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.

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.

Proper passive venting will probably work better and be more dependable.

I've never seen much positive here about solar powered fans.

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.

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.

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 -

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.

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.

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.

OTOH, I think there's room for both, at least here in Texas, where
convection alone is strapped to keep up.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

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.

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

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.

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.

In article ,
wrote:


There's more to the energy problems than just the size of your
electric bill. A lot more. wait until they start taxing houses based
on size/occupancy ratios, with a surcharge for excessive energy
consumption. It's coming.

California already has tiered electric rates, as do a few other states.
Once you get above your "baseline allocation," the cost per kwh goes up.
I think there's four or five tiers, although I've never ventured beyond
the second one.

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.

wrote:
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.

If he told you he would have to kill you, but it is a good question.

Lou

In article , LouB
wrote:

wrote:
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.

If he told you he would have to kill you, but it is a good question.

Lou

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.

Using those detectors to build ferociously better solar panels requires
overcoming some engineering challenges. We know how to do that. Of
course, there are many other people working on this, and likely all of
them have more money than we do. Sometimes that's a blessing, sometimes
it's a curse.

The popular press will perk up when the new stuff is out there
producing, I imagine.

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.

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.

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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.

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. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

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)

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

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.

On Apr 3, 3:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.

In a small part, yes...it's highly unlikely to be more than a few
percentage points on a national basis in less than 50+ years, though.

Individual homes, etc., may have their own percentages higher.

Wind, solar, other presently nonconventional sources will all come to
play a role but there's really no alternative for the overall grid for
24/7 to conventional generation for the majority for anytime in the near
future.

The problem all these alternate sources have so far is they are not
baseload nor demand peaking compliant--you can't turn on a solar array
when the sun goes down and nighttime winter heating and lighting loads
go up. While the wind's blowing near 50 mph here today, that doesn't
happen every day (only seems like it) and during the midwinter and
midsummer months (peak heating/cooling respectively) the wind farms here
can only manage about 20% of installed capacity on a monthly average
basis as reported in EIA generation database. This has been consistent
for the eight years' operation of the largest of these installations.

One can fight mother nature but ya' never win...the sun will always set
at night and the wind will continue to be sporadic in nature even in the
most favorable locations.

--

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.

In a small part, yes...it's highly unlikely to be more than a few
percentage points on a national basis in less than 50+ years, though.

Individual homes, etc., may have their own percentages higher.

Wind, solar, other presently nonconventional sources will all come to
play a role but there's really no alternative for the overall grid for
24/7 to conventional generation for the majority for anytime in the near
future.

The problem all these alternate sources have so far is they are not
baseload nor demand peaking compliant--you can't turn on a solar array
when the sun goes down and nighttime winter heating and lighting loads
go up. While the wind's blowing near 50 mph here today, that doesn't
happen every day (only seems like it) and during the midwinter and
midsummer months (peak heating/cooling respectively) the wind farms here
can only manage about 20% of installed capacity on a monthly average
basis as reported in EIA generation database. This has been consistent
for the eight years' operation of the largest of these installations.

One can fight mother nature but ya' never win...the sun will always set
at night and the wind will continue to be sporadic in nature even in the
most favorable locations.

--

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.


I agree - it can.

As I said, the way to do it is to move the earth's orbit closer to the sun.

I've done the math (Maths is hard). It would take a solar collector farm
larger than the entire Interstate Highway system to provide the peak demand
for just the state of California. The cost to build and maintain such a
system and the time for construction are almost immeasurably large. It would
be cheaper and faster to move the orbit.

Further, such a contraption would be the death of the whiskered desert toad
(or similar unknown creature), so the whole idea is doomed from the get-go.

We should be putting our resources into Rearden Metal.

In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:43*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.

TMT

I wrote no such thing. Mind your quoting.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:43 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:


This country cannot be run on sunbeams. Period. End of story.


Actually it can be...and will be.

In a small part, yes...it's highly unlikely to be more than a relatively
few percentage points on a national basis in less than 30-50+ years, though.

Individual homes, etc., of course, may have their own percentages higher.

Wind, solar, other presently nonconventional sources will all come to
play a role but there's really no alternative for the overall grid for
24/7 to conventional generation for the majority for anytime in the near
future.

The problem all these alternate sources have so far is they are not
baseload nor demand peaking compliant--you can't turn on a solar array
when the sun goes down and nighttime winter heating and lighting loads
go up. While the wind's blowing near 50 mph here today, that doesn't
happen every day (only seems like it) and during the midwinter and
midsummer months (peak heating/cooling respectively) the wind farms here
can only manage about 20% of installed capacity on a monthly average
basis as reported in EIA generation database. This has been consistent
for the eight years' operation of the largest of these installations.

During those eight years, the overall average capacity factor (per cent
of design output actually put on the grid) from the EIA data has been
just over 40%. It takes, therefore, on average 2.5X the installed
nameplate capacity to generate a specific number of MWe-hr over an
annual time period, monthly periods may be as much as 10X, daily and
shorter time frames are even more erratic. That extra nonproductive
investment is extremely expensive at best and fatal to a reliable grid
at worst if one thinks one can eliminate conventional generation sources.

I'd note the Wolf Creek nuclear station had an average capacity factor
of 80% over that time frame with a couple of calendar years 95%
average for the year.

The lesson to be drawn is that one can fight mother nature but ya' never
win...the sun will always set at night and the wind will continue to be
sporadic in nature even in the most favorable locations. (Frankly after
two days and going into the third of 40+mph sustained/50+mph gusts, I'd
just as soon it die down a while... )

--

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.
Hi,
What is the rating and spec.?