Posted by Michael A. Terrell on October 28, 2009, 12:06 pm
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>
> TheM wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
> >>>
> >>> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
> >>>
> >> Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
> >> perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the
real world.
> >>
> >> Vaughn
> >
> > I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down
the road,
> > possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net
energy surplus.
> > And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
>
> Who knows, but for a $.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
> it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
> (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
> in an emergency.
If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Posted by nospam on October 28, 2009, 1:45 pm
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>> TheM wrote:
>>>>> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
>>>>>
>>>> Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
>>>> perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the
real world.
>>>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>> I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down
the road,
>>> possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net
energy surplus.
>>> And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Who knows, but for a $.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
>> it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
>> (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
>> in an emergency.
>
>
> If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.
>
>
After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.
Posted by Michael A. Terrell on October 28, 2009, 11:58 pm
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > nospam@nevis.com wrote:
> >> TheM wrote:
> >>>>> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual
breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be
confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
> >>>> perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in
the real world.
> >>>>
> >>>> Vaughn
> >>> I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down
the road,
> >>> possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net
energy surplus.
> >>> And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.
> >>>
> >>> M
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Who knows, but for a $.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
> >> it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
> >> (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
> >> in an emergency.
> >
> >
> > If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.
> >
> >
>
> After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.
The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Posted by vaughn on October 29, 2009, 12:58 am
> The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
> lived batteries.
Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years or
more is not unheard of for a good set of lead acid batteries. In the past,
I have been lucky enough to "scrounge" good used batteries from large UPS
systems. In my home system I typically get another 5 years service from
them.
Vaughn
Posted by Josepi on October 29, 2009, 1:31 pm
Ten years from batteries? Not if you actually used them and didn't just
keep them on float.
I have heard this story over and over from manufacturers but I have not
heard of anybody, actually using their batteries and discharging them each
night to a resonable level, that gets more than a few years of dependable
usage out of them.
The solar savings would never pay for the batteries, compared to bulk
manufactured energy
> Expensive, yes. But define "short lived". With proper care, 10 years
> or more is not unheard of for a good set of lead acid batteries. In the
> past, I have been lucky enough to "scrounge" good used batteries from
> large UPS systems. In my home system I typically get another 5 years
> service from them.
> Vaughn
>> The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
>> lived batteries.
XML site map
> TheM wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.
> >>>
> >>> Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual