Solar panel sleight of hand

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by terri »

Git 'em Dean! Git 'em good! <p>A couple of weeks ago (on this forum) I analogized all this stuff to pushing in on a balloon. You push in here and it comes out there. <p>And!<p>And!<p>And I'm glad you're pointing out the subsidy system! I was afraid to bring that up the last time around since I got roundly trounced for the balloon analogy.<p>Git 'em! You, too, ian!<p>[ April 28, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>
terri wd0edw
peter-f
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by peter-f »

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by terri:

...And!
And!<p>And I'm glad you're pointing out the subsidy system!
....<p>[ April 28, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]
<hr></blockquote><p>Terri:
Well, now that you DID bring up the subsidy system, look into your history... the reason that the Electric Industry had their creature "ready Kilowatt" on their trucks in the 40's & 50's is because they GAVE AWAY light bulbs to their customers, so the customer would use MORE energy... A subsidy from the company!<p>And, the DISCOUNTS went not to energy conservers, but to energy WASTERS!
(oops, they still do! )<p>Dean:
there is only ONE (can you name it??) railroad in the US that was built WITHOUT a subsidy... ALL your transportation relies on what was assembled with 19th century subsidies.... should we throw it ALL out?
There are NO scheduled airlines that run without air traffic control, run by... (Guess...) the airlines?<p>Chris:
While I want to agree solar is the best idea, it's not... or GE wouldn't be spending (big time) on Wind Eenergy. The scale of generation is a major part of the efficiency... 100x1Mw is Not the same as 1x 100Mw in efficiency.<p>beware: picking and switching the subject to make your case... is anther excuse for not being objective.
User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by Chris Smith »

Wind energy is fine, but its limitations on where to put them and ecological draw backs as well as political considerations will hold then back for some time to come. Where they are installed, they work just fine. Aside from killing too many birds, it’s a good way to produce power, except when big private business gets involved. <p>100 grand for a pole and a generator sounds as bad as 3 grand for a glass bottle recycled into a solar cell, and dropped with a bucks worth of lead telluride or other materials. <p>The only thing stopping any of these renewable resources from getting off the ground is “no balls in DC”, Greed and lack of insight. And Ignorance.<p>And dean, you mistake ”pissing away your tax dollar” with “ripping us off”. Yes DC is good at pissing away our tax dollars, but at least we have the infra structure to show for it. <p>Electricity after the national program, was turned over to robber barons who let it delapidate, and when the whole system fell down a few years back, the same robber barons who took your money for the production and sale of power, went to DC to get more money to fix what they were supposed to be already doing, in that they are responsible for the up keep. <p>No, they took the money and ran, leaving the grid in shambles. <p>A national program is the only thing that will get us off the oil fix. We all pay a little at a time over a long period of time, and thus WE can do it.<p>[ April 28, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>
wolfcreek
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by wolfcreek »

Wind energy has almost no ecological drawbacks and one of the newer wind turbines will produce 750 Kw from a 10 mph wind. Wind is the only viable renewable electrical source for now or the near future.
User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 4325
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Bieber Ca.

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by Chris Smith »

Tell that to the birds. <p>In some areas it is killing off rare and endangered species to the point of danger. <p>But some of the newer turbine designed blades has minimized this effect.<p>Poof, oops, sorry Bald eagle?
terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by terri »

Well, I guess one bird killed is too many. The current philosphy seems to be that bird kills are more a siting problem --keeping the 'bines away from migratory patterns, etc.<p>Various things have been proposed, including whistles on the blades (but actually, birds don't hear as good as humans at the high frequencies) and flashers/lights on the blades (which seems to sometimes act as an attractant, and humans object to this "motel-like" light pollution.)<p>At this point, my "reading" on this problem is that the luddites and ultra-conservationists are making more of a big deal out of this than it deserves, and haven't noodled out a cost/benefit analysis. <p>After all, if not installing a turbine saves one bird's life, it's worth it, right?<p>From what I can tell, birds are smart enough to eventually learn not to fly into the blades. Some proportion of them make it through and get scared enough to not do it again.<p>Not to divert attention from the bird-blade problem*, but a lot of birds are killed by flying into glass skyscrapers and from flying around under highway underpasses, and you don't hear much from the luddites and ultra-conservationists about that. Interesting, no? Seems they only get all "het-up" where energy is concerned, and it therefore leads one to question their motivations.<p>It's also amusing that these people who are loosely and generally called "progressive" are usually "anti-progress."<p>At least that's the current opinion of this "bear of little brain."<p>Enlighten me, Christopher Robin.<p>---------
* Lest I be accused of "straw-man"-ing it.<p>[ April 29, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>
terri wd0edw
peter-f
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by peter-f »

Terri, tell me, what enlightenment do you seek?<p>I can't tell (reading your posts) WHAT you stand for... maybe your tongue is too deeply inserted in your cheek.<p>I, for one, am not afraid of gevernment involvement... if done right. What I seek as evidence of "right" is:
- Government does what nobody else can- scale of project (railroad, canal, standards for air traffic and power grid are examples).
- It provides for PUBLIC use waht no ONE person or company would (roads... when did you build your last road for Public use?)
- The overall cost can be spread to all beneficiaries with a degree of fairness; there is a degree of 'users pay, non-users benefit' (public transportation... can you imagine all those bus/train riders clogging the highways?)<p>Now... how does solar fit?? Where did they build the last power plant in your neck of the woods? What kind of pollution do you ingest as a result? What is the increase in cost of crops because of acid rain? How do you heat/cool your house... at what efficiency? When's the last time you reduced consumption with a 25Watt incandescent light bulb? (I can't find 'em, and don't look anymore... I use the 5W Fluorescents- but that's just me). What's YOUR agerage MPG?<p>Ask this of ALL Americans, and I'd venture most reading this thread would fall in the 'below-average' energy users... but Americans squander a shameful amount!<p>Terri- please... What does your post STAND for?
John Abel
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:01 am
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by John Abel »

How about fusion power? A lot of money has been invested in controlling fusion, but so far we can’t get more power out then we put in. Will this always be the power source of the future, or are we nearing a breakthrough? If so it would solve a lot of problems, just about no emissions or fallout, yet even more energy capability then fission.
wolfcreek
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by wolfcreek »

As far as bird kills due to wind turbines the facts prove this to be untrue. A recent study showed yearly that:
130 to 160 million are killed by power lines
60 to 90 million killed by autos
500 million to 1 billion killed by collisions with buildings, signs, etc.
It is estimated that wind turbines would account for 1 in 5000 to 10,000 bird fatalities
User avatar
jwax
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by jwax »

Think of the energy savings in car washes.
WA2RBA
terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by terri »

peter-f :<p>What I basically stand for is a rational examination of the energy problem. For your information, I just paid my electric bill. One hundred forty-five Kilowatt hours. My car gets about 27 mpg -- an older station wagon, needed to cart crap around, so you can't say I'm a wastrel.<p>But I am in a position to observe closely and daily the thinking of some of the ultraconservationsists, and I must say that most of them are "bandwagon-hoppers" who jump on every conservation problem without rationale or reasoning, and with more passion than prudence.<p>While it's admirable for the dot-gov to pursue and encourage conservation measures, I happen to believe that some of the current rules and regs are almost designed to force the US into essentially a third-world status.<p>A rational look at the energy problem reveals two problems. One is the short-range one of conservation and new sources (I note nuclear has been encouraged of late.) The other is more long-range: the growth of population to the point of, as I said before, "humans covering the earth like mold on a rotten peach." I made a veiled geographical reference to the cause of this as being located in Italy, and I'm glad nobody jumped on that, because I have a soap box dedicated soley to that subject in my storage locker.<p>So, yes, it may appear that I am being tongue in cheek about a lot of stuff, but that's the way I've got people to think about things in the past.<p>My plea and plaint is for people to open their minds to all sides of a problem, not just two sides.

I once asked, for example, about the shading effect of massive (not just rooftop) solar panels on the local ecology. Know what I got? Rebuttals again based on almost exclusively rooftop domestic solar systems. Fortunately, the discussion (which split off to other topics) went into a more-or-less realistic assessment of the costs of solar panels.<p>I once said on this board, "I always found it helpful to examine what happens as the independent variable moves from minus infinity, through minus one, through zero, to plus one, and then to plus infinity."<p>I have therefore granted myself permission to remove my tongue from my cheek and stick it out at both sides from the lofty vantage points of both plus and minus infinity. That's where I stand.<p>I thereby try to encourage looking at the big picture.<p>And the back of the picture, as well.<p>[ April 30, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>
terri wd0edw
rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by rshayes »

Some possible reasons that no one responded to Terri's question on shading by solar panels:
No one really knows.
The impact probably depends on the cell site.
It isn't a politically popular issue.<p>Solar cells look black. This tells you from the start that they absorb most of the incident visible light. This absorbtion continues out to a little past 900 nm. Silicon is fairly transparent for wavelengths longer than 1 micron, so the absorbtion may depend on the material on which the cells are mounted. Somewhere in this region, the glass covering the cells stops being transparent and starts to absorb. Overall, the cells and the cover glass probably absorb most of the incident solar radiation. Conversion to electricity is probably very efficient at wavelengths around 900 nm and probably falls to less thn 50 percent at a wavelength of 450 nm (on the border of the ultraviolet region). With luck, about 15 percent of the absorbed energy comes out as electric power, the other 85 percent heats the cell up. The celll temperature increases until either radiation, conduction, or convection removes this heat.<p>One BP Solar data sheet gives the nominal cell temperature as 47 C. This assumes 800 w/m^2 incident power, 20 C ambient, and 1 m/s air flow. The temperature rise is about 27 C. The highest recorded temperature is about 55 C (131 F). The incident radiation might be as high as 1000 w/m^2. There may be no wind. Under the absolute worst conditions, the panel temperature might be over 89 C (192 F). The good news is that temperatures are more likely to be about 10 F cooler. The California desert does consistently reach high temperatures around 120 F in the Summer however."Shade" may be a relative term.<p>Sand appears to reflect a good fraction of the solar radiation. Installing a solar panel will probably increase the solar radiation transferred into the ground. The result will be a local increase in average temperature, possibly enough to affect the local climate if the area is large.<p>Replacing a forested area with solar cells might have different consequences. Trees absorb more energy than sand, but they also evaporate water, which transfers heat into the atmosphere. Solar cells would heat the ground, and, since they don't evaporate water, reduce the relative humidity in the local area. This would reduce the local rainfall and probably increase the rainfall down wind. Paving a valley floor with solar cells could transfer the rainfall to the surrounding mountains and could increase erosion and flooding. The higher temperatures under the cells might force out animal and plant life.<p>The effects on grasslands, such as the Great Plains, might be similar. Vegetation under the panels would change. The higher temperature would evaproate water. This would make the environment under the panel hotter, drier and darker. Again, large installations might shift rainfall downwind. Lower rainfall would also increase dust deposition on the cells, reducing their output and possibly requiring more frequent cleaning.<p>Most houses in the desert have white or light colored roofs, usually covered in gravel cemented on with a type of plaster. This reflects a great deal of the heat. Mounting solar cells on such a roof would increase the heat transferred into the house and increase the amount of air conditioning needed. This could be solved with an insulated roof and an attic fan, but the additional heat would then raise the local air temperature.<p>Overall, I don't know if "shade" is really the correct term.<p>[ May 01, 2005: Message edited by: stephen ]</p>
terri
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:01 am
Location: colorado
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by terri »

Ahhhh, that felt good. Thank you, stephen, for looking a the back of the picture, that is, the underside of the solar cells!<p>Hu! Hu! Toro!<p>[ May 01, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>
terri wd0edw
peter-f
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by peter-f »

thanks terri-
As you may note, I made no personal reference to anyone here- so you can stop taking things I said personally. The 'you' I used was intended for each individual reading this thread... as an invitation to act (!) on your own personal level.<p>Your reference to nuclear.. especially Fusion... brings to mind that I visited Princetons Labs on a school trip (ca. 1968), and when the lecture/tour/presentation was over, they made it sound like fusion would be delivering power within 25 years... <p>But we know better... physics, Gov't commitment and/or reality has held that off.<p>Q: Is it necessarily the same with solar? Seems every government building has NO provision for it.
rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Solar panel sleight of hand

Post by rshayes »

As I remember it, fusion has been within a year or two of a break even experiment (energy out more than energy in) for just about as long. And with the same results. We are still in the "just another year or two" stage.<p>This field has had massive government support for about forty years. Massive government intervention is not a guarentee of success.<p>The aluminum refining process was discovered by someone who was a couple of years out of college. He did in a couple of years what the world's best chemists hadn't been able to do in nearly sixty years. Who would the govenrment have funded, that young kid or the world's best chemists?
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests