|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > September 2005 > Alternate Home Power In A Disaster Zone
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Alternate Home Power In A Disaster Zone
|
|
| Too_Many_Tools 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Considering that power is still out for many of the those affected by
hurricane Katrina and will be for some time, I would be curious to hear
from the group what alternative power system they would recommend for
someone sitting in the middle of this still unfolding nightmare...for
the next time a hurricane visits.
Thanks for suggestions.
TMT
and FYI...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050912...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Some 471,000 still lack power in US after Katrina Mon Sep 12,
Less than 471,000 electricity customers still lacked power 14 days
after Hurricane Katrina pummeled the U.S. Gulf Coast in Louisiana and
Mississippi, according to area utilities and the U.S. Department of
Energy.
About 384,000, or 35 percent, of the homes and businesses in Louisiana
remained without power, while Mississippi had about 86,000 customers
with no service.
Katrina initially left more than 4.5 million homes and businesses
without power when it struck early last week.
Entergy Corp., which restored power to all customers who can receive
power in Mississippi over the weekend, still has about 278,000
customers out in Louisiana, primarily in the heavily damaged parishes
in and around New Orleans.
Entergy is still not estimating how long it will likely take to restore
service to all customers in Louisiana.
Southern Co.'s Mississippi Power subsidiary restored power to all
customers able to receive power by the end of September 10, one day
ahead of its projection. The company has about 27,000 customers who are
unable to receive power.
POWER PLANTS
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the restart of
Entergy's 1,089-megawatt Waterford nuclear power station in Louisiana
on Friday. Workers, however, are still performing maintenance unrelated
to the hurricane prior to restarting the plant.
The reactor shut as a precautionary measure on August 28 due to a
hurricane warning for St. Charles Parish about 30 miles west of New
Orleans where the plant is located.
Entergy has 17 generating units in the New Orleans area fueled by
natural gas and/or oil. The company said it has returned 10 of those
units to service. Despite the outages, the utility said generating
capacity is sufficient to meet demand.
Some of the biggest remaining outages include Entergy's 959 MW Michoud
station in Orleans Parish, Louisiana and Southern's 1,047 MW Jack
Watson coal-, natural gas- and oil-fired station in Harrison County,
Mississippi.
Entergy has not estimated when Michoud would return to service but
noted the floodwaters around the plant were receding making the plant
partially assessable.
Southern said the hurricane seriously damaged the Watson plant, which
will likely remain out of service for six weeks to three months.
One MW can power 800 homes, according to North American averages.
Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 megawatts of
generating capacity, market energy commodities and transmit and
distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.
Southern's subsidiaries own and operate more than 39,000 MW of
generating capacity and provide power to more than 4 million customers
in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Considering that power is still out for many of the those affected by
> hurricane Katrina and will be for some time, I would be curious to hear
> from the group what alternative power system they would recommend for
> someone sitting in the middle of this still unfolding nightmare...for
> the next time a hurricane visits.
Wind, PV, and a diesel generator. The wind and PV will reduce their fuel
usage on the diesel.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| I'd suggest that, statistically, investing significant amounts in such
systems in a low-lying area on the Gulf is ill-advised.
>From history of the area from FL to Mexico, you want to keep your
valuables elsewhere, travel light, and get out of town quickly toward
high ground.
Tossing in polar-ice-melting and loss of marshland along LA coast, the
"bar" for what would be considered high ground there is steadily
rising. To amplify global warming, water vapor is also a greenhouse
gas, alongside all the methane leaking in Louisiana.
J
| |
|
|
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126548341.306796.187200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Considering that power is still out for many of the those affected by
> hurricane Katrina and will be for some time, I would be curious to hear
> from the group what alternative power system they would recommend for
> someone sitting in the middle of this still unfolding nightmare...for
> the next time a hurricane visits.
>
> Thanks for suggestions.
>
> TMT
>
> and FYI...
Having a dwelling above sea level comes to mind.
Most of these people do not understand the issues involved. Hence any power
generating equipment could be potentially dangerous to themselves and the
people that are trying to help. Apartment buildings would not be my choice
to have alternate power sources. Unless of course the land lord is
installing it. Like that will happen in my life time.
I can image there are thousands of people that are running their critical
loads and lights on small generators. Maybe even some with extension cords
to the neighbors. Their only issue is the fuel that it takes to run their
gennys.
I would start with education of everyone in the area. Then build for the
next disaster. Everyone seems to have forgotten the 2000 mess.
| |
| Mike McWilliams 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>
>
> Wind, PV, and a diesel generator. The wind and PV will reduce their fuel
> usage on the diesel.
>
it's probably more practical to just mention the diesel generator, any
wind system probably would have been ripped out, and PV is so expensive
you would be better off buying two diesel generators, or just buying
extra diesel.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>Wind, PV, and a diesel generator. The wind and PV will reduce their fuel
>usage on the diesel.
Question....
Rather than staying in one spot and buying equip that
supports that..... would it be better to invest in
equip that is mobile and allows one to "bug-out"?
I'm in the Midwest. No hurricanes here but we could
have a massive ice storm that would flatten all
electrical infrastructure for hundreds of miles. Would
take weeks if not months to get all the power lines and
towers back up as well as cell phone towers.
Other thing is I rent an apartment and that severely
limits what one can buy/install for off grid living.
having said that is investing in mobile/bug-out equip a
better idea and just leaving the area if such an ice
storm or other disaster hits?
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
>Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>Question....
>
>Rather than staying in one spot and buying equip that
>supports that..... would it be better to invest in
>equip that is mobile and allows one to "bug-out"?
>
>I'm in the Midwest. No hurricanes here but we could
>have a massive ice storm that would flatten all
>electrical infrastructure for hundreds of miles. Would
>take weeks if not months to get all the power lines and
>towers back up as well as cell phone towers.
>
>Other thing is I rent an apartment and that severely
>limits what one can buy/install for off grid living.
>
>having said that is investing in mobile/bug-out equip a
>better idea and just leaving the area if such an ice
>storm or other disaster hits?
I was going to suggest to the OP that the best source of power might
be a Smith & Wesson. A lot depends on the area. If I lived in N.O.,
I'd "bug out" as you suggest and forget about power and evrything
else. If I was off the main road in a rural inland area that would be
fairly free from looting, nearby neighbors, lookie-loos, and FEMA
idiots, I'd invest in something more permanent.
Look at it this way, if you have power, refrigeration, and maybe some
air conditioning, and nobody else does within fifty miles, there are
soon going to be a lot of people wanting you to share that "good
fortune" that you worked so hard to achieve, and some of those people
might be willing to use coercion and force to get their "share."
| |
| Ignoramus26409 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| I would not use any electricity "in the midst of an unfolding
disaster", if, by unfolding disaster, you mean on ongoing
hurricane. Too many chances of a short and a fire if the building gets
damaged while under electrical power.
Otherwise, if you have $$, a nice slow turning diesel generator is
best. Add ons like batteries, inverters etc, may be nice, but are
optional.
i
On 12 Sep 2005 11:05:41 -0700, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Considering that power is still out for many of the those affected by
> hurricane Katrina and will be for some time, I would be curious to hear
> from the group what alternative power system they would recommend for
> someone sitting in the middle of this still unfolding nightmare...for
> the next time a hurricane visits.
>
> Thanks for suggestions.
>
> TMT
>
> and FYI...
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050912...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
>
> Some 471,000 still lack power in US after Katrina Mon Sep 12,
>
>
> Less than 471,000 electricity customers still lacked power 14 days
> after Hurricane Katrina pummeled the U.S. Gulf Coast in Louisiana and
> Mississippi, according to area utilities and the U.S. Department of
> Energy.
>
> About 384,000, or 35 percent, of the homes and businesses in Louisiana
> remained without power, while Mississippi had about 86,000 customers
> with no service.
>
> Katrina initially left more than 4.5 million homes and businesses
> without power when it struck early last week.
>
> Entergy Corp., which restored power to all customers who can receive
> power in Mississippi over the weekend, still has about 278,000
> customers out in Louisiana, primarily in the heavily damaged parishes
> in and around New Orleans.
>
> Entergy is still not estimating how long it will likely take to restore
> service to all customers in Louisiana.
>
> Southern Co.'s Mississippi Power subsidiary restored power to all
> customers able to receive power by the end of September 10, one day
> ahead of its projection. The company has about 27,000 customers who are
> unable to receive power.
>
> POWER PLANTS
>
> The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the restart of
> Entergy's 1,089-megawatt Waterford nuclear power station in Louisiana
> on Friday. Workers, however, are still performing maintenance unrelated
> to the hurricane prior to restarting the plant.
>
> The reactor shut as a precautionary measure on August 28 due to a
> hurricane warning for St. Charles Parish about 30 miles west of New
> Orleans where the plant is located.
>
> Entergy has 17 generating units in the New Orleans area fueled by
> natural gas and/or oil. The company said it has returned 10 of those
> units to service. Despite the outages, the utility said generating
> capacity is sufficient to meet demand.
>
> Some of the biggest remaining outages include Entergy's 959 MW Michoud
> station in Orleans Parish, Louisiana and Southern's 1,047 MW Jack
> Watson coal-, natural gas- and oil-fired station in Harrison County,
> Mississippi.
>
> Entergy has not estimated when Michoud would return to service but
> noted the floodwaters around the plant were receding making the plant
> partially assessable.
>
> Southern said the hurricane seriously damaged the Watson plant, which
> will likely remain out of service for six weeks to three months.
>
> One MW can power 800 homes, according to North American averages.
>
> Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 megawatts of
> generating capacity, market energy commodities and transmit and
> distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
> Mississippi and Texas.
>
> Southern's subsidiaries own and operate more than 39,000 MW of
> generating capacity and provide power to more than 4 million customers
> in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
>
--
| |
| Ignoramus26409 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:27:33 -0500, me@privacy.net <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
> Question....
>
> Rather than staying in one spot and buying equip that
> supports that..... would it be better to invest in
> equip that is mobile and allows one to "bug-out"?
>
> I'm in the Midwest. No hurricanes here but we could
> have a massive ice storm that would flatten all
> electrical infrastructure for hundreds of miles. Would
> take weeks if not months to get all the power lines and
> towers back up as well as cell phone towers.
>
> Other thing is I rent an apartment and that severely
> limits what one can buy/install for off grid living.
>
> having said that is investing in mobile/bug-out equip a
> better idea and just leaving the area if such an ice
> storm or other disaster hits?
you may want to research into small diesel fuel powered furnace like
things. That could at least keep you warm in an apartment. A Honda
EU2000 could be of great help also, if you have a balcony and can find
a safe place to store gasoline (not in your apartment).
i
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:NGjVe.6296$u71.483@fe11.lga...
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> Wind, PV, and a diesel generator. The wind and PV will reduce their fuel usage
> on the diesel.
Notwithstanding the title of this thread, I think the OP is actually asking
about emergency power "for the next time a hurricane visits". Hands down, the
cheapest solution for occasional emergency power is a portable generator.
Depending on your needs, your pocketbook, and your talents, you will decide on
the size, the brand, and the fuel source.
Gasoline is expensive, hard to come by in a hurricane area, and has
problems with long-term storage. LP gas will store virtually forever, but you
may not be able to get your tank refilled following a disaster. Natural gas (if
you have it) will either be available at your house in unlimited amounts or not
available at all if damage if the infrastructure is damaged. My approach is to
go with two out of three.
Diesel generators (mentioned by other responders) tend to be more fuel
stingy, but heavier, far less portable and more expensive.
Vaughn
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
>Rather than staying in one spot and buying equip that
>supports that..... would it be better to invest in
>equip that is mobile and allows one to "bug-out"?
>
>I'm in the Midwest. No hurricanes here but we could
>have a massive ice storm that would flatten all
>electrical infrastructure for hundreds of miles. Would
>take weeks if not months to get all the power lines and
>towers back up as well as cell phone towers.
I was just talking to my wife about the dangers inherent in trying to
bug out in the middle of a winter blizzard or ice storm. We're all
set if the Natural Gas stays on, but if we have to run the generator
off gasoline and burn wood for heat it's going to be a lot uglier...
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Mike McXXXXXXXX wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
> it's probably more practical to just mention the diesel generator, any
> wind system probably would have been ripped out, and PV is so expensive
> you would be better off buying two diesel generators, or just buying
> extra diesel.
I'm not so sure about the wind turbine. My self-installed Air-X survived a
Category 2 hurricane, so a properly done professional one should be good
for _most_ hurricanes - obviously Katrina wasn't _most_ hurricanes, either.
I'd think the PV is a worse risk in a hurricane - they have beautiful
surfaces for catching a wind.
On the whole, though, I agree. Installing wind & PV _just_ for emergency
backup seems like a poor risk. But you'd better have a few weeks diesel on
hand.
--
derek
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Ignoramus26409 wrote:
> I would not use any electricity "in the midst of an unfolding
> disaster", if, by unfolding disaster, you mean on ongoing
> hurricane. Too many chances of a short and a fire if the building gets
> damaged while under electrical power.
>
> Otherwise, if you have $$, a nice slow turning diesel generator is
> best. Add ons like batteries, inverters etc, may be nice, but are
> optional.
Perhaps a diesel hybrid car or truck with the add-on inverter
would be the best option. When the power goes out, you can just
plug your fridge and TV into the car.
Anthony
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>I was just talking to my wife about the dangers inherent in trying to
>bug out in the middle of a winter blizzard or ice storm.
What dangers are there in bugging out in that scenario?
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net>
wrote:
>Perhaps a diesel hybrid car or truck with the add-on inverter
>would be the best option. When the power goes out, you can just
>plug your fridge and TV into the car.
Good idea
How soon will vehicles be available that can do that
form the factory?
| |
| Robert Morein 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
|
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126548341.306796.187200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Considering that power is still out for many of the those affected by
> hurricane Katrina and will be for some time, I would be curious to hear
> from the group what alternative power system they would recommend for
> someone sitting in the middle of this still unfolding nightmare...for
> the next time a hurricane visits.
>
> Thanks for suggestions.
>
These guys are such perfectionists that their advice may be a bit too much
to absorb.
If you want comfort during a hurricane, get a pile of battery operated
appliances.
If you want comfort after the hurricane, your choices are limited, unless
you have a place for the equipment that will stay dry. All forms of
generating and power equipment are essentially ruined by immersion in water.
So let's suppose you have a dry place for this stuff. There is a type of
Diesel generator sold on eBay, referred to as "silent enclosed", that is
typically rated for 3.5 to 6 kilowatts. These generators have the following
advantages:
1. They are on wheels, and easy to move around flat surfaces inspite of the
considerable weight.
2. Because they are enclosed, your neighbors will not suffer. Unenclosed,
open frame generators are extremely noisy, and someone might shoot you for
reasons other than a desire to take what you got ;)
3. Diesel fuel is safe. With a gas generator, there is always the danger of
an explosion while fueling. I always grit my teeth until both the generator
and fuel tanks are recapped.
4. These generators are much more durable than the Coleman crap. DO NOT BUY
A CHEAP GENERATOR at the local Home Depot. After not-too-many hours, it'll
be one more thing to plug a dike with.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Irresponsible political bodies.
"SQLit" <sqlit@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:GUjVe.34$344.4763@news.uswest.net...
> Having a dwelling above sea level comes to mind.
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| I think there is no ***ONE*** answer. The best answer is multiple systems
and diversification like money investment.
<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:nf5ci1tuk1dv629vrjgh534vduo3s3jp77@4ax.com...
> me@privacy.net wrote:
>
> I was just talking to my wife about the dangers inherent in trying to
> bug out in the middle of a winter blizzard or ice storm. We're all
> set if the Natural Gas stays on, but if we have to run the generator
> off gasoline and burn wood for heat it's going to be a lot uglier...
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| They had lots of warning time. PV could be taken down and protected until
after the fact when the winds settle down . Dried off first , off course.
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:79fhv2-vs6.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> Mike McXXXXXXXX wrote:
>
hear[color=darkred]
fuel[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not so sure about the wind turbine. My self-installed Air-X survived
a
> Category 2 hurricane, so a properly done professional one should be good
> for _most_ hurricanes - obviously Katrina wasn't _most_ hurricanes,
either.
>
> I'd think the PV is a worse risk in a hurricane - they have beautiful
> surfaces for catching a wind.
>
> On the whole, though, I agree. Installing wind & PV _just_ for emergency
> backup seems like a poor risk. But you'd better have a few weeks diesel
on
> hand.
> --
> derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
> William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
>
> What dangers are there in bugging out in that scenario?
Are you serious? The usual hazard is that you'll end up in a ditch
somewhere that may not be at all as healthy as staying at home in a cold
house. Only slightly less likely, but much worse, is becoming a hood
ornament on someone else's vehicle.
It doesn't matter where you live, if you get anything the locals consider
"serious" ice or snow, you don't want to be out in it. If you're up north
where snow is expected, then "serious" is just humongous amounts that can
bog down even the snowploughs, and if you're down south, any amount of snow
or ice turns every vehicle on the road into a lethal weapon.
--
derek
| |
| Mike McWilliams 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Mike McXXXXXXXX wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm not so sure about the wind turbine. My self-installed Air-X survived a
> Category 2 hurricane, so a properly done professional one should be good
> for _most_ hurricanes - obviously Katrina wasn't _most_ hurricanes, either.
>
> I'd think the PV is a worse risk in a hurricane - they have beautiful
> surfaces for catching a wind.
>
> On the whole, though, I agree. Installing wind & PV _just_ for emergency
> backup seems like a poor risk. But you'd better have a few weeks diesel on
> hand.
I was mostly objecting to the high cost of PV. It takes almost 20 years
of fully productive days to repay the energy it cost to manufacture the
PV panels in the first place. If you are in an emergency situation, more
gallons of diesel would be more useful, and provide power at a much
faster rate.
| |
| Too_Many_Tools 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| I would agree...I have been in several ice storms over the years when I
was visiting the relatives.
The last thing you will do is jump in the car and go somewhere.
When they happen, you will be staying in one spot with whatever
provisions you might have on hand which can strench into weeks.
It is a bad one, electrical infrastructure can be destroyed for
hundreds of miles around and you can be out of power for months. That's
weeks or months without power...and possibly heat.
And the last thing you want to happen is for a fire to start...all you
can do is stand outside and watch the house burn down...the fire
department will not be able to get to you because of the icy roads.
TMT
| |
| Tim Keating 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:15:55 -0600, Mike McXXXXXXXX
<michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>Derek Broughton wrote:
>I was mostly objecting to the high cost of PV. It takes almost 20 years
>of fully productive days to repay the energy it cost to manufacture the
>PV panels in the first place. If you are in an emergency situation, more
>gallons of diesel would be more useful, and provide power at a much
>faster rate.
A deception..
http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm
June 2000: paper... demostrates that payback for production PV modules
ranges from 2-3 years and energy output varies between 9-17 times the
input.
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/energy_payback.html
"What is the Energy Payback for PV?"
"Other recent calculations support Alsema's figures. Based on a solar-
grade feedstock, Japanese researchers Kato et al. calculated a
multi-crystalline payback of about 2 years (adjusted for the U.S.
solar resource). Palz and Zibetta also calculated an energy payback of
about 2 years for current multicrystalline-silicon PV."
I.E. 2 to 3 years for a PV panel oriented at latitude using average
solar raditaion data for the lower 48(states). PV payback time drops
by upwards of 3 fold depending on location and/or usage of tracking.
| |
| Ignoramus10314 2005-09-13, 2:25 pm |
| By the way, an ice storm is precisely the situation when cheap
generators function the worst. I recall reading a few complaints about
them breaking down during ice storms.
i
On 13 Sep 2005 09:02:10 -0700, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would agree...I have been in several ice storms over the years when I
> was visiting the relatives.
>
> The last thing you will do is jump in the car and go somewhere.
>
> When they happen, you will be staying in one spot with whatever
> provisions you might have on hand which can strench into weeks.
>
> It is a bad one, electrical infrastructure can be destroyed for
> hundreds of miles around and you can be out of power for months. That's
> weeks or months without power...and possibly heat.
>
> And the last thing you want to happen is for a fire to start...all you
> can do is stand outside and watch the house burn down...the fire
> department will not be able to get to you because of the icy roads.
>
> TMT
>
--
| |
| Robert Morein 2005-09-13, 4:21 pm |
| Due to outside storage?
"Ignoramus10314" <ignoramus10314@NOSPAM.10314.invalid> wrote in message
news:A%CVe.34006$PL1.28409@fe08.usenetserver.com...
> By the way, an ice storm is precisely the situation when cheap
> generators function the worst. I recall reading a few complaints about
> them breaking down during ice storms.
>
> i
>
> On 13 Sep 2005 09:02:10 -0700, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> --
>
| |
| Ignoramus10314 2005-09-13, 5:21 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:37:53 -0400, Robert Morein <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Due to outside storage?
Possibly, yes.
i
> "Ignoramus10314" <ignoramus10314@NOSPAM.10314.invalid> wrote in message
> news:A%CVe.34006$PL1.28409@fe08.usenetserver.com...
> wrote:
>
>
--
| |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-13, 5:21 pm |
|
Tim Keating wrote:
> A deception..
>
> http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm
>
> June 2000: paper... demostrates that payback for production PV modules
> ranges from 2-3 years and energy output varies between 9-17 times the
> input.
> I.E. 2 to 3 years for a PV panel oriented at latitude using average
> solar raditaion data for the lower 48(states). PV payback time drops
> by upwards of 3 fold depending on location and/or usage of tracking.
I'm confused, if the energy payback time is so quick, why are PV panels
so expensive? Is it due to raw materials, the sand that provides the
silcon plus some chemicals (seems unlikely)? Is it the manpower
involved? Is it the energy needed to purify the sand and all the
succeeding steps? If it's energy, can't a production facility be built
in a sunny state that runs on PV cells? They do get them at cost.
What determines the high price of PV cells?
And I don't buy that increasing-demand-will-someday-lower-costs
arguement. Plenty of other industries start out losing money and
quickly make it up in volume. The PV industry has had 20+ years to
break that logjam.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 5:21 pm |
| "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think there is no ***ONE*** answer. The best answer is multiple systems
>and diversification like money investment.
That was gonna be my follow up question/remark...i.e.
that maybe it bets to have a mix of bug out equip and
stay in one place equip?
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 6:21 pm |
| "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is a bad one, electrical infrastructure can be destroyed for
>hundreds of miles around and you can be out of power for months. That's
>weeks or months without power...and possibly heat.
I agree with what you all say above. But this is the
very reason I was thinking it best to bugout
For if the ice storm affects a big enough area
(hundreds of miles in each direction)..... and the
electrical system is down for months..... than how
would someone like me who rent an apartment ever
prepare for that?
I understand your point abt being immobilized due to
the ice... but cant I even backpack my way out of the
region to more southern climes say down to gulf coast
from north Missouri?
Just playing devils advocate here. You see I really
don't have the money to invest in the equip to set such
an ice storm out such as buying diesel generators, etc.
And since I rent where do I install such a thing?
Again....just thinking out loud how I could bets
prepare for the potential disaster in my area....with
major ice storms being the most likely. Again I'm in
north Missouri.
By the way...what would a good diesel generator cost
me?
I sure wish I could buy a diesel hybrid vehicle that
could not only serve as transportation but also as a
mobile power plant. That would be a viable solution for
me. Like a diesel hybrid van?
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 7:21 pm |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm confused, if the energy payback time is so quick, why are PV panels
> so expensive? Is it due to raw materials, the sand that provides the
> silcon plus some chemicals (seems unlikely)? Is it the manpower
> involved? Is it the energy needed to purify the sand and all the
> succeeding steps? If it's energy, can't a production facility be built
> in a sunny state that runs on PV cells? They do get them at cost.
> What determines the high price of PV cells?
growing the crystals and cutting the wafers (lots of loss) is expensive.
low volume production also contributes.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Tim Keating 2005-09-13, 7:21 pm |
| On 13 Sep 2005 13:01:45 -0700, jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>Tim Keating wrote:
>
>
>I'm confused, if the energy payback time is so quick, why are PV panels
>so expensive? Is it due to raw materials, the sand that provides the
>silcon plus some chemicals (seems unlikely)? Is it the manpower
Law of supply and demand... & limited manufacturing capacity..
>involved? Is it the energy needed to purify the sand and all the
>succeeding steps? If it's energy, can't a production facility be built
>in a sunny state that runs on PV cells? They do get them at cost.
>What determines the high price of PV cells?
Back in Dec 2003.. High grade PV panels were down to $3 a watt..
>
>And I don't buy that increasing-demand-will-someday-lower-costs
>arguement. Plenty of other industries start out losing money and
>quickly make it up in volume. The PV industry has had 20+ years to
>break that logjam.
1. They're competing in a un-even field against subsidized
industries.. I.E. The other industries don't pay for the full
cost of their energy sources or the consequences of their use..
Nuclear.. has got a sweet deal on liability insurance.. (to the tune
of 30+ billion $ per year..) Current&proposed implementation doom's
the US to a horrible fate, (worst than chernobyl) in the event of a
limited N-war or T-strike..
Oil.. Got half of the DOD working to protect supply lines and
producers(200B$/yr).. and tack on another 100B$/year to invade Iraq..
The US's southern boarder is being held hostage to the tune of 1.6M
bbl/d oil imports from Mexico.. (Tack on cost of 13 to 15 Million
illegals for which we all pay.)
N-Gas. Lot's of subsidies, not all that much left in US, and we're
importing more and more. (Hint: Dependance on DOD to stabilize the
3rd world. )
Coal.. Are you ready for a Couple of Katrina type storms every
year?? That's global warming in action.. Whose going to pay for all
that damage...
2. The solar energy is widely distributed and isn't conducive to high
concentration/control, therefore it has very few lobbyists and
campaign $ for Solar.. .
For example.. In the recently passed energy bill, the Senate
added a modest 2020 requirement to generate 10% of all electricity
with renewable.. I'll give you ONE guess what happen to that
provision in the house/senate conference committee.... :-(
3. Too many local rules inhibiting and/or adding exorbitant costs to
wide scale deployment.
4. Scale of economy..or lack thereof..
| |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-13, 7:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> growing the crystals and cutting the wafers (lots of loss) is expensive.
> low volume production also contributes.
OK, then why is growing the crystals and the loss from cutting wafers
expensive?
Is it the cost of raw materials, energy, or manpower? If it's energy,
which I suspect it is, wouldn't that contradict the energy payback
figures?
Low volume production would be high volume if the price was less.
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-09-13, 8:21 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
>"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>I agree with what you all say above. But this is the
>very reason I was thinking it best to bugout
This is true, you don't want to have to try to live thru the aftermath
of a major {winter storm, blizzard, ice storm} without any
preparation. However, you typically don't get a couple of days
warning about them, and trying to leave when it's plain that this is
no ordinary winter storm is liable to be fatal.
Maybe work on a plan that gets you to the nearest fire station, police
station, or designated shelter _after_ the storm is over...
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-09-13, 8:21 pm |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>I'm confused, if the energy payback time is so quick, why are PV panels
>so expensive?
Well, that's the same problem I'm having in the disconnect between
"energy payback" and "financial payback" on solar cells.
Unfortunately, I can't buy panels with KWHRs, so I'm stuck with the
same 20-year payback that I've always had.
| |
| Too_Many_Tools 2005-09-13, 8:21 pm |
| I think you are missing the point...once an ice storm actually starts,
you are not going anywhere...all transportation stops...including foot
traffic.
As for advance warning, you might get some or you might not. It is a
hit or miss thing.
My brother had to deal with six separate ice storms in three weeks one
year...even if you could bug out, are you going to bug out every time
the weatherman *thinks* something might happen?
I have aware of several ice storms in the last ten years which knocked
out the power for hundreds of square miles over three different states.
The ice remained for over two to three weeks. Most people were without
power for several weeks. Transportation was limited to only emergency
vehicles and they had a terrible time...many accidents.
While I do not live in an ice prone area, from what I have seen I
consider them to be a real threat if you are not prepared to deal with
them. If you would happen to have a serious medical emergency or a
fire, you will be SOL since you can not travel nor can the assistance
you need travel to you.
I should also mention that many times communications are out because of
cell/microwave towers and phones lines collapsing.
TMT
| |
| Too_Many_Tools 2005-09-13, 8:21 pm |
| Okay...it sounds like having a generator is the ticket if you want
dependable power after a disaster.
If so, how does one insure fuel availability? Using Katina as a model,
we are talking weeks without power.
Also, are there any PV/wind systems that someone could have stored away
for backup?
TMT
| |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-13, 8:21 pm |
|
Tim Keating wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 13:01:45 -0700, jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> 1. They're competing in a un-even field against subsidized
> industries.. I.E. The other industries don't pay for the full
> cost of their energy sources or the consequences of their use..
> 2. The solar energy is widely distributed and isn't conducive to high
> concentration/control, therefore it has very few lobbyists and
> campaign $ for Solar.. .
Sorry, I'm not trying to flame, but I have trouble believing all this.
Even if the subsidy issue was valid, that is local to the US. Europe
and Asia would now be mostly solar if the math worked out. China is
modernizing now, it has lots of wiggle room for new technology. And
there's always investment money out there looking for the next big
thing.
Why can't Soros, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or some other joker start a
complete PV production facility out in Nevada for a few tens of million
in seed money? The local government would love the jobs and speed
through the paperwork. Plenty of cheap unskilled labor (and skilled
labor isn't getting too many raises these days either). Take the first
batches of PVs produced and install them for cheap power. Run as much
equipment as possible only during daylight.
Cheap material, cheap labor, cheap power. Sell the PVs for a fraction
of the current price, make a killing all over the world. Why can't
this work if PVs are definitely not an energy sink as stated?
| |
| Ignoramus10314 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
| On 13 Sep 2005 15:50:54 -0700, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Okay...it sounds like having a generator is the ticket if you want
> dependable power after a disaster.
>
> If so, how does one insure fuel availability? Using Katina as a model,
> we are talking weeks without power.
Diesel generators (and diesel enbines) are much more economical wrt
fuel use, if they idle a lot (as it normally happens in a house power
situation).
For example, my Onan DJE would consume about 5 gallons of fuel if it
ran 24 hours. Since electricity can be used about 8 hours a day, 8
jerry cans could provide you with 24 days worth of fuel. Reduced
powered time will extend that estimate proportionally.
i
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
| William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
>This is true, you don't want to have to try to live thru the aftermath
>of a major {winter storm, blizzard, ice storm} without any
>preparation.
My thinking as well. I'm in no way prepped to stay if
we have this major ice storm that "can" happen where I
live. I just do NOT have that kind of equip nor do I
own a home that allows that.
Plus I'm single and no dependents to worry abt so it
just seems logical for me to spend my dollars on equip
that make me "mobile".... and for me to get the hell
out of dodge for a month if needed.
I know that it might be near impossible to get out of
north Missouri if such a major ice storm occurred. But
surely after a few days the roads would be somewhat
open again. My thoughts would be to fly or hop a ride
with a trucker to say southern Arkansas or Texas and
stay there for a month until the electrical
infrastructure is rebuilt in Missouri.
My "thought" are that it would take weeks maybe months
to get all the electrical lines and towers back up. but
that roads might be open in a matter of days. At least
open enough to start heading south to warmer climes to
set it out.
I'm no extremist..... but I do need to be better
prepped for such emergencies as I have nothing right
now. The Katrina disaster has convinced me I need to
invest in the "tools" for my bug out bag..... pack,
clothes, etc
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
| "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think you are missing the point...once an ice storm actually starts,
>you are not going anywhere...all transportation stops...including foot
>traffic.
Understand. But wont limited transportation be open say
72 hrs AFTER the storm? That's when Id leave the area
>My brother had to deal with six separate ice storms in three weeks one
>year...even if you could bug out, are you going to bug out every time
>the weatherman *thinks* something might happen?
No.... I'm gonna wait and see what happens. And if its
the big one then wait till highways open again and take
out south for month or two. Come back when elect
system back up which we both agree could take a month,
yes?
>I have aware of several ice storms in the last ten years which knocked
>out the power for hundreds of square miles over three different states.
Yes understand that ice storms can cover BIG areas just
like Katrina covered a big area. hence my desire to
leave that area totally.... get hundreds maybe thousand
miles away from it.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
| "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>While I do not live in an ice prone area, from what I have seen I
>consider them to be a real threat if you are not prepared to deal with
>them.
Agree 100 percent
I live in a very ice prone area and have come to
realize I'm not prepared in anyway shape or form!
I would say that ice storms are the major disaster
threat for me..... especially since they can cover HUGE
areas just like a hurricane.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 9:21 pm |
| Ignoramus10314 wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 15:50:54 -0700, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Diesel generators (and diesel enbines) are much more economical wrt
> fuel use, if they idle a lot (as it normally happens in a house power
> situation).
hmm... wish I could get my detroit to idle. The governor prevents that
from happening. It's hard getting it restarted in cold weather. it's
full bore 1200 rpm's regardless of load. I average 3/4 gallon an hour. I
keep 4 months of veggie oil on hand.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| wmbjk 2005-09-13, 10:21 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:35:32 GMT, Ignoramus10314
<ignoramus10314@NOSPAM.10314.invalid> wrote:
>For example, my Onan DJE would consume about 5 gallons of fuel if it
>ran 24 hours. Since electricity can be used about 8 hours a day, 8
>jerry cans could provide you with 24 days worth of fuel. Reduced
>powered time will extend that estimate proportionally.
Are you sure that you're not being a bit optimistic with those
numbers? I'm thinking that fuel consumption might be more like 15
gallons per day at 7kW. At what load does it use only a third that
much? Here are a couple for comparison.
http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1966.html
http://www.generatorsales.com/order....asp?page=600SS
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 10:21 pm |
| Consider yourelf lucky. Without loan coast or other complications I am into
75 years to break even on my 1.6kW
Our rates are flat at 5 cent plus a bunch of crap = 10.5 cent kWh.
Past performance is no indicator of future events.
<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:n8jei1p4fsas10861akkjv6f2h18opv82s@4ax.com...
> jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Well, that's the same problem I'm having in the disconnect between
> "energy payback" and "financial payback" on solar cells.
> Unfortunately, I can't buy panels with KWHRs, so I'm stuck with the
> same 20-year payback that I've always had.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 10:21 pm |
| Not in Ontario and Quebec it wasn't. The ice lasted for days or weeks. The
military had a hard time getting around to bag dead people even.
<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e5pei1plvd47cq26308k1nd9pcd2gsiqse@4ax.com...
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Understand. But wont limited transportation be open say
> 72 hrs AFTER the storm? That's when Id leave the area
>
>
>
> No.... I'm gonna wait and see what happens. And if its
> the big one then wait till highways open again and take
> out south for month or two. Come back when elect
> system back up which we both agree could take a month,
> yes?
>
>
> Yes understand that ice storms can cover BIG areas just
> like Katrina covered a big area. hence my desire to
> leave that area totally.... get hundreds maybe thousand
> miles away from it.
| |
| Ignoramus10314 2005-09-14, 1:21 am |
| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:17:06 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
> Ignoramus10314 wrote:
>
> hmm... wish I could get my detroit to idle. The governor prevents that
> from happening. It's hard getting it restarted in cold weather. it's
> full bore 1200 rpm's regardless of load. I average 3/4 gallon an hour. I
> keep 4 months of veggie oil on hand.
withour demand, engine runs but does not produce brake horsepower. I
believe that diesels need less fuel that comparable gasoline engines.
Well, your engine is what, 40 or 50 horsepower? (IIRC) And it uses 3/4
gallons per hour?
i
| |
| Ignoramus10314 2005-09-14, 1:21 am |
| On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:21:23 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:35:32 GMT, Ignoramus10314
><ignoramus10314@NOSPAM.10314.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> Are you sure that you're not being a bit optimistic with those
> numbers? I'm thinking that fuel consumption might be more like 15
> gallons per day at 7kW. At what load does it use only a third that
> much? Here are a couple for comparison.
> http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1966.html
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order....asp?page=600SS
You could be right. I extrapolated numbers that a guy who ran a Onan
DJC (4 cylinder, as opposed to my 2 cylinder), reported. It is only a
guesstimate. My home's energy needs are relatively small (given that I
am not able to run A/C), so engine will run at relatively light load.
Just lights (mostly fluorescent), fridges, sump pump, computers
etc. Nothing big.
i
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-09-14, 3:21 am |
|
"Mike McXXXXXXXX" <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1126620956.378@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> I was mostly objecting to the high cost of PV. It takes almost 20 years of
> fully productive days to repay the energy it cost to manufacture the PV
> panels in the first place. If you are in an emergency situation, more
> gallons of diesel would be more useful, and provide power at a much faster
> rate.
I am sure when you run out of diesel fuel and no other electric power, you
would have wish then you bought those expensive PV panels
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-09-14, 3:21 am |
|
"Vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net> wrote in message
news:FuoVe.36343$qY1.5129@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:NGjVe.6296$u71.483@fe11.lga...
>
> Notwithstanding the title of this thread, I think the OP is actually
> asking about emergency power "for the next time a hurricane visits".
> Hands down, the cheapest solution for occasional emergency power is a
> portable generator. Depending on your needs, your pocketbook, and your
> talents, you will decide on the size, the brand, and the fuel source.
>
> Gasoline is expensive, hard to come by in a hurricane area, and has
> problems with long-term storage. LP gas will store virtually forever, but
> you may not be able to get your tank refilled following a disaster.
> Natural gas (if you have it) will either be available at your house in
> unlimited amounts or not available at all if damage if the infrastructure
> is damaged. My approach is to go with two out of three.
>
> Diesel generators (mentioned by other responders) tend to be more fuel
> stingy, but heavier, far less portable and more expensive.\
diesel more stingy than LP? don' think so. Diesel has far more BTUs than LP.
Not to mention one could make their own biodiesel out of nature if needed to
in extreme siutations.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-14, 8:21 am |
|
"GeekBoy" <GeeksRUs@geek.com> wrote in message
news:4327b430$0$13538$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>
>
> diesel more stingy than LP? don' think so. Diesel has far more BTUs than LP.
> Not to mention one could make their own biodiesel out of nature if needed to
> in extreme siutations.
By 'fuel stingy" I meant that diesel engines tend to be more fuel
efficient. So we agree.
Vaughn
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-14, 8:21 am |
|
"GeekBoy" <GeeksRUs@geek.com> wrote in message
news:4327b252$0$13500$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>
>
> I am sure when you run out of diesel fuel and no other electric power, you
> would have wish then you bought those expensive PV panels
Assuming that the hurricane did not blow them away, or a tree did not fall
on them etc. etc. etc. For economic and other reasons, I don't think the PV
should be considered to be emergency power. That said, it was pretty damn neat
to be the only house in the neighborhood with yard lights following last year's
hurricanes.
Vaughn
>
>
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-09-14, 8:21 am |
| On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:
>I know that it might be near impossible to get out of
>north Missouri if such a major ice storm occurred. But
>surely after a few days the roads would be somewhat
>open again.
How long it takes the roads to reopen depends on a lot of things. I've
been in a few storms where whole cities were closed down for 5-7 days
(Syracuse in the 1960's; Boston area in the late 1970's). And police were
asking for those with snowmobiles to make themselves available for
emergency transport. Fortunately, these were snow storms, and power
outages were not a serious consideration. There was one ice storm in the
90's in New England where you would not have been traveling "in a few
days". And there were widespread power outages. We were out for about
five days (and were lucky that it was that short). Traveling was not an
option as we had work issues; and two dogs who decided to play with a skunk
just before the lights went out :-(.
I was too caught up in it at the time to really know what long-distance
travel would have been like.
But we melted snow for water; burned wood for heat; used a campstove for
cooking; and generally did OK.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-09-14, 10:21 am |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
>My thinking as well. I'm in no way prepped to stay if
>we have this major ice storm that "can" happen where I
>live. I just do NOT have that kind of equip nor do I
>own a home that allows that.
Yeah, but you can prep even an apartment for (say) a week in winter
with no power. Some insulation, stored water and food, maybe a bit of
power (do you have a balcony? A garage? A car?) and you can at least
survive till they get the roads open, then work on your southern
vacation plans.
>surely after a few days the roads would be somewhat
>open again.
Again, no-one knows, but staying doesn't mean dying, depending on your
resources.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-14, 10:21 am |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
> Tim Keating wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I'm not trying to flame, but I have trouble believing all this.
> Even if the subsidy issue was valid, that is local to the US. Europe
> and Asia would now be mostly solar if the math worked out.
I don't agree with much of Tim's post, but I _do_ agree that Solar competes
against subsidized industries and I don't see why you would think Europe &
China are any different.
> China is
> modernizing now, it has lots of wiggle room for new technology.
It's not interested. It wants results fast and damn the consequences down
the line. That means big coal mines, big dams and big nuclear. Europe is
not much different.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-14, 10:21 am |
| Tim Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:15:55 -0600, Mike McXXXXXXXX
> <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
No doubt about it - even though I live off-grid and use PV primarily. I'm
not certain the 20 year number is valid, but...[color=darkred]
>
> A deception..
>
> http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvlever.htm
>
> June 2000: paper... demostrates that payback for production PV modules
> ranges from 2-3 years and energy output varies between 9-17 times the
> input.
I can't figure a way to pay the _retail_ cost of PV panels in 2-3 years.
Only rebates make it possible. That same article says: "For example, at
the above-mentioned 1997 conference, system EPBT values ranging from 5 to
10 years were reported for present-day mono-crystalline silicon modules".
imo, those numbers are still pretty close for present-day systems.
> I.E. 2 to 3 years for a PV panel oriented at latitude using average
> solar raditaion data for the lower 48(states). PV payback time drops
> by upwards of 3 fold depending on location and/or usage of tracking.
They clearly say _four_ years for _current_ technology. The "anticipated
technology" has been anticipated for decades, and hasn't happened yet.
Even so, that 4 years is based on some ideal calculation.
LOL. "Tracking" at least _doubles_ the cost of PV and makes for maintenance
problems. I've never known anybody up here, where snow & ice are a
problem, to use tracking systems. It's cheaper to double the size of your
array. btw, neither of those articles even mentions tracking.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-14, 10:21 am |
| Vaughn wrote:
> "GeekBoy" <GeeksRUs@geek.com> wrote in message
> news:4327b252$0$13500$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>
> Assuming that the hurricane did not blow them away, or a tree did not
> fall
> on them etc. etc. etc. For economic and other reasons, I don't think the
> PV
> should be considered to be emergency power. That said, it was pretty
> damn neat to be the only house in the neighborhood with yard lights
> following last year's hurricanes.
Two years ago, when my neighbors were without power for 11 days after a
hurricane, I was able to lend my backup generator :-)
(Note: unless the wind actually rips trees out of the ground, you shouldn't
have whole trees coming through your PV, or you've got a shading problem in
normal conditions. Branches otoh...)
--
derek
| |
|
|
| Ignoramus25888 2005-09-14, 11:21 am |
| On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:13:44 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
> Ignoramus10314 wrote:
>
>
> 68 hp. and yes, it uses approximately 3/4 gph at load (8-12 kW), and 1/2
> gph at low load (2-5kw).
That's not bad, I would say.
i
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 11:21 am |
| Ignoramus25888 wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:13:44 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's not bad, I would say.
>
> i
>
the only problem is restarts at -40
kept burning up electric starters.
switched to a compressed air starter for this winter.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Ignoramus25888 2005-09-14, 11:21 am |
| On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:36:41 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
> Ignoramus25888 wrote:
> the only problem is restarts at -40
> kept burning up electric starters.
> switched to a compressed air starter for this winter.
That's interesting... What would you do if, by accident, you ran out
of compressed air?
i
| |
|
|
|
| On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:19:27 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> "Tracking" at least _doubles_ the cost of PV
On small systems perhaps. Let's use 1000W as an example at $4 a Watt.
Do you really believe that even a commercially-built tracker costs
$4000? The usual argument is that increasing the array size is a
better use of money, but that's almost always based on
overly-simplified comparisons.
> and makes for maintenance
>problems.
Some trackers http://www.zomeworks.com/solar/trackrack/trackrack.html
have little to go wrong. Even on electrically-powered trackers, the
motor and gear train are very long-lived. I have a C band H-H tracker
that's about 20 years old and still going strong. Generally the only
weak spot on a PV tracker is the controller. Perhaps $50 for a factory
repair. A reasonable budget projection might include one such repair
every five years. Those who'd also need two service calls per repair
as well should use different numbers.
> I've never known anybody up here, where snow & ice are a
>problem, to use tracking systems.
Yet C band trackers are everywhere in snow country. And what
differences do you imagine there are between say, the gears on a
tracker mechanism, and the gears on the rotating chute of a snow
blower? I'm thinking that people in snow country are just as likely to
be misinformed about the benefits of tracking as those in the desert.
I find that in general, tracking suffers from the same problem as heat
pumps... most people haven't owned one, don't know anyone who has one,
and don't understand all the issues. Also just like heat pumps, some
dealers have never sold one, and avoid situations where they'd have to
learn something new.
> It's cheaper to double the size of your
>array.
No, but regardless it's *better* to decrease the hours per day
batteries are in discharge mode, and to increase the number of hours
that energy avoids an inefficient detour through storage. If you make
a detailed analysis of how tracking might improve your system, and
then visit here http://www.redrok.com/main.htm to see how
inexpensively a DIYer can do tracking, you might become a convert.
Wayne
| |
| Tim Keating 2005-09-14, 1:21 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:19:27 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Tim Keating wrote:
>
>
>No doubt about it - even though I live off-grid and use PV primarily. I'm
>not certain the 20 year number is valid, but...
>
>I can't figure a way to pay the _retail_ cost of PV panels in 2-3 years.
You won't ... energy payback isn't the same as retail cost..
Then again the PV industry isn't dependant on DOD to the tune of
300$B/yr...
>Only rebates make it possible. That same article says: "For example, at
>the above-mentioned 1997 conference, system EPBT values ranging from 5 to
>10 years were reported for present-day mono-crystalline silicon modules".
>imo, those numbers are still pretty close for present-day systems.
Incorrect .. EPBT has experienced significant reductions over time,
especially as production scales up..
http://www.apec-vc.or.jp/solar/outline/outlne09.htm
Poly-si based panels EPBT is down to 1.5 years..
>
>
>They clearly say _four_ years for _current_ technology. The "anticipated
>technology" has been anticipated for decades, and hasn't happened yet.
>Even so, that 4 years is based on some ideal calculation.
>
>LOL. "Tracking" at least _doubles_ the cost of PV and makes for maintenance
>problems. I've never known anybody up here, where snow & ice are a
>problem, to use tracking systems. It's cheaper to double the size of your
>array. btw, neither of those articles even mentions tracking.
PV energy payback calcs are based on a average US solar radiation
flux of 4.6kWh/m^2/day.. (Flat plat tilted at latitude.).
click on
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_dat.../redbook/atlas/
and select the appropriate criteria to determine how much additional
energy you can harvest by adding various forms of tracking..
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-14, 2:21 pm |
| Ignoramus25888 wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:36:41 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
> That's interesting... What would you do if, by accident, you ran out
> of compressed air?
I imagine that, worst case, a hand (or foot) pump would suffice to
produce enough compressed air for a start.
Anthony
| |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-14, 2:21 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> I don't agree with much of Tim's post, but I _do_ agree that Solar competes
> against subsidized industries and I don't see why you would think Europe &
> China are any different.
Well, I don't know much about utility pricing in Europe, but am aware
of the huge gas prices. Oil isn't subsidized, it's subsidizing other
things.
I simply don't understand how different countries all over the world
can be so deluded if solar is such a bargain. And Europe has a much
stronger Green Party than the US.
| |
| Dale Farmer 2005-09-14, 3:21 pm |
|
jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> Well, I don't know much about utility pricing in Europe, but am aware
> of the huge gas prices. Oil isn't subsidized, it's subsidizing other
> things.
>
> I simply don't understand how different countries all over the world
> can be so deluded if solar is such a bargain. And Europe has a much
> stronger Green Party than the US.
Solar's biggest problem is that near the cities, where the demand for
electricity is largest, the output is not reliable. So the power companies
still need to build other power plants for peak demands anyway.
Places where solar power is reliable, such as arizona, there isn't a large
demand for power. The other problem is that huge solar farms would
be needed for the power companies to do it. Lots of land, lots of
maintenance and taxes on it. This changes the cost benefit ratio much
to the negative.
The real answer is solar power plants in orbit, and beam the power
back down to earth via microwave. But the luddites who stopped
nuclear power in the US have given strong indications that they would
exert similar efforts against this as well. Making it not cost effective to
invest in the project for a rather uncertain payoff. IF the regulatory and
lawsuit defense burdens were not there, the first power satellite producing
power and shipping it down to the ground would cost something like 7 billion
1975 dollars, using 1970's technology. Each power satellite after that
was something like 250K dollars. And as a side benefit, we would have
regular flights to orbit for people and stuff, a full time moon base and the
orbital construction shack in place.
--Dale
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-14, 3:21 pm |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Well, I don't know much about utility pricing in Europe, but am aware
> of the huge gas prices. Oil isn't subsidized, it's subsidizing other
> things.
Again, why do you think so? I don't know about the net value of subsidies,
but the British government certainly pumped a huge amount of money into
exploration in the North Sea. At least France, Germany and the UK have
Nuclear plants, and I agree with Tim that the fact that they have little to
no responsibility for their future liability amounts to an enormous
subsidy. Coal mines employ so many people - frequently in areas with _no_
other major source of employment - that governments spend billions of
whatever denomination they use to keep them open, whether they are economic
or not (actually, coal usually is economic - as long as you don't count the
health costs).
> I simply don't understand how different countries all over the world
> can be so deluded if solar is such a bargain.
It's the nature of politics. Solar's costs are pretty well all up-front.
While there is a cost for disposal, I think that the entire product could
probably be recycled right back into more solar panels. Fossil fuels costs
will come out in the next generation. Nuclear will still be costing (just
for safe storage of spent fuel) billions of dollars in 100 years.
Politicians will _always_ take the cheap option today that's going to be
expensive for a future politician, rather than the most cost-effective in
the long run.
> And Europe has a much
> stronger Green Party than the US.
The US doesn't really _have_ a Green Party.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-14, 3:21 pm |
| Tim Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:19:27 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> You won't ... energy payback isn't the same as retail cost..
Argue that one with Don Lancaster...
imo, it's close enough for horseshoes.
>
> Incorrect .. EPBT has experienced significant reductions over time,
> especially as production scales up..
I see, so now you're citing a URL which you claim has faulty data.
Production has certainly scaled up, but I'm not seeing retail prices go
down much below US$4/W. Yes, you can buy solar panels at under $4/W, I
have done, but current retail seems to be in the $4-$5 range (nothing, in
the 75W and higher range, currently on eBay has a lower price).
> http://www.apec-vc.or.jp/solar/outline/outlne09.htm
> Poly-si based panels EPBT is down to 1.5 years..
That's not evidence, it's a sales pitch!
>
> PV energy payback calcs are based on a average US solar radiation
> flux of 4.6kWh/m^2/day.. (Flat plat tilted at latitude.).
So why bring up tracking? Neither of your sources did.
> click on
>
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_dat.../redbook/atlas/
>
> and select the appropriate criteria to determine how much additional
> energy you can harvest by adding various forms of tracking..
That fails to explain how you thought you could reduce the payback time by
adding tracking. It doubles your cost and can only increase your solar
output if it works, and in any area subject to snow and ice (probably most
of the US) it's been practically guaranteed to not work at least some of
the time.
--
derek
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
| William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>Yeah, but you can prep even an apartment for (say) a week in winter
>with no power. Some insulation, stored water and food, maybe a bit of
>power (do you have a balcony? A garage? A car?) and you can at least
>survive till they get the roads open, then work on your southern
>vacation plans.
Possibly for a week
No garage tho.
But I guess I could buy a small gas generator
But what abt heat? I heat with natural gas.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
| "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Not in Ontario and Quebec it wasn't. The ice lasted for days or weeks. The
>military had a hard time getting around to bag dead people even.
Wow
what did people do?
| |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
|
Dale Farmer wrote:
>
> Solar's biggest problem is that near the cities, where the demand for
> electricity is largest, the output is not reliable. So the power companies
> still need to build other power plants for peak demands anyway.
I thought it was routine now to transmit power several states over?
Saw a news report during the California energy crisis about Washington
state sending some juice down.
> The real answer is solar power plants in orbit, and beam the power
> back down to earth via microwave. But the luddites who stopped
> nuclear power in the US have given strong indications that they would
> exert similar efforts against this as well.
I'm gonna side with the Luddites on this one. The orignal proposal for
the space shuttle was $5 million a mission. The actual cost (total
program budget / missions per year) wound up being over $500 million.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
> William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Possibly for a week
>
> No garage tho.
>
> But I guess I could buy a small gas generator
>
> But what abt heat? I heat with natural gas.
natural gas doesn't quit duting an ice storm or most disasters. you will
need some electric for fans/pumps, and igniters. during the ice storm of
'98, sun and wind were pretty useless, so it was the generator and wood
stove, plus pilot ignited propane devices that kept things going. 30
days of no grid power for the neighbors.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
> William P. N. Smith <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Possibly for a week
>
> No garage tho.
>
> But I guess I could buy a small gas generator
>
> But what abt heat? I heat with natural gas.
natural gas doesn't quit during an ice storm or most disasters. you will
need some electric for fans/pumps, and igniters. during the ice storm of
'98, sun and wind were pretty useless, so it was the generator and wood
stove, plus pilot ignited propane devices that kept things going. 30
days of no grid power for the neighbors.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com 2005-09-14, 4:21 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> Again, why do you think so?
Because Europe adds huge taxes onto their gas (petrol) prices which is
why they have been paying 2x to 3x per gallon what Americans have the
last couple decades.
> It's the nature of politics. Solar's costs are pretty well all up-front.
> Politicians will _always_ take the cheap option today that's going to be
> expensive for a future politician, rather than the most cost-effective in
> the long run.
Yes, but there are people on this forum stating PV cells have energy
payback within two years, financial payback a few years after that.
The long-run is not too far out according to them. And nuke plants
have a major up-front cost as well.
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-14, 5:21 pm |
| Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>natural gas doesn't quit duting an ice storm or most disasters. you will
>need some electric for fans/pumps, and igniters. during the ice storm of
>'98, sun and wind were pretty useless, so it was the generator and wood
>stove, plus pilot ignited propane devices that kept things going. 30
>days of no grid power for the neighbors.
I wouldn't want to attempt to jury rig a portable
generator up to my natural gas heater
So...does there exist a portable but vented kerosene
heater one can buy? something I can pick up and move
around myself yet have a vent run outside thru a window
or something?
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 6:21 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
> Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't want to attempt to jury rig a portable
> generator up to my natural gas heater
>
> So...does there exist a portable but vented kerosene
> heater one can buy? something I can pick up and move
> around myself yet have a vent run outside thru a window
> or something?
I'm not aware of anyone "jury rigging" a generator to a heat. usually
you connect the generator to a subpanel with your "emergency" loads.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| me@privacy.net 2005-09-14, 7:21 pm |
| Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>I'm not aware of anyone "jury rigging" a generator to a heat. usually
>you connect the generator to a subpanel with your "emergency" loads.
So this means I need a special interface panel to do
the above?
If yes..... I rent an apartment so cant install
something like that
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-14, 7:21 pm |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
> Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> So this means I need a special interface panel to do
> the above?
>
> If yes..... I rent an apartment so cant install
> something like that
you could run a heavy extension cord outdoors to the generator, to power
specific devices. But usually, an electrician puts in a generator/grid
subpanel.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
| Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:j53mv2-e6b.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca:
> jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Again, why do you think so? I don't know about the net value of
> subsidies, but the British government certainly pumped a huge
> amount of money into exploration in the North Sea. At least
> France, Germany and the UK have Nuclear plants, and I agree with
> Tim that the fact that they have little to no responsibility for
> their future liability amounts to an enormous subsidy. Coal
> mines employ so many people - frequently in areas with _no_
> other major source of employment - that governments spend
> billions of whatever denomination they use to keep them open,
> whether they are economic or not (actually, coal usually is
> economic - as long as you don't count the health costs).
>
>
> It's the nature of politics. Solar's costs are pretty well all
> up-front. While there is a cost for disposal, I think that the
> entire product could probably be recycled right back into more
> solar panels. Fossil fuels costs will come out in the next
> generation. Nuclear will still be costing (just for safe
> storage of spent fuel) billions of dollars in 100 years.
> Politicians will _always_ take the cheap option today that's
> going to be expensive for a future politician, rather than the
> most cost-effective in the long run.
>
The other thing is that alternate sources will require major
changes in the billing models, possibly electrical codes for
individual houses/office buildings, and basically a whole different
regulatory outlook. When was the last time any bureaocracy
embraced wholesale changes willingly? Plus, most people don't
understand alternate energy at all, and are afraid of what they
don't understand.
>
> The US doesn't really _have_ a Green Party.
| |
|
| Mike McXXXXXXXX <michael.mcXXXXXXXXs@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote in
news:1126554515.843133@coyote.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca:
> Steve Spence wrote:
> it's probably more practical to just mention the diesel
> generator, any wind system probably would have been ripped out,
> and PV is so expensive you would be better off buying two diesel
> generators, or just buying extra diesel.
And what do you think the neighbors are going to be doing when
there are lights on at your house and nowhere else in miles?
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-09-15, 12:21 am |
| me@privacy.net wrote:
>But I guess I could buy a small gas generator
If you have a balcony or other outdoors area to run it in, the Honda
EU series are portable, quiet, and would probably work fine for your
critical loads.
>But what abt heat? I heat with natural gas.
Chances are the NG will still be on, so you just need to get power to
your furnace. Do you have access to the electric panel? How many
apartments are there in your unit?
| |
| Too_Many_Tools 2005-09-15, 1:21 am |
| Actually that brings up an interesting question.
When you have power and others don't, do you share?
Or do you keep a very low profile so you don't lose it?
Your thoughts.
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-09-15, 1:21 am |
| Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Actually that brings up an interesting question.
>
> When you have power and others don't, do you share?
>
> Or do you keep a very low profile so you don't lose it?
>
> Your thoughts.
I've considered having a shotgun as part of my emergency gear.
In case someone wants me to "share" my stuff.
| |
| Dale Farmer 2005-09-15, 3:21 am |
|
jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dale Farmer wrote:
>
> I thought it was routine now to transmit power several states over?
> Saw a news report during the California energy crisis about Washington
> state sending some juice down.
>
>
> I'm gonna side with the Luddites on this one. The orignal proposal for
> the space shuttle was $5 million a mission. The actual cost (total
> program budget / missions per year) wound up being over $500 million.
That's because you have a government agency running things. If they
let a private company actually put stuff up, accepting the same level of
risk that you accept every time you drive your car, it would be way
less expensive. Part of the cost is also that the shuttle is 1970's technology,
and a lot of it is obsolete.
--Dale
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-15, 9:21 am |
| jjj_soper@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> Because Europe adds huge taxes onto their gas (petrol) prices which is
> why they have been paying 2x to 3x per gallon what Americans have the
> last couple decades.
That merely says that they're taxing back their subsidies. As I said, I
don't know if it nets out to a benefit for the government or not, but at
the very least Britain & Norway | | |