Solar electricity generator

[Mikegw]

"Fred Ferd" <fred@ferd.com> wrote in message
news:41dfcdd8$1@news.comindico.com.au...

Small correction, according to the NERL (solar 2000 conference) the
payback
time is closer to 3 years. Sorry the course was a while back.


http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/thin_film/pdfs/ssi_energy_payback_study_2000_knapp_jester.pdf


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.


I know. That is what I said in the post before that one. I was correcting

my statement about the energy payback. I also stated that the financial
payback was in the order of 20 years.

As for you comment about panels not lasting 10 years, IIRC BP have a 25 year
power output warranty.

Mike

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Fred Ferd" <fred@ferd.com> wrote in message
news:41dfcdd8$1@news.comindico.com.au...

"Mikegw" <mikegw20@spam.com.spam.hotmail> wrote in message
news:crjdng$6qm$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...

"Mikegw" <mikegw20@spam.com.spam.hotmail> wrote in message
news:crivnd$3p5$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...

xyz> wrote in message
news:41dcb8f5$0$3436$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
What is the most cost effective way of generating electricity from
solar
energy to be used in an Australian suburban house?


Small correction, according to the NERL (solar 2000 conference) the
payback
time is closer to 3 years. Sorry the course was a while back.

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/thin_film/pdfs/ssi_energy_payback_study_2000_knapp_jester.pdf


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.

** http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvpayback.htm

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24596.pdf


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

xyz> wrote in message
news:41dcb8f5$0$3436$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
What is the most cost effective way of generating electricity from solar
energy to be used in an Australian suburban house?

It's not cost effective yet, and more to the point, no solar panel ever
generates as much energy as went into its manufacture. The clean energy
from
the solar panel is at the expense of the (dirty?) energy used to make it,
and comes at a loss. Alternative energy is popular and trendy, and
governments subsidise alternative energy installations because it makes
them
look good.
There are thousands of applications where solar power is ideal, but a
suburban roof is not one of them.

** http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvpayback.htm

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24596.pdf


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Fred Ferd" <fred@ferd.com> wrote in message
news:41dfd0dc$1@news.comindico.com.au...

"T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:984Dd.106049$K7.82934@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

xyz> wrote in message
news:41dcb8f5$0$3436$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
What is the most cost effective way of generating electricity from solar
energy to be used in an Australian suburban house?

It's not cost effective yet, and more to the point, no solar panel ever
generates as much energy as went into its manufacture.

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.

** http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvpayback.htm

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24596.pdf


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[David]

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?
SNIP

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

This is not uncommon with infrastructure projects. Often, written into
contracts - such as one I am working on now, there are requirements for product
life-cycle management. The life of the product, from manufacture through to
disposal is managed so as to comply with the environmental management standards
such as the ISO 1400x series. This is becoming the norm for items such as
solar panels, batteries, VDTs, etc. and purchasing by most Govt or major
corporates will include a requirement to comply with enivronmental policy.

The controlled destruction of end-of-service equipment is almost 'normative'
and the contract document I am reading at the moment requires proof of disposal
of the end-of-life equipment at a recycling facility approved by the issuer.
Resale and re-use are prohibited under the contract terms. Although why is not
specified I can hazard the following guesses as I have written several similar
documents myself:

1. Environmental policy - disposal through a recognised recycler ensures
potentially hazardous or polluting material is not disposed of in an unsuitable
manner and that supplementing the use of raw material can be undertaken when
appropriate - fulfilling key parts of an ISO 14001 system;

2. Prevention of non-approved re-use of materials that may be approaching their
end of service life and which may become hazardous or dangerous. Batteries are
an example.

3. Protection of the public and non-aware persons from the risk of injury due
to the deployment of equipment not intended for other than specialised
applications. Manufacturers would rather the equipment be destroyed than
deployed into areas where appropriate specialised knowledge or documentation is
not generally available.

4. Commercial considerations of both the client and contracted vendor play an
important role. The manufacturer/vendor seeks to protect their R&D stake,
their market share and their profit by preventing large scale re-use of
technology that is still within the pay-back period. Equipment withdrawn from
service due to life-cycle issues but not obsolete could undermine sales or
supply of new equipment - the returns from which may still be amortising the
development of that or future equipment. From the clients perspective - why
should a competitor get access to cheaper second-hand goods - the initial write
down in value having already been drawn from their own revenue (ie, why should
they subsidise a competitor). An agreed buy-back as first-option is often
included in contracts to facilitate control of withdrawn equipment.

From a commercial perspective, I would prefer to have faulty devices returned
or destroyed rather than have a batch of faulty product poisoning the product
reputation and perhaps damaging future sales, or at the least confusing the
issue - if your name is on the product you own the good and the bad issues, it
doesn't matter the circumstances.