On Jun 10, 10:31*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:58:49 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Subsidies are what the government pays

The CUSTOMER pays.

--

A CUSTOMER pay to who he chooses.

On Jun 10, 11:33*am, tony sayer wrote:
Oh, we have an expert here that doesn't own any?

No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

That statement doesn't make any sense.
Care to rephrase?

Two people who have solar panels, PV ones that is, fitted to their
houses say that if they had to buy them from scratch at the prices they
are installed, would be rather poor if they depended on the power they
saved by the amount of power they actually generated..

FWIW a close neighbour has some panels, quite a few, and Two of them are
in shade when the sun shines from most any direction so I suppose
they're not generating enough to cover their costs either.

Do they affect all the others especially if they are series connected..
--
Tony Sayer

It depends.
On the common technology, on domestic size installations they are
usually all in series. A shadow on any one results in a a massive
reduction in power output.

However there is new technology where each panel has a tiny inverter.
These function independently.

Still, pointless putting them in the shade.

The cost of electricity is gong to rise massively in the future
whatever the source.
PV may well end up being cheapest of all.

Theway the tarrif is structured there are three sources of income.
You are paid for everything generated (whether you use it yourself or
not).
You get a small amount for that what's deemed to be exported (50%)
Plus you save some electricity off your bill.

In days of yore, benefit on capital was around 18% inc tax.
Nowadays it's about 10%. Depending on how ideal your location is.

So get some in.

On Jun 10, 11:34*am, tony sayer wrote:
No I don't, but two people who I do know have them, and both have said
if they had to pay the full price for them they've never have bothered
with what they'd get back..

Output is reduced in overcast conditions not zero.

Yes quite thus far this year;!...

Actually up on last year. The next three months are the critical ones.

Are you saying we have had more hours of sunshine this year compared
with last year?..
--
Tony Sayer

So far yes.
But they work significantly more efficiently when it's cold so that's
another factor, The cold North winds we have been having. Also I am in
the lee of mountains, the Fohn effect reduces atmospheric moisture
(clouds)

On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
.....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri...


I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.


The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

On 09/06/2013 16:25, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/13 12:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/06/2013 09:01, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:49, harry wrote:
Renewable technologies are about saving fossil fuel.

What is the reason to save them?

None whatsoever, given that we already have the technology to breed
oil from algae feeding on human or animal waste. Admittedly it
currently costs $800 a barrel, but that is in laboratory conditions
and the cost could be expected to plummet were it to be done on an
industrial scale.


No. In the end synthesising hydrocarbon fuels requires energy, and that
energy costs.

You will never be able to make a kwh or electricity and make 3 kwh of
fuel from it.

If the syntheshis is algaeic, using sunlight, you are in the solar
panel/biofuel game, but at appallingly low efficiencies. Solar panels
are far better than algae, the only advantage of 'biofuels' is that they
produce an energy STORE, but you pay a high price. Conversion efficiency
is typically less than 1% compared with 10-40% for a solar panel. So
once again the need for massive solar collecting areas arises.

The expected actual yield for a simple non-concentrating sunlight system
is in the range of 40,000 - 50,000 litres, per hectare per annum,
assuming 50% oil content. The 40,000 would be at Kuala Lumpur, where the
yield for palm oil is around 5,950 l/ha/a.

Better is to use nuclear heat or electricity to fashion hydrocarbons. At
around £5-£10 a litre.

Or about $1200 - $2400 a barrel. OTOH, algal oil could probably be
brought down to near conventional oil prices, consumes waste products
and produces biomass that can be burned or converted into fertiliser.

Colin Bignell

I can imagine harry's excuses if it becomes a "home" energy product..

"sorry I can't drive to work today as I have been constipated for days
and the algae has starved to death"

On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.


Careful you are acusing TNP's FIL of being a thief.

On 10/06/2013 11:33, tony sayer wrote:




Two people who have solar panels, PV ones that is, fitted to their
houses say that if they had to buy them from scratch at the prices they
are installed, would be rather poor if they depended on the power they
saved by the amount of power they actually generated..

Someone came around last week offering free panels to all the houses
with suitable roofs. so even at 16p a unit the FITS are enough to make
it worthwhile.
Tesco will fit panels if you want clubcard points. 8-)


FWIW a close neighbour has some panels, quite a few, and Two of them are
in shade when the sun shines from most any direction so I suppose
they're not generating enough to cover their costs either.

Do they affect all the others especially if they are series connected..


Yes, by a lot.
there are a few cowboys about fitting panels.
There is one near the west brom staples where at least half the panels
are in shade for half the day.
Its a bungalow and is surrounded by trees.

On 10/06/2013 11:30, dennis@home wrote:

Since the typical 250w panel only weighs about 16 kg where does all the
glass go?

well, if 250W is 16Kg, 1kW is 64Kg, 1MW 64 tonnes and 1000Mw 64,000 tonnes.

He's only quoted a couple of hundred. What did I do wrong?

Andy

On 10/06/13 22:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.


Careful you are acusing TNP's FIL of being a thief.
No. his panels are water heating. He was promised 'halving the heating
bills' In fact he spent MORE on heating.. the fine print said 'halve
tour hot *water* bills' which I pointed out to him.

He chose to believe the SPIV harry clone.

getting the panels cleaned and serviced cost more than he saved in the
whole year.

Money down the drain.


--
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.

On Jun 10, 7:12*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20....

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri....

I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.

The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

No. It's the first photo/link to the link I posted.
Showing the truth. What's happening now.

After the tar sands are processed there is a mountain od toxic waste.

On Jun 10, 10:21*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.


Theft is theft when it's illegal.

On Jun 11, 1:56*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 10/06/13 22:21, dennis@home wrote: On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.

Careful you are acusing TNP's FIL of being a thief.

No. his panels are water heating. He was promised 'halving the heating
bills' In fact he spent MORE on heating.. the fine print said 'halve
tour hot *water* bills' which I pointed out to him.

He chose to believe the SPIV harry clone.

getting the panels cleaned and serviced cost more than he saved in the
whole year.

Money down the drain.

Load of ********. Unless near horizontal, no cleaning is needed, the
glass is self cleaning.

PV panels are far more useful them thermal. Electricity can be used
for anything. And of course be exported.

On 11/06/2013 01:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/06/13 22:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.


Careful you are acusing TNP's FIL of being a thief.
No. his panels are water heating. He was promised 'halving the heating
bills' In fact he spent MORE on heating.. the fine print said 'halve
tour hot *water* bills' which I pointed out to him.

He chose to believe the SPIV harry clone.

getting the panels cleaned and serviced cost more than he saved in the
whole year.

Money down the drain.



He's not going to claim the RHI then?

On 11/06/2013 06:53, harry wrote:

PV panels are far more useful them thermal. Electricity can be used
for anything. And of course be exported.


Being exported being the biggest problem.

On 11/06/2013 06:45, harry wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:12 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri...

I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.

The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

No. It's the first photo/link to the link I posted.
Showing the truth. What's happening now.

After the tar sands are processed there is a mountain od toxic waste.

Nothing that wasn't in the soil to begin with and, what they can't sell,
can go back into the pit as part of the reclamation. There will also
probably be a requirement for much greater protection against leaching
out than from the untreated sands.

Colin Bignell

On Jun 11, 9:19*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 11/06/2013 01:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 10/06/13 22:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/06/2013 09:34, Tim Streater wrote:

You're just rationalising, harry. Subsidised theft is still theft,
whichever way you slice it.

Careful you are acusing TNP's FIL of being a thief.
No. his panels are water heating. He was promised 'halving the heating
bills' In fact he spent MORE on heating.. the fine print said 'halve
tour hot *water* bills' which I pointed out to him.

He chose to believe the SPIV harry clone.

getting the panels cleaned and serviced cost more than he saved in the
whole year.

Money down the drain.

He's not going to claim the RHI then?

It hasn't started yet for domestic properties.
Spring 2014 allegedly I think.

Green Deal is running.

On Jun 11, 3:13*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 11/06/2013 06:45, harry wrote:







On Jun 10, 7:12 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri....

I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.

The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

No. It's the first photo/link to the link I posted.
Showing the truth. What's happening now.

After the tar sands are processed there is a mountain od toxic waste.

Nothing that wasn't in the soil to begin with and, what they can't sell,
can go back into the pit as part of the reclamation. There will also
probably be a requirement for much greater protection against leaching
out than from the untreated sands.

Colin Bignell

It's not possible to put the land back as it was.
Poisonous chemicals are leached out and pollute the rivers/ground
water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_san...nmental_issues

On 11/06/2013 16:29, harry wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:13 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 11/06/2013 06:45, harry wrote:







On Jun 10, 7:12 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 17:53, harry wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:28 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 10/06/2013 08:18, harry wrote:
....
This is what you want?
http://www.businessinsider.com/photo...a-oil-sands-20...

Try

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tou...s-in-situ-chri...

I think maybe you should look at the last picture in that sequence.
And the comment accompanying it.

The picture of the aircraft they used for the article you linked to that
shows the old way of doing things? The economics of the two methods mean
that is going to die out once they have finished with the existing mines
and reinstated the land.

Colin Bignell

No. It's the first photo/link to the link I posted.
Showing the truth. What's happening now.

After the tar sands are processed there is a mountain od toxic waste.

Nothing that wasn't in the soil to begin with and, what they can't sell,
can go back into the pit as part of the reclamation. There will also
probably be a requirement for much greater protection against leaching
out than from the untreated sands.

Colin Bignell

It's not possible to put the land back as it was.

Putting it back as it was is part of the licence conditions and it has
already been done where the mining is complete. It is something that
happens wherever there is open cast mining.

Poisonous chemicals are leached out and pollute the rivers/ground
water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_san...nmental_issues

As I said, there is nothing that was not in the ground to begin with and
the licence most likely includes conditions that will make leaching less
probable than from untreated sands.

Colin Bignell