Solar Grid Connect 1kW questions

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:55:00 +0000, Mauried wrote:

Even more interesting is why they are happy to hand out $8K grants for
Solar PV , but only $1.5K for solar hot water heaters. The Hot Water
Heaters win hands down for energy saved versus cost, but it seems that
saving energy isnt as "warm and fuzzy" as making energy.

The solar HWS is a personal thing that only reduces demand for
electricity.

Significantly.

The PV installation reduces demand for electricity and has
the potential to boost the mains supply at times of greatest demand.

Minimally.

Somewhere I found a claim that properly installed Pv can supply over 9KwH/
day/square metre at peak summer (Canberra, straight north, over 9 deg
tilt).

Not possible.
http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_asiap.htm
This doesn't have Canberra on it, but take say Sydney.
Yearly average insolation is 4.56 kWh / m2. Peak summer 6.6 kWh / m2

Average solar panel efficiency is 15% so you'd get almost exactly 1 kWh / day
/ m2

You're only out by a factor of about TEN ! In fact your number would break the
laws of thermodynamics not to mention a few other things.

DO THE SUMS and DON'T beleive the bullshit advertising and green propaganda.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

I suppose you can keep banging on with that same old cracked record. It
fills a production niche that can not be filled any other way.

Some electricty production is expensive, other is cheap.

You got your sums wrong by a factor of about TEN. Your advice is crap.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Davo wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
terryc wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:55:00 +0000, Mauried wrote:

Even more interesting is why they are happy to hand out $8K grants for
Solar PV , but only $1.5K for solar hot water heaters. The Hot Water
Heaters win hands down for energy saved versus cost, but it seems that
saving energy isnt as "warm and fuzzy" as making energy.

The solar HWS is a personal thing that only reduces demand for
electricity. The PV installation reduces demand for electricity and
has the potential to boost the mains supply at times of greatest demand.

It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

Sylvia.

No it's not. This was all discussed a few weeks ago. You're either a
slow learner or mischievous.

You can't do sums then. PV solar is insanely expensive.

Graham

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_asiap.htm

Finally, you provide something.



--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:50:22 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

Any chance of a cost per watt figure to back that up.





--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Average solar panel efficiency is 15% so you'd get almost exactly 1 kWh
/ day / m2

I'm not worried about old panels. Production cells are now 21% and up to
36% with a concentrator (but that present heat problems).

DO THE SUMS and DON'T beleive the bullshit advertising

The 41% is new tech from Boeing, but not in production.





--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:50:22 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:


It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

Any chance of a cost per watt figure to back that up.

The OP quoted a figure of $4440 after an $8000 rebate for a 1KW PV
system. So that's $12440 per kW, or $12.44 per watt.

This petrol generator

http://www.generatorplace.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=6

costs $6,298, and is rated at $5500, or $1.14 per watt.

Of course, they're not directly comparable because the petrol generator
requires fuel, and maintenance. But it won't need much of either if it's
only being used to support unusual peak loads of the kind you get on hot
sunny days.

Commercial extreme peak load generation is probably diesel based,
reflecting the fact that when generators are subject to infrequent use,
it makes economic sense to minimise the capital invested, even though
that results in higher fuel costs.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:


Average solar panel efficiency is 15% so you'd get almost exactly 1 kWh
/ day / m2

I'm not worried about old panels. Production cells are now 21% and up to
36% with a concentrator (but that present heat problems).

Have you a cite for the concentrator figure? It doesn't sound right that
a concentrator should increase the efficiency (as distinct from the
power output per unit area of PV cell).

DO THE SUMS and DON'T beleive the bullshit advertising

The 41% is new tech from Boeing, but not in production.

And price yet to be determined.

Sylvia.

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:46:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_asiap.htm

Finally, you provide something.

I provided it several posts back had you been looking.

Insolation maps / data are critical to determining PV solar output. I have
links to maps for Europe and the CONUS too if these are of interest.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:50:22 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

Any chance of a cost per watt figure to back that up.

Provide a panel cost, cost of finance, infrastructure cost e.g. inverters
for grid connect and maintenance and you can get a good estimate.

Of course the real cost varies with season.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Average solar panel efficiency is 15% so you'd get almost exactly 1 kWh
/ day / m2

I'm not worried about old panels. Production cells are now 21%

Cite ? 15% is typical to good for commercial cells.

and up to 36% with a concentrator (but that present heat problems).

Exactly. Note that efficiency falls off as the cell gets hotter, presumably
due to intrinsic ( leakage ) conduction in the silicon.

DO THE SUMS and DON'T beleive the bullshit advertising

The 41% is new tech from Boeing, but not in production.

Double junction technology and monstrously expensive. Great for satellites
though.

What you haven't mentioned is that the new cheap thin film panels are only ~
7% efficient.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:50:22 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

It's a very expensive way of supporting peak load.

Any chance of a cost per watt figure to back that up.

The OP quoted a figure of $4440 after an $8000 rebate for a 1KW PV
system. So that's $12440 per kW, or $12.44 per watt.

This petrol generator

http://www.generatorplace.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=6

costs $6,298, and is rated at $5500, or $1.14 per watt.

Of course, they're not directly comparable because the petrol generator
requires fuel, and maintenance. But it won't need much of either if it's
only being used to support unusual peak loads of the kind you get on hot
sunny days.

Commercial extreme peak load generation is probably diesel based,
reflecting the fact that when generators are subject to infrequent use,
it makes economic sense to minimise the capital invested, even though
that results in higher fuel costs.

With co-gen MAN offer 95% efficient diesel power plants.
http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000583.html

Graham

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:15:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

What you haven't mentioned is that the new cheap thin film panels are
only ~ 7% efficient.

i wasn't aware that they were in production, particularly in the form
that they would be useful (complete roof coverage).


--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:15:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

What you haven't mentioned is that the new cheap thin film panels are
only ~ 7% efficient.

i wasn't aware that they were in production, particularly in the form
that they would be useful (complete roof coverage).

They are in limited production e.g. http://www.nanosolar.com/

I haven't found the site very informative other than they claim to be able
to make panels that cost USD1 per peak watt output. However with lower
efficiency, you need more space to install them.

Graham

 

[Sylvia Else]

Eeyore wrote:

They are in limited production e.g. http://www.nanosolar.com/

"Technical Data Sheet? We presently share product data sheets only
under Non-Disclosure Agreement with qualified volume customers. This is
so we can extend the period of protection for certain proprietary
features we have developed."

Well, maybe, but they could surely publish basic performance data. Their
failure to do so makes it look as if they have something to hide.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 03:43:23 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:15:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

What you haven't mentioned is that the new cheap thin film panels are
only ~ 7% efficient.

I wasn't aware that they were in production, particularly in the form
that they would be useful (complete roof coverage).

They are in limited production e.g. http://www.nanosolar.com/

I haven't found the site very informative other than they claim to be
able to make panels that cost USD1 per peak watt output. However with
lower efficiency, you need more space to install them.

Where I consider they would be good is where you replace a roof. I had
deep six asbestos "flat"(min angle) roofing and we moved to a slightly
pitched colourbond roofing.

If they came as a colourbond/gal roof replacement, then you would just
roll one off and another on.

Or if you were building new, that would be your roofing.

Colourbond is just a paint coat and AFAIK, these are just multiple
coatings, so there should only be a slight extracoating cost and the rest
should be standard(almost) installation costs.

To me, it is just learning where the technology is most useful.




--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-05-01, terryc <newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

Or if you were building new, that would be your roofing.

Colourbond is just a paint coat and AFAIK, these are just multiple
coatings, so there should only be a slight extracoating cost and the rest
should be standard(almost) installation costs.

as long as they keep working after the roofers walk all over them and put
screws through them... I guess you could leave the ribs bare, or only
do it with roofing that has concealed fixing like Kliplock.

Maybe (concrete) tiles would be better suited to the pre-fab treatment:
they're always nailed through the same spot.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 10:00:51 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

Maybe (concrete) tiles would be better suited to the pre-fab treatment:
they're always nailed through the same spot.

I believe Canon had a tile based PV out at one stage (pre Olympics), but
I suspect wiring connection was a major PITA.






--
Once again, our prime minister Kevin Rudd brings stability to the nation
by reassurring the nation that one law still exists for the rich
and another for the poor. After a personal visit;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/27/2553855.htm

 

[Bob Larter]

terryc wrote:
[...]

We have gone from 19.1Kwh/day to 26.3Kwh/day in a year and we haven't a
clue what is the source. (yes, we do no use dryer, little oven use, etc)

I found that my expensive microwave pulls an insane amount of power when
it not in use. I've seen the same thing with TVs, too.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[atec 7 7]

Bob Larter wrote:

terryc wrote:
[...]
We have gone from 19.1Kwh/day to 26.3Kwh/day in a year and we haven't
a clue what is the source. (yes, we do no use dryer, little oven use,
etc)

I found that my expensive microwave pulls an insane amount of power when
it not in use. I've seen the same thing with TVs, too.

Easy to solve , pull an item each day while recoding consumption , often

the fridge as it ages or that telly