Solar Panel Investment Traps Hidden Problems ?

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

Can anyone suggest a reason why you can't connect a wind turbine-based system to the grid - I have 3 KW of solar and would like to augment it with wind - it blows both night and day here - makes astronomy difficult sometimes but ..
Peter

You can Pete! however you will need a separate meter as the power generated is not recognised by the supply companies
Now the other issue is it clean air (open paddock) or turbulent (suburbia)

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by Merlin66

...
My daughter looked at the total carbon footprint of digging the ore converting it to silicon and producing the panels v's the life and energy production....she concluded they were worse than Yallourn power station and should be banned from sale!!...

About 15 years ago now, when I was at the Telstra Research Labs I was talking to one of the guys who was a recognised expert in the field of solar panels and he also said the overall net equation for solar panels is negative...heavily. If you factor in the energy required to dig up or manufacture all of the materials (silicon, aluminium, glass, copper, solder, pvc etc) ship them from all over the country/world and build a panel. Then transport this to where it is needed, you need more energy than you will EVER get out of the panel before it needs replacing. This was true back then, and I suspect still is now.

The "payback" period is only artificial as they are HEAVILY subsidised, if you had to pay full price, they would probably never pay for themselves.

If you are doing something like this ONLY to be green, you should at least do the equations first as I think you will find they are anything but green.

Having said that, I believe in the affirmative action of subsidising such projects as the technology needs to be tested on a large scale to see if it works and getting production going is the only way to potentially get the equation into the positive. However, if we were to switch to solar panels for all our energy production, we would probably need to burn all of our fossil fuels in order to do so, and still wouldn't have enough panels to replace the fossil fuels we have just burnt!

Enough raving....time to get back to work

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by OneOfOne

About 15 years ago now, when I was at the Telstra Research Labs I was talking to one of the guys who was a recognised expert in the field of solar panels and he also said the overall net equation for solar panels is negative...heavily.

I'd heard that too and occasionally wondered if it was true. Here's an interesting and apparently informed view:
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-h.../pvpayback.htm. The article is 10 years old, so presumably the overall equation is even better now.

Cheers,
Rick.

[bojan]

Hi Rick,
Thanks for the link..

This is the most important part from that article:

However, it should be noted that the above payback periods assume that the modules are always operated at their maximum power points [5], as with a maximum power point tracker. It is also assumed that no photovoltaic power is wasted or dumped, as would sometimes occur in many stand-alone systems, such as those using battery storage. Grid-connected systems do not incur such losses. Photovoltaic modules used without maximum power point tracking and/or in stand-alone systems could have longer energy payback times than given here.

"maximum power point tracker" means equatorial mount with tracking (doesn't need to be precise, 10° accuracy is enough. But still...

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Hi Rick,
Thanks for the link..

This is the most important part from that article:
"maximum power point tracker" means equatorial mount with tracking (doesn't need to be precise, 10° accuracy is enough. But still...

I have to agree efficiency of fixed panels means to provide the power requirements mean that you have to install a system that is maybe 50 to 200% larger to get the real requirment of the home.

I used to install solar panels in the outback and we had to determin the requirements versus the panels needed in a fixed system. Fortunately in the outback due to extremes the efficiency was quite high.

It would be interesting to see what the real panel use would be ie: 3KW installation may only produce 2KW or less (average). I wonder how many companies know if asked.

It is interesting about the manfacturing process, I knew this but never really thought about it until brought up in this thread. Would be interesting to see if a more recent report is available or whether something like this is suppressed. That kind of report would produce a negative carbon footprint offset for solar installations.
New manufacturing processes may change this issue.

[PCH (Paul)]

Some very interesting comments regarding trialling these solar panel systems on a large scale, which I absolutely agree with.

But can it be compared with the Post Office who used to ship letters all over the place and the business was profitable? Now that we all use fax, sms and email etc to communicate, there's a very reduced amount of stuff left for the Post Office to move around. Certainly in the UK, the PO has been reduced to a very unprofitable mess, - which leaves it needing to charge more for those still wishing to post a letter.

Might not the electricity supply companies go the same way? That is, if everyone is producing their own and using next to none of the stuff provided by the electricity company, will it still be able to operate a profitable business with reasonably priced electricity for those that don't have solar panels?

Also how do people feel about the ethical issues regarding the significant subsidies that the govt is giving people to help pay for these systems. It could be said that the people who can't afford them are subsidising, through their taxes, those who do buy them and then get govt money to pay half the bill.

Just my thoughts.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

..

It would be interesting to see what the real panel use would be ie: 3KW installation may only produce 2KW or less (average). I wonder how many companies know if asked.

.

I've had a 3 Kw system running now for 7 months and so far, it has produced about 2500 KwH of power (i.e. an average of 12 KwH a day) and of course the bulk of that period has been either winter or cloudy. I have had 2 quarterly power bills in that period one for about $30 and the other showing a small credit.

Peter

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

Did anyone think of progress?
I was watching new inventors a few weeks ago - and what I predicted has come to pass.
They've invented a paint-on medium that you connect to the mains and it produces more energy per sq mtre than the present systems. So eventually you will be able to paint your roof - or other surface.
WITHIN TWO YEARS, they will be selling it as a roll out panel that is laminated between two sheets and connected to the charge box. It costs less than 1/2 the present stuff. And of course has low installation costs. Payback is less than 2 years.
This means you will be able to paint a large rock and connect it to the mains - Uluru will become a power station.

The second point that makes me scratch my head.
Why do these panels get put on the roof???
It is much easier to put them on the deck! On the deck they can be tracked for elevation if not RA. You can direct more light onto them with mirrors as well - and a mirror is cheaper than another panel - when the light gets dim, you just switch on more mirrors to bring up the amps

The Post office is making a lot more money because they're now delivering a lot of stuff that has been ordered on line!

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Merlin66

A couple of comments:
.....
My daughter looked at the total carbon footprint of digging the ore converting it to silicon and producing the panels v's the life and energy production....she concluded they were worse than Yallourn power station and should be banned from sale!!
....

Mmmm! not very accurate there
http://energybulletin.net/node/17219
"solar photovoltaics produce approx 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of energy produced. Coal, on the other hand, generates approx 974 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour"

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

Rob,
She was looking at the total life cycle "womb to tomb" not just the operating part.
As mentioned there's a LOT of carbon used in the production of these panels which is overlooked....
(BTW what about disposal when they're finished their life cycle???)

[AdrianF (Adrian)]

Sort of on topic. Just had this on the fax machine at work.

Adrian

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Merlin66

Rob,
She was looking at the total life cycle "womb to tomb" not just the operating part.
As mentioned there's a LOT of carbon used in the production of these panels which is overlooked….

But wouldn't that be the 50g mentioned? In operation they produce no CO2 at all.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by pmrid

I've had a 3 Kw system running now for 7 months and so far, it has produced about 2500 KwH of power (i.e. an average of 12 KwH a day) and of course the bulk of that period has been either winter or cloudy. I have had 2 quarterly power bills in that period one for about $30 and the other showing a small credit.

Peter

This is very much like what my parents are telling me about their system. I find this impressive. And they're really looking forward to their first summer with the solar cells…

Cheers
Steffen.

[Craig_L]

Don't forget, you are supposed to put any money earnt (credit) into your tax return. It's income.

Also, might be worth taking out insurance in case of hail.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by jenchris

Did anyone think of progress?
I was watching new inventors a few weeks ago - and what I predicted has come to pass.
They've invented a paint-on medium that you connect to the mains and it produces more energy per sq mtre than the present systems. So eventually you will be able to paint your roof - or other surface.
WITHIN TWO YEARS, they will be selling it as a roll out panel that is laminated between two sheets and connected to the charge box. It costs less than 1/2 the present stuff. And of course has low installation costs.

I haven't watched New inventors this year, too many things to do but would be interested will track it down.

I also saw an episode on Catalyst talking about this new laminate solar installation development too. It looks so simple and extremely cheap, at the time though was still a little way of development but was to be ready in a couple of years.

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by RickS

I'd heard that too and occasionally wondered if it was true. Here's an interesting and apparently informed view:
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-h.../pvpayback.htm. The article is 10 years old, so presumably the overall equation is even better now.

Cheers,
Rick.

Very interesting article, an energy payback of the order of 5 to 6 years is "reasonable", certainly better than exceeding the expected lifetime of the panel.

The "paint on" technology mentioned later in this thread certainly looks very promising.

[Gama]

Originally Posted by pmrid

I've had a 3 Kw system running now for 7 months and so far, it has produced about 2500 KwH of power (i.e. an average of 12 KwH a day) and of course the bulk of that period has been either winter or cloudy. I have had 2 quarterly power bills in that period one for about $30 and the other showing a small credit.

Peter

Im like you Peter,
I have a 3Kw system as well, and was installed in March this year.

Like yourself, i have generated 2568kW.
I havent paid a cent in electricity since i installed it.
It was the best thing i did. My last bill was $103.00 Credit, and this paid for my gas bill ($93.00), and im still in credit.
I use quite a bit of power too, with over a megawatt per quarter.
You need to be smart, and use as much OFF peak as possible.

The system IS worth it if you go at least 2.5kW.
Anything smaller, and your just saving money. Bigger, and you get free electricity (And gas if you move the credit over) as long as you plan it right.

All this talk about people reading, hearing, etc, etc.
ASK those that have the systems installed.
My buy back is 67 cents/kW, and is pretty high as apposed to some others.
But even if it wasnt, you would at least get a small bill back, rather than a big bill.
The solar system will generate power in hot sun (40 + degrees), cloud, rain. If its big enough to start with, you can still save, even with the efficiency drop with heat on the conversion process.
On a cloudy muggy day, i have produce up to 2kW per hour, during the whole day (With not a sign of the sun). Even when it was bucketing down with rain, i was still generating 500 watts per hour.

You dont need tracking, this only improves things by around 10 % from data i have collected in the field.

The panels can handle hail (If its a quality brand). When Melbourne had that hail storm a few months ago, we had cars that were totally pitted and dented, yet the panels took the brunt. Even i was suprised they took that pounding.

I say this to anyone looking at installing solar power.
Ask those that HAVE THEM.
Get a system over 2.5kW, and stick it to where the "Sun does shine".

Some one asked, why do we need to mount them on the roof. Because they are HUGE and HEAVY.
Where are you going to put 18 panels which are 1.5x1 meter in size. If you have a BIG back yard, then its fine. But, not everyone has a big yard.

I got my system fron Nu Energy by the way.

Theo