Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: {Mine} Is solar power really economical?
Source:
SoSo
URL Source: http://www.northfortynews.com/pvrea ... ommunity-solar-farm-goes-live/
Published: Jan 30, 2015
Author: North Forty News
Post Date: 2015-01-30 17:24:02 by SOSO
Keywords: None
Views: 20233
Comments: 59
Air National Guard couple set to deploy Larimer County’s Senior Tax Work-Off applications accepted starting Feb. 2 PVREA’s second community solar farm goes live By NFN On January 29, 2015 In Dispatches · Add Comment Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association initiated into production on Jan. 29 the cooperative’s second community solar farm. The 632 kW Community Solar Farm II, located north of Fort Collins, is generating power for members of PVREA who have purchased panels to offset their electric use. In a partnership with Clean Energy Collective, this project makes two community solar farms for PVREA. “We recognized the demand for another renewable energy option from our membership, and the overwhelming success and 100 percent sellout of the first solar farm provided us the incentive to establish our second community solar farm,” PVREA CEO Jeff Wadsworth commented. The cooperative’s first solar farm located at the co-op headquarters is 116 kW powered by 494 solar panels. The second solar farm is more than four times larger with more than 2,200 panels generating 632 kW. Members who are interested have the opportunity to purchase solar panels through Clean Energy Collective. The energy generated from their purchased panels is deducted from their monthly bill. According to Clean Energy Collective, the average residential member is estimated to see a bill credit of $5 per month per panel and will receive their return of investment in a little over 13 years. This solar farm adds to the cooperative’s growing renewable energy portfolio, which already includes the cooperative’s first solar farm project, over 160 net-metering applications, the Carter Lake Hydroelectric project and the Green Power Program.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green, All (#0)
Though the article says ROI of over 13 years it appears to be referring to the pay back period. If that is so, a 13 year payback period is not a good (i.e. - competitive) investment at all.
Ask Germany. US Media doesn't like to talk about it much - busy with wars. Most of Germany is north of the state of Washington (northern border at 49 degrees latitude)- for example- Berlin: 52° North Latitude. And while the US has been busy with bombing and invading country after country, Germany has actually paved the way to their own energy independence. Germany set a world record for solar power production with 24.2 GW produced at midday on April 17, 2014 Couple Solar with Hydrogen production: electricity + water = Hydrogen and it's the future of energy. http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Hydrogen-Future-Mario-Pagliaro/dp/1849731950/ Anyone can make Hydrogen Solar Hydrogen will make oil obsolete- have you seen the new Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars? Hyundai is leasing one now and Toyota will sell one in the US this summer and Honda will sell one next year. The end of the Petroleum age is here and few seem to notice or care. If Washington DC wanted the US to be energy independent they would have done something about it in the last 40 years. Now they will have to watch as other countries take the lead.
It all depends on what you compare it to. "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
You have to pay for electricity anyway, so a 13 year payback is a helluva lot better than no payback at all. Are you serious? Where did you learn what you know about economics and finance?
Ask Germany. Are you sure that you want to do that? Germany's actions to convert to renewables and shut down it nuclear generation capacity has been an unmitigated disaster. Please do a reality check.
Yes, let's ask Germany. Please read the following from National Geographic, hopefully we all will learn something. " Germany Plans to Raze Towns for Brown Coal and Cheap Energy Villages face the bulldozer as one of Europe’s renewable energy leaders leans more heavily on an old habit. By Andrew Curry in Atterwasch, Germany for National Geographic Published February 11, 2014 The German village of Atterwasch is tiny, its single street lined with sturdy brick and stone houses. The village has a single church whose bells peal out at noon each day, a small volunteer fire department, and a cemetery with a special section devoted to German soldiers who died nearby in the closing months of World War II. Atterwasch may soon be gone. Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company, hopes to relocate the village and its residents in order to strip-mine the ground underneath for lignite, or "brown coal." "They would tear everything down, dig up the cemetery, blow up the church and cut down all the trees," said Christian Huschga, a screenwriter and father of two who has lived in Atterwasch for more than 30 years. Billions of tons of brown coal lie buried underneath the Lausitz region, a gently rolling landscape of pine forests, farm fields, and rural villages about 100 miles (161 kilometers) south of Berlin, in what was once East Germany. In the past century, the landscape has been scarred and pitted by strip mines hundreds of feet deep that sprawl over dozens of square miles. In all, 136 villages in the Lausitz region have been destroyed to make way for massive strip mines since 1934. Most of the destruction took place after World War II, when the communist government depended on brown coal to power its cities and factories. Pollution from the mines and from primitive, dirty, coal- fired power plants was a major issue for the democracy activists whose efforts eventually helped topple the Berlin Wall. When Germany was reunified in 1989, many of the outdated plants were shut down, and locals thought the era of forced resettlement was over. But brown coal is making an unexpected return. The development has environmentalists worried. Germany is often seen as a model, thanks to its strong push for renewable energy. Politicians here have committed to 80 percent renewable power by 2050, and strong public support and generous subsidies have seen solar and wind power grow dramatically in the past decade. Roughly a quarter of Germany's electricity today comes from renewable sources; in the United States, just 12 percent does. (See related interactive map: "Four Ways to Look at Global Carbon Footprints.") With this commitment to the "Energiewende," or energy revolution, it's a mystery to many why villages like Atterwasch are still at risk. "The new mine is planned for 2030 to 2070—a time when coal power plants shouldn't even exist anymore," said Huschga. "It's not right to take away people's security and future for plans that shouldn't be." (See related story: "As U.S. Cleans Its Energy Mix, It Ships Coal Problems Abroad.") A Revolution in Trouble Unfortunately for Atterwasch and similar towns, experts say Germany's energy revolution is in danger—and more coal could indeed be on its way. In 2012, newly opened coal-fired power plants added 2,743 megawatts to the country's grid. (See related quiz: "What You Don't Know About Electricity.") Germany is the world's largest producer of brown coal, and 2013 was the biggest year for lignite-fired energy production in the country since 1990, with 162 billion kilowatt-hours produced, or about 26 percent of Germany's total electricity. The lignite boom is not limited to the former East Germany. In the Rhineland region in the west, the village of Immerath has recently been made into a ghost town to make way for expansion of German utility RWE's lignite-mining operations. But in Lausitz, the big brown coal player is Vattenfall, whose name means "waterfall," a utility wholly owned by the Swedish government that is Germany's third-largest power producer. The nonprofit KlimaAllianz says that Vattenfall's plans for strip-mining lignite in the Lausitz region could force relocation of 10,000 people in several towns. (See related, "Poland Hosts Climate Talks, While Boosting Coal Industry.") Some blame the return of coal on the imminent end of Germany's nuclear power industry. In 2002, politicians decided to shut down Germany's nuclear plants by 2022. Chancellor Angela Merkel backed away from the move when she was elected in 2005, citing climate change and economic concerns. But in 2011, in the wake of the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, the German government reversed course and put the nuclear plants back on the chopping block. (See related, "One Year After Fukushima, Japan Faces Shortages of Energy, Trust.") That will leave a hole in the country's energy supply that renewables can't quickly fill, meaning fossil fuels will continue to be part of the German energy mix for a while longer. Since coal is the most greenhouse-gas-intensive fuel, coal's comeback could set back Germany's efforts to combat climate change. (See related "Quiz: What You Don't Know About Climate Change Science.") Environmentalists are especially worried about the growing reliance on lignite, the lowest grade of coal with the highest carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour produced. Brown coal also is cheap coal, increasing its appeal at a time when high energy costs are roiling Germany. Photo of protesters in Atterwasch, Germany. Photograph by Patrick Pleul, dpa/Corbis Residents of Atterwasch and other villages gathered in the rain last year to protest plans for expanded brown coal strip-mining that would erase their Lausitz towns from the map. Yet those in Atterwasch, and environmentalists elsewhere, blame not nuclear's pending demise but brown coal's political clout in the region and around Germany. Because of the way Europe's energy market works, brown coal remains much cheaper here than natural gas, an alternative that produces lower carbon dioxide emissions. While nuclear energy indeed has declined in Germany 10 percent since 2011, natural gas power is down 23 percent. Coal power is up 9 percent, and electricity production overall is up 3 percent. The plans to plow Atterwasch under, and relocate its 900 people, in fact, have been in the works since 2007, before Fukushima sealed the fate of Germany's nuclear power industry. "The connection between the nuclear phase-out and the phase-out of coal is not there," said Stefan Schurig, climate and energy department director at Hamburg's World Future Council, a think tank devoted to sustainability issues. "The resistance of the coal industry is massive." Brown Coal Jobs In and around Cottbus, an industrial town about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from Atterwasch, thousands of people are employed by the coal industry. "Coal is the motor of the region, and when it collapses there won't be anything left," said Wolfgang Rupieper, head of Pro Lausitzer Braunkohle, a Cottbus-based pro-coal lobbying association. (The name translates to "For Lausitz Brown Coal.") "I know it's not pretty, but people who don't have a future here because there are no jobs will lose their homes too. They'll have to go elsewhere." A petition circulated in the area by Pro Lausitzer Braunkohle last year garnered nearly 60,000 signatures in support of expanding strip mines. (A competing petition against more mining got 120,000 signatures, mostly from big cities like Berlin and Hamburg.) "Conventional power plants as a part of the national energy mix are unavoidable for the foreseeable future," Cottbus Mayor Frank Szymanski, a noted brown-coal supporter, said in a December speech. "It's entirely reasonable that people debate the future of brown coal. But keep in mind that the majority of people in the Lausitz region stand behind the tradition-rich coal sector." Local activists respond that they don't want to shut down the strip mines tomorrow, and argue that existing mines have enough coal to run for decades. "We're talking about a transition period of 20 to 30 years," said Monika Schulz-Höpfner, an Atterwasch resident who represents the area in the state parliament. "That's another generation's worth of jobs, and a long time to develop other solutions." Taboo Topic: The Future Vattenfall spokesman Thoralf Schirmer says with energy demands across Europe rising each year, brown coal supplies may run out sooner—in ten to 15 years, at most. Securing permission for new mines now will guarantee the company's supplies into the future. "These things take a lot of advance planning, and we need to think at least ten years ahead," Schirmer says. Vattenfall estimates there are 250 million tons of brown coal under Atterwasch and two nearby villages. The company has promised to essentially re-create Atterwasch elsewhere, although a new location hasn't been identified yet. "The aim is to resettle everybody to one location," according to a Vattenfall brochure, which assures property owners that they will be compensated at existing value without need for new loans, and that replacement properties will be of equivalent size and value. But this is not the future that residents like Schulz-Höpfner anticipated. "This region could be a pioneer for renewables," she said. "We could be an example for Germany." Her barn's roof is covered in solar panels, and an experimental windmill tops a centuries-old stone house on her property. Her husband is angling for a Tesla car, which he says could store the extra electricity their house produces. "Brown coal is a technology from yesteryear. Ecologically it's senseless," she said. Schulz-Höpfner argues that the Energiewende is worth it, and staying the course will take commitment-and creativity. (See related, "Frozen Fish Help Reel in Germany's Wind Power.") For now, Atterwasch is in limbo. As long as plans to destroy the village are in the works, houses here are virtually worthless, trapping many retirees. Meanwhile, young people are reluctant to stay in a place whose future is so cloudy. Schulz-Hoepfner says the future has become a taboo topic in the 900- person village. "When we celebrate birthdays, we agree in advance not to discuss it," she said. "There are those who want to fight, those who are in the middle, and those who just want out." Vattenfall has promised to build a new Atterwasch somewhere else, but to many that's not an appealing option. "People may leave, but the soul stays in the village," said screenwriter Huschga. "Another place will never feel like home." (See related, "Harbin Smog Crisis Highlights China's Coal Problem," and "Coal Burning Shortens Lives in China, New Study Shows.") This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge."
I have an MBA from the Smeal College of Business at Penn State. Yes I am serious. However, using "payback period" to compare this solar farm investment to (perhaps) investing in a fast food franchise would be somewhat meaningless.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Tell that to the airlines, trucking firms, railroads, ocean shippers, tugboat operators, bus operators, recreational boaters, RV operators, ATV operators, snowmachiners, homeowners and the military. (Not to mention the millions of vehicle owners.)
"Payback period" is a simplistic metric with severe limitations. But it does have some useful purpose when comparing similar investments... (such as solar farm v wind farm) or the alternative to "do nothing" (i.e. continue paying full price for your electricity) Yes, it is not a cash flow type of analysis but it is a good first indicator of the economics of an investment. What you fail to understand is that, except for remote locations or specialized service requests, your out-of-pocket investment to obtain power from your local utility is zero, as in no bucks, nada pesos, zippo coin, nothing. The cost of the investment is borne by the utility and the return on that investment is embedded in the rate you pay the utility per kWh. The cost of installing or buying into a solar installation is a real outflow of cash money from your pocket, over an above the nothing you pay to be hooked up to your utility provider, and which DOES NOT need to be made. But if one chooses to invest one should expect a reasonable return on that investment. For the most part 13 year payout projects are not wise investments, especially if the useful life of that investment may only be 15 years or so (there is some evidence that then useful life of original installed residential type solar installations is less than 15 years). "However, using "payback period" to compare this solar farm investment to (perhaps) investing in a fast food franchise would be somewhat meaningless." Please explain why. I would expect a favorable return on any investment that I make. All things equal (including risk assessment), why would anyone choose not to invest in a fast food franchise over the solar farm if the franchise yielded the superior return on my investment?
Yes. It depends where you live, however and how the equipment is setup. As an example: if you live in the Southwestern area of the USA, there is abundant sunshine; if the orientation of the solar voltaic panels face South, you have an excellent investment with various energy conservation techniques such as attic insulation, double pane windows, etc. A poor investment in solar power is to purchase a thermo-conversion system, i.e: hot water panels and piping. This is a poor investment.
Is solar power really economical? It depends where you live, however and how the equipment is setup. But much more on the cost of electricity from your utility. I live in area in which the sun shines over 300 days per year. I have a 3400+ square foot two story home with gas heat and electric A/C. My annual electric bill is well less than $1,800. Assuming that I could install roof top solar to enabale to live off grid, how much do you think that system would cost to install, operate and maintain? If the installation $18,000 that would represent a 10 year payback period (not taking into account maintenance and replacement), $36,000 a 20 year payout. The last time I checked it would cost me much more than $36,000 to save $1,800 a year in electricity bills. Not is the definition of not economical. Now there are places not too far from where I live that a somewaht remote or with a very low population density wherein the owner of the proprty would have to pay the utility upfront to construct the facilities necessary to provide electric service. Investment in on-site solar generation, as well as a whole range of renewal and energy efficiency facilities, may make good economic sense. But these situations are few and far between.
I am sure there is apoint that you wishd to communicate. Is it nuclear/thorium power is good?
I hope the video posted. I cannot screen it in preview (run Chrome) but it seems to have been posted. Too lazy to type, just finished work. Wanted to share the video.
If you want a serious discussion, please don't insult me with false assumptions about what I understand. We are not discussing residential installations. Frankly, I don't think that this should even be viewed as an "investment." At least not in the sense that you would invest in stocks or mutual funds and expect to sell at some later date at a higher price. It is more like choosing to "invest" in higher priced LED or compact flourescent light bulbs instead of lower priced incandescents. The flourescents pay for themselves (payback period) because they use less electricity over the same time frame. So if you're looking for an investment to actually MAKE money, yes by all means, invest in a stock market mutual fund or a fast food franchise or whatever other business venture you choose. But if you're "investing" to SAVE money that you would otherwise be spending as an "expense," then making an "investment" in this windfarm is a legitimate alternative to other methods of obtaining electrical service. So why would you expect a "return on your investment" when you're actually analying the most cost effective alternative for minimizing your electrical expense?
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
And therein lies your problem. You demonstrate the ability to rationalize what you claim to have be educated on merely to serve you ideology. The economic and financial criteria, including risk assessment, for investing doesn't change based on the arena of the invesment. "I would expect the economic lifespan of such properly maintained facilities to be between 20 to 30 years... I would expect the economic lifespan of such properly maintained facilities to be between 20 to 30 years... " Of course you would, it fits your ideology. But in the real wold it doesn't fit the facts. Manufactures claim that useful life of inverters is 10-15 years. Most only warrent the full installation for 10 years. The panels themself have a stated expected life of up to 25 years but that is just one component of the system. If used, which is a must if you are going completely off grid, the useful life of batteries is 6-12 years. Juist a modicum of honest research on your part would have revealed that: "3. Product Performance Over Time Like other building components assessed during a property condition assessment, solar photovoltaic systems have a “useful life” (the duration before the system starts to deteriorate and no longer delivers the required output). Due to a variety of environmental (weather for example, as discussed above) and system efficiency factors, all solar panels provide less energy than their maximum rated output. According to a paper by National Semiconductor PV operating levels are expected at the outset to be 77% of rated output, dropping down to 67% 21 years out. Advances in technology will continue to improve the output of solar panels, but Useful Life is an important consideration when assigning the value a solar system will have on a long-term property investment." I am more than willing to have an honest discussion on this subject with you based on readily available, verifiable credible facts but you seem incapable of that. From my honest discussions with many, many professional energy and finance people over decades there is certainly areas of legitimate disagreement as to the economic and financial value of invetsment in solar, as well as other alternative energy generation systems. But when you posit that a 13 year payback period for an electric light bulb is an acceptable investment you are willfully ignoring everything you claimed to have learned about economics and finance.
Hey, if you want to "invest" in highly leveraged commodity futures because they promise a much higher ROI and quicker payback period than paying your own utility bill, go right ahead... I'm not gonna waste my time trying to talk you out of it. "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
But much more on the cost of electricity from your utility. You may be interested in this link to EIA data. The avegrage residential cost of electricity, cents/kWh, in Nov. 2014 was: U.S. Total - 12.46 Hawaii - 35.06 Alaska - 19.47 Califonia - 17.05 Washington - 8.66 Colorado - 11.61 Texas - 11.94 Florida - 12.20 Massachusetts - 17.57 New York - 19.46 Ohio - 12.79 2011 - 0.2% 2012 - 0.7% 2013 - 1.59% 2014 (thru Nov.) - 3.05% Now that is impressive rate of growth but in the overall scheme of things it is neglible. On balance solar accounted for only 0.3% of all electric generation in the U.S. If solar PV was such an economic deal one would expect to see installations all over the place. Compare solar's market penetration of all renewables of about 3% YTD Nov. 2004 to 33.9% for wind and 7.85% for even wood. Geothermal is on a par with solar PV at about 3%. Hydro remains the leader at 48.0%. The following should not be too surpising given the high cost of electricity in Hawaii. "According to EIA's monthly net metering utility data, 9,200 net-metered PV systems were added in 2014 through October, bringing the total number of customers with net-metered PV to around 48,000. In Oahu, where most of the state's population resides, roughly 12% of customers have rooftop solar, compared to an estimated U.S. average of 0.5%, according to the Solar Electric Power Association. The average capacity of residential net-metered PV systems in Hawaii has also been increasing as larger and more efficient PV systems are installed. Residential solar PV additions have been slowed by the delays customers experienced in getting approval to interconnect new PV systems to the grid. The delays stem from circuits on the Hawaiian Electric distribution grids reaching levels of rooftop PV capacity that are 120% or more of the circuit's daytime minimum load (see maps below)—a key threshold for Hawaiian Electric's interconnection approval process. Once that threshold is passed, an interconnection study may be required before the new PV system can be approved, which has resulted in a backlog of PV applications." Compare HI to CA where solar accounted for only 2.15% of electricity generation in 2013.
No not quite as it would require additional investment by the utility or the end user to replace the drop off in generation capacity. That or have the end user do with less electricity over the life of the original facility. It's amazing how you are so willfully blind to the realities of the world. With what does either the utility or the end user replace the lost generation capacity? I am betting you are going to say they should do without it.
Not true. There is no requirement to match individual share of capacity ownership with individual electrical consumption. It is pooled capacity that is share by the co-op members. An individual may invest in two panels and obtain the two-panel monthly credit regardless of whether the individual's average actual consumption is ½, 1, 2, 3 or even more panels worth of electricity. All investment in a certain number of solar panels does is entitle you to a certain credit on your monthly bill for "owning" those panels. It does NOT require you to consume any more or any less than whatever those panels actually generate.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
No not quite as it would require additional investment by the utility or the end user to replace the drop off in generation capacity. Not true. There is no requirement to match individual share of capacity ownership with individual electrical consumption. You can't be that dense, can you?. An individual may invest in two panels and obtain the two-panel monthly credit regardless of whether the individual's average actual consumption is ½, 1, 2, 3 or even more panels worth of electricity." What is the color of the sky in your world? The credit from the utility is based on the actual amount of electricity that the original two panels produce during each billing period not some theoretical or fictous number. If the sun doesn't shine the credit is zero. The end consumer must certainly replace that capacity whether in kind or otherwise. Further if your investment generates less and less electricity over time the eocnimics of that investment is negatively impacted whether you replace the lost generation or not. Either way the payback period increases as there is less and less annual savings from the investment over time. There is no use continuing this discussion with you as you are really dumb, which I don't believe is the case, or just intellectually dishonest, which I firmly believe you are. Take the last word, I'm done with you on this.
No... either way, the 21 years that it takes the panel efficiency to drop from 77% to 67% greatly exceeds the 13 year original payback period. In other words, the panels have already paid for themselves for 8 years. And virtually every photon that they convert to electricity, whether it's at 77%, 67%, 57% or 47% is pure PROFIT. You'd have to be dumb as a rock to want to replace the panels while they're still generating usable electricity after they already paid for themselves. "Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Apparently, the initial value for you and your family is not worth the investment in solar photo-voltaic conversion technology; for me, it is not about a dollars and cents perspective; it is more about the quality of life. So far over an eight year period there have been no maintenance issues other than to hose off the panels in the two arrays I have. It takes about 30 minutes with a high pressure hose and a soft scrubber mounted on a pool deck handle so as to reach the panels within the two arrays. There are 16 panels mounted in series for each array; each My home is cool (~70 degrees F) all year round and I havn't seen an electric bill since installation. To install this technology you must realize that the real value is quality of life. It can reach 120 degrees F (measured outside under the patio awning) in July, August and September where I live. It is cost prohibitive to be on the "grid" at peak load times because the utility company multiplies the cost by as many as 5X. I might add, in the early mornings/evenings I use a whole house attic fan to blast the attic with cool air; this ensures a buffer for much of the day. I also insulated the attic by double recommended thickness as well as automatic attic fans. I also mounted double pane windows throughout the home and placed plenty of insulation barriers around doors to seal the place. For me, it is about quality of life. The dollar cost is not a priority.
If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me where you are located and what make of panels, batteries and inverters you are using? How many batteries? Thanks.
That comment you quoted should have stated: each
Yes, I understand. Are you willing to answer my questions?
To install this technology you must realize that the real value is quality of life. It can reach 120 degrees F (measured outside under the patio awning) in July, August and September where I live. I have no basis to doubt what you report but I must admit I find it hard to believe that 32 panels can keep your home at 70 degrees when it is 120 degrees outside plus keep you lights and applicances on. What size is your home? What is the name plate kw output of you system?
I find the claimant is evasive when questioned.
What size is your home? What is the name plate kw output of you system? I find the claimant is evasive when questioned. We'll see.
See my post #24 and his response or more accurately, lack thereof.
You did not read my earlier post in entirety. Let me assure you the problem you are addressing is NOT about alternative energy sources but more about energy conservation techniques. Please re-read my earlier post because if you think you can find a cheap alternative energy source without improving the ifratructure, you are wrong. I suppose, you are interested in the added costs of conservation to ensure quality of life besides the addition of alternative energy sources?
I have.
I assure you that the issue that I am addressing is the economics of alternative energy sources not energy conservation. "Please re-read my earlier post because if you think you can find a cheap alternative energy source without improving the ifratructure, you are wrong." I am sorry but you response is confusing. You calimed that you can keep you home at 70 degress for the three months when the outside temperature is 120 degrees with just 36 solar panels. Is that correct? If so please tell me the size of your home and the nameplate capacity of your solar installation. Are you saying that solar PV is the cheapest source of alternative energy? If so, what infrastructure would need to be changed to make that not so?
I have. I guess that I have too.
I keep my home @70 degrees F +/- 2 degrees at all times; I have done so for years without paying one thin dime after certain conservation efforts were permanently installed. I manufacture about .9KW/h per panel per day on average; both arrays produce the same energy output with less than .1% difference; that is the reason for a redundant photo-voltaic system; I have an approach to monitor collection. I rarely use more than what I produce because of conservation techniques; of course, when there is cloud cover, I do not produce anywhere the peak capability of the system but that is a rare phenomena. I am not a salesman and I am not looking for clients; I designed the system I have and it works just fine. Your detailed questions are off topic.
Seriously? Chuckle!!!! Nobody is asking you to be a salesman.
So what is your reasoning to ask detailed questions, such as: Why do you require that information? Go research that sort of stuff with your friends or energy salesmen.
So you have an array of energy conservation and/or efficiency investments in addition to your solar PV system. You didn't mention anything about batteries so I assume that you do not have any. Consequently I assume that you are still connected to the grid since you also stated that you haven't seen an electric bill since the installation. Have you ever calculated the return on the total investment in these facilities? What was the installed costed of the entire generation and energy conservation/efficiency systems? How much in electric bill was saved by the investments? Do you know how much of the saving is due to your investments in energy conaservative/efficiency facilities and how much due to the solar PV system? You obviously do not live in HI were the retail residential cost of electricity is three times the national average. I am guessing that you live in a desert type area either in CA, NV, AZ, etc. where the retail residential cost of electricty is about 1.5 +/- times the national average. Your detailed questions are off topic." My friend the devil is in the details. It is noteworthy that you do not claim that your system makes economical sense but rather reflects a personal life style choice. That is pefectly fine if you choose that and have the means to pay for it. Most people do not have that financial luxury.
Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever EAST AMWELL, N.J.—Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water. Although the device cost $500,000 to construct, and it is unlikely it will ever pay off financially (even with today's skyrocketing oil and gas prices), the civil engineer says it is priceless in terms of what it does buy: freedom from ever paying another heating or electric bill, not to mention keeping a lid on pollution, because water is its only by-product. Slide Show: Photos show what makes this house work "The ability to make your own fuel is priceless," says the man known as "Mr. Gadget" to his friends. He boasts a collection of hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles, including a hydrogen-run lawn mower and car (the Sable, which he redesigned and named the "Genesis") as well as an electric racing boat, and even an electric motorcycle. "All the technology is off-the-shelf. All I'm doing is putting them together." SNIP MORE: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-house/ ******************** Published on Apr 18, 2013 ************************ Europe: Fuel cells to power regional trainsets GERMANY: Alstom Transport hopes to have 40 fuel cell-powered regional trains in commercial service on regional lines in Germany by 2020 under an accord signed at the InnoTrans trade show in Berlin on September 24. Under the letters of intent signed between Alstom, the Länder of Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Baden-Württemberg and the transport authority of Hesse, two prototype trains are to be developed by the end of 2018 for revenue service trials using modified Coradia Lint multiple-units. The powertrain will use hydrogen fuel cells, batteries and energy storage systems to replace a roof-mounted diesel powerpack, giving equivalent performance to an electric multiple-unit... ************** Weed eater running on pure hydrogen made from Water without Electricity Uploaded on Mar 30, 2011 *************** Solar Hydrogen is the Fuel of the Future. Solar Hydrogen is cheap, green energy independence. Fact.
Good. Let me tell you about my families' quality of life: super-duper. And, I don't pay one thin dime. With luck, you might understand that some reasons for alternative energy systems are not just based on some silly guy sitting at a computer weighing a profit/loss MSExcel spreadsheet with a hand-wringing potential decision that may improve his/her life and family. For myself, I just weighed the benefits of controlling my families' quality of life.
Comments (41 - 59) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAccording to Clean Energy Collective, the average residential member is estimated to see a bill credit of $5 per month per panel and will receive their return of investment in a little over 13 years.
#2. To: SOSO (#0)
Is solar power really economical?
The German solar PV industry installed 7.6 gigawatts (GW) in 2012[10] and 7.5 GW in 2011,[11] and solar PV provided 18 TWh of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[5] On midday of Saturday May 26, 2012, solar energy provided over 40% of total electricity consumption in Germany, and 20% for the 24h-day. The federal government has set a target of 66 GW of installed solar PV capacity by 2030,[12] to be reached with an annual increase of 2.5–3.5 GW,[13] and a goal of 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2050
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
Neuhardenberg Solar Park 145 MW
Finsterwalde Solar Park, Germany, 80.7 MW
Waldpolenz Solar Park, Germany, 40 MW
#3. To: SOSO (#1)
If that is so, a 13 year payback period is not a good (i.e. - competitive) investment at all.
You have to pay for electricity anyway, so a 13 year payback is a helluva lot better than no payback at all.
#4. To: Willie Green (#3)
#5. To: Operation 40 (#2)
Is solar power really economical?
#6. To: Operation 40, Willie Green (#2)
#7. To: SOSO (#4)
Where did you learn what you know about economics and finance?
"Payback period" is a simplistic metric with severe limitations. But it does have some useful purpose when comparing similar investments... (such as solar farm v wind farm) or the alternative to "do nothing" (i.e. continue paying full price for your electricity)
#8. To: Operation 40 (#2)
The end of the Petroleum age is here
#9. To: Willie Green (#7)
Yes I am serious.
#10. To: SOSO (#0)
Is solar power really economical?
#11. To: Pridie.Nones, All (#10)
#12. To: SOSO (#0)
#13. To: nativist nationalist (#12)
#14. To: SOSO (#13)
I am sure there is a point that you wished to communicate. Is it nuclear/thorium power is good?
#15. To: SOSO (#9)
What you fail to understand is that,
For the most part 13 year payout projects are not wise investments, especially if the useful life of that investment may only be 15 years or so (there is some evidence that then useful life of original installed residential type solar installations is less than 15 years).
The solar "farm" is designed, built and maintained to the same standards as any other commercial utility. I would expect the economic lifespan of such properly maintained facilities to be between 20 to 30 years... well beyond the 13 year payback period.
It is also a relatively low-risk investment, especially compared to the volatility of fossil fuel powered plants.Please explain why. I would expect a favorable return on any investment that I make.
#16. To: Willie Green (#15)
Frankly, I don't think that this should even be viewed as an "investment."
#17. To: SOSO (#16)
The economic and financial criteria, including risk assessment, for investing doesn't change based on the arena of the invesment.
The panels themself have a stated expected life of up to 25 years but that is just one component of the system. If used, which is a must if you are going completely off grid, the useful life of batteries is 6-12 years.
Now you're showing that you don't even understand your own post.
Nobody's proposing going off the grid, either completely or partially.
Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association is a not-for-profit electric cooperative serving 37,000 members. PVREA generates solar power for the grid and PVREA's members receive $5/panel credit on their monthly bill for power they receive from the grid. According to a paper by National Semiconductor PV operating levels are expected at the outset to be 77% of rated output, dropping down to 67% 21 years out. Advances in technology will continue to improve the output of solar panels, but Useful Life is an important consideration when assigning the value a solar system will have on a long-term property investment."
A drop-off from 77% to 67% would be cause for concern if PVREA had to pay for fossil fuel to generate electricity. But sunshine is free, so even a drop-off to 57% or even 47% wouldn't warrant end-of-useful life replacement. As long as marginal revenue of electricty produced continues to exceed the marginal cost of panel annual maintenance, might as well keep the panel plugged in and generating electricity. It's only when the panel starts costing more to maintain than the revenue it generates that you would want to consider replacing it with more efficient solar technology. Even if 87% or 97% is available 21 years from now, it would be best to use the new ones IN ADDITION to the older ones. No sense pitching them aside if they still work.
#18. To: Pridie.Nones, All (#11)
It depends where you live, however and how the equipment is setup.
#19. To: Willie Green (#17)
A drop-off from 77% to 67% would be cause for concern if PVREA had to pay for fossil fuel to generate electricity. But sunshine is free, so even a drop-off to 57% or even 47% wouldn't warrant end-of-useful life replacement
#20. To: SOSO (#19)
No not quite as it would require additional investment by the utility or the end user to replace the drop off in generation capacity.
You keep forgetting, the solar farm supplies power to the grid and any excess power generated by the farm and not consumed by members also gets supplied to the grid. And any power consumed by members that is NOT generated by the solar farms is coming from other "green" resources on the grid: wind, hydro, etc. etc.
#21. To: Willie Green (#20)
#22. To: SOSO (#21)
Either way the payback period increases as there is less and less annual savings from the investment over time.
DUMB AS A ROCK. LOL!
#23. To: SOSO (#11)
(Edited)
But much more on the cost of electricity from your utility.
panel array feeds an inverter (the inverter is operated at 75% of panel capability so I can upgrade four more panels in each array; I calculated the average power I consumed in the 5 year period before installation and there is no loss of any measureable power efficiency over the eight years of service.
#24. To: Pridie.Nones (#23)
There are 16 panels mounted in series for each array; each panel feeds an inverter
#25. To: Otter (#24)
panel array feeds an inverter
#26. To: Pridie.Nones (#25)
That comment you quoted should have stated: each panel array feeds an inverter
#27. To: Pridie.Nones (#23)
My home is cool (~70 degrees F) all year round and I havn't seen an electric bill since installation.
#28. To: SOSO (#27)
What size is your home? What is the name plate kw output of you system?
#29. To: Otter, Pridie.Nones (#28)
#30. To: SOSO (#29)
We'll see.
#31. To: SOSO (#27)
#32. To: SOSO (#29)
We'll see.
#33. To: Pridie.Nones (#31)
Let me assure you the problem you are addressing is NOT about alternative energy sources but more about energy conservation techniques.
#34. To: Otter (#32)
We'll see.
#35. To: SOSO (#33)
#36. To: Pridie.Nones, SOSO (#35)
I am not a salesman and I am not looking for clients; I designed the system I have and it works just fine. Your detailed questions are off topic.
#37. To: Otter (#36)
If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me where you are located and what make of panels, batteries and inverters you are using? How many batteries? Thanks.
#38. To: Pridie.Nones (#35)
#39. To: All (#0)
A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen
Scientific American.com | June 19, 2008 |By David Biello
Mike Strizki stores Hydrogen in propane tanks
Hydrogen House Project tour by Mike Strizki
24 September 2014 Railway Gazette 
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/technology/single-view/view/fuel-cells-to-power-regional-trainsets.html
Using aluminium to react with water to create hydrogen that is stored in the balloon that goes through a regulated ball valve and fed to weed eater motor.
Fuel cells are only going to get cheaper and more efficient. Fact.
The electrolysis process will only get cheaper and more efficient. Fact.
Water is plentiful. Fact.
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
My friend the devil is in the details.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]