PV Solar Power

[RWebb]

someone asked for a thread...

Here is a post copied from the nuke radiation thread:

Originally Posted by red-beard

[PV Solar] is not cost effective [currently, except in unusually remote locations.] We need to reduce the cost of Solar PV by a factor of 10. This is not going to come from manufacturing efficiencies, or even low labor costs (China). It is going to come from some break through in manufacturing.

Amorphous is the only technology which looks promising. There may have been a break through recently. It is already 1/2 the cost of mono-crystalline. With the reduction of the Staebler-Wronski effect, panel ratings will be 25% higher for the same size. This gets you down to 40% of mono-crystalline. This needs to cut it in half again, or more, to compete with carbon based fuels.

Thoughts on thin-film?

[nynor]

pollution and cost?

[304065]

cant get it below a buck a watt with the present technology
best way to approach a buck a watt is with low cost manufacturing-- but even the Chinese cannot get to that level (and their QC and "guy with a soldering iron" approach are incompatible with offering the 30 year warranty required by the market)
there are other approaches
pick the right one and you'll be reading this from the back of a steam launch in Positano

[cgarr]

Producing Power at night now that's interesting!

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Thoughts on thin-film?

Cheaper, but consumes more area.

The prices are continually coming down. The cheapest grid-tie kits are under $2/watt, and you still have to address mounting, labor, permits, and such.

[red-beard]

Amorphous is thin-film. It is cheaper, less efficient, but more cost effective. It suffers from Staebler-Wronski effect, a loss of 15-25% of the power production after 6 months. Ratings are usually from the stable point.

[RWebb]

pollution = very low
cost = high (maybe not so high when you add in all the real costs and subsidies for other forms of power)

[RWebb]

PV solar also can be done by installing it on rooftops -- this also shades the building so it requires less cooling (and solar is most useful in hot, sunny areas)

moreover, with a rooftop install you have nil transmissions losses (!)

an important security advantage is that PV solar (tho not concentrated sunlight (mirrors all over) solar) provides a distributed power supply -- if an earthquake, accident or terrorist attack (say esp. a cyber attack) zaps part of the grid then areas with PV solar will still have power - maybe just some, or maybe "even too much" - this is a significant adv. vis a vis risk

our power grid today is already failing and is far too susceptible to such security risks

the there is the "PR advantage" - nobody is scared of it

too bad it is (currently) so expensive

[Scuba Steve]

How well does it stand up to hail and high winds?

[RWebb]

about the same as your windows do

[nynor]

Originally Posted by RWebb;5920602[B

]pollution = very low[/B]
cost = high (maybe not so high when you add in all the real costs and subsidies for other forms of power)

really? it is non-toxic to produce the stuff?

[RWebb]

pollution = very low as the toxicity to produce solar cells is ~~ same as to produce other commodity semi- chips; they use a water/detergent wash nowadays

[Flieger]

Seems like solar thermal has better storage capability than photovoltaic- at least with molten salt.

I think the best storage would be pumped hydro, though. Use excess electricity to pump water to a high reservoir, then let it fall back through turbines when load is higher.

[Tim Hancock]

PV is way too expensive to be the answer for large scale power generation. Nuclear power is the only present viable large scale source of energy.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by RWebb

about the same as your windows do

My windows are vertical my roof sure is not. One recent hail storm here destroyed tile and asphalt shingles and even the steel roof on our commercial building had some big dents. Granted those storms are uncommon but insurance companies will have to foot the bill for replacement or not many homeowners will take the risk of total loss.

[ErVikingo]

I quoted a system for my new home and even with subsidies it will take over 40 years to break even (assuming no repairs are required and not considering insuring them).

I hope it takes off soon. Right now, the business case behind it relies on the subsidies.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by 304065

pick the right one and you'll be reading this from the back of a steam launch in Positano

I was just there last week! A quaint place, but no steam launches that I saw. There was some old guy rowing out in the surf every morning checking some kind of fishing gear.

[GH85Carrera]

I have never looked into a system. I am curoius, I assume you have to do some occasional cleaning on them. Few roofs will last 40 years. Is the system set up so they can be removed to replace a roof, or does one just do all the work of full installation all over with a new roof?

I would have to assume that in the year 2031 the technology of the new cells would make your 20 year old cells from 2011 not worth reinstalling after a roof replacement.

[ErVikingo]

Glen,
In my case they would be going over a concrete roof. The roof provides for attachment points which are considered on the structural engineering of the house. Especially in my hurricane prone zone.

On those “stubs” low profile aluminum racks are attached which hold the PV panel clusters/modules. They can be removed or better yet, tilted up for access to the underside or the roof.

[GH85Carrera]

Ok, I figured they had thought of a system to make removing or replacing a panel fairly simple.