Question on the 45 watt chicago electric solar panel that Harbor Freight
sells for $150.00 .Anybody have any experience with these units ? What
could a person power with one ? coffee pot ,light bulb? thanks for any
responses hlb

HL B123 wrote:
Question on the 45 watt chicago electric solar panel that Harbor Freight
sells for $150.00 .Anybody have any experience with these units ? What
could a person power with one ? coffee pot ,light bulb? thanks for any
responses hlb

Mean delivered power wil be close to 20-30 percent, or ~10 watt.
Paying 150 dollar for that seems to be a very bad investment,
as additional cost(installation, battery bank, convertor , etc,
needs a payback time of about 100 years.
As a source of power in an inaccessible locations, it might be
useful, like battery maintenance in a remote location.

On Oct 20, 12:04 pm, (HL B123) wrote:
Question on the 45 watt chicago electric solar panel that Harbor Freight
sells for $150.00 .Anybody have any experience with these units ? What
could a person power with one ? coffee pot ,light bulb? thanks for any
responses hlb

Andy comments.

If it was in Dallas, which has 5.5 full sun hrs per day, the panel
would generate 5.5 x 365 days x 45 watts = 90 kwh per year.

At 11 cents per kwh, that would be $9.90 worth of electricity per
year, if purchased off the grid......

That is about the same as one would get in interest if the $145 plus
shipping ($10) plus battery($60) plus wiring ($10) plus inverter($50)
were put in the bank instead, and one would still have the money
available......

It isn't a business decision, it is a hobby toy.

Andy in Eureka, Texas

Andy wrote:
On Oct 20, 12:04 pm, (HL B123) wrote:
Question on the 45 watt chicago electric solar panel that Harbor
Freight sells for $150.00 .Anybody have any experience with these
units ? What could a person power with one ? coffee pot ,light bulb?
thanks for any responses hlb

Andy comments.

If it was in Dallas, which has 5.5 full sun hrs per day, the panel
would generate 5.5 x 365 days x 45 watts = 90 kwh per year.

At 11 cents per kwh, that would be $9.90 worth of electricity per
year, if purchased off the grid......

That is about the same as one would get in interest if the $145 plus
shipping ($10) plus battery($60) plus wiring ($10) plus inverter($50)
were put in the bank instead, and one would still have the money
available......

It isn't a business decision, it is a hobby toy.

Andy in Eureka, Texas

then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway that is
battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just the thing to get
to keep a small battery charged.

Thanks for all answers . I don‘t think I really need one after all.
hlb

On Oct 20, 1:38 pm, "chaniarts" wrote:


Andy in Eureka, Texas

then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway that is
battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just the thing to get
to keep a small battery charged.

Andy writes:
Absolutely correct. There is a definite niche for solar power, or
wind power, or for bicycle operated generators. Any place one needs
a continuously availble source of a small amount of power, solar will
do nicely.... usually.... except maybe in things like coal mines
(grin).....

However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

Andy in Eureka, Texas

Andy wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:38 pm, "chaniarts" wrote:


Andy in Eureka, Texas

then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway
that is battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just
the thing to get to keep a small battery charged.

Andy writes:
Absolutely correct. There is a definite niche for solar power, or
wind power, or for bicycle operated generators. Any place one needs
a continuously availble source of a small amount of power, solar will
do nicely.... usually.... except maybe in things like coal mines
(grin).....

However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

Andy in Eureka, Texas

You make a couple of good points.

In addition is is not within the boundaries of physics to run this country
off of sunbeams, yet we keep pouring (government) money into the quest for
perpetual motion, er..., Sasquatch, er..., ah, I've got it, "Solar Power."

The ONLY way it would be POSSIBLE to run a city or a state off of sunbeams
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Andy wrote:
That is about the same as one would get in interest if the $145 plus
shipping ($10) plus battery($60) plus wiring ($10) plus inverter($50)
were put in the bank instead, and one would still have the money
available......

Please let us know the bank that pays you that much interest.

On 10/20/2010 5:31 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:38 pm, wrote:


Andy in Eureka, Texas

then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway
that is battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just
the thing to get to keep a small battery charged.

Andy writes:
Absolutely correct. There is a definite niche for solar power, or
wind power, or for bicycle operated generators. Any place one needs
a continuously availble source of a small amount of power, solar will
do nicely.... usually.... except maybe in things like coal mines
(grin).....

However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

Andy in Eureka, Texas

You make a couple of good points.

In addition is is not within the boundaries of physics to run this country
off of sunbeams, yet we keep pouring (government) money into the quest for
perpetual motion, er..., Sasquatch, er..., ah, I've got it, "Solar Power."

The ONLY way it would be POSSIBLE to run a city or a state off of sunbeams
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.


And for the umpteenth time, solar/= electricity. Photovoltaic or
focused-mirror steam (or salt-slurry) power generation only makes sense
for certain niche applications (at least with current technology), or in
certain areas where the sun shines most of the time, and the feeling is
laid back. But passive solar, if designed in, can pay for itself almost
anywhere, as long as the people using the building are willing to put up
with the daily and seasonal changes in routine to take advantage of it.
(Or you automate the whole thing, but that is still currently pretty
expensive.) Every gallon of water or cubic foot of air you heat however
many degrees with solar, is that many less BTUs of electric or oil or
gas you need to use. And if the house is shaped right, and the local
outside air is tolerable, solar can provide plenty of 'free' inside
airflow. The 1902 building I work in used to be set up that way, until
they 'modernized' it and tore out all the elevated openable skylights
and air shafts, and blocked off all the transoms above the doors when
they added the drop ceilings.
--
aem sends...

On Oct 21, 4:17*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:31 PM, HeyBub wrote:



Andy wrote:
On Oct 20, 1:38 pm, *wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * * *Andy in Eureka, Texas

then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway
that is battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just
the thing to get to keep a small battery charged.

Andy writes:
* *Absolutely correct. *There is a definite niche for solar power, or
wind power, or for bicycle operated generators. *Any place one needs
a continuously availble source of a small amount of power, solar will
do nicely.... usually.... *except maybe in *things like coal mines
(grin).....

* * However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

* * * * * * * * * * Andy in Eureka, Texas

You make a couple of good points.

In addition is is not within the boundaries of physics to run this country
off of sunbeams, yet we keep pouring (government) money into the quest for
perpetual motion, er..., Sasquatch, er..., ah, I've got it, "Solar Power."

The ONLY way it would be POSSIBLE to run a city or a state off of sunbeams
is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

And for the umpteenth time, solar/= electricity. Photovoltaic or
focused-mirror steam (or salt-slurry) power generation only makes sense
for certain niche applications (at least with current technology), or in
certain areas where the sun shines most of the time, and the feeling is
laid back. *But passive solar, if designed in, can pay for itself almost
anywhere, as long as the people using the building are willing to put up
with the daily and seasonal changes in routine to take advantage of it.
(Or you automate the whole thing, but that is still currently pretty
expensive.) Every gallon of water or cubic foot of air you heat however
many degrees with solar, is that many less BTUs of electric or oil or
gas you need to use. And if the house is shaped right, and the local
outside air is tolerable, solar can provide plenty of 'free' inside
airflow. The 1902 building I work in used to be set up that way, until
they 'modernized' it and tore out all the elevated openable skylights
and air shafts, and blocked off all the transoms above the doors when
they added the drop ceilings.
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The problem is that PV panels are only round 5% efficient..

On Oct 21, 1:34*am, "Bob F" wrote:
Andy wrote:
That is about the same as one would get in interest if the $145 plus
shipping ($10) plus battery($60) plus wiring ($10) *plus inverter($50)
were put in the bank instead, and one would still have the money
available......

Please let us know the bank that pays you that much interest.

Here in UK, solar power Kwh are paid for at $0.80 by gov. edict.
Whether you use the power yourself or not. There's also the save of
not buying some power plus you get even more for what you export.
Now people are getting no interest for their money in the banks, there
is a big rush to get PV panels fitted on roofs.
The return is about 8%.

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:
-snip-
However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

Andy in Eureka, Texas

That must explain why Walmart, (a publically traded company that is
LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the best interest of shareholders
financial interests) is doing it all over the place. If it didn't have
a demonstrable ROI, they couldn't do it. They are responsible and
legally bound to the shareholders.

How do they turn a profit on the 100s of millions they give to
charities each year? I think they are earning good will with
their solar installs- not ROI.

In the long run that is a good thing because maybe, someday, solar
will be a viable option. But that time isn't here yet.

Jim

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first heart
transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some things that
just cannot be done.


Or, of course, you could whine and complain like lost sheep, while
China works their collective asses off, and beats us to it.


China is opening, on average, one coal-fired power plant per week, at least
500 in the next decade.

On 10/21/2010 9:32 AM spake thus:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.

So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It
can't be done? Is that your argument?

You mentioned Walmart: what about eBay, which has a huuuuge solar
installation (leased from Solar City) on their campus down here in
Silly-con Valley?

eBay's not exactly the company that pops into mind when one thinks of
tree-hugging-type organizations, and yet they consider it a good
BUSINESS DECISION to go solar. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And "harry", try 12% efficiency, not 5%. And rising (thin-film
technology, dontcha know).


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM harry spake thus:

The problem is that PV panels are only round 5% efficient..

As U stated elsewhere in this thread, you're waaaaay off. Even current
ordinary off-the-shelf panels achieve 12% efficiency. But that's nowhere
near the limit: for instance, solar concentrator cells, like these from
Opel Solar (http://www.opelinc.com/concentrators.html) can get up to 36%
(see their data sheet at
http://www.opelinc.com/datasheets/Da...eet-Mk-Id.pdf).

More expen$ive, sure, but even the price of these will drop eventually.

But I have to say I agree totally with what Aemeijers said he solar
power does NOT necessarily mean only photovoltaic power (electricity).
Years ago, when I was involved with the alternative energy movement, the
emphasis was on what was called "direct use of the sun's energy", or
"passive solar". This includes both solar heating (domestic hot water
and living space) as well as sun "tempering" to reduce air-conditioning
needs in hot climates, through building design, tree plantings, etc.

Think of it as the "apple orchard" concept: you naturally pick the
low-hanging fruit first. Rather than massive investment in high-tech
production plants, with all their environmental problems (not to mention
energy consumption and expense), why not reduce energy by the easiest
and most cost-effective means *first*? Like by designing homes and
buildings that aren't energy sieves or energy pigs.

As Amory Lovins put it so well decades ago, our energy use regime is
like a bathtub with a leaking drainplug, and our only solution seems to
be to pour more and more water into it to keep it full. Instead, how
about just replacing the goddamn drainplug?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.


So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It can't
be done? Is that your argument?

No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city off of
sunbeams."

The total radiation falling on the surface of the earth is about 1,300W/m^2.
At 23 degrees of latitude. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude,
clouds, hours of darkness, and assuming 50% efficiency, it would take a
solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq mi) to
provide for the power needs of just California (~50GW).

Imagine the cost, time to construct, and maintenance of a mechanical
apparatus 35 miles on a side. Heck, that's bigger than the pyramids!

On Oct 21, 5:41*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:
-snip-
* *However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish
the
earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision
regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even
in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE
exception
being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set
up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds
the
electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the
politician
can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...

* * * * * * * * * *Andy in Eureka, Texas

That must explain why Walmart, (a publically traded company that is
LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the best interest of shareholders
financial interests) is doing it all over the place. If it didn't have
a demonstrable ROI, they couldn't do it. They are responsible and
legally bound to the shareholders.

How do they turn a profit on the 100s of millions they give to
charities each year? * * *I think they are earning good will with
their solar installs- not ROI.

Aw c'mon! They write off all those good works on their taxes. That
leaves you and me to pick up the tab.


In the long run that is a good thing because maybe, someday, solar
will be a viable option. *But that time isn't here yet.

Nor will it come until there is heavy money poured into research. WITH government participation! If the whores in Congress and the gutless p***k in the White House would promote this the way Kennedy pushed humans reaching the moon, something might get done.
But don't hold your breath. Big Oil and its corporate fellow-criminals
still run the country.

HB

On 10/21/2010 7:04 PM spake thus:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:19:15 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

You mentioned Walmart: what about eBay, which has a huuuuge solar
installation (leased from Solar City) on their campus down here in
Silly-con Valley?

How much of that was picked up by the beleaguered California tax
payer?

Some of it. Don't know exactly how much.

Myself, I don't mind paying it. I consider it money well spent.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 10/21/2010 9:51 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500,
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.


So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It can't
be done? Is that your argument?

No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city off of
sunbeams."

The total radiation falling on the surface of the earth is about 1,300W/m^2.
At 23 degrees of latitude. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude,
clouds, hours of darkness, and assuming 50% efficiency, it would take a
solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq mi) to
provide for the power needs of just California (~50GW).

Imagine the cost, time to construct, and maintenance of a mechanical
apparatus 35 miles on a side. Heck, that's bigger than the pyramids!



People that grow flowers and such have been using solar power for
hundreds of years. They are called greenhouses. They open and close
vents and shades to fine-tune the temp as needed. A lot of the same
principles can be applied to residences and commercial spaces, thereby
reducing the electric/gas/oil they need to get by.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:


People that grow flowers and such have been using solar power for
hundreds of years. They are called greenhouses. They open and close
vents and shades to fine-tune the temp as needed. A lot of the same
principles can be applied to residences and commercial spaces, thereby
reducing the electric/gas/oil they need to get by.

Which, of course, is not generating electricity which is what the
solar energy scam.. er... industry is being built on. Alternative energy
GENERATION sources have to be in place by mandate, without regard to
there actual usefulness (or heck in some cases without regard to the
physics.) This is a whole different ball of wax that actually works. I
use many of these at my house (I also have strategically planted trees).
But these are also things that are really only gonna help at the
margins.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

aemeijers wrote:
On 10/21/2010 9:51 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500,
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.


So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It
can't be done? Is that your argument?

No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city
off of sunbeams."

The total radiation falling on the surface of the earth is about
1,300W/m^2. At 23 degrees of latitude. At noon. With no clouds.
Adjusting for latitude, clouds, hours of darkness, and assuming 50%
efficiency, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los
Angeles basin (1200 sq mi) to provide for the power needs of just
California (~50GW). Imagine the cost, time to construct, and maintenance
of a mechanical
apparatus 35 miles on a side. Heck, that's bigger than the pyramids!



People that grow flowers and such have been using solar power for
hundreds of years. They are called greenhouses. They open and close
vents and shades to fine-tune the temp as needed. A lot of the same
principles can be applied to residences and commercial spaces, thereby
reducing the electric/gas/oil they need to get by.

Agreed. But greenhouses and the like don't scale to the city level.

wrote:

There is a big solar push in New Jersey right now. One of my
inspector friends has posted pictures of a couple of big projects
going on in his city, at tax payer expense.
Germany is also doing a lot of this and the cost per KWH is working
out to be about .55 Euro.
That works out to be a .44 Euro green tax per KWH on all the energy
they create this way.
Imagine quadrupling your electric bill for the same usage and you get
an idea of the wonders of solar power. That is more than it costs to
rent, buy fuel and run a 36 KVA diesel generator next to your house.


So, you prefer to keep funding worldwide terrorists? My feeling is
that the cost of reducing oil usage is worth pretty much whatever we
pay. Wars aren't cheap, and they really aren't effective for this
problem, either. Solar power, even with what it costs right now, is a
very cost effective measure to help defund terrorists by needing less
of their oil.

Almost none of the oil used in this country goes to provide heat, light,
electrical generation, etc. Ninety-plus percent of domestic oil usage goes
for transportation. Virtually no amount of greenhouses or solar power will
make a dent in the amount of oil used, whether it comes from terrorist
countries (i.e., Canada is our biggest supplier of imported oil) or is
produced domestically.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "energy independence." Oil is fungible,
that is, can be freely substituted.

Suppose we opened up all our drilling possibilities (ANWAR, off-shore, etc.)
such that we could produce all the domestic oil we needed at the world
price. That would drive down world demand. Lowered world demand would, in
turn, drive down the world price. A lowered price would encourage domestic
buyers to step back into the world market in an obvious feedback loop.

Aside:
Those who say the war in Iraq was about oil feel frustrated because the U.S.
doesn't get much oil from Iraq. This seemingly negates their claim. But, ah
ha! More Iraqi oil on the market lowers the price for everybody, including
the U.S., so those who claim oil was the causes belle for the war could have
been correct!

Still, oil is a classic reason for starting a war. Hitler invaded Russia for
oil, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a step to gaining oil from the
East Indies. War over oil happens all the time.

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:51:27 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:22:16 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first
heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones
done today?

Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some
things that just cannot be done.


So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It
can't be done? Is that your argument?

No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city
off of sunbeams."



False and intellectually dishonest argument based on a bogus premise.

I can be persuaded otherwise - just gimme the facts (I know maths is hard,
but try).

wrote:

I can be persuaded otherwise - just gimme the facts (I know maths is
hard, but try).


Your problem is not math. Your problem is how you dishonestly approach
the entirety of the issue.

Please explain why you insist that solar photo voltaics must provide
all of our electricity in order to be a viable supplier of some of our
electricity.

I don't insist that that anything be a sole source of electricity. I never
said I did, nor do I believe it.

To repeat what I said:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

For those applications where it is possible to run some piddly thing off of
sunbeams, most of the time so doing is roughly equivalent to using mahogany
to toast marshmallows.

aemeijers wrote:
On 10/22/2010 4:11 PM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

I can be persuaded otherwise - just gimme the facts (I know maths
is hard, but try).


Your problem is not math. Your problem is how you dishonestly
approach the entirety of the issue.

Please explain why you insist that solar photo voltaics must provide
all of our electricity in order to be a viable supplier of some of
our electricity.

I don't insist that that anything be a sole source of electricity. I
never said I did, nor do I believe it.

To repeat what I said:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire]
country/state/city off of sunbeams."

For those applications where it is possible to run some piddly thing
off of sunbeams, most of the time so doing is roughly equivalent to
using mahogany to toast marshmallows.




You ain't listening, Bub. Not all applications require electricity.
Just as a trivial example, a coil of black pipe on a garage roof
makes a dandy pool or house water pre-heater, so the regular water
heater doesn't have to work so hard. Yes, you do have to remember to
take it out of the circuit and drain it when winter comes, but that
can be as simple as turning a couple of valves if you do it right.
Very popular up here in frozen north, to extend pool season a couple
of weeks. No, solar will never replace all other energy sources,
especially those that require the very convenient but luxurious form
of energy known as electricity. But there is low hanging fruit out
there, for people who will open their eyes.

Your trivial example is, indeed, trivial. Millions of trivials add up to
(let me think, mumble-mumble, carry-the-three) ah, here it is... trivial.

I agree there are applications that nibble at the margins. But thinking in
terms of solar water heaters and walkway lighting and kitchen sunlights is
extremely parochial. Just ONE Aluminum foundry on the edge of a town of
50,000 homes uses more electricity than the rest of the town! Even if no one
in the town had solar water heating!

On 10/22/2010 11:04 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

There is a big solar push in New Jersey right now. One of my
inspector friends has posted pictures of a couple of big projects
going on in his city, at tax payer expense.
Germany is also doing a lot of this and the cost per KWH is working
out to be about .55 Euro.
That works out to be a .44 Euro green tax per KWH on all the energy
they create this way.
Imagine quadrupling your electric bill for the same usage and you get
an idea of the wonders of solar power. That is more than it costs to
rent, buy fuel and run a 36 KVA diesel generator next to your house.


So, you prefer to keep funding worldwide terrorists? My feeling is
that the cost of reducing oil usage is worth pretty much whatever we
pay. Wars aren't cheap, and they really aren't effective for this
problem, either. Solar power, even with what it costs right now, is a
very cost effective measure to help defund terrorists by needing less
of their oil.

Almost none of the oil used in this country goes to provide heat, light,
electrical generation, etc. Ninety-plus percent of domestic oil usage goes
for transportation. Virtually no amount of greenhouses or solar power will
make a dent in the amount of oil used, whether it comes from terrorist
countries (i.e., Canada is our biggest supplier of imported oil) or is
produced domestically.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "energy independence." Oil is fungible,
that is, can be freely substituted.

Suppose we opened up all our drilling possibilities (ANWAR, off-shore, etc.)
such that we could produce all the domestic oil we needed at the world
price. That would drive down world demand. Lowered world demand would, in
turn, drive down the world price. A lowered price would encourage domestic
buyers to step back into the world market in an obvious feedback loop.

Aside:
Those who say the war in Iraq was about oil feel frustrated because the U.S.
doesn't get much oil from Iraq. This seemingly negates their claim. But, ah
ha! More Iraqi oil on the market lowers the price for everybody, including
the U.S., so those who claim oil was the causes belle for the war could have
been correct!

Still, oil is a classic reason for starting a war. Hitler invaded Russia for
oil, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a step to gaining oil from the
East Indies. War over oil happens all the time.


Is it your view that the war is more about stability in that region of
the world than about anything else?

TDD

On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."


There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful, solar
power would have to supply all power used, day and night?



Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you need
to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like solar PV
ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since we
still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or even on a
cloudy day. If any significant number of people start using solar
energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.



I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar cells
and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy. Perhaps solar
energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir where it could be
used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining. The problem is, how
do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for later consumption? 8-)

TDD

On Oct 23, 6:42*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful, solar
power would have to supply all power used, day and night?

Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you need
to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like solar PV
ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since we
still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or even on a
cloudy day. If any significant number of people start using solar
energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.

I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar cells
and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy. Perhaps solar
energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir where it could be
used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining. The problem is, how
do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for later consumption? 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar energy can be used to lop the daytime peaks in electricity
usage. Obviously other sources will be needed for the base usage.

On 10/23/2010 3:33 AM, harry wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:42 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful, solar
power would have to supply all power used, day and night?

Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you need
to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like solar PV
ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since we
still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or even on a
cloudy day. If any significant number of people start using solar
energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.

I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar cells
and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy. Perhaps solar
energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir where it could be
used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining. The problem is, how
do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for later consumption? 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar energy can be used to lop the daytime peaks in electricity
usage. Obviously other sources will be needed for the base usage.

There is an incredible amount of solar energy hitting the planet.
If we can figure out a way to harness and STORE it efficiently,
there would be no need to burn coal and other fossil fuels to
produce electricity to run cities and industry. If the problem
was solved tomorrow, we would still need those fossil fuels for
the production of energy and propulsion where solar won't work.
I read an interesting story about a solar powered air conditioning
system that works great as long as there is abundant sunshine.
What do you do in an area that's hot and humid without the sunshine?
Of course when someone develops practical nuclear fusion power,
we'll be making our own sunshine.

TDD

Just remember---The country that has most of the oil also has most of
the sunshine.

On 10/23/2010 6:10 AM, Herb Eneva wrote:
Just remember---The country that has most of the oil also has most of
the sunshine.


Canada? 8-)

TDD

On Oct 23, 6:33*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:33 AM, harry wrote:





On Oct 23, 6:42 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful, solar
power would have to supply all power used, day and night?

Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you need
to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like solar PV
ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since we
still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or even on a
cloudy day. If any significant number of people start using solar
energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.

I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar cells
and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy. Perhaps solar
energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir where it could be
used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining. The problem is, how
do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for later consumption? 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar energy can be used to lop the daytime peaks in electricity
usage. *Obviously other sources will be needed for the base usage.

There is an incredible amount of solar energy hitting the planet.
If we can figure out a way to harness and STORE it efficiently,
there would be no need to burn coal and other fossil fuels to
produce electricity to run cities and industry.


There is an incredible amount of water hitting the plane If we can
just figure out a way to harness it and get it to the Mojave desert,
we can turn it into a super farming area and supply the world food.


If the problem
was solved tomorrow, we would still need those fossil fuels for
the production of energy and propulsion where solar won't work.
I read an interesting story about a solar powered air conditioning
system that works great as long as there is abundant sunshine.
What do you do in an area that's hot and humid without the sunshine?
Of course when someone develops practical nuclear fusion power,
we'll be making our own sunshine.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 22, 8:24*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/22/2010 4:11 PM, HeyBub wrote:





wrote:

I can be persuaded otherwise - just gimme the facts (I know maths is
hard, but try).

Your problem is not math. Your problem is how you dishonestly approach
the entirety of the issue.

Please explain why you insist that solar photo voltaics must provide
all of our electricity in order to be a viable supplier of some of our
electricity.

I don't insist that that anything be a sole source of electricity. I never
said I did, nor do I believe it.

To repeat what I said:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

For those applications where it is possible to run some piddly thing off of
sunbeams, most of the time so doing is roughly equivalent to using mahogany
to toast marshmallows.

You ain't listening, Bub. Not all applications require electricity. Just
as a trivial example, a coil of black pipe on a garage roof makes a
dandy pool or house water pre-heater, so the regular water heater
doesn't have to work so hard. Yes, you do have to remember to take it
out of the circuit and drain it when winter comes, but that can be as
simple as turning a couple of valves if you do it right. Very popular up
here in frozen north, to extend pool season a couple of weeks.

If only it were anywhere near that simple. A coil of black pipe on a
garage roof doesn't make a dandy pool heater. Not one that's going to
make a rat's ass difference in extending the pool season by a couple
of weeks in even the mid-Atlantic region, let alone the frozen
north. Go to any of the websites that sell or discuss solar pool
heating and you'll find that the solar collector needs to be about the
size of the pool surface. So, a 40X20 pool needs an 800 sq ft
collector on a south facing roof. Don't have a south facing roof?
Then you can use a west facing roof, but then you need an even larger
collector because there is less sun. So, how big is that garage
roof? And even then, you'll find that there are all caveats that go
with it, like recommending that you also use a pool cover to cut down
heat loss. Don't want to screw around with a pool cover? Then you
need an even bigger solar collector. That's why gas pool heaters are
typically 200 to 400K BTUs. You don't get that kind of heat out of a
roll of black pipe.

As for using that loop to pre-heat water for the water heater in the
summer, that doesn't compute either. Many homes are going to draw
most of the hot water in the evening or early morning when there is
little or no sun. My entire gas bill to heat water in the summer is
under $20 a month. Not much incentive to go screwing around with
installing a "coil" of black pipe on the roof, especially when you
realize it;s not quite that simple.

That's not to say solar pool heating doesn;t work. It works in
places like Florida or AZ, where there is lots of sun and the cool
down over night is far less than what it is in NY. Even there, it
takes a system like described above, not a roll of pipe.


No, solar
will never replace all other energy sources, especially those that
require the very convenient but luxurious form of energy known as
electricity. But there is low hanging fruit out there, for people who
will open their eyes.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is it your view that the war is more about stability in that region of
the world than about anything else?


lets hope not.

removing saddam has increased iran becoing more powerful force in the
area.

making the world less safe for everyone.

and between the wikileaks info and we can expect a civil war as soon
as US troop numbers drop enough.......

bush set the stage for WW3

On Oct 21, 1:30*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:08:12 -0400,
wrote:

That must explain why Walmart, (a publically traded company that is
LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the best interest of shareholders
financial interests) is doing it all over the place. If it didn't have
a demonstrable ROI, they couldn't do it. They are responsible and
legally bound to the shareholders.


This poster has an obvious misunderstanding of how corporations work
and what they are legally required to do. There is no legal
requirement that every activity they undertake must have a
demonstrable ROI. One clear example is money corporations donate to
charities, schools, etc. In the case of any environmental endeavor,
not that they even have to give a good explanation, but if some gadfly
asked at the annual meeting "Why are you wasting money on XYZ green
project?", all they have to say is that they want to be an
environmentally responsible corporation and they believe it helps the
corporate image and brings value in the long run. End of story.

In the case of Walmart, I don't know how much they are spending/doing
with green energy, but I can guarantee it's such a small drop in the
bucket, that it's impact on the bottom line is negligible. And their
motivation is likely driven in part to try to alleviate all the bad
publicity they get from the left wing loons who try to portray them as
some kind of evil empire.

Anyone that understands the basic facts about solar electricity knows
that without large govt subsidies, it's totally economically unviable
for replacement of conventional electricity at today's electricity
rates. With a 40% federal subsidy and various state subsidies, then
it can make sense for an individual or corporation, but only because
the rest of us are paying for it. How much sense that makes is
highly questionable. Clearly, there isn't enough subsidy money
available for deployment to make even a dent in our overall
electricity usage. There is the theory that by doing so, it will
eventually drive the price down so that it becomes cost effective and
can stand on it's own. But a good question then becomes, rather than
using billions of taxpayers money to deploy something that isn't cost
effective, could the money or even less money be used more effectively
for research to develop solar technology and manufacturing methods
that would be cost effective?



It doesn't have to be a complete replacement for anything else to be
effective.

Walmart can get generous payments from the government that your
average homeowner may not be able to manage and they also write some
of this off to advertising.
A whole lot of Florida residents are still waiting for their promised
$4 a watt for solar installs and the program is broke. A big
corporation might be able to wangle a tax break, unavailable to
mortals.

The other unanswered question is what impact does the solar
installation have on the lifespan of your roof and who pays to remove
and reinstall it when the roof goes bad?

Yes, just another example of a real issue that people gloss over.
Clearly if you install one on a new roof, you'd buy the longest life
shingles and then the roof and system should have about the same
lifespan. But if you have a 12 year old roof, then what?



I looked at all of this and passed on the idea, mostly because I found
out the Florida rebate wasn't coming.

In NJ, between the Fed tax credit and the utilities being required to
buy green energy certificates to meet state mandates, it works out to
be feasible here. NJ also has a state credit program to help pay for
the system upfront, but it's a typical govt cluster screw job. They
allocated X millions to it and give out the money quarterly. Last
quarter, they had so many applications, they ran out of money. And
one would think that they would then pro-rate the money so everyone
got their fair share. No, it doesn't work that way. Some got $10K
+, others got zippo. And to get it, you have to submit a complete
application which includes a ton of certification data, a signed
contract with the company installing it, etc. BEFORE you install it.
So, the poor jerks that did all that last quarter and didn't get
squat, can now start the process all over again, because they don't
just put you on the list, they toss the whole thing and you start all
over again.



BTW the other thing I found out, the cheap way to get some used
collectors is to talk to a roofer. If you are willing to remove them
yourself they might be close to free.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Still, oil is a classic reason for starting a war. Hitler invaded
Russia for oil, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a step to
gaining oil from the East Indies. War over oil happens all the time.


Is it your view that the war is more about stability in that region of
the world than about anything else?


Admittedly "stability" is a gamble. Of the fifty-odd majority-Muslim
countries in the world, only a very, very few could be called democracies
(Malaysia and Turkey come to mind). The rest are theocracies (Iran),
Oligarchies (Egypt), Monarchies (Kuwait, Jordan), out-and-out tyrannies
(Lybia), or simply anarchies (Sudan and Somalia).

Still, if any country has a chance for democracy, Iraq is probably highest
on the list. It has a well-educated, secular society and ample natural
wealth. Iraq is under the protective umbrella of the most powerful nation on
earth and (now) has no natural enemies.

wrote:
Is it your view that the war is more about stability in that region
of the world than about anything else?


lets hope not.

removing saddam has increased iran becoing more powerful force in the
area.

making the world less safe for everyone.

and between the wikileaks info and we can expect a civil war as soon
as US troop numbers drop enough.......

bush set the stage for WW3

You have a couple of seemingly valid points.

I submit, however, that Iran is moving toward making Iran less safe for
everyone in Iran, not the rest of the world.

If push comes to shove - say Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz - the rest of
the world will turn on them in an instant with a vengeance of immeasurable
proportions. There might be a WW3, except it'll be most of the world against
Iran!

The result will be quick and decisive. Iran has to import food. The country
has to even import GASOLINE, for crying-out-loud. They have virtually NO
stockpiles of fuel (even the Japanese had over a year's supply of oil saved
up when they attacked Pearl Harbor).

The country is run by egomaniacs completely detached from reality and their
general staff got its military training out of G.I. Joe comic books.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:33 AM, harry wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:42 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire]
country/state/city off of sunbeams."

There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful,
solar power would have to supply all power used, day and night?

Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you
need to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like
solar PV ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since
we still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or
even on a cloudy day. If any significant number of people start
using solar energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.

I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar
cells and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy.
Perhaps solar energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir
where it could be used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining.
The problem is, how do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for
later consumption? 8-) TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar energy can be used to lop the daytime peaks in electricity
usage. Obviously other sources will be needed for the base usage.

There is an incredible amount of solar energy hitting the planet.

True.

If we can figure out a way to harness and STORE it efficiently,
there would be no need to burn coal and other fossil fuels to
produce electricity to run cities and industry.

True. But that's like saying "If we had eggs, we could have eggs for
breakfast."

In the U.S., the MOST solar energy available is in the New Mexico - Arizona
area and averages about 5kwH/m^2/day
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data...tlas/serve.cgi

California used 275,000 GWh of electricity in 1999. That's

275,000,000,000,000 / 5,000 = 55 billion m^2 of solar collectors
(assuming 100% conversion).

That's 13.5 million acres of solar collectors, or a bit over 21,000 square
miles.

About half the size of Ohio.

If we assume 50% conversion losses, we could power California by the simple
expedient of turning Ohio into one, big, honkin' solar collector. We'd also
need wire and stuff.

On 10/23/2010 7:47 AM, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:24 pm, wrote:
On 10/22/2010 4:11 PM, HeyBub wrote:





wrote:

I can be persuaded otherwise - just gimme the facts (I know maths is
hard, but try).

Your problem is not math. Your problem is how you dishonestly approach
the entirety of the issue.

Please explain why you insist that solar photo voltaics must provide
all of our electricity in order to be a viable supplier of some of our
electricity.

I don't insist that that anything be a sole source of electricity. I never
said I did, nor do I believe it.

To repeat what I said:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire] country/state/city off
of sunbeams."

For those applications where it is possible to run some piddly thing off of
sunbeams, most of the time so doing is roughly equivalent to using mahogany
to toast marshmallows.

You ain't listening, Bub. Not all applications require electricity. Just
as a trivial example, a coil of black pipe on a garage roof makes a
dandy pool or house water pre-heater, so the regular water heater
doesn't have to work so hard. Yes, you do have to remember to take it
out of the circuit and drain it when winter comes, but that can be as
simple as turning a couple of valves if you do it right. Very popular up
here in frozen north, to extend pool season a couple of weeks.

If only it were anywhere near that simple. A coil of black pipe on a
garage roof doesn't make a dandy pool heater. Not one that's going to
make a rat's ass difference in extending the pool season by a couple
of weeks in even the mid-Atlantic region, let alone the frozen
north. Go to any of the websites that sell or discuss solar pool
heating and you'll find that the solar collector needs to be about the
size of the pool surface. So, a 40X20 pool needs an 800 sq ft
collector on a south facing roof. Don't have a south facing roof?
Then you can use a west facing roof, but then you need an even larger
collector because there is less sun. So, how big is that garage
roof? And even then, you'll find that there are all caveats that go
with it, like recommending that you also use a pool cover to cut down
heat loss. Don't want to screw around with a pool cover? Then you
need an even bigger solar collector. That's why gas pool heaters are
typically 200 to 400K BTUs. You don't get that kind of heat out of a
roll of black pipe.

As for using that loop to pre-heat water for the water heater in the
summer, that doesn't compute either. Many homes are going to draw
most of the hot water in the evening or early morning when there is
little or no sun. My entire gas bill to heat water in the summer is
under $20 a month. Not much incentive to go screwing around with
installing a "coil" of black pipe on the roof, especially when you
realize it;s not quite that simple.

That's not to say solar pool heating doesn;t work. It works in
places like Florida or AZ, where there is lots of sun and the cool
down over night is far less than what it is in NY. Even there, it
takes a system like described above, not a roll of pipe.


No, solar
will never replace all other energy sources, especially those that
require the very convenient but luxurious form of energy known as
electricity. But there is low hanging fruit out there, for people who
will open their eyes.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm no expert, so I'll take your word for it. But I see a whole lot of
coils of pipe on roofs here in SW MI, for people with pools.

--
aem sends...

On 10/23/2010 10:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:33 AM, harry wrote:
On Oct 23, 6:42 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 10/22/2010 9:16 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400,
wrote:

"My argument is it is impossible to run this [entire]
country/state/city off of sunbeams."

There. You just said it again.

As well he should ... unless it doesn't get dark where you live.

Don't you have batteries where you live?

And why the thick-headed insistence that in order to be useful,
solar power would have to supply all power used, day and night?

Yeah I do, they are very expensive, a toxic waste site when you
need to get rid of them and a way to make a marginal idea like
solar PV ridiculous.
That is why all of the systems the government will help you pay for
are grid tie.

Unfortunately all you can possibly save is the fuel charges since
we still need all of that generating infrastructure at night or
even on a cloudy day. If any significant number of people start
using solar energy, they will still find a way to bill you for that
infrastructure. It is really about half of your electric bill.

I'm thinking a big problem is a "green" storage solution for storing
the solar power. There are solar energy plants that store the power
in a heat bank where the heat is used to vaporize a working fluid to
run turbine generators. I remember reading something about a system
that had combination solar energy collectors that utilized solar
cells and heated oil as a working fluid to store heat energy.
Perhaps solar energy could be used to pump water into a reservoir
where it could be used to run turbines when the sun isn't shining.
The problem is, how do you capture and hold on to a sunbeam for
later consumption? 8-) TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Solar energy can be used to lop the daytime peaks in electricity
usage. Obviously other sources will be needed for the base usage.

There is an incredible amount of solar energy hitting the planet.

True.

If we can figure out a way to harness and STORE it efficiently,
there would be no need to burn coal and other fossil fuels to
produce electricity to run cities and industry.

True. But that's like saying "If we had eggs, we could have eggs for
breakfast."

In the U.S., the MOST solar energy available is in the New Mexico - Arizona
area and averages about 5kwH/m^2/day
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data...tlas/serve.cgi

California used 275,000 GWh of electricity in 1999. That's

275,000,000,000,000 / 5,000 = 55 billion m^2 of solar collectors
(assuming 100% conversion).

That's 13.5 million acres of solar collectors, or a bit over 21,000 square
miles.

About half the size of Ohio.

If we assume 50% conversion losses, we could power California by the simple
expedient of turning Ohio into one, big, honkin' solar collector. We'd also
need wire and stuff.



Well there are some technologies I've been following that take large
areas of land and these technologies are using methods to store solar
energy so the power generation plant can be a prime source of
electricity. I like the solar updraft tower because it's possible to
store heat energy from the sun to use at night for running the plant.
There is another tower base system called (SHPEGS) which stands for
The Solar Heat Pump Electrical Generation System and these tower
systems can combine different technologies for multiple uses like
the area under the updraft tower as a greenhouse and the SHPEGS can
be used to produce clean water in humid environments. This is some
really interesting stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/home.html

http://www.shpegs.org/

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

TDD