Posted on 11/18/2014 5:04:20 AM PST by Prophet2520
Although our array was designed to generate 30% of our electricity requirements, we are pleased to report that in reality it generates more than that and on very sunny days, we become a net exporter of clean green electricity.
(Excerpt) Read more at select-renewables.co.uk ...
sounds like a fake news, hidden sales pitch
Different site, but you may want to look at the data from We power. Many of the sites listed show active live and historic power data.
http://www.we-energies.com/residential/energyeff/active_installdata.htm
Anyone have a link to that article showing a place in Europe that had powerful lights, powered by diesel generators, pointing at their solar panels?
Seriously, the gov’t incentives were so skewed and perverse that it
ACTUALLY MADE SENSE
to power search lights with diesel to shine on their PV array at night.
“Is it true that it takes far more energy to manufacture a photovoltaic cell than it will ever produce?”
No. see
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use
Keep in mind the industry is young and efficiencies keep improving. Also conventional energies are not measured against this standard. Here is an interesting site with the amount of oil used.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/Consumption
“And at night?”
Their target was only 30% of their total expenditure, and night use is the lowest and irrelevant in this scenario. But many systems use energy storage and provide 24hour energy from the sun.
Hooking up to the grid should be a way to save money but I have never heard of any one coming forth and telling what their electric bill was before and after.
Stand alone solar panels work fine but you have to get used to a much different life style, or have more money than you know what to do with.
nice chart, thanks
And the effective lifetime of that PV cell array is little longer: Efficiency drops dramatically the first few months of exposure to the sun and environment, then levels off but keeps declining. So power produced is highest the first 3 months of the array’s lifetime, and it will never go up. After one year, most are producing 50-60% of the original nameplate rating.
A useful life of 12 to 14 years is about maximum.
Spain did that.
Now, it was not an illegal (but certainly immoral at least) operator, but they DID run lights on a PV array overnight to increase their government subsidy
Paladin’s right - DO NOT run DC any further than you need to. Power your inverter(s) and run everything of AC as you normally would.
Can’t run air conditioners, of course, but lights & refrigeration should be fine. NO COFFEE MAKERS EITHER!
“I bet the “green” power, by the time it gets to even the nearest neighbor is such a trickle that it isn’t even measurable compared to the line losses involved.”
Are you kidding? Get real. The power fed back to the lines has to be stepped up to the same voltages as everything else on the lines. The only thing you have accomplished with your argument is to show how ridiculous central power is compared to distributed power. Thanks for arguing for solar.
“But even to get that power across our property would require a significant investment in heavy copper, and that’s after inverting it to 110vac first. Trying to push that at 12-18VDC? Forget it.”
Absolutely, but you don’t have to send it at 110, you can send it at 220, or 440 or higher. But it sounds like solar might not be optimal for your situation. Wind may be an option, I don’t know. Cogeneration is an option as well, but is usually too costly for very small systems.
That is totally false information and has been dealt with in other threads. The first modern solar panel is still working 60 years later.
Using the reasoning of the OP, the government should give you the money to buy that wire. Then you’d have a ‘successful’ solar setup!
But it also shows a really successful application of solar: avoiding long runs of wire. If one can put up with the harsh limits of PV solar money can be saved at isolated sites.
so where do you get this information?
” the government should give you the money to buy that wire.”
It is very tiring to hear the constant whine from anti solar people too ignorant to realize that COAL is far more subsidized than solar has ever been. If conventional central powers true cost was charged directly to you, you would run screaming for solar at any cost.
Without stating the cost of parts, installation , and permits, the 450 “savings” means nothing.
Coal (or rather coal users) PAY FOR THEIR SUBSIDIES:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2FR43011.pdf&ei=vVprVKmuLIukNueHhPgK&usg=AFQjCNH_EcpdO8lIV7GSeezHUgArLzSYJA&bvm=bv.79908130,d.eXY
“Coal Lease Terms BLM-issued coal leases are for initial terms of 20 years, with automatic extension “for so long thereafter as coal is produced annually in commercial quantities from that lease.” In addition to rental payments of not less than $3 per acre, lessees are required to make payment to the government of a royalty of at least 12.5% in amount or value of coal that is recovered from leased land that is surfaced mined. The federal rate for underground coal mining is 8%. All leases are subject to the condition of diligent development and continued operation.31 Lessees must also furnish bonds sufficient to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease.32
Coal Revenues (Federal and State) Historically, federal coal production has generated significant revenues for the federal government and the states in which it is produced. States receive 50% of revenues generated in their state (minus administrative costs of 2%). Total revenues have grown rapidly since the 1990s, reflecting higher coal values and volumes. For instance, royalty revenue generated from federal coal leases doubled from 1983 to 1986, then doubled again by 1990, reaching $236 million. Revenue continued to rise, reaching $434 million in 2002 and $774.1 million in 2011. The states’ share in 2011 was $387.2 million, with Wyoming receiving $319.6 million or 82% of the total disbursed to the states. Revenues from federal coal leases reached an all-time high in 2009 at $780.4 million, providing states with revenues of $348.6 million. Wyoming has been the dominant coal producer on federal lands, receiving the majority of federal coal revenues disbursed to the states.33 “
Can you provide a source on the amount and nature of the subsidies to different sources of energy generation? I am trying to replace my oil furnace with geothermal, so I am all for innovation in this area so long as it is economic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.