of our company (including me) tried to obtain a small
number of the surplus solar panels but were denied. The reason given by
my boss was the one I have stated. I have worked with him for 5 years
and in my opinion he is a reputable, honest, and ethical man and I have
no reason to doubt him.
I'd like something to be done about this sort of wasteful destruction
but doubt anything can be done due to contractual obligations.
Due to confidentiality agreements signed, proof of the destruction of
these items may be hard to come by, but I will ask.
If I can not come up with the required proof, feel free to ignore my
story, it's precisely the sort cover up that was intended to happen.
C
Caliban
Guest
Landline wrote:
Try it sometime.
Personal experience.
Try it sometime.
M
Mike Harding
Guest
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:22:17 +1100, Caliban <null@void.com> wrote:
interested at a more general level if proof existed.
Are you saying the original equipment was owned by a BP
company? And if so they colluded with the solar division
to destroy the equipment? That sort of arrangement, even
within a multi national, is unlikely (mainly because one
division doesn't give a toss about other divisions) and if
it was owned by a non BP company why would they care?
I'm not doubting you (I've seem stranger things!) but I find
the details a bit cloudy. Maybe your boss was, honestly,
mistaken?
Mike Harding
I didn't really expect you to provide proof for the NG I was
interested at a more general level if proof existed.
Are you saying the original equipment was owned by a BP
company? And if so they colluded with the solar division
to destroy the equipment? That sort of arrangement, even
within a multi national, is unlikely (mainly because one
division doesn't give a toss about other divisions) and if
it was owned by a non BP company why would they care?
I'm not doubting you (I've seem stranger things!) but I find
the details a bit cloudy. Maybe your boss was, honestly,
mistaken?
Mike Harding
C
Caliban
Guest
Mike Harding wrote:
....
government. I'm not sure if that involved them purchasing the equipment
with a contractual obligation that excess plant and equipment (after the
donation) be destroyed rather than sold on the Australian market, or if
this was performed later due to pressure from manufacturers once the
excess became known.
Either way, perfectly good equipment was destroyed.
My boss was pretty clear on the reason, the Australian market was not to
be flooded with cheap second hand solar panels at the request of a solar
panel manufacturer, and this involved destruction of the entire remainder.
....
It's my understanding that the equipment was donated by the Australian
government. I'm not sure if that involved them purchasing the equipment
with a contractual obligation that excess plant and equipment (after the
donation) be destroyed rather than sold on the Australian market, or if
this was performed later due to pressure from manufacturers once the
excess became known.
Either way, perfectly good equipment was destroyed.
My boss was pretty clear on the reason, the Australian market was not to
be flooded with cheap second hand solar panels at the request of a solar
panel manufacturer, and this involved destruction of the entire remainder.
K
Ken Taylor
Guest
"Caliban" <null@void.com> wrote in message
news:crns8q$60r$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
installation (130+ panels) replaced under warranty with BP Solar. They were
quite cheerful in doing this (the panels had deteriorated under normal
operating conditions, but some of the panels were salvageable. They were
happy to replace the whole lot) but *insisted* they get the lot back and
would not negotiate on us being able to keep the better ones for use in some
of the village housing. This despite the fact that it was going to cost an
arm and a leg (and a left testicle) to get the bloody things sent back to
Australia. They eventually agreed that photographic evidence of the local
destruction of the panels was sufficient. Needless to say there was *no* way
we'd mock up the photo's and keep a few for other uses....
Ken
news:crns8q$60r$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
When I was out in the Pacific a few years ago we had an entire solar panel
installation (130+ panels) replaced under warranty with BP Solar. They were
quite cheerful in doing this (the panels had deteriorated under normal
operating conditions, but some of the panels were salvageable. They were
happy to replace the whole lot) but *insisted* they get the lot back and
would not negotiate on us being able to keep the better ones for use in some
of the village housing. This despite the fact that it was going to cost an
arm and a leg (and a left testicle) to get the bloody things sent back to
Australia. They eventually agreed that photographic evidence of the local
destruction of the panels was sufficient. Needless to say there was *no* way
we'd mock up the photo's and keep a few for other uses....
Ken
M
Mike Harding
Guest
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:05:54 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken@home.nz> wrote:
Mike Harding
Very interesting."Caliban" <null@void.com> wrote in message
news:crns8q$60r$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
Mike Harding wrote:
...
I didn't really expect you to provide proof for the NG I was
interested at a more general level if proof existed.
Are you saying the original equipment was owned by a BP
company? And if so they colluded with the solar division
to destroy the equipment? That sort of arrangement, even
within a multi national, is unlikely (mainly because one
division doesn't give a toss about other divisions) and if
it was owned by a non BP company why would they care?
I'm not doubting you (I've seem stranger things!) but I find
the details a bit cloudy. Maybe your boss was, honestly,
mistaken?
It's my understanding that the equipment was donated by the Australian
government. I'm not sure if that involved them purchasing the equipment
with a contractual obligation that excess plant and equipment (after the
donation) be destroyed rather than sold on the Australian market, or if
this was performed later due to pressure from manufacturers once the
excess became known.
Either way, perfectly good equipment was destroyed.
My boss was pretty clear on the reason, the Australian market was not to
be flooded with cheap second hand solar panels at the request of a solar
panel manufacturer, and this involved destruction of the entire remainder.
When I was out in the Pacific a few years ago we had an entire solar panel
installation (130+ panels) replaced under warranty with BP Solar. They were
quite cheerful in doing this (the panels had deteriorated under normal
operating conditions, but some of the panels were salvageable. They were
happy to replace the whole lot) but *insisted* they get the lot back and
would not negotiate on us being able to keep the better ones for use in some
of the village housing. This despite the fact that it was going to cost an
arm and a leg (and a left testicle) to get the bloody things sent back to
Australia. They eventually agreed that photographic evidence of the local
destruction of the panels was sufficient. Needless to say there was *no* way
we'd mock up the photo's and keep a few for other uses....
Mike Harding
F
Fred Ferd
Guest
"Mikegw" <mikegw20@spam.com.spam.hotmail> wrote in message
news:crjdng$6qm$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
No,thats the ENERGY payback.
The energy put into making the panel has to be paid back and that does take
quite some time.
The financial pay back time is 10, 20 or infinite years...
The equipment isnt likely to last 10 years on the aussie roof top, and thats
the minimum payback time.
news:crjdng$6qm$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
No,thats the ENERGY payback.
The energy put into making the panel has to be paid back and that does take
quite some time.
The financial pay back time is 10, 20 or infinite years...
The equipment isnt likely to last 10 years on the aussie roof top, and thats
the minimum payback time.
F
Fred Ferd
Guest
"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The energy invested in making the solar panel is quite large and it could
take around 33% of the life of the panel to recover the energy investment,
but since you typically overrate the solar panel by at least three times,
you dont actually recover the energy investment.
Most are there to act as long term batteries, not save the planet.
However, in the context of panels on the roof of the house, the solar
panels will recover thier energy.
You've got that wrong. Suburbia is the place for solar panel to reduce
pollution.
Lights on harbours and camera's are powerd by solar to reduce the cost of
the wires, but the solar panel has had a environmental impact in
manufacturer.
The price of the buggers has to come down, because at the moment the payback
time is longer than the warranty/guarantee time and longer than the
expected life time too
GovCo says that its using solar polar for environmental reasons, but the
solar panells are only installed where its the cheapest way to get power and
that means where not much power is used. So the small amount of mains power
saved is so small as to make no odds - its a null policy.
The way to reduce the price of solar panels is to start making them and
selling them at prices that the payback time is short!
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
HERE HERE! This is not an old wives tale.
The energy invested in making the solar panel is quite large and it could
take around 33% of the life of the panel to recover the energy investment,
but since you typically overrate the solar panel by at least three times,
you dont actually recover the energy investment.
Most are there to act as long term batteries, not save the planet.
However, in the context of panels on the roof of the house, the solar
panels will recover thier energy.
You've got that wrong. Suburbia is the place for solar panel to reduce
pollution.
Lights on harbours and camera's are powerd by solar to reduce the cost of
the wires, but the solar panel has had a environmental impact in
manufacturer.
The price of the buggers has to come down, because at the moment the payback
time is longer than the warranty/guarantee time and longer than the
expected life time too
GovCo says that its using solar polar for environmental reasons, but the
solar panells are only installed where its the cheapest way to get power and
that means where not much power is used. So the small amount of mains power
saved is so small as to make no odds - its a null policy.
The way to reduce the price of solar panels is to start making them and
selling them at prices that the payback time is short!
F
Fred Ferd
Guest
"Landline" <no_email@here.com> wrote in message
news:wmsDd.107963$K7.14758@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
In fact, that PDF says that TT could be correct for many installations.
TT is misleading because houses could be the one of the few places where a
very small energy payback is in fact possible.
Its not an old wives tale as PROVED by the pdf YOU provide - it is a factor
that must be considered when you go about labelling solar power as 'green'
or 'environmentally friendly'.
Many of the installations of solar panels will NEVER pay back their
production energy.
eg solar panels to power camera's on freeways. If the panel is overrated 10
times actual load -
then the payback time changes from one year to 10 year , and thats its
lifetime, so there.
So a polar panel installation that uses a panel that is 10 times above
average usage is NOT environmentally friendly.
What is found in the uneducated is zealotry and you have great glee in
chopping down tall poppies - people who didnt make STUPID assumptions -
just took advice from a respected authority but let it get a bit old.
The new advice is 'solar panels may pay back their energy investment by only
a relatively small amount' - two or three times.
..
You forgot to mention the LIFETIME.
8 years if you are lucky ???
If the theoretical payback time is 9 years, but the actual lifetime is 8
years,
the PAYBACK TIME IS NEVER.
Stop being misleading yourself before you accuse others of it.
news:wmsDd.107963$K7.14758@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
In fact, that PDF says that TT could be correct for many installations.
TT is misleading because houses could be the one of the few places where a
very small energy payback is in fact possible.
Its not an old wives tale as PROVED by the pdf YOU provide - it is a factor
that must be considered when you go about labelling solar power as 'green'
or 'environmentally friendly'.
Many of the installations of solar panels will NEVER pay back their
production energy.
eg solar panels to power camera's on freeways. If the panel is overrated 10
times actual load -
then the payback time changes from one year to 10 year , and thats its
lifetime, so there.
So a polar panel installation that uses a panel that is 10 times above
average usage is NOT environmentally friendly.
What is found in the uneducated is zealotry and you have great glee in
chopping down tall poppies - people who didnt make STUPID assumptions -
just took advice from a respected authority but let it get a bit old.
The new advice is 'solar panels may pay back their energy investment by only
a relatively small amount' - two or three times.
..
Thats misleading.
You forgot to mention the LIFETIME.
8 years if you are lucky ???
If the theoretical payback time is 9 years, but the actual lifetime is 8
years,
the PAYBACK TIME IS NEVER.
Stop being misleading yourself before you accuse others of it.