Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Can anyone speak of the reliability of solar powered attic fans ? I
can buy one for $217.00 in Lowes and live in an area where electricity is pretty high. A comparable electric Attic Fan is $70.00 . Each comes with a 5 year warranty . Thanks. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
wrote:
Can anyone speak of the reliability of solar powered attic fans ? I can buy one for $217.00 in Lowes and live in an area where electricity is pretty high. A comparable electric Attic Fan is $70.00 . Each comes with a 5 year warranty . Thanks. Solar hot water is often a good deal and passive solar heating helps. Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Check here for the skinny on solar fans (but it's a competitive site, so take with a grain of salt) http://www.savenrg.com/venting.htm If one's motivation is to help the environment, it's often better to buy the "wasteful" alternative and donate the difference to the Plant an Owl Society. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 7:45*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote: Can anyone speak of the reliability of solar powered attic fans ? *I can buy one for $217.00 in Lowes and live in an area where electricity is pretty high. * A comparable electric Attic Fan is $70.00 . *Each comes with a 5 year warranty . *Thanks. Solar hot water is often a good deal and passive solar heating helps. Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Check here for the skinny on solar fans (but it's a competitive site, so take with a grain of salt)http://www.savenrg.com/venting.htm If one's motivation is to help the environment, it's often better to buy the "wasteful" alternative and donate the difference to the Plant an Owl Society. One calculation you could make is to figure out how long an equivalent fan would have to run to consume the $217-70= $147 worth of electricity. That is what you are paying for up front. I'll bet it's quite a long time because the solar fans are not very powerful. Balance that against the probability that the solar fan lasts that long. I'd also bet the $70 regular fan moves a lot more air. In general, I believe passive attic venting is best, ie good soffit venting together with a ridge vent. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Arguably true today, but you won't be able to say that for long. We're working on the next generation of solar at work, as are others. Efficiency of the collectors has gone way, way up, and prices keep coming down. A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Arguably true today, but you won't be able to say that for long. We're working on the next generation of solar at work, as are others. Efficiency of the collectors has gone way, way up, and prices keep coming down. A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. Good to hear. Please post a link when they strat to market. Lou |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 10:56*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , *"HeyBub" wrote: Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Arguably true today, but you won't be able to say that for long. We're working on the next generation of solar at work, as are others. Efficiency of the collectors has gone way, way up, and prices keep coming down. A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. Huh? I have 2 AC compressors/air handlers in a 2 story home. How much power can one get from an $18000 solar panel? In the summer I need to run the AC, will the meter be going backwards with two 30 amp 220v circuits running on a 90 degree day? We really only have 3.5 months of good sunny weather a year in Chicago at $60/mo savings will the payback occur before the system itself (or roof) needs to be replaced? In winter the days are very short and roofs covered with snow blocking all light to a panel. I assume the roofers would add at least $12000 to their estimate if they have to remove a solar unit to finish the roof job (shingles in Chicago dont last their rated lifetimes due to the crappy weather extremes). I just dont see solar being a solution to any of the countrys energy issues. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
RickH wrote:
On Apr 3, 10:56 am, Smitty Two wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Arguably true today, but you won't be able to say that for long. We're working on the next generation of solar at work, as are others. Efficiency of the collectors has gone way, way up, and prices keep coming down. A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. Huh? I have 2 AC compressors/air handlers in a 2 story home. How much power can one get from an $18000 solar panel? In the summer I need to run the AC, will the meter be going backwards with two 30 amp 220v circuits running on a 90 degree day? We really only have 3.5 months of good sunny weather a year in Chicago at $60/mo savings will the payback occur before the system itself (or roof) needs to be replaced? In winter the days are very short and roofs covered with snow blocking all light to a panel. I assume the roofers would add at least $12000 to their estimate if they have to remove a solar unit to finish the roof job (shingles in Chicago dont last their rated lifetimes due to the crappy weather extremes). Chances are the shingles under the panels will last next-to-forever. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 11:56*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , *"HeyBub" wrote: Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Arguably true today, but you won't be able to say that for long. We're working on the next generation of solar at work, as are others. Efficiency of the collectors has gone way, way up, and prices keep coming down. A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. What exactly is the big breakthrough that allows you to suddenly get a 3X improvement? Everything I've seen with solar electric panels has been at a much slower pace over a long time. One would think if there was some sudden breakthrough in efficiency it would be all over the press. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Smitty Two wrote:
A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:43:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. Man will never fly... And who says all the solar panels have to be in one place? Add up the square footage of all the roofs in California and tell us how much area we have to work with. If each home can produce 25% of the energy it needs, that will be HUGE. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 3:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 3:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. So? The country isn't now run on coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear. It's run on a combination of technologies. Solar is poised to become one of them, in a significant percentage. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
"RickH" wrote in message ... On Apr 3, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. Wind and Solar are both 1% solutions to a 100% problem. I think CNG for transport and Nuclear for electric are the way to go, the US has massive reserves of clean NG. I heard the compression technology to fill an automobile gas tank is down to about 3 minutes for a 300 mile ride. Gas stations in the US can be re-equipped (with govt tax breaks) to handle CNG considering most already handle propane. Modern gasoline engines are easily adapted to use CNG and many can be re- engineered to handle both gasoline and CNG, making the transition easier (maybe GM and Chrysler can do something useful with those bailout bucks). The business case for Nuclear is getting better too as coal is not very popular with the green block. The govt could have led the way this year by declaring all their fleet vehicles use CNG. Solar may have some use some day in charging idle hybrid cars, where parking lots can offer free trickle charge plug-ins while you are in work for 8 hours not using the car. When the Kennedys agree to put a windmill in plain view of their Camelot then maybe I'll think windmills are ok to see raping the midwest landscape too, but they have to come half way. I agree completely with Rick...Well said... |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. So? The country isn't now run on coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear. It's run on a combination of technologies. Solar is poised to become one of them, in a significant percentage. I agree that the country runs on a mixture of energy sources. There are those - not many, thank God, but very loud - who assert we can do just fine on sunbeams and gentle breezes, pedicabs and bicycles, wind-up watches and herb gardens. I also agree that solar power has its niche, much like Linux. But solar power generation, like Linux, will never achieve acceptance above 2% - even if they give it away. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. So? The country isn't now run on coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear. It's run on a combination of technologies. Solar is poised to become one of them, in a significant percentage. I think you just pulled that theory out of a place where the sun doesn't shine! Honestly, there's really no evidence to support that assumption. -- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | | Gary Player. | | http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Smitty Two wrote:
.... Orders of magnitude, as opposed to incremental, advances in detector efficiency in just the last few years are a matter of public record. The detectors themselves are in mass production and available for sale. .... Where might that be...somehow I missed it on Letterman...or even in the Obama plan. -- |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 3, 11:29*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , wrote: A 3X improvement is not an order of magnitude, which would be 10X. Agreed. In the 10x case, I'm talking about energy density per unit of area, of the detector itself. In the 3x case, I'm talking about the solar collector assembly as a whole. The discrepancy is due to gathering a large area of light and focusing it on a small detector. Detector? *What is a detector? Maybe I'm using a non-standard term. Solar cell? Solar power can be very efficent and economical to install. I walled up my screen room with plastic corigated greenhoues sheathing and that supplimented my NG furnace. The panels cost me about $200. I spent a Saturday morning installing them. My fuel bill was half of what it was last year. Im planning on putting up some solar panels for heating hot water. This is a heck of a lot more efficent than photocells. At present I cant afford the up front cost but I would like to super insulate my home. I have been in a home that was super insulated an their electric bill in an all electric home was half of mine which is electric/NG. Jimmie |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
In article , dpb wrote:
Smitty Two wrote: ... Orders of magnitude, as opposed to incremental, advances in detector efficiency in just the last few years are a matter of public record. The detectors themselves are in mass production and available for sale. ... Where might that be...somehow I missed it on Letterman...or even in the Obama plan. -- They're at the 7-11. Aisle 3, left side, next to the Oreos. |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On 4/3/2009 12:43 PM HeyBub spake thus:
Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the argument you make is a total straw man. Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy. That's absurd. The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all, conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called "picking the low-hanging fruit".) Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm sure you'll be quite comfortable with. (Note lack of smiley faces.) -- Made From Pears: Pretty good chance that the product is at least mostly pears. Made With Pears: Pretty good chance that pears will be detectable in the product. Contains Pears: One pear seed per multiple tons of product. (with apologies to Dorothy L. Sayers) |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On 4/3/2009 6:54 PM Malcolm Hoar spake thus:
In article , Smitty Two wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. So? The country isn't now run on coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear. It's run on a combination of technologies. Solar is poised to become one of them, in a significant percentage. I think you just pulled that theory out of a place where the sun doesn't shine! Honestly, there's really no evidence to support that assumption. So where is *your* evidence to the contrary? -- Made From Pears: Pretty good chance that the product is at least mostly pears. Made With Pears: Pretty good chance that pears will be detectable in the product. Contains Pears: One pear seed per multiple tons of product. (with apologies to Dorothy L. Sayers) |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 4/3/2009 12:43 PM HeyBub spake thus: Smitty Two wrote: A friend of mine had a system put on his roof a year ago. He has no batteries, so the meter runs backwards during the day and forwards at night. He spent $18,000, and he's saving $60 a month. Hardly a respectable return, financially. Within six months, we're planning to have a system of equivalent output that's 1/3 the size at 1/3 the cost. That should be approaching viability from an investment standpoint, particularly with the gov't incentives now in effect. The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the argument you make is a total straw man. Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy. That's absurd. The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all, conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called "picking the low-hanging fruit".) Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm sure you'll be quite comfortable with. (Note lack of smiley faces.) Careful now. You jumped in with really intelligent comments and some may get very upset:-)) Lou |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the argument you make is a total straw man. Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy. That's absurd. The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all, conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called "picking the low-hanging fruit".) Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm sure you'll be quite comfortable with. (Note lack of smiley faces.) You're right that just because solar doesn't scale well doesn't mean that it can't find applications. I'm a big fan of solar-powered calculators. And you are likewise correct that some roofs are candidates for solar collectors, although there are probably sufficient sites that are much cheaper to obtain than commercial rooftops. My beef with solar is that it doesn't make economic sense. As of March, 2009, the US Department of Energy estimates the LOWEST cost of solar electricty generation for commercial applications to be 21¢ per KWH. And the HIGHEST cost of generation for non-solar to be about five cents. (Similar numbers for residental applications are 37¢ and 9¢.) http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarprices.htm As an aside, I'm comfortable with multiculturalism. Studying different cultures invites comparisons. Comparisons generate "better-worse" rankings. Rankings put the notion of "cultural equivalence" down the drain. Comparing a culture that put a man on the moon and eradicated Polio with a society that never developed the wheel or a written language is fun. |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:32:35 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote: wrote: The sun delivers 740 watts/sq meter of energy to the earth. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 70% conversion and adjusting for latitude, hours of sunlight, and weather, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) to provide the peak demand of 50GWatts just for California. 1200 square miles is larger than the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system. On the plus side, it would leave Los Angeles in the dark. The only way to improve on this situation is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. Necessity may dictate some solar power applications, but pervasive solar power cannot be justified solely on the basis of economics. It's inconceivable it ever will be. Man will never fly... And who says all the solar panels have to be in one place? Add up the square footage of all the roofs in California and tell us how much area we have to work with. If each home can produce 25% of the energy it needs, that will be HUGE. That could work, but there are unintended consequences and the unknown unknowns. Just one example: The most common event requiring emergency room treatment is a fall. Now figure 500,000 middle-aged men going up on their roof a couple of times a year in Los Angeles to remove leaves (or snow in Chicago) and you're looking at a significant expense. What you COULD do is require at least a three-story house as a requirement for a solar panel. That way, if there's a fall, at least there wouldn't be an emergency-room visit... In place of 500,000 solar panels, the good folks in Los Angeles could probably build a couple of 10 Gigawatt nuclear power plants cheaper. And have fewer falls. Talk about the possibility of unintended consequences! LOL |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:32:32 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story. So? The country isn't now run on coal, oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear. It's run on a combination of technologies. Solar is poised to become one of them, in a significant percentage. I have solar on my boat. I never plug into shore power - ever. |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Passive venting does nothing. The regular fan with a thermostat will
be far better On Apr 3, 8:32*am, wrote: On Apr 3, 7:45*am, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: Can anyone speak of the reliability of solar powered attic fans ? *I can buy one for $217.00 in Lowes and live in an area where electricity is pretty high. * A comparable electric Attic Fan is $70.00 . *Each comes with a 5 year warranty . *Thanks. Solar hot water is often a good deal and passive solar heating helps. Solar-electric anything is a bad investment. Check here for the skinny on solar fans (but it's a competitive site, so take with a grain of salt)http://www.savenrg.com/venting.htm If one's motivation is to help the environment, it's often better to buy the "wasteful" alternative and donate the difference to the Plant an Owl Society. One calculation you could make is to figure out how long an equivalent fan would have to run to consume the $217-70= $147 worth of electricity. * That is what you are paying for up front. * I'll bet it's quite a long time because the solar fans are not very powerful. Balance that against the probability that the solar fan lasts that long. *I'd also bet the $70 regular fan moves a lot more air. In general, I believe passive attic venting is best, ie good soffit venting together with a ridge vent.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 4, 12:17*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 3, 11:29*pm, Smitty Two wrote: In article , wrote: A 3X improvement is not an order of magnitude, which would be 10X. Agreed. In the 10x case, I'm talking about energy density per unit of area, of the detector itself. In the 3x case, I'm talking about the solar collector assembly as a whole. The discrepancy is due to gathering a large area of light and focusing it on a small detector. Detector? *What is a detector? Maybe I'm using a non-standard term. Solar cell? Solar power can be very efficent and economical to install. I walled up my screen room with plastic corigated greenhoues sheathing and that supplimented my NG furnace. The panels cost me about $200. I spent a Saturday morning installing them. My fuel bill was half of what it was last year. Im planning on putting up some solar panels for heating hot water. This is a heck of a lot more efficent than photocells. At present I cant afford the up front cost but I would like to super insulate my home. I have been in a home that was super insulated an their electric bill in an all electric home was half of mine which is electric/NG. Jimmie- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, using solar in the manner you describe can be efficient and economical to use in some cases. However what we are discussing is the generation of electricity via solar. The thread started with a question about using solar to run an attic fan. |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 4, 7:43*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote: Like most detractors of solar energy/proponents of nuclear power, the argument you make is a total straw man. Nobody is proposing that we should try to build a solar infrastructure that could supply the entire *peak demand* for electrical energy. That's absurd. The whole idea is to use solar-generated electricity in a *mix* of environmentally-friendly sources, including wind, geothermal, perhaps tidal, and good old standbys like cogeneration and the best of all, conservation (i.e., not using energy unnecessarily). Applying each technology where it's appropriate and economic. (F'rinstance, how about covering the thousands of acres of flat, unobstructed rooftops in any major urban area with photovoltaic panels? That's called "picking the low-hanging fruit".) Think of it as a sort of energy multiculturalism, a concept that I'm sure you'll be quite comfortable with. (Note lack of smiley faces.) You're right that just because solar doesn't scale well doesn't mean that it can't find applications. I'm a big fan of solar-powered calculators. And you are likewise correct that some roofs are candidates for solar collectors, although there are probably sufficient sites that are much cheaper to obtain than commercial rooftops. My beef with solar is that it doesn't make economic sense. As of March, 2009, the US Department of Energy estimates the LOWEST cost of solar electricty generation for commercial applications to be 21¢ per KWH. And the HIGHEST cost of generation for non-solar to be about five cents. (Similar numbers for residental applications are 37¢ and 9¢.)http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarprices.htm Good post with the economic reality. This is exactly why I find the 3X reduction in cost and size that Smitty claims is going to be available in 6 months hard to believe. If it were true, it would totally change the economics and viability of solar electric. Take that 37c number for residential electric and cut it by 3X, and you have 12c electric which is about the average cost today. Here in NJ, I'm paying about 17c, so solar would be immediately cost effective. Today, it simply is not. I wonder how many people listening to the Obamas of the world realize any of the economic issues. In his last press conference when they asked him about running trillion dollar deficits forever, he said we needed to do it among other reasons, to end or dependence on foreign oil. He continued by saying the alternative is to be faced with $4 gasoline again. Of course what he didn't say is that all of the alternative sources that he's forcing us to convert to will cost about that much too. Only difference is that we will be burdening an economy that's in poor shape with those costs NOW. The real truth here is that most of the environmental extremists want to cut off what we are using today, eg close all nukes right now, with promises of running on solar, wind, etc. And then when it comes time to actually implement solar or wind, the same nuts are standing in the way of that too. That's exactly what is happening here in NJ. The environmentalists are lobbying to shut down our Oyster Creek nuke and at the same time opposing offshore windmills. And it just happened with the plans to place windmills or solar in the Mojave desert, when they were blocked the same way. If we listen to these extremists, the lights will be out before long. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
|
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Smitty Two wrote:
In article , dpb wrote: Smitty Two wrote: ... Orders of magnitude, as opposed to incremental, advances in detector efficiency in just the last few years are a matter of public record. The detectors themselves are in mass production and available for sale. ... Where might that be...somehow I missed it on Letterman...or even in the Obama plan. -- They're at the 7-11. Aisle 3, left side, next to the Oreos. And probably about as cost-effective as burning the O's in a conventional boiler... -- |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 05:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Big Jim
wrote: Passive venting does nothing. The regular fan with a thermostat will be far better I don't know where you got that notion, but it's wrong. If you have soffit vents and a ridge vent done properly, it will be far more effective than any fan you install. It's not even close. |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
Keep kidding yourself, Hot humid air will go nowhere without help
On Apr 4, 1:53*pm, wrote: On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 05:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Big Jim wrote: Passive venting does nothing. *The regular fan with a thermostat will be far better I don't know where you got that notion, but it's wrong. If you have soffit vents and a ridge vent done properly, it will be far more effective than any fan you install. It's not even close. |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Solar Powered Attic Fans ; good investment and reliable ???
On Apr 4, 8:36*am, wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:17*am, JIMMIE wrote: On Apr 3, 11:29*pm, Smitty Two wrote: In article , wrote: A 3X improvement is not an order of magnitude, which would be 10X. Agreed. In the 10x case, I'm talking about energy density per unit of area, of the detector itself. In the 3x case, I'm talking about the solar collector assembly as a whole. The discrepancy is due to gathering a large area of light and focusing it on a small detector. Detector? *What is a detector? Maybe I'm using a non-standard term. Solar cell? Solar power can be very efficent and economical to install. I walled up my screen room with plastic corigated greenhoues sheathing and that supplimented my NG furnace. The panels cost me about $200. I spent a Saturday morning installing them. My fuel bill was half of what it was last year. Im planning on putting up some solar panels for heating hot water. This is a heck of a lot more efficent than photocells. At present I cant afford the up front cost but I would like to super insulate my home. I have been in a home that was super insulated an their electric bill in an all electric home was half of mine which is electric/NG. Jimmie- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, using solar in the manner you describe can be efficient and economical to use in some cases. * However what we are discussing is the generation of electricity via solar. * The thread started with a question about using solar to run an attic fan.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In other words you are just BSing instead of thinking about practical applications. Jimmie |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Solar-powered lights - recommendations please ?? | UK diy | |||
Solar powered Cooking. | UK diy | |||
Solar or Electric Attic Exhaust Fans? | Home Repair | |||
Solar Powered Water Pump | UK diy | |||
Solar powered post light | Home Repair |