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.

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.

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...

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

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

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 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.

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 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%.

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