| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
| Date: |
09 Nov 2004 06:10:43 PM |
| Object: |
PV costs |
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
" The Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution Group (PTD) has received an
order from PowerLight Corp. of Berkeley, USA to provide all the electrical
equip-ment for the Bavaria Solarpark photovoltaic plant. With the aid of
silicone panels the plant will convert sunlight directly into electricity,
generating output of 10 megawatts. The order is worth € 4 million, and includes
the delivery of transform-ers, switchgear, inverters, cabling and terminations.
The system is scheduled to commence operation in 2005, thereby becoming the most
powerful of its kind in the world.
Made up of 57,600 solar panels, the 10 megawatts photovoltaic system built by
Power-Light Corp. will cover a total area of 25 hectares at three locations:
Mühlhausen, Günch-ing and Minihof."
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
09 Nov 2004 07:12:20 PM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
" The Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution Group (PTD) has received an
order from PowerLight Corp. of Berkeley, USA to provide all the electrical
equip-ment for the Bavaria Solarpark photovoltaic plant. With the aid of
silicone panels
Silicone? Unlikely. Silicon.
the plant will convert sunlight directly into electricity,
generating output of 10 megawatts.
At night? Cloudy and rainy days? Winter? Dust on the panels?
The order is worth € 4 million, and includes
the delivery of transform-ers, switchgear, inverters, cabling and terminations.
The system is scheduled to commence operation in 2005, thereby becoming the most
powerful of its kind in the world.
Yeah, well... The US creamed Iraq. Twice. Going on three.
Made up of 57,600 solar panels, the 10 megawatts photovoltaic system built by
Power-Light Corp. will cover a total area of 25 hectares at three locations:
Mühlhausen, Günch-ing and Minihof."
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
The Bavaria Solarpark is scheduled over the next 20 years to produce more than 215 million kilowatt hours of environmentally friendly power.
The US had a Federal budget surplus, too. It didn't sustain.
Enviro-whiner: Expensive, Shoddy, Deadly.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
09 Nov 2004 09:18:57 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
" The Siemens Power Transmission and Distribution Group (PTD) has
received an
order from PowerLight Corp. of Berkeley, USA to provide all the
electrical
equip-ment for the Bavaria Solarpark photovoltaic plant. With the aid of
silicone panels
Silicone? Unlikely. Silicon.
the plant will convert sunlight directly into electricity,
generating output of 10 megawatts.
At night? Cloudy and rainy days? Winter? Dust on the panels?
The order is worth ? 4 million, and includes
the delivery of transform-ers, switchgear, inverters, cabling and
terminations.
The system is scheduled to commence operation in 2005, thereby becoming
the most
powerful of its kind in the world.
Yeah, well... The US creamed Iraq. Twice. Going on three.
Made up of 57,600 solar panels, the 10 megawatts photovoltaic system
built by
Power-Light Corp. will cover a total area of 25 hectares at three
locations:
Mühlhausen, Günch-ing and Minihof."
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 09:47:32 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 02:27:54 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41923814.FBFEEEB1@hate.spam.net...
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
So the capital costs to supply a home with solar power is about $1500.00.
( And droping)
Considering that a kilowatt continuous would cost the consumer about
$80.00 per month, the solar power payback would be a couple of years.
I wonder what the capital costs are to supply a home with nuclear power is,
considering construction, fuel costs, waste disposal, pollution, health
risks,
consumption of non-renewable resources, etc. into account.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 02:32:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:27:54 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41923814.FBFEEEB1@hate.spam.net...
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
So the capital costs to supply a home with solar power is about $1500.00.
( And droping)
Considering that a kilowatt continuous would cost the consumer about
$80.00 per month, the solar power payback would be a couple of years.
I wonder what the capital costs are to supply a home with nuclear power is,
considering construction, fuel costs, waste disposal, pollution, health
risks,
consumption of non-renewable resources, etc. into account.
that's about an order of magnitude lower than what is reported in the
local press. closer to $40K with some rebate from the state, if they
are in the mood that day.
Payoff for me would be about 30 years. If it were a couple years I'd
have done it long ago.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 07:59:08 AM |
|
|
Charles wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:27:54 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41923814.FBFEEEB1@hate.spam.net...
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
So the capital costs to supply a home with solar power is about $1500.00.
( And droping)
Considering that a kilowatt continuous would cost the consumer about
$80.00 per month, the solar power payback would be a couple of years.
I wonder what the capital costs are to supply a home with nuclear power is,
considering construction, fuel costs, waste disposal, pollution, health
risks,
consumption of non-renewable resources, etc. into account.
that's about an order of magnitude lower than what is reported in the
local press. closer to $40K with some rebate from the state, if they
are in the mood that day.
Payoff for me would be about 30 years. If it were a couple years I'd
have done it long ago.
That's why I was suprised at how cheap the 10MW power plant was.
I don't think PV rooves will really catch on until payback time is around five
years.
Still, I don't expect that to be more than a decade away.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
14 Nov 2004 05:31:46 PM |
|
|
In article <2g86p01g4dsvqdk4km7of4e84kt0usibov@4ax.com>, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
that's about an order of magnitude lower than what is reported in the
local press. closer to $40K with some rebate from the state, if they
are in the mood that day.
I can't believe that. Here the cost to go completely solo is around $20k to
$25k. That's NZ $ (currently around 70 c NZ to the US).
Payoff for me would be about 30 years. If it were a couple years I'd
have done it long ago.
Depends here if the electricity company want to charge you $12k just to
connect you or not. That makes the solo route very attractive :)
Bruce
------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.
-Redd Foxx
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 12:19:27 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Charles <ckraft@spamtrapwest.net> wrote:
that's about an order of magnitude lower than what is reported in the
local press. closer to $40K with some rebate from the state, if they
are in the mood that day.
Payoff for me would be about 30 years. If it were a couple years I'd
have done it long ago.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
I've been price checking these things for my area (S. California) for
about 5 years now.
Assuming you get the massive state rebate for the installation and you
pay cash for the thing, the best I've seen is about 8 years and that
hasn't changed significantly since I started looking.
That is for a system that costs (after rebates) about $15k.
Of course if you don't have that kind of money in you back pocket and
have to finance the installation, the payback time gets worse.
It also does not include any costs for insurance or property taxes.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 03:33:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:19:27 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
In sci.physics Charles <ckraft@spamtrapwest.net> wrote:
that's about an order of magnitude lower than what is reported in the
local press. closer to $40K with some rebate from the state, if they
are in the mood that day.
Payoff for me would be about 30 years. If it were a couple years I'd
have done it long ago.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
I've been price checking these things for my area (S. California) for
about 5 years now.
Assuming you get the massive state rebate for the installation and you
pay cash for the thing, the best I've seen is about 8 years and that
hasn't changed significantly since I started looking.
That is for a system that costs (after rebates) about $15k.
Of course if you don't have that kind of money in you back pocket and
have to finance the installation, the payback time gets worse.
It also does not include any costs for insurance or property taxes.
I'm too cynical to believe the state would really pay off. I'd expect
to hear "Oops, we just ran out of funds for that project."
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 10:01:56 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 10:52:05 AM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 02:33:37 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41924735.FBB41624@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which
presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or
maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the
above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
If you drive around America (And most other nations.),
you will see that most land is not viable farm land,
and much of this land could be used to generate solar power,
and use the power, as Dirk Bruere states,
to create synthetic fuels, and perform industrial processes.
(There are numerous industrial processes that consume
enormous amounts of energy.)
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 11:34:52 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 02:40:50 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2vf1ppF2l8vpeU2@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which
presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or
maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the
above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
And mountains, and places that can be justified
compared to farming, housing, etc.
As one travels about China,
one sees green houses on the sunny sides of many mountains,
and there are far more sunny sides that are too difficult to farm,
but could be used for solar power.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 12:39:48 PM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
Name one German desert.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guenther von Knakspott" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
11 Nov 2004 05:43:56 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<41926074.775F7E8B@hate.spam.net>...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
[snip]
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
Name one German desert.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 07:01:45 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Sachertorte.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 07:19:49 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Sachertorte.
Bob Kolker
You're short an "s," Bob. Dessert is a double delight.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 07:29:57 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
You're short an "s," Bob. Dessert is a double delight.
I was pulling on you leg, Al.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 09:01:16 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
You're short an "s," Bob. Dessert is a double delight.
I was pulling on you leg, Al.
Go for an extremum, not the median. "8^>)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 09:08:20 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4192D5FC.87BD7C90@hate.spam.net...
Uncle Al wrote:
You're short an "s," Bob. Dessert is a double delight.
"robert j. kolker" wrote
I was pulling on you leg, Al.
Uncle Al
Go for an extremum, not the median. "8^>)
Well then,
ask everybody to call you "Tripod Al" instead of uncle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeppe Madsen" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
12 Nov 2004 04:49:43 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Sachertorte.
Bob Kolker
Actually it is Austrian. You might go for Schwarzwaldertorte or
something like that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 12:42:14 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41916AF4.1F8F099E@hate.spam.net...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
[snip]
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale.
Your comment does not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the above)
costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 01:44:23 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2vf5o4F2kd6gqU1@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Is this right?
http://www.physorg.com/news1911.html
That works out to about 40 cents per watt.
That is an obscenely high price for electricty. Is it direct or
amortized, wholesale or retail? If retail, does it include taxes?
Electrical power is billed based on energy ( Watt hours),
rather than power (Watts).
Perhaps Dirk Bruere was refering to the capital costs per watt
to generate the power, although $4,000,000.00
to build a 10 megawatt power system seems
like a pretty good deal.
That is because you are an empirical idiot, Potter. Look at your
monthly electricity bill and divide. Even a small house pulls a
kilowatt continuous on the average. With a 25% duty cycle
(optimistic) the solar array would on the average power 2500 homes.
Wow, it could power a portion of the Northwood neighborhood in
Irvine. It's beneath contempt.
That is irrelevent, and merely an artefact of scale. Your comment does
not address the cost of PV electricity, which presumably would
find its major utility in supporting daytime industrial activity. Or maybe
creating synthetic fuels.
Would you care to extrapolate some figures for PV electricity (from the
above) costs versus nukes? Enough hand waving.
Sure! You'd need more land area for PV than it would power in an
urban setting. Upgrade farmland to power farms and let Malthus
control power demand by starvation. Hey stoopid - "ye canna break the
laws of physics." That includes thermodynamics.
Use deserts.
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
.....even in the desert:
"... Nine trough power plants in California's Mojave Desert provide the
world's largest generating capacity of solar electricity, with a combined
output of 354" ... www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/22589.pdf
=== but, then at the end of the green blurb misterious words like
"evaluating" and "believe" appear.......A dead give away....ahahahaha
"... generators. The windmills located between Tehachapi and Mojave
are the largest single source of wind-generated electricity in the world." ...
www.co.kern.ca.us/sheriff/mojareah.htm -
=== but if you go there you'll see that this bragging is green *****,
because at any given time 1/2 -2/3rds of the turbines ain't rotating.
And OTOS of the mountain a green ***** club sued the windmillers that
the propellers kill too many birds.......ahahaha..... it probably stopped
being an issue after the windmillers paid the green shits a permit
charge and user fee for each dead bird........ahahahaha...
BUT, for whatever reason .... large scale alternative/renu energy
production just hasn't caught on, despite many desperate tries
and LOTS of funding... for the last 40 years!
Personally, it doesn't surprise me.......Anything that the
green shits touch is doomed to fail because of their
philosophy which is based on their green bible that says:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sic/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
which is why the people in this election have recognized now that
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining =
ahahaha.....ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Bostwick" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 01:35:00 PM |
|
|
In article <2vf5o4F2kd6gqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
From some of the many hits from a Google search of "deserts europe"
"Scientists estimate that nearly 5% of the Earth is covered in desert. They
can be found on every continent except Europe."
"You can find at least one desert on every continent except Europe and
Antarctica."
"Europe is the only continent without deserts; there are, however, semiarid
portions around the Black and Caspian seas, in parts of Ukraine and the N
Caucasus."
"Among the northern deserts are the Gobi in China, the deserts of southwestern
North America, the Sahara in North Africa, and the Arabian and Iranian deserts
in the Middle East. Along the southern belt lie Patagonia in Argentina, the
Kalahari Desert of southern Africa, and the Great Victoria and Great Sandy
deserts of Australia."
Unless the EU is larger than most people believe, it contains no major
deserts. To which EU desert were you referring? Or are you using "desert" to
mean a barren place with little or no population?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 01:43:27 PM |
|
|
David Bostwick wrote:
In article <2vf5o4F2kd6gqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
From some of the many hits from a Google search of "deserts europe"
"Scientists estimate that nearly 5% of the Earth is covered in desert. They
can be found on every continent except Europe."
"You can find at least one desert on every continent except Europe and
Antarctica."
"Europe is the only continent without deserts; there are, however, semiarid
portions around the Black and Caspian seas, in parts of Ukraine and the N
Caucasus."
"Among the northern deserts are the Gobi in China, the deserts of southwestern
North America, the Sahara in North Africa, and the Arabian and Iranian deserts
in the Middle East. Along the southern belt lie Patagonia in Argentina, the
Kalahari Desert of southern Africa, and the Great Victoria and Great Sandy
deserts of Australia."
Unless the EU is larger than most people believe, it contains no major
deserts. To which EU desert were you referring? Or are you using "desert" to
mean a barren place with little or no population?
The desert areas of Spain, notably Andalucía.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 02:42:34 PM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
David Bostwick wrote:
In article <2vf5o4F2kd6gqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
From some of the many hits from a Google search of "deserts europe"
"Scientists estimate that nearly 5% of the Earth is covered in desert. They
can be found on every continent except Europe."
"You can find at least one desert on every continent except Europe and
Antarctica."
"Europe is the only continent without deserts; there are, however, semiarid
portions around the Black and Caspian seas, in parts of Ukraine and the N
Caucasus."
"Among the northern deserts are the Gobi in China, the deserts of southwestern
North America, the Sahara in North Africa, and the Arabian and Iranian deserts
in the Middle East. Along the southern belt lie Patagonia in Argentina, the
Kalahari Desert of southern Africa, and the Great Victoria and Great Sandy
deserts of Australia."
Unless the EU is larger than most people believe, it contains no major
deserts. To which EU desert were you referring? Or are you using "desert" to
mean a barren place with little or no population?
The desert areas of Spain, notably Andalucía.
Fine. Build your German solar power plant, capable of powering maybe
2500 small homes, in Andalucía, Spain.
Enviro-whinerism: Expensive, Shoddy, Deadly.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 03:25:43 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
David Bostwick wrote:
In article <2vf5o4F2kd6gqU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Name one German desert.
Name on *European Union* desert...
Easy, except for an American.
From some of the many hits from a Google search of "deserts europe"
"Scientists estimate that nearly 5% of the Earth is covered in desert. They
can be found on every continent except Europe."
"You can find at least one desert on every continent except Europe and
Antarctica."
"Europe is the only continent without deserts; there are, however, semiarid
portions around the Black and Caspian seas, in parts of Ukraine and the N
Caucasus."
"Among the northern deserts are the Gobi in China, the deserts of southwestern
North America, the Sahara in North Africa, and the Arabian and Iranian deserts
in the Middle East. Along the southern belt lie Patagonia in Argentina, the
Kalahari Desert of southern Africa, and the Great Victoria and Great Sandy
deserts of Australia."
Unless the EU is larger than most people believe, it contains no major
deserts. To which EU desert were you referring? Or are you using "desert" to
mean a barren place with little or no population?
The desert areas of Spain, notably Andalucía.
Fine. Build your German solar power plant, capable of powering maybe
2500 small homes, in Andalucía, Spain.
The first of many.
In Britain wind power is already competitive with fossil fuels *without* subsidies.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 09:20:29 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2vffamF2kc3h3U2@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Fine. Build your German solar power plant, capable of
powering maybe 2500 small homes, in Andalucía, Spain.
Dirk
The first of many.
In Britain wind power is already competitive with
fossil fuels *without* subsidies.
[hanson]
Before getting too exited and spend all that money check this
post from a guy and people that went thru this alternative
green energy exercise:
Re: Spain makes solar panels mandatory in new buildings
"N9WOS" <N9WOS@nobug.att.net> wrote in message
news:%xAkd.880180$Gx4.403185@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Spain is one of the world's biggest manufacturers of solar panels. [So,]
Jose Montilla, the Industry Minister, has announced that from next year,
anyone who intends to build a home will be obliged to include solar panels
in their plans,with the aim of turning Spain from a straggler
to a European leader in the use of renewable energy.
The Socialist Government, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero,
the Prime Minister, is seeking a tenfold increase in the area of solar
panels in use in Spain by the year 2010, from the present total
of 581,000 sq metres.
[N9WOS]
It reminds me of when they had the solar water heating fad around here.
A lot of people put the things on their roof.
No one forced them to, but all the hype had everyone energized.
Result.........
After a few years, most of them were non functional.
I can't even think of one home that still has one on it around here.
If there was a requirement for them, they would still be on the houses
around here,
But they would be only for looks, because none of them would be working.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: PV costs |
10 Nov 2004 09:26:59 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2vffamF2kc3h3U2@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Fine. Build your German solar power plant, capable of
powering maybe 2500 small homes, in Andalucía, Spain.
Dirk
The first of many.
In Britain wind power is already competitive with
fossil fuels *without* subsidies.
[hanson]
Before getting too exited and spend all that money check this
post from a guy and people that went thru this alternative
green energy exercise:
Re: Spain makes solar panels mandatory in new buildings
"N9WOS" <N9WOS@nobug.att.net> wrote in message
news:%xAkd.880180$Gx4.403185@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Spain is one of the world's biggest manufacturers of solar panels. [So,]
Jose Montilla, the Industry Minister, has announced that from next year,
anyone who intends to build a home will be obliged to include solar panels
in their plans,with the aim of turning Spain from a straggler
to a European leader in the use of renewable energy.
The Socialist Government, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero,
the Prime Minister, is seeking a tenfold increase in the area of solar
panels in use in Spain by the year 2010, from the present total
of 581,000 sq metres.
[N9WOS]
It reminds me of when they had the solar water heating fad around here.
A lot of people put the things on their roof.
No one forced them to, but all the hype had everyone energized.
Result.........
After a few years, most of them were non functional.
I can't even think of one home that still has one on it around here.
If there was a requirement for them, they would still be on the houses
around here,
But they would be only for looks, because none of them would be working.
I think this is different.
First, Spain has a *lot* of sunshine.
Second, it's a loss leading national pump primer like the way the Asian
semiconductor companies muscled in on the DRAM game.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
