On Sep 29, 6:21*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 17:26, harry wrote:









On Sep 29, 4:03 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 10:50, Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
harry wrote:

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. *As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?) that
gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure, or 97.2%
chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?

Although on the bright side, since each one contributes the cube root of
FA most of the time, you might not notice ;-)

I expect you've got a link to verify this remark?

Here, have a pro wind site's version:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html

25% to 40%

The more poorly sited on shore ones do even less than that.

Very interesting.
Lower down it quotes a load factor of half that of nuclear power.
Better than I thought.
Even burning **** gas is better than nuclear.

Also quote
but this is compared to the maximum power the turbine can give out,
not it's average.

On Sep 29, 10:05*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 17:25, harry wrote:









On Sep 29, 2:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/09/2012 21:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

Depends on your perspective... if you wanted a good return[1] on your
capital, then they are a good way of dipping your snout into the subsidy
trough. With interest rates as they currently stand, its a resonable use
of money (so long as you don't need to borrow it). As Harry's own
figures demonstrate, with all the subsidies, its a nice little earner.
Take those away of course *and you reveal the real picture, which
amounts to spending a shed load of money for a feeble return. With the
"hope" that energy prices might rise enough in the lifetime of the
system to eventually break even.

As long as you don't try to kid anyone you are saving the planet *or
ending the energy crisis then its really down to if you are ethically
comfortable with striping up other bill payers.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.

Indeed, but as a solar salesman you only need to shift product and then
your job is done.

[1] return being somewhat figurative since the actual capital will
depreciate to nothing in the lifetime of the "investment". Still you can
live with that if the income along the way is good enough.

--
You need to get your head out of your arse and you need to see the
news today. *There is to be a steep hike in energy costs this Winter.
Again.
Solar PV will soon be cheap.

Things are changing fast. *Some people are too dopey to see it and do
something about it.

You keep telling us that the price of panels is falling. So what is the
point in buying them now?

When the £100 yours save you per year is worth £500, and the price of a
4kW install is a couple of grand, then we can all jump in without
because it makes sense, and without needing to to be spongers kept
afloat by subsidies pilfered from other people's artificially inflated
energy bills.


So it has.
In the future it will fall more as panels become more efficient, they
will be cheaper to install/need less space per Kw.
But we have to start now. It will take years to make the changeover.
So initially they have to be subsidised to get the ball rolling. The
best place for them is on roofs where they take up no additional
space.
I deserve this money. The government is stealing my money with QE.
I am a trendsetter.
I am taking a chance with the new technology.
You had your chance along with everyone else to do this but you ****
out.
Now stop whinging

In article
, harry
wrote:
On Sep 29, 6:01 pm, charles wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:









On Sep 29, 10:50 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a
96.5% chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As
mine is installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust
free) I expect it will be even more reliable than that.

So if you have 100 of them (I assume there's one in each turbine?)
that gives you about a 2.8% chance that there won't be a failure,
or 97.2% chance that there will.

100 turbines, that's what, about 5 wind farms or so?
If you had a hundred of them I would need less than three replacement
inverters in 20 years. So that would be one every seven years. I
think that would be a pretty acceptable fail rate. If you had 100
motor cars, how many breakdowns would you expect in 20 years? As with
other electronic devices most of the defects would fall within the
guarantee period or run for a long time.

that's a very interesting view of the reliability of electronic
components. You do need to define "a long time". 5 years?, ten
years?, most unlikely to be 20 years.


I have a 1960's radio still works. As long as the components don't
overheat ,or be subjected to vibration or get wet/dusty there's no reason
why they shouldn't last for many decades. It's the mechanical bits goes
wrong.

but I don't suppose it's been switched on all the time since new - like
your inverter would have to be.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sep 26, 10:56*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 26/09/2012 16:43, harry wrote:

Are you illiterate? *Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?

Besides as the equipment has a finite life it has to be amortized over
its operational lifetime, which certainly _feels_ like a running cost.

Andy

So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox? How often do
you need a grease gun? Nil and nil very likely.

On Sep 27, 12:24*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.

No.
Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium plated,
they wear much sooner.

Fallacy. And I thought you knew something about cars.

If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score the
crank.

And copper is harder than hard steel?

Having rebuilt more engines than I can remember in my time, I've never
found a case where replacing shells only when there are signs of bearing
problems works. Only time I'll replace bearing shells without a crank
grind is when carrying out other work which requires splitting the
bearings. Because they are cheap, it makes sense to replace them - in much
the same way as you fit new gaskets.

In the bad old BMC days I used to replace big ends at 30k, mains at 60k
and have a bloody good look at the crank and bores at 120k, if the whole
car lasted that long.

You replaced them on spec - or when there was signs of wear?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

With shell bearings, there are two forms of "wear". Hard particle
lodge in the soft metal and the shaft wears.
OR local overheating causes the shell to distort increasing the
clearances unacceptably.

On Sep 27, 3:27*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

[solar panels]

Sadly they wont be able to be made.

The Chinese have a massive glut of them. *There's a trade row going on
at the mo 'cos they're being accused of dumping them on Europe.

You have to wonder, if they're so good, why they aren't using them
themselves instead of building hundreds of new nuke plants.

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

On Sep 27, 10:53*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.

But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump
won't help there either.

The crankshaft was fine. I ran he car another 10,000 miles before
sold it.
All down to how soon it is before you notice it twerp.

What did you 'notice'?

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

When it was very hot could hear them.

On Sep 27, 8:13*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/09/2012 09:43, harry wrote:









On Sep 26, 5:05 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

* harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
* "Doctor *Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

All solar panels are 100% efficient as the energy you get is free.

No, on your calculation it would make the efficiency = infinity.

Once again the energy you get is FREE.

So is oil.

There is Capital costs in extracting the oil. *Some oil unviable. *Once
oil
is burnt it is gone. *Not the case with sunshine every dawn.

There is capital costs too with the solar panels, chump.
Are you illiterate? *Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

No one maintains the windmills then? In particular the offshore ones,
subject to all that salt water? No one has to do maintenance on hydro
dams and their gennies? The Aussies won't have to maintain their
solar/molten salt setups, if they ever build them?

So somehow we have moved from maintaining PV solar panels to wind
turbines?

No-one maintains steam boilers?
No-one maintains oil rigs?
No-one maintains coal mines?

Look up the thread, Harry. *The point is because of the maintenance and
repair there are running costs for windmills and solar panels, so the
energy is not free even if you ignore the capital costs.

I don't think anyone has suggested that a fossil fuelled system has zero
running costs, because we all know they use fuel.

Andy

The point is the maintenance cost s for solar panels are virtually
zero,
The maintenance cost for wind turbines are very small compared with
boilers, IC engines. And the fuel cost is zero. And the emissions
are zero.

In article
,
harry wrote:
I have a 1960's radio still works. As long as the components don't
overheat ,or be subjected to vibration or get wet/dusty there's no
reason why they shouldn't last for many decades.
It's the mechanical bits goes wrong.

True of a basic device like a radio. But once you involve high power
devices, not usually the case.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future it will fall more as panels become more efficient, they
will be cheaper to install/need less space per Kw.

That's just the same as saying battery cars will become truly practical
when decent batteries become available at a reasonable price. Pure
speculation.

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Besides as the equipment has a finite life it has to be amortized over
its operational lifetime, which certainly _feels_ like a running cost.

Andy

So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox? How often do
you need a grease gun? Nil and nil very likely.

Parts that once were greased are now simply replaced. And they don't last
forever.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
With shell bearings, there are two forms of "wear". Hard particle
lodge in the soft metal and the shaft wears.

Since oil filtration isn't perfect, this is what happens.

OR local overheating causes the shell to distort increasing the
clearances unacceptably

Not a problem on a normal engine.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.

But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump
won't help there either.

The crankshaft was fine. I ran he car another 10,000 miles before
sold it.
All down to how soon it is before you notice it twerp.

What did you 'notice'?


When it was very hot could hear them.

Then the crank was also worn.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/09/2012 23:24, geoff wrote:
In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians

And Drivel.

So, what would we do for entertainment? tell me that


Well, today I've been sailing. We could do with a larger lake...

Andy

On 29/09/2012 08:05, harry wrote:
Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?
And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.
I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence instead of backyard
theoretics.

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

Are we reading the same document?

"If an average inverter lifetime of 5 years is assumed,"

"However, it has been verified that approximately 66% PV inverters have
undergone troubles"

You may have mixed panel and inverter figures.

Andy

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?

So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox?

The gearboxes and differentials get their oil changed every other service
ie 24,000 miles. The engine is every service 12,000 miles.

How ever a number of engines these days share the engine oil with the
gearbox. So that will get changed every service...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/09/2012 08:47, harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:56 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 26/09/2012 16:43, harry wrote:

Are you illiterate? Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?

Besides as the equipment has a finite life it has to be amortized over
its operational lifetime, which certainly _feels_ like a running cost.

Andy

So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox? How often do
you need a grease gun? Nil and nil very likely.


So happens the gearbox oil on both my car and my wife's was changed last
year - 60,000 miles IIRC.

As for the grease gun - well, I no longer do my own servicing, and I
can't tell you whether they have any grease points. I've had cars where
they are service items.

Andy

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:17:19 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


And a typcal MTBF on a *boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.


Full of **** as usual TurNiP.
A steam boiler has to opened up up every year for statutory insurance
inspection
http://www.boileronline.co.uk/servic...al-inspection/


There are different regulations for different types of boiler. For the ones as
used in power stations it is, and always has been, 26 months.


--

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:38:45 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:17:19 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


And a typcal MTBF on a *boiler is 10 years, on a wind turbine its ten weeks.


Full of **** as usual TurNiP.
A steam boiler has to opened up up every year for statutory insurance
inspection
http://www.boileronline.co.uk/servic...al-inspection/


There are different regulations for different types of boiler. For the ones as
used in power stations it is, and always has been, 26 months.

Furthermore the 26 months is for the operation of the safety valves and accuracy
of the pressure gauges. A full inspection and hydraulic test is only every five
years.


--

On 30/09/2012 08:12, harry wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:05 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/09/2012 17:25, harry wrote:









On Sep 29, 2:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/09/2012 21:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Harruy is rather sad really. He knows he boobed badly, but he hasn't the
balls to admit it.

Depends on your perspective... if you wanted a good return[1] on your
capital, then they are a good way of dipping your snout into the subsidy
trough. With interest rates as they currently stand, its a resonable use
of money (so long as you don't need to borrow it). As Harry's own
figures demonstrate, with all the subsidies, its a nice little earner.
Take those away of course and you reveal the real picture, which
amounts to spending a shed load of money for a feeble return. With the
"hope" that energy prices might rise enough in the lifetime of the
system to eventually break even.

As long as you don't try to kid anyone you are saving the planet or
ending the energy crisis then its really down to if you are ethically
comfortable with striping up other bill payers.

But all solar panel salesmen are like that.

Indeed, but as a solar salesman you only need to shift product and then
your job is done.

[1] return being somewhat figurative since the actual capital will
depreciate to nothing in the lifetime of the "investment". Still you can
live with that if the income along the way is good enough.

--
You need to get your head out of your arse and you need to see the
news today. There is to be a steep hike in energy costs this Winter.
Again.
Solar PV will soon be cheap.

Things are changing fast. Some people are too dopey to see it and do
something about it.

You keep telling us that the price of panels is falling. So what is the
point in buying them now?

When the £100 yours save you per year is worth £500, and the price of a
4kW install is a couple of grand, then we can all jump in without
because it makes sense, and without needing to to be spongers kept
afloat by subsidies pilfered from other people's artificially inflated
energy bills.


So it has.
In the future it will fall more as panels become more efficient, they
will be cheaper to install/need less space per Kw.
But we have to start now. It will take years to make the changeover.
So initially they have to be subsidised to get the ball rolling. The

That sounds fine in theory. However even with 100% efficient PV panels,
unless the plan is to tow the whole UK closer to the equator, there is
not going to be enough insolation here to ever make PV a particularly
useful energy source here.

best place for them is on roofs where they take up no additional
space.
I deserve this money. The government is stealing my money with QE.

The claim of many living on state handouts...

I am a trendsetter.
I am taking a chance with the new technology.
You had your chance along with everyone else to do this but you ****
out.
Now stop whinging

I was not whinging. You may even notice that I defended the choice to
buy into PV on the grounds that it makes economic sense due to the level
of subsidy.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Liquorice" wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?

So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox?

The gearboxes and differentials get their oil changed every other service
ie 24,000 miles. The engine is every service 12,000 miles.

How ever a number of engines these days share the engine oil with the
gearbox. So that will get changed every service...


Are you sure? Last car that I can remember sharing its oil was the old mini
with the A series engine. Have any since then?

Tim

Tim+ wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?
So how often do you change the oil in your car gearbox?
The gearboxes and differentials get their oil changed every other service
ie 24,000 miles. The engine is every service 12,000 miles.

How ever a number of engines these days share the engine oil with the
gearbox. So that will get changed every service...


Are you sure? Last car that I can remember sharing its oil was the old mini
with the A series engine. Have any since then?


Mots of BMCs front engined stuff did - 1100 maxi etc etc

Tim


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
How ever a number of engines these days share the engine oil with the
gearbox. So that will get changed every service...


Are you sure? Last car that I can remember sharing its oil was the old
mini with the A series engine. Have any since then?


My thoughts too. It's an arrangement best avoided if possible.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sep 30, 7:26*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 29/09/2012 08:05, harry wrote:

Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?
And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.
I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence *instead of backyard
theoretics.

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. *As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

Are we reading the same document?

"If an average inverter lifetime of 5 years is assumed,"

"However, it has been verified that approximately 66% PV inverters have
undergone troubles"

You may have mixed panel and inverter figures.

Andy

Quote:-
• High MTBF suggests a 20 years lifetime with
90% reliability
The significant reliability performance is a quite
important requirement for the PVSs. Because MIC
signifies that the inverter will be mounted tightly at back
of PV module under outdoors conditions such as high
temperature, variable humidity and so on. Therefore,
integrated AC module should endure all those
extraordinary burdens for implementing excellent
reliability. In order to satisfy sufficiently so high
reliability requirements because of basically 20 years
lifetime from PV module, a high efficiency and reliable
laboratory prototype of a compact low-power inverter
has been implemented. Experiment results show
maximum 96.5% efficiency through using reliable
components. At the same time optimized thermal
management provides the favorable operating
environment for the sake of enhancing the inverter
reliability. The purpose of thermal management is to
remove redundant heat from decisive heat component
without causing negatively effect on reliability of
adjacent components, and sequentially to robust the
system reliability.

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

3.4 System reliability prediction
In order to achieve the high reliability of the MIC
system, film capacitor and special designed power
module including 6 CoolMOS + 6 SiC diodes
investigated technically by Infineon are selected for the
system design in view of the excellent electric
performance and reliability demonstration.
In order to predict the reliability of the MIC system,
MIL-HDBK-217F [13]; Bellcore TR-332 [17] and IEC
62380 [18] are recommended for the calculation
comparison as regarding the typical components
selection and practical operation temperature. For the
reliability prediction, the operation temperature of the
electronic component is an important influence factor,
and 60° operation temperature and 4642 operating hours
in the whole year are supposed.
MTBF [Years]
Figure 5: MTBF comparison using MIL-HDBK-217F,
TR-332 and IEC 62380
All above mentioned prediction models are often
used for the reliability prediction of the commercial
product. No matter what kind of prediction model will be
employed, MTBFmin=37 years could be observed in the
histogram. Besides, the average temperature of the PV
module located in Kassel is Tavg=24.1°C [19]. Thus,
according to the 10°C rule in reliability prediction: every
10°C decreasing will lead to the twice MTBF increasing,
and therefore MTBFavg (min) 200 years.

On 01/10/2012 08:10, harry wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:26 pm, Andy wrote:
On 29/09/2012 08:05, harry wrote:

Well no doubt you can provide statistics regarding maintenance costs
of wind turbines?
And a replacement inverter is not a maintenance cost, it's breakdown.
I haven't heard of a single invertor failure yet.
But unlike you, I can provide written evidence instead of backyard
theoretics.

http://www.pvmips.org/publications/017.pdf

In case you don't understand, it means in 20 years there is a 96.5%
chance there will be no problem with a modern inverter. As mine is
installed in an ideal situation (ie cool, dry and dust free) I expect
it will be even more reliable than that.

Are we reading the same document?

"If an average inverter lifetime of 5 years is assumed,"

"However, it has been verified that approximately 66% PV inverters have
undergone troubles"

You may have mixed panel and inverter figures.

Andy

Quote:-
• High MTBF suggests a 20 years lifetime with
90% reliability
The significant reliability performance is a quite
important requirement for the PVSs. Because MIC
signifies that the inverter will be mounted tightly at back
of PV module under outdoors conditions such as high
temperature, variable humidity and so on. Therefore,
integrated AC module should endure all those
extraordinary burdens for implementing excellent
reliability. In order to satisfy sufficiently so high
reliability requirements because of basically 20 years
lifetime from PV module, a high efficiency and reliable
laboratory prototype of a compact low-power inverter
has been implemented. Experiment results show
maximum 96.5% efficiency through using reliable
components. At the same time optimized thermal
management provides the favorable operating
environment for the sake of enhancing the inverter
reliability. The purpose of thermal management is to
remove redundant heat from decisive heat component
without causing negatively effect on reliability of
adjacent components, and sequentially to robust the
system reliability.

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

3.4 System reliability prediction
In order to achieve the high reliability of the MIC
system, film capacitor and special designed power
module including 6 CoolMOS + 6 SiC diodes
investigated technically by Infineon are selected for the
system design in view of the excellent electric
performance and reliability demonstration.
In order to predict the reliability of the MIC system,
MIL-HDBK-217F [13]; Bellcore TR-332 [17] and IEC
62380 [18] are recommended for the calculation
comparison as regarding the typical components
selection and practical operation temperature. For the
reliability prediction, the operation temperature of the
electronic component is an important influence factor,
and 60° operation temperature and 4642 operating hours
in the whole year are supposed.
MTBF [Years]
Figure 5: MTBF comparison using MIL-HDBK-217F,
TR-332 and IEC 62380
All above mentioned prediction models are often
used for the reliability prediction of the commercial
product. No matter what kind of prediction model will be
employed, MTBFmin=37 years could be observed in the
histogram. Besides, the average temperature of the PV
module located in Kassel is Tavg=24.1°C [19]. Thus,
according to the 10°C rule in reliability prediction: every
10°C decreasing will lead to the twice MTBF increasing,
and therefore MTBFavg (min)200 years.

I hope they know more about PV and MIC than English grammar.

--
Rod

On 30/09/2012 21:19, John Rumm wrote:
I deserve this money. The government is stealing my money with QE.

The claim of many living on state handouts...

This time he's right. The government is stealing my money too.

Or do you mean the bit about deserving it?

Andy

On 01/10/2012 08:10, harry wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:26 pm, Andy Champ wrote:

Are we reading the same document?

"If an average inverter lifetime of 5 years is assumed,"

"However, it has been verified that approximately 66% PV inverters have
undergone troubles"

You may have mixed panel and inverter figures.

Andy

Quote:-
• High MTBF suggests a 20 years lifetime with
90% reliability
The significant reliability performance is a quite
important requirement for the PVSs. Because MIC
signifies that the inverter will be mounted tightly at back
of PV module under outdoors conditions such as high
temperature, variable humidity and so on. Therefore,
integrated AC module should endure all those
extraordinary burdens for implementing excellent
reliability. In order to satisfy sufficiently so high
reliability requirements because of basically 20 years
lifetime from PV module, a high efficiency and reliable
laboratory prototype of a compact low-power inverter
has been implemented. Experiment results show
maximum 96.5% efficiency through using reliable
components. At the same time optimized thermal
management provides the favorable operating
environment for the sake of enhancing the inverter
reliability. The purpose of thermal management is to
remove redundant heat from decisive heat component
without causing negatively effect on reliability of
adjacent components, and sequentially to robust the
system reliability.

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

Yes, I know what MTBF is. Spending my career in electronics has
arranged that one.

3.4 System reliability prediction
In order to achieve the high reliability of the MIC
system, film capacitor and special designed power
module including 6 CoolMOS + 6 SiC diodes
investigated technically by Infineon are selected for the
system design in view of the excellent electric
performance and reliability demonstration.
In order to predict the reliability of the MIC system,
MIL-HDBK-217F [13]; Bellcore TR-332 [17] and IEC
62380 [18] are recommended for the calculation
comparison as regarding the typical components
selection and practical operation temperature. For the
reliability prediction, the operation temperature of the
electronic component is an important influence factor,
and 60° operation temperature and 4642 operating hours
in the whole year are supposed.
MTBF [Years]
Figure 5: MTBF comparison using MIL-HDBK-217F,
TR-332 and IEC 62380
All above mentioned prediction models are often
used for the reliability prediction of the commercial
product. No matter what kind of prediction model will be
employed, MTBFmin=37 years could be observed in the
histogram. Besides, the average temperature of the PV
module located in Kassel is Tavg=24.1°C [19]. Thus,
according to the 10°C rule in reliability prediction: every
10°C decreasing will lead to the twice MTBF increasing,
and therefore MTBFavg (min) 200 years.


The paragraphs you've quoted are about what they hope for. Note the
keywords - "suggests" at the beginning of the first, and "prediction" at
the beginning of the second one. They've quoted figures for existing
systems, and gone on to suggest and predict that by putting inverters on
the back of each panel out in the wind rain and sun will result in a
many fold improvement in reliability over a smaller number of bigger
units inside.

You'll pardon my scepticism.

Andy

On 01/10/2012 19:50, Andy Champ wrote:
On 30/09/2012 21:19, John Rumm wrote:
I deserve this money. The government is stealing my money with QE.

The claim of many living on state handouts...

This time he's right. The government is stealing my money too.

Or do you mean the bit about deserving it?

The bit about deserving it.... (governments dipping their hands into
your pocket one way or another is hardly news)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

SteveW wrote:

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense.

It does not make sense.

Pure electric vehicles
cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of
the "old" technology.

That is pure nonsense.

Steve Firth wrote:

And his voice is muffled when he sits down.

This is a pure idiot

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can cut
my supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of
the land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

AGAIN....."The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the land settled." The Home
counties are UNDERPOPULATED - Kate Barker report. The North West is the
most densely region of the UK.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can cut
my supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of
the land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the
Midlands. Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or
hadn't you noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.

Like a beach?

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

All solar panels are 100% efficient as the energy you get is
free.

No, on your calculation it would make the efficiency = infinity.

Once again the energy you get is FREE.

So is oil.

There is Capital costs in extracting the oil. Some oil unviable.
Once oil is burnt it is gone. Not the case with sunshine every dawn.

There is capital costs too with the solar panels, chump.

There is capital costs with everything.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:49 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with thermpiles in the exhaust
to make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds
like they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient. And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

Harry fantastic, you got it! Unlike some other seniles. An
alternator can take 9-15hp off an engine. Remove it, the mechanical
parasitical loads like oil pump,

So how do you propose this new engine will be lubed then?..

Electric oil pumps.

water pump,

And cooled unless its so so efficient it runs just warm to the
touch?..

Electric water pump that varies its speed.

a/c,

Well we can always just sweat I suppose..

Electric .

and the HP of an engine will rise substantially.
Then the engines can be downsized reducing fuel consumption again.

Suppose we'll have to find candles for the lights so the price of
tallow;!.

You are just plain silly.

Just having an alternator with a clutch that cuts out when
accelerating mean the engine can be downsized and acceleration
improved. Also the starter motors can be downsized as well (cheaper
& less weight

That really going the make any real difference how much of a
percentage is that compared to the weight of the battery system.
Course I suppose once the cars rolling on leccy it can be bump
started...

BMW got 20% increase in Power.

and power drawn from
the battery). All this is easy to do, like the next model update
could have it all - Instead of a 1600cc the engine could be 1300cc.

harry wrote:

The ancilliaries all have their own electric motors. They only run to
the level actually needed.
This is old hat. You can buy this stuff now.

Harry, you are right.

tony sayer wrote:
Tony Sayer

The ancilliaries all have their own electric motors. They only run
to the level actually needed.
This is old hat. You can buy this stuff now.

And that power comes from where?...
--
Tony Sayer

The alternator of course. But far less total power is needed then
running it purely mechanically. And if the power from exhaust gases
proves viable, it will come from there.

Wow!, a gas turbine genset;!...

VW have a genny operated from the waste exhaust heat.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

This man is totally senile. And a Jocko too.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
All electric motors have easily changed bearings? Think you need to
get out more. Besides, when a bearing fails, damage may not be
restricted to the bearing itself.

Tripe! Bearings on large auto electric motors can be quicke replace
units.

Proof, please.

This man is a fool.

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:08:27 -0700, harry wrote:
The main benefit of an electric oil pump is that you can start it
before starting the IC engine so reducing wear to almost nil.

Does it make a significant difference? It's still going to be pumping
cold oil, and for any engine that was recently run I'd expect it to
have a film of oil still clinging to any sliding surfaces.

Pre-heating everything prior to start might be kinder, but that takes
power (or, if you're a little farther north than me, lighting a fire
under the engine block isn't unheard of ;-)

BMW have small oil fired boiler under the bonnet. It heats the engine.oil
very quickly and can preheat as well giving a fully heated engine and heater
when starting out. At 80% efficient, to quick heat the engine and to preheat
it is far more economical than running an engine which will be about 8-10%
efficient on warm up.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

This is a pure idiot

Correct, but don't do yourself down. You're not just an idiot. You are a
certified drooling moron.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/