Another solar manufacturer gives up

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

Another solar manufacturer gives up

Posted by Anthony Watts
Watts Up With That?
Thursday, March 7, 2013

BP Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It seems to be a trend now, last October it was Seimens
who gave up on solar, now it is British Petroleum, who
has been in the solar business nearly 40 years, and has
made the last closure announcements, finalizing what they
announced in 2011.

In the news today:

(Reuters) – British oil major BP shut down the remnants
of its solar unit on Wednesday, drawing a line under the
business on which most of its Beyond Petroleum tagline of
the early 2000s was premised.

The unit, which BP has been scaling back since 2008, is
the latest sun energy business to fall victim to rampant
competition from China, falling prices, overcapacity and
lower government subsidies on which the industry still
depends.

Solar Millennium on Wednesday became the second German
solar company to file for insolvency in December,
following module maker Solon.

U.S. company Solyndra LLC folded earlier in 2011 while
Swiss bank Sarasin said in a recent study that Conergy
and Q-Cells were among the German solar companies most
exposed to the sector’s crisis.

“The continuing global economic challenges have
significantly impacted the solar industry, making it
difficult to sustain long term returns for the company,
despite our best efforts,” BP said in an internal letter
to staff.

The company confirmed on Wednesday that it plans to exit
its large-scale projects at Long Haven in the U.S. and
Moree in Australia.

BP announced plans in July to abandon its household and
industrial rooftop solar activities to concentrate on the
larger projects but said on December15 that even those
were no longer viable.

Continues at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/another-solar-manufacturer-gives-up/

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

o o o

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely
not be read, considered or answered if it does not
contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal
addresses, and live-voice telephone number.

o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.

[Surfer]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:04:02 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>
>Another solar manufacturer gives�up.
>
But hundreds of others remain in business.

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

"....China has over 400 photovoltaic (PV) companies..."

[Petzl]

Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
to actually save power as in generate it for home use
Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
--
Petzl
Lies, damned lies and Labor claims
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2214216.htm
''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,''

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 6:03 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:01:48 +1030, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:04:02 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
>> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another solar manufacturer gives up.
>>>
>> But hundreds of others remain in business.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
>>
>> "....China has over 400 photovoltaic (PV) companies..."
>>
> Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
> to actually save power as in generate it for home use
> Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
>

Yes it's a problem, as all methods of generation have problems.

But not a big enough problem that solar isn't still a very useful tool
in producing electricity.

Typically a house produces 1kWh for 6 hours, when no one is home it goes
to the main user - industry, which operates mainly at those same hours.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Peak electrical demand occurs in the late afternoon and doesn't go
away until well after sunset.

The main users are households and lighting in general.

Here is an example for California:

http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html

This is typical no matter what the area.



--
Jim Pennino

[Petzl]

Yes that's my rckoning for Sydney
--
Petzl
What perfect set of circumstances placed our Sun a Celestial ball of fire at just the correct distance from our little blue planet for life to evolve?
All simply conicidence? The very fact we exist is nothing but the result of a complex yet inevitable string of chemical accidents and biological mutations?
There is no Grand meaning; There is no purpose

[jg]

The highest peak demand happens at night, for about 4 hours.

The system has to provide 3/4 of that demand for about another 12 hours
in daylight, then much less for the remaining 8 hours.

Would if solar panels could cover all demand and better if it was at
peak, but they do contribute for 6 hours if not at the highest demanding
4 hours of day. Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.

They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 8:06 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 06:58:21 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/03/2013 6:03 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:01:48 +1030, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:04:02 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
>>>> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another solar manufacturer gives up.
>>>>>
>>>> But hundreds of others remain in business.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
>>>>
>>>> "....China has over 400 photovoltaic (PV) companies..."
>>>>
>>> Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
>>> to actually save power as in generate it for home use
>>> Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
>>>
>>
>> Yes it's a problem, as all methods of generation have problems.
>>
>> But not a big enough problem that solar isn't still a very useful tool
>> in producing electricity.
>>
>> Typically a house produces 1kWh for 6 hours, when no one is home it goes
>> to the main user - industry, which operates mainly at those same hours.
>>
> Yes that's my rckoning for Sydney
>

I was a little surprised that they produce at least 3/4 as much power in
winter.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9/03/2013 7:17 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Yes it's a problem, as all methods of generation have problems.
>>>
>>> But not a big enough problem that solar isn't still a very useful tool
>>> in producing electricity.
>>>
>>> Typically a house produces 1kWh for 6 hours, when no one is home it goes
>>> to the main user - industry, which operates mainly at those same hours.
>>
>> Peak electrical demand occurs in the late afternoon and doesn't go
>> away until well after sunset.
>>
>> The main users are households and lighting in general.
>>
>> Here is an example for California:
>>
>> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>>
>> This is typical no matter what the area.
>>
>>
>>
> The highest peak demand happens at night, for about 4 hours.
>
> The system has to provide 3/4 of that demand for about another 12 hours
> in daylight, then much less for the remaining 8 hours.

That ratio is highly seasonly dependant.

In the summer the evening/night demand goes way up with everyone turning
on the house A/C and stays up until close to midnight.

> Would if solar panels could cover all demand and better if it was at
> peak, but they do contribute for 6 hours if not at the highest demanding
> 4 hours of day.

The problem is solar contributes nothing useful during the peak demand.

Now if solar were really extremely cheap compared to gas, then it might
be worth something to run it during the day and turn off the gas
generators, but solar is not cheaper than gas by a long shot.

> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.

Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.

> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.

That makes no sense what so ever.



--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 8:59 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 9/03/2013 7:17 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Yes it's a problem, as all methods of generation have problems.
>>>>
>>>> But not a big enough problem that solar isn't still a very useful tool
>>>> in producing electricity.
>>>>
>>>> Typically a house produces 1kWh for 6 hours, when no one is home it goes
>>>> to the main user - industry, which operates mainly at those same hours.
>>>
>>> Peak electrical demand occurs in the late afternoon and doesn't go
>>> away until well after sunset.
>>>
>>> The main users are households and lighting in general.
>>>
>>> Here is an example for California:
>>>
>>> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>>>
>>> This is typical no matter what the area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The highest peak demand happens at night, for about 4 hours.
>>
>> The system has to provide 3/4 of that demand for about another 12 hours
>> in daylight, then much less for the remaining 8 hours.
>
> That ratio is highly seasonly dependant.
>

Oh, a minute ago it was typical no matter what area.

> In the summer the evening/night demand goes way up with everyone turning
> on the house A/C and stays up until close to midnight.
>

And in cold places it goes way up in winter for central heating.
So I should throw away my solar panels because they don't address peak
demand?

>> Would if solar panels could cover all demand and better if it was at
>> peak, but they do contribute for 6 hours if not at the highest demanding
>> 4 hours of day.
>
> The problem is solar contributes nothing useful during the peak demand.
>

That would be a problem at peak demand, for about 4 hours a day.
Perhaps you can think of a way to address that, without burning more coal.

> Now if solar were really extremely cheap compared to gas, then it might
> be worth something to run it during the day and turn off the gas
> generators, but solar is not cheaper than gas by a long shot.
>

Cheap was never the prime motivation for renewable energy, but with the
price of fossil energy increasing the economics look better all the
time. Especially if you are an exporter or importer of fuel.

>> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.
>
> Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.
>

About 1/4 of household energy use, and mostly at times when solar cells
don't operate.

>> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.
>
> That makes no sense what so ever.
>
>
>

Not to anyone who thinks fossil fuel use is just fine as it is.

[Surfer]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:03:58 +1100, Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
>to actually save power as in generate it for home use
>Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
>

Not necessarily. I have seen houses with two sets of panels, one
orientated to generate peak power from morning sun and the other to
generate peak power from afternoon sun.

Such a setup requires more panels, but extends the period of time over
which useful power is available.

[benj]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:50:32 +0800, jg wrote:

> I was a little surprised that they produce at least 3/4 as much power in
> winter.

You are doubtless surprised at any real facts or science. You imaginative
greenies all have huge wet dreams over the myriad breathless media
nonsense describing Solar as some kind of world savior. You need to
actually get off your fat ass and BUY some solar panels. Or at minimum
TALK to someone who actually owns some!

They have their uses, but subbing for fossil fuels ain't one. They are
expensive, toxic to make and don't produce nearly enough power to be
competitive. Plus, you have to store the energy and battery technology
currently sucks big time. Plus, if you want decent output, you need to
have them track the sun.

The trouble with you clowns is you see some brainless media piece where
every parameter has been optimized to produce some imaginary performance
and then it's quoted high and low as if it's real. Media is written by
professional liars. It's simple as that.

If you want a thermometer on a mountaintop nothing beats solar panels.
And when the end comes, a bank of solar panels to run your portable TV or
LED lamp, may be better than sitting in the dark, but is sure AIN'T gonna
replace your electric meter.

And on top of that, have you stupid greenies thought about what covering
Texas with solar panels will do to Global Warming? I didn't think so.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9/03/2013 8:59 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/03/2013 7:17 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Yes it's a problem, as all methods of generation have problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not a big enough problem that solar isn't still a very useful tool
>>>>> in producing electricity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typically a house produces 1kWh for 6 hours, when no one is home it goes
>>>>> to the main user - industry, which operates mainly at those same hours.
>>>>
>>>> Peak electrical demand occurs in the late afternoon and doesn't go
>>>> away until well after sunset.
>>>>
>>>> The main users are households and lighting in general.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example for California:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>>>>
>>>> This is typical no matter what the area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The highest peak demand happens at night, for about 4 hours.
>>>
>>> The system has to provide 3/4 of that demand for about another 12 hours
>>> in daylight, then much less for the remaining 8 hours.
>>
>> That ratio is highly seasonly dependant.
>>
>
> Oh, a minute ago it was typical no matter what area.

It is.

There is a difference between a season and an area.

An area is a place on the planet while a season is a time of year.

The night time peak happens no matter what the area or the season but
the ratio between what happens during the day and night depends on the
season.

During the summer the total demand rises because of air conditioning.

Also, the day time load tends to have a secondary smaller peak a little
after solar noon as A/C loads peak.

>> In the summer the evening/night demand goes way up with everyone turning
>> on the house A/C and stays up until close to midnight.
>>
>
> And in cold places it goes way up in winter for central heating.

Not really.

Heating is a very small user of electricity in most of the US; gas and
fuel oil provide most of the heat.

This may vary in other countries.

> So I should throw away my solar panels because they don't address peak
> demand?

Nope, that would be both stupid and childish.

But if you haven't already thrown money away on solar panels, unless you
are in a very limited niche where it might pay back, you shouldn't do it.

Or if you live somewhere that the government is going to basically give
you the system with other people's tax dollars.

>>> Would if solar panels could cover all demand and better if it was at
>>> peak, but they do contribute for 6 hours if not at the highest demanding
>>> 4 hours of day.
>>
>> The problem is solar contributes nothing useful during the peak demand.
>>
>
> That would be a problem at peak demand, for about 4 hours a day.
> Perhaps you can think of a way to address that, without burning more coal.

It is longer than that in the summer and there are several conventional
ways to generate electricty much cheaper than solar that are not coal.

>> Now if solar were really extremely cheap compared to gas, then it might
>> be worth something to run it during the day and turn off the gas
>> generators, but solar is not cheaper than gas by a long shot.

> Cheap was never the prime motivation for renewable energy,

And there you have the essence of why it is such a loser in the market
place and why energy prices at the consumer level are going through the
roof.

> but with the
> price of fossil energy increasing the economics look better all the
> time. Especially if you are an exporter or importer of fuel.

Nope, natural gas prices are dropping, and gas is just about the only
"fossil fuel" used to generate electricity unless you concider coal
to be a "fossil fuel", and coal use is declining.

>>> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.
>>
>> Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.
>>
>
> About 1/4 of household energy use, and mostly at times when solar cells
> don't operate.

Not hardly unless you have some obsession about taking 6 showers a day.

>>> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.
>>
>> That makes no sense what so ever.
>>
>>
>>
> Not to anyone who thinks fossil fuel use is just fine as it is.

Not to anyone speaking English.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

And runs the cost up to where it is absolutely guarantied that it will
never pay for itself.

But if you want to throw your money away in the delusion that you are
saving the planet, go right ahead.




--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

Yes, it does. The one constant is that the bulk of energy demand is
during the day, when industry operates.

Peak is irrelevant to whether solar cells contribute to energy use, it
would only be relevant if it was suggested as an all-round replacement
for energy production.

>> So I should throw away my solar panels because they don't address peak
>> demand?
>
> Nope, that would be both stupid and childish.
>
> But if you haven't already thrown money away on solar panels, unless you
> are in a very limited niche where it might pay back, you shouldn't do it.
>
> Or if you live somewhere that the government is going to basically give
> you the system with other people's tax dollars.
>

Dunno what's niche about where I live, but our cells save about $1.50 a
day at current raw unsubsidised rates, making $550 a year. They cost
$2000, so that's payback in 3-4 years. Then it's clear profit, even
without subsidies or local prices rising.

>>>> Would if solar panels could cover all demand and better if it was at
>>>> peak, but they do contribute for 6 hours if not at the highest demanding
>>>> 4 hours of day.
>>>
>>> The problem is solar contributes nothing useful during the peak demand.
>>>
>>
>> That would be a problem at peak demand, for about 4 hours a day.
>> Perhaps you can think of a way to address that, without burning more coal.
>
> It is longer than that in the summer and there are several conventional
> ways to generate electricty much cheaper than solar that are not coal.
>

As long as there is use for the energy solar cells provide, they contribute.

>>> Now if solar were really extremely cheap compared to gas, then it might
>>> be worth something to run it during the day and turn off the gas
>>> generators, but solar is not cheaper than gas by a long shot.
>
>> Cheap was never the prime motivation for renewable energy,
>
> And there you have the essence of why it is such a loser in the market
> place and why energy prices at the consumer level are going through the
> roof.
>

Does the market know this?

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

>> but with the
>> price of fossil energy increasing the economics look better all the
>> time. Especially if you are an exporter or importer of fuel.
>
> Nope, natural gas prices are dropping, and gas is just about the only
> "fossil fuel" used to generate electricity unless you concider coal
> to be a "fossil fuel", and coal use is declining.
>

Coal is not a fossil fuel?? Why is it declining?
Gas prices might be dropping where you live, but not here.
What's more it's a valuable export.

>>>> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.
>>>
>>> Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.
>>>
>>
>> About 1/4 of household energy use, and mostly at times when solar cells
>> don't operate.
>
> Not hardly unless you have some obsession about taking 6 showers a day.
>

http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Water,+energy+and+environment/Energy/Energy+efficiency/Home+energy+efficiency/How+energy+is+used+in+the+home

>>>> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.
>>>
>>> That makes no sense what so ever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not to anyone who thinks fossil fuel use is just fine as it is.
>
> Not to anyone speaking English.
>
>
>

Don't assume others don't get it because you can't.

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, benj wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:50:32 +0800, jg wrote:
>
>> I was a little surprised that they produce at least 3/4 as much power in
>> winter.
>
> You are doubtless surprised at any real facts or science. You imaginative
> greenies all have huge wet dreams over the myriad breathless media
> nonsense describing Solar as some kind of world savior. You need to
> actually get off your fat ass and BUY some solar panels. Or at minimum
> TALK to someone who actually owns some!
>

I do, and you apparently... don't.

> They have their uses, but subbing for fossil fuels ain't one. They are
> expensive, toxic to make and don't produce nearly enough power to be
> competitive. Plus, you have to store the energy and battery technology
> currently sucks big time. Plus, if you want decent output, you need to
> have them track the sun.
>

Yeah, we use them to provide about 6kWh a day - it's a lot off the power
bill, even without subsidies.

> The trouble with you clowns is you see some brainless media piece where
> every parameter has been optimized to produce some imaginary performance
> and then it's quoted high and low as if it's real. Media is written by
> professional liars. It's simple as that.
>

I agree, the media is no place to look for scientific information.

> If you want a thermometer on a mountaintop nothing beats solar panels.
> And when the end comes, a bank of solar panels to run your portable TV or
> LED lamp, may be better than sitting in the dark, but is sure AIN'T gonna
> replace your electric meter.
>
> And on top of that, have you stupid greenies thought about what covering
> Texas with solar panels will do to Global Warming? I didn't think so.
>
>

It would shade the ground, if that's your point?

[jg]

Given the performance and financial returns of ours, I have no doubt
more would be better.
From our experience, contra facing panels are likely to extend the
productive time for perhaps only 2 1/2 hours - assuming the first choice
was the best face, the gain in hours might not exceed the most kw's.
Might have been done more because they were running out of roof area.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>> Heating is a very small user of electricity in most of the US; gas and
>> fuel oil provide most of the heat.
>>
>> This may vary in other countries.
>>
>
> Yes, it does.

The subject was the energy used for heating.

> The one constant is that the bulk of energy demand is
> during the day, when industry operates.

No, it is not as can be seen here:

http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html

Peak demand is after sundown.

About 2/3 of the area under the curve is between noon and 1AM.

> Peak is irrelevant to whether solar cells contribute to energy use, it
> would only be relevant if it was suggested as an all-round replacement
> for energy production.

That you say that says you have no clue how the grid and electrical
generation works.

A source of electricity that produces the most output when demand is low
and none when demand is high is of little use unless that source is
extremely cheap, and solar isn't cheap.

<snip>

> Dunno what's niche about where I live, but our cells save about $1.50 a
> day at current raw unsubsidised rates, making $550 a year. They cost
> $2000, so that's payback in 3-4 years. Then it's clear profit, even
> without subsidies or local prices rising.

Is the the total installed cost, including building permits or do you
live somewhere without building codes, a requirment that a licensed
electrician wire it up, no UL listed inverter with autocutoff from
the grid, and you just knocked it together yourself?

<snip>

> As long as there is use for the energy solar cells provide, they contribute.

Not unless they provide energy at a competitive cost, which they don't.

<snip>

>>> Cheap was never the prime motivation for renewable energy,
>>
>> And there you have the essence of why it is such a loser in the market
>> place and why energy prices at the consumer level are going through the
>> roof.
>>
>
> Does the market know this?

Obviously as no one builds solar anything unless there is a subsidy
attached to it.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
>
>
>>> but with the
>>> price of fossil energy increasing the economics look better all the
>>> time. Especially if you are an exporter or importer of fuel.
>>
>> Nope, natural gas prices are dropping, and gas is just about the only
>> "fossil fuel" used to generate electricity unless you concider coal
>> to be a "fossil fuel", and coal use is declining.
>>
>
> Coal is not a fossil fuel?? Why is it declining?

Mostly because of EPA restrictions making it cost too much.

> Gas prices might be dropping where you live, but not here.

Gas prices have been dropping everywhere there is gas in the ground
since 2008.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/

> What's more it's a valuable export.

So what?

>>>>> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.
>>>>
>>>> Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> About 1/4 of household energy use, and mostly at times when solar cells
>>> don't operate.
>>
>> Not hardly unless you have some obsession about taking 6 showers a day.
>>
>
> http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Water,+energy+and+environment/Energy/Energy+efficiency/Home+energy+efficiency/How+energy+is+used+in+the+home

Maybe for Australia, but in the US most water heating is done by gas and
therefor irrelevant to electrical use.

<snip arm waving about fossil fuels>


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

Perhaps in the Outback with no building codes, no UL requriments, no
building inspectors, and do it yourself labor.

But not anyplace in the USA.






--
Jim Pennino

[Will Janoschka]

Throw away your PV panels and grow a tree!

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 12:58 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Heating is a very small user of electricity in most of the US; gas and
>>> fuel oil provide most of the heat.
>>>
>>> This may vary in other countries.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>
> The subject was the energy used for heating.
>

The subject is energy used. Whether it's used for cooling or heating, or
augmented with gas or oil (who uses oil anymore to heat a house?)
anywhere, the overall pattern of electricity use is similar.
After stating 'this is typical no matter what the area', I don't know
why you want to argue that.

>> The one constant is that the bulk of energy demand is
>> during the day, when industry operates.
>
> No, it is not as can be seen here:
>
> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>
> Peak demand is after sundown.
>
> About 2/3 of the area under the curve is between noon and 1AM.
>

Whatever the significance of noon here, there is more area under the
curve during the time solar cells operate than during your peak hours.
Outside those hours there is much less demand.

Nobody said we don't need fossil fuels anymore, just trying to use less
for a start.

As far as any renewable energy source is concerned, it reduces total
fuel burned if it operates at any time when it can be used.

>> Peak is irrelevant to whether solar cells contribute to energy use, it
>> would only be relevant if it was suggested as an all-round replacement
>> for energy production.
>
> That you say that says you have no clue how the grid and electrical
> generation works.
>
> A source of electricity that produces the most output when demand is low
> and none when demand is high is of little use unless that source is
> extremely cheap, and solar isn't cheap.
>

So the coal station runs flat out even when demand is low?

> <snip>
>
>> Dunno what's niche about where I live, but our cells save about $1.50 a
>> day at current raw unsubsidised rates, making $550 a year. They cost
>> $2000, so that's payback in 3-4 years. Then it's clear profit, even
>> without subsidies or local prices rising.
>
> Is the the total installed cost, including building permits or do you
> live somewhere without building codes, a requirment that a licensed
> electrician wire it up, no UL listed inverter with autocutoff from
> the grid, and you just knocked it together yourself?
>
> <snip>
>

Clutching at straws? Just google solar panel installers - no hidden
costs, no shortcuts. That's a straight out honest assessment. That you
don't believe it says a lot.

>> As long as there is use for the energy solar cells provide, they contribute.
>
> Not unless they provide energy at a competitive cost, which they don't.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Cheap was never the prime motivation for renewable energy,
>>>
>>> And there you have the essence of why it is such a loser in the market
>>> place and why energy prices at the consumer level are going through the
>>> roof.
>>>
>>
>> Does the market know this?
>
> Obviously as no one builds solar anything unless there is a subsidy
> attached to it.
>

No one used to, they weren't even widely available 20 years ago.
It's still a big outlay for something which will only repay over time,
when household budgets are often tight.

>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
>>
>>
>>>> but with the
>>>> price of fossil energy increasing the economics look better all the
>>>> time. Especially if you are an exporter or importer of fuel.
>>>
>>> Nope, natural gas prices are dropping, and gas is just about the only
>>> "fossil fuel" used to generate electricity unless you concider coal
>>> to be a "fossil fuel", and coal use is declining.
>>>
>>
>> Coal is not a fossil fuel?? Why is it declining?
>
> Mostly because of EPA restrictions making it cost too much.
>

Still manages to provide 45% of all electricity worldwide.

>> Gas prices might be dropping where you live, but not here.
>
> Gas prices have been dropping everywhere there is gas in the ground
> since 2008.
>
> http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/
>
>> What's more it's a valuable export.
>
> So what?
>

So when you have a lolly shop you don't eat the lollies yourself, that's
why local gas prices and even guaranteed supply are under constant
pressure where I live, which is a large exporter of LNG.

That, and the high cost of distribution as with any energy source.

>>>>>> Solar water heaters for instance do a better job of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water heating is a trivial electricity consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> About 1/4 of household energy use, and mostly at times when solar cells
>>>> don't operate.
>>>
>>> Not hardly unless you have some obsession about taking 6 showers a day.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Water,+energy+and+environment/Energy/Energy+efficiency/Home+energy+efficiency/How+energy+is+used+in+the+home
>
> Maybe for Australia, but in the US most water heating is done by gas and
> therefor irrelevant to electrical use.
>
> <snip arm waving about fossil fuels>
>
>

Then 1/4 of your household energy use is provided by gas, probably
mainly outside sunshine hours.

Solar water heaters could address that where solar cells don't, though
electric storage heaters can.

[jg]

I don't live in the 'outback' and I didn't install my panels and they
have all approvals. Our 1.5 kW system (with a 2kW inverter for
expansion) cost $2000AU complete, installed. Honestly. They were $2300
with a govt subsidy, then when it was removed guess what - the price
dropped anyway.

But looking around, it seems one area Americans may be being got at.
If they really do cost $7-9 per W there it would be truly prohibitive.
If that's the case I can see your point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/05/cut-the-price-of-solar-in-half-by-cutting-red-tape/

[Rob]

On 9/03/2013 9:03 AM, Petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:01:48 +1030, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:04:02 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
>> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another solar manufacturer gives up.
>>>
>> But hundreds of others remain in business.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
>>
>> "....China has over 400 photovoltaic (PV) companies..."
>>
> Problem with solar is it's limited to a few hours a day at enough peak
> to actually save power as in generate it for home use
> Generation starts weak and goes weak outside of the midday target
>

In theory but not necessarily, condition do apply tho. Ive kept an eye
on what is happening to the metre reading.

[Rob]

To add, some people have their panels so they can alter the angle summer
and winter to maximise efficiency.

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:19:32 +0800, jg wrote:

>On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/03/2013 8:59 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>>>> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.
>>>>
>>>> That makes no sense what so ever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not to anyone who thinks fossil fuel use is just fine as it is.
>>
>> Not to anyone speaking English.
>>
>>
>>
>Don't assume others don't get it because you can't.

Please explain it for those who don't speak your dialect of English.

[jg]

Few would not want a better solution for producing energy than burning
fossil fuels, the questions is what to replace them with.

[Petzl]

Seem to of forgotten about fusion reaction?
It's suggested this is because of a lot of money to be lost
--
Petzl
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50667687/YesMinister.mp3

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 5:17 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:08:45 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/03/2013 12:32 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:19:32 +0800, jg wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/03/2013 10:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/03/2013 8:59 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> They are only part of the answer, but fossil fuels are the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes no sense what so ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to anyone who thinks fossil fuel use is just fine as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to anyone speaking English.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Don't assume others don't get it because you can't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please explain it for those who don't speak your dialect of English.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Few would not want a better solution for producing energy than burning
>> fossil fuels, the questions is what to replace them with.
>>
> Seem to of forgotten about fusion reaction?
> It's suggested this is because of a lot of money to be lost
>

Nothing I have said to suggest I had forgotten that, or fission.

[Petzl]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:55:33 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>
>> Seem to of forgotten about fusion reaction?
>> It's suggested this is because of a lot of money to be lost
>>
>
>Nothing I have said to suggest I had forgotten that, or fission.
>

Fission seems off the agenda because of Japanese old reactors, even
their "newest", 1970 reactors, should of been decommissioned years
ago?
Same for Chernobyl, old un-repaired reactors not maintained?
Finland uses these same Soviet reactors and have the safest nuclear
record in the World?

Fusion (considered safe nuclear power) reaction for home use is
already available in "Northern West Atmosphere" like Canada, Alaska
has operating heating devices. These are plodding along successfully,
but not hitting the media so much?

AFAIK only a 3D printer can make components because of accuraccy
reasons. Todays price of these printers though is now down to us$3500
so if one has a *TRUE* high speed internet [24 megabits per second
(Mbps)] or better one can download parts to assemble their own

For larger scale electric generation (100MW+), here lies the problem
as they so-far, have to be really LARGE France is building one now
presently called TOMAK reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

[jg]

On 9/03/2013 7:28 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:55:33 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> Seem to of forgotten about fusion reaction?
>>> It's suggested this is because of a lot of money to be lost
>>>
>>
>> Nothing I have said to suggest I had forgotten that, or fission.
>>
> Fission seems off the agenda because of Japanese old reactors, even
> their "newest", 1970 reactors, should of been decommissioned years
> ago?
> Same for Chernobyl, old un-repaired reactors not maintained?
> Finland uses these same Soviet reactors and have the safest nuclear
> record in the World?
>
> Fusion (considered safe nuclear power) reaction for home use is
> already available in "Northern West Atmosphere" like Canada, Alaska
> has operating heating devices. These are plodding along successfully,
> but not hitting the media so much?
>
> AFAIK only a 3D printer can make components because of accuraccy
> reasons. Todays price of these printers though is now down to us$3500
> so if one has a *TRUE* high speed internet [24 megabits per second
> (Mbps)] or better one can download parts to assemble their own
>
> For larger scale electric generation (100MW+), here lies the problem
> as they so-far, have to be really LARGE France is building one now
> presently called TOMAK reactors
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
>

Looks ok, at least an accident or leftovers wouldn't hang around for
decades or centuries.

[Petzl]

Fusion is safe if something goes wrong there is no nuclear fallout
Fission there is
--
Petzl
"The Monarchy is important, not because of the power it wields, but because of the power it denies others."
Winston Churchill

[benj]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:29:51 +0800, jg wrote:

> It would shade the ground, if that's your point?

And? As usual ZERO thought. Zero science. Zero intelligence.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 9/03/2013 12:58 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>> The subject was the energy used for heating.
>>
>
> The subject is energy used. Whether it's used for cooling or heating, or
> augmented with gas or oil (who uses oil anymore to heat a house?)

Oil is still fairly common in the north eastern US.

> anywhere, the overall pattern of electricity use is similar.
> After stating 'this is typical no matter what the area', I don't know
> why you want to argue that.

Apples and oranges.

What I said was typical is the curve that shows electrical demand versus
time of day for a region.

It is typical because the curves will be roughly the same whether you
are plotting the data for California or Western Canada.

<snip>

>> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>>
>> Peak demand is after sundown.
>>
>> About 2/3 of the area under the curve is between noon and 1AM.
>>
>
> Whatever the significance of noon here, there is more area under the
> curve during the time solar cells operate than during your peak hours.
> Outside those hours there is much less demand.

If you come to that conclusion, I have to assume either you don't know
what time the Sun rises and sets or you missed the class on how to
get the area under a curve.

> Nobody said we don't need fossil fuels anymore, just trying to use less
> for a start.

Why?

> As far as any renewable energy source is concerned, it reduces total
> fuel burned if it operates at any time when it can be used.

True as far as that goes, but at a much higher total cost.

I take it you are fabously wealthy and don't care how much money you waste.

I work for a living and care very much that electricity bill are much
higher than they need to be just to support "renewable energy".

>>> Peak is irrelevant to whether solar cells contribute to energy use, it
>>> would only be relevant if it was suggested as an all-round replacement
>>> for energy production.
>>
>> That you say that says you have no clue how the grid and electrical
>> generation works.
>>
>> A source of electricity that produces the most output when demand is low
>> and none when demand is high is of little use unless that source is
>> extremely cheap, and solar isn't cheap.
>>
>
> So the coal station runs flat out even when demand is low?

Now that is a really stupid thing to say.

However, coal station do have to run at a fairly high level even when
demand is low because it takes a long time to get a coal plant operating.

The is why coal is used mainly for base load.

To cover peaks most places use gas turbines, which can come up to speed
in minutes instead of hours.

>> <snip>
>>
>>> Dunno what's niche about where I live, but our cells save about $1.50 a
>>> day at current raw unsubsidised rates, making $550 a year. They cost
>>> $2000, so that's payback in 3-4 years. Then it's clear profit, even
>>> without subsidies or local prices rising.
>>
>> Is the the total installed cost, including building permits or do you
>> live somewhere without building codes, a requirment that a licensed
>> electrician wire it up, no UL listed inverter with autocutoff from
>> the grid, and you just knocked it together yourself?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
> Clutching at straws? Just google solar panel installers - no hidden
> costs, no shortcuts. That's a straight out honest assessment. That you
> don't believe it says a lot.

I have many times and the total installed cost here, including the tax
payer payed subsidy, comes out to a break even time of roughly 15 years.

That's if nothing breaks in 15 years and needs to be repaired and the
panels don't degrade over time.

<snip>

>> Obviously as no one builds solar anything unless there is a subsidy
>> attached to it.
>>
>
> No one used to,

No one does today if they care at all about where their money is going.

> they weren't even widely available 20 years ago.

Irrelevant.

> It's still a big outlay for something which will only repay over time,
> when household budgets are often tight.

And that time is longer than most people will live in their house.

<snip>

> Still manages to provide 45% of all electricity worldwide.

Got a source for that wild assed number?

The biggest users of electricity are North America, Europe, and China
where solar is a tiny fraction.

>> Gas prices have been dropping everywhere there is gas in the ground
>> since 2008.
>>
>> http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/
>>
>>> What's more it's a valuable export.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>
> So when you have a lolly shop you don't eat the lollies yourself,

Nor do lolly shops ship all the lolies overseas.

> that's
> why local gas prices and even guaranteed supply are under constant
> pressure where I live, which is a large exporter of LNG.
>
> That, and the high cost of distribution as with any energy source.

<snip>

>>> http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Water,+energy+and+environment/Energy/Energy+efficiency/Home+energy+efficiency/How+energy+is+used+in+the+home
>>
>> Maybe for Australia, but in the US most water heating is done by gas and
>> therefor irrelevant to electrical use.
>>
>> <snip arm waving about fossil fuels>
>>
>>
> Then 1/4 of your household energy use is provided by gas, probably
> mainly outside sunshine hours.

Nope, most of my hot water usage is during the day.

> Solar water heaters could address that where solar cells don't, though
> electric storage heaters can.

Again, hot water usage is a trivial fraction of energy usage.

And yes, I have looked into solar water heaters and discovered that for
only around $2500 I could save all of about $100 a year on hot water.

I will not be living in this house in 25 years.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> But looking around, it seems one area Americans may be being got at.
> If they really do cost $7-9 per W there it would be truly prohibitive.
> If that's the case I can see your point.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/05/cut-the-price-of-solar-in-half-by-cutting-red-tape/

Now you are beginning to understand.

Among other things it must be shown that the installation will not degrade
the integrity of the house, the first strong wind that comes along will
not result in the panel flying through the neighbors living room window,
none of the electrical systems will catch on fire, and the system will
disconnect from the grid if grid power is lost and not electocute a
power company lineman.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> It would shade the ground, if that's your point?

Which is great if you want fungus, which is about the only thing that
grows in the shade.


--
Jim Pennino

[Bret Cahill]

> Another solar manufacturer gives up

That's why the price of PV is dropping so fast. The industry is as
fiercely competitive as the oil bidness was 100 years ago when the
exact same thing happened.


Bret Cahill

[jg]

And perhaps you are beginning to understand why our panels are a much
more viable proposition at 20% of your prices.

After 3-4 years about 1/3rd of our electricity will be free, if I didn't
work from home it would be better than that.

At your prices you would want absolute guarantees for all of those
potential issues, at ours we can take those small risks which have not
proved real for the large number of installations here.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The difference here is that PV panels are being dumped at a loss in
a desperate attempt to cover some of the losses and there are no buyers.


--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/solar-panel-takeup-heads-towards-the-millionth-home-20121010-27d9t.html

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 2:06 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> But looking around, it seems one area Americans may be being got at.
>>> If they really do cost $7-9 per W there it would be truly prohibitive.
>>> If that's the case I can see your point.
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/05/cut-the-price-of-solar-in-half-by-cutting-red-tape/
>>
>> Now you are beginning to understand.
>>
>> Among other things it must be shown that the installation will not degrade
>> the integrity of the house, the first strong wind that comes along will
>> not result in the panel flying through the neighbors living room window,
>> none of the electrical systems will catch on fire, and the system will
>> disconnect from the grid if grid power is lost and not electocute a
>> power company lineman.
>>
>>
> And perhaps you are beginning to understand why our panels are a much
> more viable proposition at 20% of your prices.

At 20% it would be practical.

> After 3-4 years about 1/3rd of our electricity will be free, if I didn't
> work from home it would be better than that.
>
> At your prices you would want absolute guarantees for all of those
> potential issues, at ours we can take those small risks which have not
> proved real for the large number of installations here.

All those "potential issues" are not just for solar installations.

All those regulations are the result of about a century worth of
experiences.

I will grant a lot of them are overkill in this day and age, but there
have been too many collapsed, burned down, etc. houses for there not
to be such regulations.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

BP Bows Out Of Solar

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/07/173656739/bp-bows-out-of-solar-but-industry-outlook-still-sunny

Notice the weasel wording about abandoning solar to avoid offending
the "green" community

Night Falls on China's Solar Industry

http://www.thegwpf.org/night-falls-chinas-solar-industry/

Chinese Solar Industry Goes Belly Up

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/25/chinese-solar-industry-goes-belly-up/

China Solar Makers Face Suicidal Prices on Excess Output

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-25/china-solar-makers-face-suicidal-prices-on-excess-output.html




--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

No argument, but I have not heard of a single instance of trouble around
solar panels.

In contrast, Australia had a govt program of installing dwelling
insulation (which would appear relatively harmless) and there were a
number of fires and deaths due to a range of factors.

[jg]

Has everything to do with markets and nothing to do with the fact that
they work.

How is a price per kWh is arrived at when normal power bills are
redirected into panels until payback time, after which it's 100% saving
until they wear out. At the very least it's not consistent over time.

I suspect it's a loss of revenue at the power station, incentives are
little more than a discount since the biggest hurdle as with all similar
investments, is finding the initial outlay.

I also suspect your prohibitive pricing is as much a deliberate
disincentive as much of the mythology being spun around renewable energy.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> No argument, but I have not heard of a single instance of trouble around
> solar panels.

Yet...

With any luck you will avoid having something similar to our aluminum
house wiring debacle and no houses will burn down.

> In contrast, Australia had a govt program of installing dwelling
> insulation (which would appear relatively harmless) and there were a
> number of fires and deaths due to a range of factors.

Which is exactly why the US has all those regulations about what can go
into a dwelling, who can do it, how it is done, and inspections of the
work.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Has everything to do with markets and nothing to do with the fact that
> they work.

The market is small not because they don't work, but because they work
at a much higher price than anything else.

> How is a price per kWh is arrived at when normal power bills are
> redirected into panels until payback time, after which it's 100% saving
> until they wear out. At the very least it's not consistent over time.

Rather trivialy, actually.

> I suspect it's a loss of revenue at the power station, incentives are
> little more than a discount since the biggest hurdle as with all similar
> investments, is finding the initial outlay.

Incentives are tax payer dollars taken forcibly by the government then
redistributed to a pet project.

Solar installations would be a tiny fraction of what they are if everyone
had to use their own money to pay for them.

Not even electricity companies build them without the government "incentives".

> I also suspect your prohibitive pricing is as much a deliberate
> disincentive as much of the mythology being spun around renewable energy.

Nope.

A lot of it is in the cost of ensuring safety.

Is your entire system UL (or Oz equivelent) approved?



--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

On 10/03/2013 1:49 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 9/03/2013 12:58 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The subject was the energy used for heating.
>>>
>>
>> The subject is energy used. Whether it's used for cooling or heating, or
>> augmented with gas or oil (who uses oil anymore to heat a house?)
>
> Oil is still fairly common in the north eastern US.
>

For an aged pensioner here, it costs all their pension to run an oil heater.

>> anywhere, the overall pattern of electricity use is similar.
>> After stating 'this is typical no matter what the area', I don't know
>> why you want to argue that.
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> What I said was typical is the curve that shows electrical demand versus
> time of day for a region.
>
> It is typical because the curves will be roughly the same whether you
> are plotting the data for California or Western Canada.
>

That's right, but the only difference it makes is that solar panels only
address daylight demand unless it's stored in places like hot water.
That doesn't disqualify PV as an energy producer.

> <snip>
>
>>> http://www.caiso.com/SystemStatus.html
>>>
>>> Peak demand is after sundown.
>>>
>>> About 2/3 of the area under the curve is between noon and 1AM.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever the significance of noon here, there is more area under the
>> curve during the time solar cells operate than during your peak hours.
>> Outside those hours there is much less demand.
>
> If you come to that conclusion, I have to assume either you don't know
> what time the Sun rises and sets or you missed the class on how to
> get the area under a curve.
>

The sun doesn't rise or set at noon.
PV cells work between about 9am and 4pm.

>> Nobody said we don't need fossil fuels anymore, just trying to use less
>> for a start.
>
> Why?
>

Saving money, energy independence, technology development, pollution,
mining land acquisition, mining safety, labour saving, AGW...

>> As far as any renewable energy source is concerned, it reduces total
>> fuel burned if it operates at any time when it can be used.
>
> True as far as that goes, but at a much higher total cost.
>
> I take it you are fabously wealthy and don't care how much money you waste.
>
> I work for a living and care very much that electricity bill are much
> higher than they need to be just to support "renewable energy".
>

That comment is much more relevant to the prices you pay than prices
here. Even so, without my dad lending the $2000 I could not have
afforded panels despite the returns which are quite apparent - even
during payback I'm no worse off than paying the supplier for that power
saved.

>>>> Peak is irrelevant to whether solar cells contribute to energy use, it
>>>> would only be relevant if it was suggested as an all-round replacement
>>>> for energy production.
>>>
>>> That you say that says you have no clue how the grid and electrical
>>> generation works.
>>>
>>> A source of electricity that produces the most output when demand is low
>>> and none when demand is high is of little use unless that source is
>>> extremely cheap, and solar isn't cheap.
>>>
>>
>> So the coal station runs flat out even when demand is low?
>
> Now that is a really stupid thing to say.
>

Would be if any of the above was really true.

> However, coal station do have to run at a fairly high level even when
> demand is low because it takes a long time to get a coal plant operating.
>
> The is why coal is used mainly for base load.
>
> To cover peaks most places use gas turbines, which can come up to speed
> in minutes instead of hours.
>

Needs to be a better way to address that too.
PV cells lower the base load requirement some of the time.
If they ever approached meeting the base load many arguments would
become more valid, but the requirement for options to meet peak load are
likely to prevent that for the intermediate future.

>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Dunno what's niche about where I live, but our cells save about $1.50 a
>>>> day at current raw unsubsidised rates, making $550 a year. They cost
>>>> $2000, so that's payback in 3-4 years. Then it's clear profit, even
>>>> without subsidies or local prices rising.
>>>
>>> Is the the total installed cost, including building permits or do you
>>> live somewhere without building codes, a requirment that a licensed
>>> electrician wire it up, no UL listed inverter with autocutoff from
>>> the grid, and you just knocked it together yourself?
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>> Clutching at straws? Just google solar panel installers - no hidden
>> costs, no shortcuts. That's a straight out honest assessment. That you
>> don't believe it says a lot.
>
> I have many times and the total installed cost here, including the tax
> payer payed subsidy, comes out to a break even time of roughly 15 years.
>
> That's if nothing breaks in 15 years and needs to be repaired and the
> panels don't degrade over time.
>

Try googling Australian suppliers, you will see a big difference.
I'd like to see a truthful objective answer why that difference.

> <snip>
>
>>> Obviously as no one builds solar anything unless there is a subsidy
>>> attached to it.
>>>
>>
>> No one used to,
>
> No one does today if they care at all about where their money is going.
>
>> they weren't even widely available 20 years ago.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> It's still a big outlay for something which will only repay over time,
>> when household budgets are often tight.
>
> And that time is longer than most people will live in their house.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Still manages to provide 45% of all electricity worldwide.
>
> Got a source for that wild assed number?
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation

> The biggest users of electricity are North America, Europe, and China
> where solar is a tiny fraction.
>
>>> Gas prices have been dropping everywhere there is gas in the ground
>>> since 2008.
>>>
>>> http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/natural-gas/all/
>>>
>>>> What's more it's a valuable export.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>
>> So when you have a lolly shop you don't eat the lollies yourself,
>
> Nor do lolly shops ship all the lolies overseas.
>

They do here, local supply is a major issue. And the cost of
distribution as with electricity outweighs the cost of the fuel or
generation.

>> that's
>> why local gas prices and even guaranteed supply are under constant
>> pressure where I live, which is a large exporter of LNG.
>>
>> That, and the high cost of distribution as with any energy source.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Water,+energy+and+environment/Energy/Energy+efficiency/Home+energy+efficiency/How+energy+is+used+in+the+home
>>>
>>> Maybe for Australia, but in the US most water heating is done by gas and
>>> therefor irrelevant to electrical use.
>>>
>>> <snip arm waving about fossil fuels>
>>>
>>>
>> Then 1/4 of your household energy use is provided by gas, probably
>> mainly outside sunshine hours.
>
> Nope, most of my hot water usage is during the day.
>

It's still 1/4 of household energy use.

>> Solar water heaters could address that where solar cells don't, though
>> electric storage heaters can.
>
> Again, hot water usage is a trivial fraction of energy usage.
>
> And yes, I have looked into solar water heaters and discovered that for
> only around $2500 I could save all of about $100 a year on hot water.
>
> I will not be living in this house in 25 years.
>
>

Maybe you gas is very cheap, our gas bill is about $400 pa with most of
it for hot water.

[jg]

On 10/03/2013 9:12 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Has everything to do with markets and nothing to do with the fact that
>> they work.
>
> The market is small not because they don't work, but because they work
> at a much higher price than anything else.
>
>> How is a price per kWh is arrived at when normal power bills are
>> redirected into panels until payback time, after which it's 100% saving
>> until they wear out. At the very least it's not consistent over time.
>
> Rather trivialy, actually.
>

From $1.50 a day for 4 years, to $0 thereafter in one abrupt jump?

>> I suspect it's a loss of revenue at the power station, incentives are
>> little more than a discount since the biggest hurdle as with all similar
>> investments, is finding the initial outlay.
>
> Incentives are tax payer dollars taken forcibly by the government then
> redistributed to a pet project.
>
> Solar installations would be a tiny fraction of what they are if everyone
> had to use their own money to pay for them.
>
> Not even electricity companies build them without the government "incentives".
>
>> I also suspect your prohibitive pricing is as much a deliberate
>> disincentive as much of the mythology being spun around renewable energy.
>
> Nope.
>
> A lot of it is in the cost of ensuring safety.
>
> Is your entire system UL (or Oz equivelent) approved?
>
>
>

Your suspicion is encouraging that you might smell a rat where you live.
PV cells here must be installed by a licensed installer, they are
inspected by our 'Western Power' and they install the new meter.
Electricians here operate diligently under their rules and I don't touch
much outside light fittings and GPO's.

[jg]

So do we, but it doesn't cost $15,000 (or much more depending on
installed kW's) to meet wiring regulations for a new dwelling. Which is
the difference we seem to be talking in PV cell prices.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 1:49 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>>> So the coal station runs flat out even when demand is low?
>>
>> Now that is a really stupid thing to say.
>>
>
> Would be if any of the above was really true.

Coal plants are base generators.

Base generators run flat out all the time.

When peaks occur, peak generators go on line.

Peak generators are usually something like a gas turbine that comes up
to power relatively quickly, i.e. a few minutes. Base generator take from
many hours to days to come up to power.

>> However, coal station do have to run at a fairly high level even when
>> demand is low because it takes a long time to get a coal plant operating.
>>
>> The is why coal is used mainly for base load.
>>
>> To cover peaks most places use gas turbines, which can come up to speed
>> in minutes instead of hours.
>>
>
> Needs to be a better way to address that too.

Frogs also need some way to keep from banging their ass when the jump.

In the real world neither has a better solution.

> PV cells lower the base load requirement some of the time.

The base load is 24/7.

> If they ever approached meeting the base load many arguments would
> become more valid, but the requirement for options to meet peak load are
> likely to prevent that for the intermediate future.

That will never happen because the base load is 24/7 and running the
base generators at anything less than full output is highly inefficient.

>>> Still manages to provide 45% of all electricity worldwide.
>>
>> Got a source for that wild assed number?
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation

Read your own link; the worldwide portion of electricity produced by
Solar PV is 0.06%.

Solar thermal is 0.004%.

<snip>

>> Nor do lolly shops ship all the lolies overseas.
>>
>
> They do here, local supply is a major issue. And the cost of
> distribution as with electricity outweighs the cost of the fuel or
> generation.

Again, you must live in the boondocks.

Every city here has gas pipes.

<snip>

>> Nope, most of my hot water usage is during the day.
>>
>
> It's still 1/4 of household energy use.

Not here it isn't, and little water is heated with electricity here.

<snip>

> Maybe you gas is very cheap, our gas bill is about $400 pa with most of
> it for hot water.

Yes, gas is cheap here and getting cheaper around the world.

The majority of my annual gas bill is winter heating.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Nope, not just wiring.

You don't seem to be paying much attention to what is actually said
and are just knee jerking.



--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

Wiring is a trade expression here for electrically fitting out,
connection to mains and obtaining certification for an installation.

Your comparison of prices for PV cells with ours (say $15000:$2000)
suggest that $13000 or 85% of your cost is for certification, and/or you
are assuming ours have inadequate or no licensing or approvals at all.

What's more your PV cells seem to cost much more to guarantee safety as
the kW's they produce goes up.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Wiring is a trade expression here for electrically fitting out,
> connection to mains and obtaining certification for an installation.
>
> Your comparison of prices for PV cells with ours (say $15000:$2000)
> suggest that $13000 or 85% of your cost is for certification, and/or you
> are assuming ours have inadequate or no licensing or approvals at all.

Regulations here have two parts; for the piece parts themselves and for
the installation techniques.

Also, for electrical systems modifications a licensed electrician is
usually required in most places.

Modifying a building requires a building permit and inspection.

> What's more your PV cells seem to cost much more to guarantee safety as
> the kW's they produce goes up.

It is impossible to compare what your system would cost here without the
full and complete specifications.

In addition, you would have to specify the full and complete price of
everything without any incentives or rebates.


--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

http://www.australissolar.com.au/packages

There are no domestic installation subsidies here anymore. Input tariffs
apply - you think governments would pay them without you having a fully
approved system using their meter?

You think shops here can sell components without Australian standards
and safety approvals, or PV installers can get away with advertising
installations full of hidden costs using unlicensed tradespeople?

I can tell you there is nothing inferior about Australian PV
installations, you have to ask what makes yours apparently 5 times better.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 2:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>> It is impossible to compare what your system would cost here without the
>> full and complete specifications.
>>
>> In addition, you would have to specify the full and complete price of
>> everything without any incentives or rebates.
>>
>>
> http://www.australissolar.com.au/packages

This shows 3 1.5 kW systems ranging from $1990 to $3990 with the caveats
starting from and to approved customers, subject to terms and conditions.

These prices are no better than the US prices for equivelant systems.

Where you get that US prices are 5 times higher is beyond me.


--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/

I have seen other estimates of $7-9 per Watt in the US.

If you can show me a price of about $2000 for 1.5 kW ($1.30 per watt) I
would question how you rate that as millionaire's territory given a 4
year payback and $400-500 pa power bill saving without any subsidy.

Even savings would cover a loan for the outlay.
Debate losses for the power station, but how I am not better off is a
mystery.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 7:07 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2013 2:09 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> It is impossible to compare what your system would cost here without the
>>>> full and complete specifications.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, you would have to specify the full and complete price of
>>>> everything without any incentives or rebates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.australissolar.com.au/packages
>>
>> This shows 3 1.5 kW systems ranging from $1990 to $3990 with the caveats
>> starting from and to approved customers, subject to terms and conditions.
>>
>> These prices are no better than the US prices for equivelant systems.
>>
>> Where you get that US prices are 5 times higher is beyond me.
>>
>>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/
>
> I have seen other estimates of $7-9 per Watt in the US.

You do realize that media articles aren't retail price lists?

> If you can show me a price of about $2000 for 1.5 kW ($1.30 per watt) I
> would question how you rate that as millionaire's territory given a 4
> year payback and $400-500 pa power bill saving without any subsidy.

Well, if I can make any sense of that jumble...

It took me all of a couple of minutes to find local solar sellers with
prices comperable to those on the web site you mentioned; they were NOT
5 times higher for comperable systems.

I have no clue what you are alluding to with "millionaire's territory".

I have done the math for my situation and the best break even period
I can get is better than 10 years.

> Even savings would cover a loan for the outlay.

This makes no sense what so ever.

> Debate losses for the power station, but how I am not better off is a
> mystery.

Perhaps you are. That doesn't mean that solar power plants make any economic
sense or that a personal solar installation makes economic sense for anyone
else.



--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

Show me one
http://www.solargaines.com/solarpowercost.html

> I have no clue what you are alluding to with "millionaire's territory".
>

Someone here if not you, claimed I must have money to burn.

> I have done the math for my situation and the best break even period
> I can get is better than 10 years.
>
>> Even savings would cover a loan for the outlay.
>
> This makes no sense what so ever.
>

$400-500 pa saved on power bills goes instead to paying off the $2000
capital outlay. Without interest that's revenue neutral during payback,
with interest it adds a bit to the payback time.

>> Debate losses for the power station, but how I am not better off is a
>> mystery.
>
> Perhaps you are. That doesn't mean that solar power plants make any economic
> sense or that a personal solar installation makes economic sense for anyone
> else.
>
>
>

Never heard anyone complain they weren't a good investment, except a few
who thought they were getting into some get rich quick scheme with loads
of govt handouts.

That you doubt that, makes me doubtful how objective the rest of your
assessment is.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 8:53 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2013 7:07 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>>>> This shows 3 1.5 kW systems ranging from $1990 to $3990 with the caveats
>>>> starting from and to approved customers, subject to terms and conditions.
>>>>
>>>> These prices are no better than the US prices for equivelant systems.
>>>>
>>>> Where you get that US prices are 5 times higher is beyond me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/
>>>
>>> I have seen other estimates of $7-9 per Watt in the US.
>>
>> You do realize that media articles aren't retail price lists?
>>
>>> If you can show me a price of about $2000 for 1.5 kW ($1.30 per watt) I
>>> would question how you rate that as millionaire's territory given a 4
>>> year payback and $400-500 pa power bill saving without any subsidy.
>>
>> Well, if I can make any sense of that jumble...
>>
>> It took me all of a couple of minutes to find local solar sellers with
>> prices comperable to those on the web site you mentioned; they were NOT
>> 5 times higher for comperable systems.
>>
>
> Show me one
> http://www.solargaines.com/solarpowercost.html

Yeah, so what?

This is a 5 kW system you are trying to compare to a 1.5 kW system.

Also it is a bit of a challenge to find systems as small as yours here
as most systems here are much larger.

Here's a couple:

http://pvdepot.com/solar-panel-kits/1-000-watt-expandable-monocrystalline-pv-grid-tied-solar-power-kit.html

1 kW for $2845; within your range of $1990 to $3990.

1.5 kW for $3049; again within your range of $1990 to $3990.

So again, where does this solar costs 5 times more in the US than
in Australia come from?

Perhaps because most systems here are several times larger than yours?

>> I have no clue what you are alluding to with "millionaire's territory".
>>
>
> Someone here if not you, claimed I must have money to burn.

Yeah, that was me.

>> I have done the math for my situation and the best break even period
>> I can get is better than 10 years.
>>
>>> Even savings would cover a loan for the outlay.
>>
>> This makes no sense what so ever.
>>
>
> $400-500 pa saved on power bills goes instead to paying off the $2000
> capital outlay. Without interest that's revenue neutral during payback,
> with interest it adds a bit to the payback time.

OK, you got a 4 to 5 year payback by being a welfare recipient; lucky you.

<snip>

> Never heard anyone complain they weren't a good investment, except a few
> who thought they were getting into some get rich quick scheme with loads
> of govt handouts.

Without the big government welfare check they are NOT a good investment.

Congratulations on being able to rip off your fellow taxpayers.

> That you doubt that, makes me doubtful how objective the rest of your
> assessment is.

My assessment is based on my annual power bill, the tiered cost of
electricity here, the costs of a solar system, the US Department of
Energy surveys that show the actual solar irradiance that exists in my
area, and the cost of money.

Now if a big welfare system gets implemented here so I can rip off my
fellow taxpayers and it brings the ROI down to something like 4 years,
then I will go for it too.



--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

That's $2.85 per kW and doesn't appear to include installation.

Our $2000 for 1.5kW cost $1.33 per kW including installation and
certification.

> Here's a couple:
>
> http://pvdepot.com/solar-panel-kits/1-000-watt-expandable-monocrystalline-pv-grid-tied-solar-power-kit.html
>
> 1 kW for $2845; within your range of $1990 to $3990.
>
> 1.5 kW for $3049; again within your range of $1990 to $3990.
>
> So again, where does this solar costs 5 times more in the US than
> in Australia come from?
>

Partly the impression you have that yours are expensive, and what I saw
seemed to confirm it.

> Perhaps because most systems here are several times larger than yours?
>

Maybe that's why you think yours are expensive.
Larger systems probably address sales arguments better, since they can
be said to provide the equivalent of your total electricity and collect
more from energy buy-back schemes - many who buy panels just want
something for nothing.

>>> I have no clue what you are alluding to with "millionaire's territory".
>>>
>>
>> Someone here if not you, claimed I must have money to burn.
>
> Yeah, that was me.
>
>>> I have done the math for my situation and the best break even period
>>> I can get is better than 10 years.
>>>
>>>> Even savings would cover a loan for the outlay.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense what so ever.
>>>
>>
>> $400-500 pa saved on power bills goes instead to paying off the $2000
>> capital outlay. Without interest that's revenue neutral during payback,
>> with interest it adds a bit to the payback time.
>
> OK, you got a 4 to 5 year payback by being a welfare recipient; lucky you.
>

Electricity here costs 24c per unit.
1kWh for 5 hours = 5kWh per day x 24c = $1.20 x 365 days = $438 pa rough
estimate.
Without the 'welfare'.
If it's too optimistic then adjust the payback time accordingly, still
only talking about the time before they start saving you money instead
of being no worse off, unless your situation is such that you are better
off paying more for power and using or borrowing $2000 for something
more profitable.

> <snip>
>
>> Never heard anyone complain they weren't a good investment, except a few
>> who thought they were getting into some get rich quick scheme with loads
>> of govt handouts.
>
> Without the big government welfare check they are NOT a good investment.
>
> Congratulations on being able to rip off your fellow taxpayers.
>

Since we bought our panels, the 'welfare' has shut down - you are on
your own. The price has dropped (surprise, surprise), and they are still
selling.

http://www.truevaluesolar.com.au/

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Electricity here costs 24c per unit.
> 1kWh for 5 hours = 5kWh per day x 24c = $1.20 x 365 days = $438 pa rough
> estimate.
> Without the 'welfare'.
> If it's too optimistic then adjust the payback time accordingly, still
> only talking about the time before they start saving you money instead
> of being no worse off, unless your situation is such that you are better
> off paying more for power and using or borrowing $2000 for something
> more profitable.

The only number I care about is ROI.

It is a rather simple calculation: Total cost / savings per year.

BTW, rates here are tierd:

1 $.13/kWh 315 kWh
2 $.16/kWh 410 kWh
3 $.29/kWh somewhere around 620 kWh, but never gone that high
4 $.33/kWh
5 $.36/kWh

Plus a fixed of around $.03/kWh for misc.

Since, except in the middle of summer, most of the usage is tier 1 and
2 rates, it is difficult to get a return in less time than I have left
to live or would live in this house.

Now a big family with a bunch of kids and a big house to cool would be
in a different position if a big part of their usage were tier 3 and
above.

Here's a point to ponder; I found I could get an ROI of a couple of years
buying a used generator run off gas running it in the summer only.

But I don't want a big ass, noisy generator beside my house nor would the
neighbors like it.


--
Jim Pennino

[jg]

Those factors would have a huge bearing, we wouldn't reach tier 3 either
so our electricity seems basically double the cost of yours per kW.
Your gas is probably much cheaper too.

Those rather than the cost of panels (which also still seem higher)
would seem to make them much less a financial proposition that for us.

I personally would do it at neutral cost for other reasons (some
specific to where I live), but it's a definite saving on power bills
here and many buy PV cells for that reason alone.