Is my father in thrall of a bogus solar power rumor?

[constanze]

@Magiver

Solar panels have a life expectancy of 20 to 25 years and they don’t pay for themselves in that time frame.

So you ignore what happens in half of Europe, because it’s not true right now in the US. Ok.

That’s ignoring the fact that they will likely be obsolete before that time.

What do you mean, obsolete? This isn’t windows, where you have to update every few years, or US cars, where you must get a new model or the neighbours will talk. There are no moving parts that break down before. I don’t understand your point.

And that also ignores the expense of storing the power from solar cells during off hours.

What scenario are you talking about here? Did you miss where I said that when the power is not used by the people underneath the roof, it’s fed back into the grid, so somebody else can use it?

It is a very expensive source of power at this time so money would be better spent reducing power consumption (IE geo-thermal).

You’re mixing two completly seperate concepts. Yes, every kWh saved is better than one produced with solar, so reduction comes before production.

But “Geothermal” is about production of power, not reduction. It’s not a magic solution for everything, it’s a nice niche among the other green solutions.

I was referring to geo-thermal HVAC systems which actually pay for themselves.

?? I cited two of the common systems and asked which one you mean, and you don’t answer directly. Do you mean heating one-family homes with geothermal, and not the big power plants with thermal hot water?

Because you missed how only certain homes - those with big yards - can use that method.

And you blithely assert that they pay for themselves, without any figures or time frames. Let’s use the same standards here:

How much energy is spent producing the geothermal system, and how quickly is it paid off?

How much money does it cost to install the geothermal system, and how long does it take to pay off?

Lastly, you also completly ignored that comparing geothermal for heating with PV panels for electric power is comparing apples to oranges.
And if you want to compare geothermal heating to solarthermic heating - guess what? Those tubes are far cheaper to produce than PV panels, so the cost is recouped much quicker! Partly also because the price people pay for the oil / gas for heating is also higher than the price for electric power in the US.

[Magiver]

@constanze

So you ignore what happens in half of Europe, because it’s not true right now in the US. Ok.

It’s not magically cheaper in Europe so your argument doesn’t hold.

@constanze

What do you mean, obsolete? This isn’t windows, where you have to update every few years, or US cars, where you must get a new model or the neighbours will talk. There are no moving parts that break down before. I don’t understand your point.

Obsolete as in, the cost will come down before the life cycle is exhausted.

@constanze

Lastly, you also completly ignored that comparing geothermal for heating with PV panels for electric power is comparing apples to oranges.

It’s an apples to apples expenditure of money to reduce the cost of electrical use. Geo-thermal is a better investment.

[Mijin]

@constanze

Yes, but to get to that point where we can sustain and control a fission reaction without spending more energy (on the magnetic containment, on the acceleration etc.) is a very long road, and it’s complelty unclear / unknown if it is feasible at all under Earth conditions.

I don’t want to go too far off-topic but my point was just that nuclear fusion has huge potential.

If you are of the opinion that it won’t fulfil that potential because it may not be practical to make an earth-based fusion reactor, that’s fine.

But you can’t deny the potential is huge.
To imply that (effectively) limitless energy wouldn’t make that much difference, because of our creaking infrastructure, would be absurd.

[XT]

BTW, for those of you who don’t believe that you have to clean your solar panels after it snows, there is this picture.

Here is an article on whether it’s worth shoveling the snow off or not (the implication being that, yeah…you have too).

As Boston faces its fourth major snow storm in a month many New Englanders have sunk deep into the “dark months” blues. And each day as I stare at Groom Energy’s snow-covered solar array I can’t dismiss some level of guilt for our environmental faux pas.

But with storms January 12th, 20th, 26th and tomorrow’s monster, I’m left wondering whether we should bother reducing global warming by shoveling tomorrow? or maybe wait a few more days since another storm is probably coming anyway.

A quick look at Fat Spaniel’s solar performance site confirms a variety of approaches to this decision. Some shovel. Some wait for it to melt. Some wait, then shovel, then another storm comes – do they shovel again? You get the picture.

After this past week’s storm the folks at Harvard Business School broke out their shovels while Salem State University focused instead on their studies.

Cost of Solar Array:

System size: 100kw monocrystalline

Current cost of electricity per kWh: $0.12

Escalation rate: 3% per year

Total cost of original installation (circa 2010 at $5 per watt): $501,400

NPV of MA SREC’s value @ $0.285 kWh: $254,194

No Federal incentive as Harvard and Salem State are tax-exempt.

Therefore, total net cost: $247,206

Our solar energy model says this system’s average daily production in January is 171.4 kWh per day so the cash flow payback is @ 10 years.

Cost of Shoveling:

Hourly rate (laborer prevailing wage): $15.00

Number of panels (230 watt): 436

Minutes to fully clear a panel: 2

Efficiency: 8 hour day/1 hour of break

Therefore the estimated cost to shovel the 100kW solar array: $249 (+ $14 for shovel)

Cost Benefit for Shoveling:

Interestingly, while the value for the daily solar energy production for this system is only $20.60, the value for the daily Massachusetts SREC production is $48.85.

So the daily economic benefit for shoveling is $69.41 – or a breakeven of 3.6 days.

Anecdotally, on the rare occasions it snows here I don’t bother, because the snow never lasts more than a few days. It would be more dangerous than it’s worth (my solar panels are on top of the house). The biggest problem for me is keeping the things clean in the winter.

-XT

[Chronos]

Magiver, geothermal house heating (and that “geothermal” should be in quotes, since you’re probably actually referring to a ground-sink heat pump, not geothermal) won’t reduce most folks’ electric bill, since most folks don’t use electric heating in the first place. In fact, for most folks, it’d increase their electric usage, since they’d be replacing a gas heating system with one that uses electricity (albeit one that uses it efficiently). You would reduce most folks’ gas bill, but that’s apples and oranges here.

[md2000]

We already have man-made fusion, we just need to find a better way to collect the energy than South Pacific Island landscaping.

Solar power panels might be “not quite there”, but they are certainly useful. If you are going to use the argument “but they’ll be cheaper next decade”, then you have to figure in the lost cost of 10 years of purchasing electricity… and based on electricity costs over the next 10 years, not today. Fuure energy costs are unpredictable? That should tell you something, especially as we watch oil hit a new peak.

[Chronos]

If you are going to use the argument “but they’ll be cheaper next decade”, then you have to figure in the lost cost of 10 years of purchasing electricity… and based on electricity costs over the next 10 years, not today.

But you also have to figure in the lost cost of buying the panels right now, not spread out over the span of 10 years. And future petroleum costs may be unpredictable, but I can’t see any reason to expect the cost of electricity to increase significantly more than inflation, any time this century: Almost no electricity in this country is produced from petroleum.

[Crafter_Man]

@gazpacho

Your cites don’t really back up their calculations and they seem to fail to include the cost of the mounting hardware, the DC to AC conversion electronics etc.

Let’s not forget the amortization costs. Don Lancaster stated in one of his articles that “the amortization of the synchronous inverter alone in some home installations can consume 150 percent of the value of all the PV electricity sent through it.”

[Crafter_Man]

@md2000

Solar power panels might be “not quite there”, but they are certainly useful.

Agree. But they’re not even close to becoming a viable, large scale, net energy source.

[johnpost]

@Crafter_Man

Let’s not forget the amortization costs. Don Lancaster stated in one of his articles that “the amortization of the synchronous inverter alone in some home installations can consume 150 percent of the value of all the PV electricity sent through it.”

you have a date for that?

[Magiver]

@Chronos

Magiver, geothermal house heating (and that “geothermal” should be in quotes, since you’re probably actually referring to a ground-sink heat pump, not geothermal) won’t reduce most folks’ electric bill, since most folks don’t use electric heating in the first place. In fact, for most folks, it’d increase their electric usage, since they’d be replacing a gas heating system with one that uses electricity (albeit one that uses it efficiently). You would reduce most folks’ gas bill, but that’s apples and oranges here.

“geothermal” is used for both heating and cooling, is far more affordable than a PV system and has a faster return on investment.

[Magiver]

@Crafter_Man

Let’s not forget the amortization costs. Don Lancaster stated in one of his articles that “the amortization of the synchronous inverter alone in some home installations can consume 150 percent of the value of all the PV electricity sent through it.”

But you get that back when you screw in a LED light bulb because it converts the AC back to DC.

[constanze]

@Mijin

I don’t want to go too far off-topic but my point was just that nuclear fusion has huge potential.

If you are of the opinion that it won’t fulfil that potential because it may not be practical to make an earth-based fusion reactor, that’s fine.

But you can’t deny the potential is huge.

Actually, I can. Because no reputable scientist that I know of has confirmed yet that nuclear fusion will ever be energy efficient, that is, that we will get more power out than power we put in. No one. Because no serious scientist knows yet.

See, I have no problem if the physicists say “Well, we want to research fusion to understand quarks and quantum mechanics and physics better”. Sure, that’s basic research, just like using big-ass accelerator to split atoms into quarks, and maybe even further.

But I have a problem with deliberate lies of “we are researching / funding a new power source! Clean and unlimited!” when there is no evidence whether that’s possible at all.

Think about it: nuclear fission happens all the time in nature. Nuclear fusion only happens in nature in the center of the sun, with millions of heat and pressure. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible under Earth conditions, but it’s certainly not easy.

Taking money for research while claiming latter is a bold-faced lie. It also means leaving the proved, working road of solar energy, where we can build Paraboliccollector farms like Andasolin a Desertecproject right now over the next 20-50 years, and provide clean energy right now. We don’t need to wait 50 years to know “oh sorry it’s not possible after all” or “well it is possible but requires 50 megawatt to start the engine, and then it can only run for 2 days before it has to be shut off and cool down for one month” from the fusion proponents.

To imply that (effectively) limitless energy wouldn’t make that much difference, because of our creaking infrastructure, would be absurd.

I’m not saying it won’t make much difference. I’m saying it’s not a free solution like a magic word where all troubles disappear just because we found a way to make fusion work.

[constanze]

@Magiver

“geothermal” is used for both heating and cooling,

It’s pretty useless to argue with you since you’re such a one-trick pony (or rather, knee-jerk), but nevertheless: if you need cooling, then your house is badly insulated and you need to adress that first (avoidance before production).

is far more affordable than a PV system

**Nobody proposed a PV system for heating (or cooling).
[/quote]
. And a solar thermic system is about one magnitude cheaper.

Furthermore, only a certain segment of home owners can use earth heat sinks. All those whose yards are too small can’t. But far more homes than those with a big yard have a side to the sun (if they were intelligently built, that is - passive heating). With your knee-jerk “solar is too expensive”, you would rather people without yards keep using their gas or oil heating instead of becoming indepent from the volatile market with solar thermic, I guess?

and has a faster return on investment.

Again, not true if you’re comparing thermic with thermic. Solar thermic pays off quickly, because both the initial costs are lower, and because the difference in price between oil/gas is bigger than the price for electric power in the US.

Also, as has been pointed out (and ignored by you), earth heat sinks require electric power to run the heat sink. So the home owners still depend on the electric company to not raise the prices sharply.

There is only one technology that’s widely applicable right now and allows small home owners the most of energy indepence from the oil/gas market, and that’s solar, both thermic and PV. All other methods - wind wheels, earth heat sinks, bio gas (methane) - are either too big for small homes or require special situation (big yard; good position for wind).

So if you, Joe Average Citizen, want to do your part against the Monopoly of the oil / gas companies raising their prices nilly-willy; if you want to help your country become indepent from Russia and OPEC and Latin Americas with oil/gas; if you want to do your part against climate change; then you can do your part in small with reduction (better insulation) and most cases solar installation; and in large part by urging your politicans to built a Desertec project in the big empty desert in your own backyard.

[Chronos]

Actually, gas, like coal, is mostly domestic, both because the US is a major producer of it, and because it’s less economical than oil to ship long distances. And while it is a fossil fuel, it’s the cleanest of the fossil fuels, both in terms of CO[sub]2[/sub] and other emissions.

[billfish678]

@constanze

It’s pretty useless to argue with you since you’re such a one-trick pony (or rather, knee-jerk), but nevertheless: if you need cooling, then your house is badly insulated and you need to adress that first (avoidance before production).
.

You don’t live in the south or southwest do you?

[constanze]

Bavaria is in Southern Germany.

Do you want to argue that a well designed, well insulated house uses little cooling in summer and less heat in the winter than a poorly insulated one, or badly designed one?

[IAmNotSpartacus]

@constanze

Do you want to argue that a well designed, well insulated house uses little cooling in summer

Yes.