Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Koning Betweter on 11 Aug 2010 09:58 On 2010-08-10 16:11:39 +0200, keithw86(a)gmail.com said: > On Aug 9, 6:59�pm, Koning Betweter <Kon...(a)Stumper.nl> wrote: >> On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: >> >>> And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >>> the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >>> and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to na�ve >>> people. >> >> I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a solar-system! > > That must be one big building! It depends on how much electricity you're using every day. > >> Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the governements of countries >> who are selling uranium. > > Yeah, Canuckistan has always been a trouble spot. In fact I doesn't like any politician, I have been in politics for a few years. I've lost my faith in politicians. > >> The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the world, >> it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy out of >> sunlight. > > "Make" energy out of sunlight? English is not my main-language, I have no better expression, but you know I meaned to say "generate" > >> I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more >> efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce >> solarpanels too. > > That's what they've been saying for fifty years. Fusion will be here > RSN, too. True, I don't believe in fusion. > >> Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network for >> transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they generate >> their own energy. > > Except it doesn't. It makes them dependent on my tax money *and* my > electric rate. Why? > >> That's not na�ve, that's clever!!! > > Ripping off the taxpayer? I suppose you could call that "clever". It seems you are afraid of losing money. I have no problems with paying taxes. I don't rip anybody, I'm just experimenting with generating electricity, Every few months I buy a part. No taxpayer payed for my investment. In fact, I pay tax for the parts I bought, so you should be happy! I 'm living the alternative way, just staying alive. I use about 2000KW a year, just because my computer consumes to much. I'm trying to reduce my energy needs to 1000KW a year, hope to get there in 2012. -- Ik praat liever tegen een domoor, dan tegen dovemansoren.
From: Bill Sloman on 11 Aug 2010 09:59 On Aug 10, 8:53 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/08/2010 09:31, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > On Aug 9, 7:56 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On 09/08/2010 03:40, Bill Sloman wrote: > > >>> On Aug 9, 12:27 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry > > >>>> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 8, 1:18 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin > > >>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes > >>>>>>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it > >>>>>>> will be a niche source. > > >>>>>> A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is > >>>>>> larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day > >>>>>> load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of > >>>>>> air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, > >>>>>> while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load > >>>>>> during night. > > >>>>>> If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak > >>>>>> production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the > >>>>>> arrays to the south. > > >>>>>> Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but > >>>>>> it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead > >>>>>> of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would > >>>>>> have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to > >>>>>> ride through the winter. > > >>>>> California ISO typically reports 2 types of electric power usage day - > >>>>> those with a peak about 9 PM when it is cool, and those with a peak > >>>>> about 2 PM when it is hot. > > >>>>>http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html > > >>>> Thank you for the graph. > > >>>> It would appear that the daily variation is about 9 GW, so that is the > >>>> maximum nominal solar power that it makes sense to build. > > >>>> Apparently some kind of daylight saving time is used, since the > >>>> consumption is high after sunset, apparently due to air conditioning > >>>> load. > > >>>> A similar curve for Finland (at Alaska latitudes) is available athttp://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/load_and_g... > >>>> with about 2 GW day/night variation during weekdays and 1 GW during > >>>> weekends with early morning base loads of 7 GW. > > >>>> The base electric consumption is more than 12 GW during the winter > >>>> night and about 14 GW during the winter day. > > >>>> Someone might think that putting up 2 GW of solar power would solve > >>>> the problem. Unfortunately, at such high latitudes, the sun does not > >>>> shine much in the winter. A solar panel would only produce a few > >>>> watts. So in reality, the solar power array would be usable only > >>>> during a few summer months. > > >>> Germany is talking about building massive solar generation in the > >>> Sahara, and shipping the power north on ultra-high-volage DC links. > >>> Super-conducting cable has yet to be mentioned, but it would seem to > >>> offer even lower losses per kilometre. > > >>> -- > >>> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > >> As if we ought to put all our power generating capacity in poor Muslim > >> nations (again). Asking for trouble or what? > > > As Muslim nations go, those on the northern borders of the Sahara are > > relatively well-off. > > And terrorists would never dream of targetting those long vulnerable > power cables between N Africa and Europe. They don't seem to have got around to blowing up the long vulnerable natural gas pipes between Russian and Europe yet. Maybe they can be made less vulnerable than they look. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Aug 2010 10:32 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081115103951888-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-10 15:00:33 +0200, Jim Yanik said: > >> Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in >> news:2010081001595068674-Koning(a)Stumpernl: >> >>> On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: >>> >>>> And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >>>> the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >>>> and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to naïve >>>> people. >>> >>> I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a >>> solar-system! >> >> So do it,then.Show us how it's done. On your own dime,of course. >> >>> Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the >>> governements of countries who are selling uranium. >>> >>> The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the >>> world, it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy >>> out of sunlight. >>> I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more >>> efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce >>> solarpanels too. >> >> >> >> Utopian dreaming. >> >>> >>> Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network >>> for transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they >>> generate their own energy. >>> >>> That's not naïve, that's clever!!! >> >> Show me. > > With google you'll find many sites to help you building your own > energy-plants > > Solarpanels in 2004 costs were € 7,55 W/P > In 2008 it was € 5,00 W/P > in 2009 it was € 4,50 W/P > Now they cost € 2,05 W/P with or without subsidies? > > In 2015 it will be about € 1,00 W/P or less, so solarpower has a > future! YOU are the one pushing solar,YOU be the one to spend YOUR money and show us how it works. document your costs,savings and how often your system is not providing any usable energy. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Aug 2010 10:38 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081115332791513- Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-10 15:15:53 +0200, Sylvia Else said: > >> On 10/08/2010 9:59 AM, Koning Betweter wrote: >>> solar systems make consumers independent when they generate >>> their own energy. >> >> Let's see them disconnect themselves from the grid, and then we'll see >> how independent they are. >> >> Sylvia. > > The grid in my country is getting more expensive by time. Every year I > have used the same amound of energy, but the prices is about € 100,00 > more. > With an of-grid installation, it's only a matter of time to be cheaper > as the energycompany. > > It doesn't matter how you generate your energy, it's just cheaper to > use the energy around us like sun, wind or water. evidently NOT,because few people are doing it. Particularly with their own money. > You just need the space to build your plant and the money to invest. > > If you're living in a big building with many other families, you > probably have no chance to generate your own energy, except methangas. form a co-op. If its so beneficial,then everyone in the building would join. BTW,trying to generate practical,useful quantities of methane gas in a residential building might be a hazard to other occupants.(explosions) It might even be a nuisance.(odors) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: John Larkin on 11 Aug 2010 12:07
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:33:27 +0200, Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote: >It doesn't matter how you generate your energy, it's just cheaper to >use the energy around us like sun, wind or water. >You just need the space to build your plant and the money to invest. That's always the problem, isn't it? That reminds me of the great Alfred E Newman quote: "Two can live as cheaply as one, it just costs twice as much." John |