Information on how to stop smoking…

stop smoking information…

stop smoking resources…

But coal and nat gas plants do have the ability to run flat out during the parts of the day and year when demand is maximum, whereas for solar, this is up to the weather gods.

If the cost estimates are true, then a lot of solar capacity will probably get built, and once this gets past 5-10% of overall supply, then running the grid is going to get even more challenging than it already is, with significant energy sources subject to wild and uncontrollable output swings.

I agree that the install cost sounds very low, particularly for home systems. I would think that large flat-roof arrays or on-the -ground super-large arrays would be more likely to be cost-competitive with coal much sooner. No doubt ramped up production of panels will lead to further cost reductions as well. If Nanosolar is really capable of selling their panels at a profit at a price of $1 per watt, suddenly the challange becomes reducing the installation costs. If you read some of the material on the Nanosolar website, it appears that they have been paying attention to this, in terms of linkages of panels into larger arrays, etc. So maybe we aren’t at the point yet where home installation of solar arrays is a particularly cost effective option but it still seems that $1 per watt panels represent a tremendous step forward. It really does raise hopes that large scale use of solar power may be on the verge of being economically viable.

Based on a quick calculation using data I have for NE Kansas it would be 4,570 kWh per day or 1.67 MWh per year.

That gives you a simple payback of 12 years (if you could get it installed for $2000 which seems very low to me).

The panels do come with a 25 warranty and the more conventional silicon panels have been shown to produce power after 50 years (not sure now long nanosolar panels will last).

So you are going to be getting free power for many years.

I estimated my home usage of electricity, for example, to be a minimum of 12Kw per day (12,000w per day). How much effective production of electricity might I expect out of a 1000 watt system in, say Kansas City? If the system would consistently only produce about 4000w per day and my system, at $2 per watt costs $2000 to install (including storage, converter, etc.), and the going rate for purchasing electricity is $.10 per KwH, then my 1000 watt system would only produce 1460 Kw per year, and the production would be valued at $146. Even assuming $0 operating cost, the payback period would be over 13 years.

In the numbers I used in this example, the total install cost might well be much higher, and the daily electricity production might be much higher, too. Clearly the $.10/KwH value given to electricity produced gives no weight to the avoidance of environmental consequences of fossil fuel use either. Im just proposing these numbers for discussion purposes. Can anyone out there make an informed comment on what would really be an expected wattage production rate per day, or per year, for my nominal 1000 watt suystem in Kansas City (or somewhere else)?

“Manufacturing solar panels is not environment friendly, just like coal power plant.”

Wrong. Solar PV manufacturing is very energy intensive but the panels produce more energy than is used to make them in 3-7 years. It is way cleaner the coal power.

“After all you get DC from these PV, and DC to AC is very inefficient process.”

Really? Most solar system inverter operate at around 95% efficiency.

“Never any pure sinewave….”

Wrong again. Most modern inverters that are sold are pure sine wave. And they are required to be pure sine wave to be grid-tied (which is what most new installations are).

“And the batteries you need to store DC.”

Wrong again. You can have a straight grid-tie system. Probably the majority of systems going in right now are without batteries.

I remember reading about this several months ago (in B 2.0 perhaps), when this was in early testing, and word was just beginning to be whispered that a whole new game in solar was about to begin.

After all you get DC from these PV, and DC to AC is very inefficient process. Never any pure sinewave like coal powered AC motor. And the batteries you need to store DC.

I didn’t realize you were elitist too. I’ll just go back to the other huddled masses and leave you alone.

http://www.rene.../story?id=44723
(see comments 8 and 9).

LOL Doesn’t even take the time to type a legible name, or link-back (thereby placing whatever he says in a ’specious’ category, one step above spammers) , and calls people idiots.

Way to get people to listen to what you have to say….

there, fixed it for you, idiot. Recognizing shortfalls in a technology that’s been trumpeted for decades and not pan out doesn’t mean I’m part of some nefarious plot. It means I’m a big meany who just wants to stomp on your rainbows, strangle the earth mother, and celebrate with a unicorn steak.

Not as much as you would expect. The nation that produces the largest percentage of its power from solar is Germany. And most of Germany gets less sunlight than Seattle.

About a year and a half ago I help install a solar system on a home just North of Seattle (in a place that gets slightly more rain than Seattle). The home is now net-zero for electricity.