I thought there was already a topic on "Solar...it's a joke" but a search didn't turn up anything so I will go ahead with this.
Nanosolar's breakthrough technology is 10 times more powerful than a nuclear
reactor and cheaper, too
By Lawrence Solomon
"Go to YouTube and you can see a corporate video of a printing press running
at 100 feet per minute, applying a nanoparticle ink to foil and producing
solar cells. This machine is owned by Nanosolar Inc., which in turn is
partly owned by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google. This one
printing machine, Nanosolar claims, can produce solar cells with a capacity
of 1,000 MW per year, the equivalent of a nuclear reactor Indian Point
outside Manhattan or two nuclear reactors at Pickering outside Toronto.
Unlike nuclear reactors, which take a decade to build and billions of
dollars in capital costs before delivering a single kilowatt-hour to a home
or business, Nanosolar's breakthrough technology can help meet society's
power needs soon after its ink has dried, and the press's capital costs
amount to a mere $1.65-million. Put another way, we can wait 10 years to get
nuclear power up and running. Or, by relying on a single Nanosolar press, we
can have the solar equivalent of a major nuclear plant in one year, and the
equivalent of 10 major plants in a decade. Soon, says Nanosolar, its
printing presses will be operating much faster — perhaps 20 times faster.
Should this prove feasible, a single Nanosolar press would pump out in a
single decade the equivalent of 200 nuclear plants--far more than now exist
in all of North America."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/06/23/here-comes-the-sun.aspx
That's good news - we need more good news 8)
I thought I read somewhere that you don't need panels , this can be literally glued /taped to your roof.
Just in case no one noticed, the sun doesn't shine on my roof at night. So to provide power when I really need it, I need some batteries. Priced batteries lately ? ::) My freezer won't run on battery power, so I need a big inverter. $$$$$ In about 5 years the batteries will be kaput, need replacing. more $$$. What about all that lead and sulphuric acid , nasty stuff, not exactly green.. ::) Solar power has it's place, but it ain't no cure-all. I'll stick with the nukes
I think what you are remembering, Doug is a lot of the stuff which
was brought into the "Wind Power...what a Joke" thread. Nanosolar
came into that discussion, too.
Good that you started this one separately, though.
I'm a big fan of solar energy. A few years ago, I put together a portable solar station for the wife for when she goes on her annual camping trip. I usually stay home & take care of the dogs...
It consists of a BP Solar 50 watt panel, and Morningstar 15 amp charge controller, and a 105 ah deep cycle marine battery. It has more than enough reserve to run a 12 volt fan all night in the tent, charge a cell phone, laptop, or whatever. We also have an inverter for it. I also use it to power my tree sprayer pump, and automatic electric trap thrower. From an 80% discharge, it will recharge fully during the day, even if it's cloudy.
I have a vision of going full solar at our place, primarily off grid but with a net metering system as backup. That way, I would sell any extra solar generation, and run on stored energy during non-daylight times. Also, the public utility power is always there in case of a system failure.
But there are too many trees in my neighbor's yard! Fortunately, their maple has verticillium wilt and maybe red thread too, a black walnut is in the way of an addition they want to build, and the ashes in the neighborhood are all dropping dead from what I suspect is a combination of anthracnose and drought. So, there's hope.
As far as battery life goes, it all depends on how you use them, and how you take care of them, but none of them last forever. But neither will coal, oil, natural gas, or a wind turbine. Everything will wear or run out sooner or later. At least batteries are recyclable. Spent nuclear fuel rods aren't.
Quote from: Lurcherman on June 27, 2008, 11:45:03 PM
Spent nuclear fuel rods aren't.
Spent fuel rods are recyclable, it's just that our former peanut headed President Carter said no to it. They do it all over the world. Why not here?
Bruce
I ask because I don't know...
How does one recycle a fuel rod?
Recycle into another fuel rod or into what?
What disadvantages are there that would make this illegal or at least
not practiced here?
Quote from: pineywoods on June 27, 2008, 11:30:04 AMSo to provide power when I really need it, I need some batteries. Priced batteries lately ? ::)
Priced nuclear plants lately? (The total cost, including government subsidies, insurance, waste disposal, etc.)
Quote from: pineywoods on June 27, 2008, 11:30:04 AMWhat about all that lead and sulphuric acid , nasty stuff, not exactly green.. ::) Solar power has it's place, but it ain't no cure-all. I'll stick with the nukes
True it's not a cure-all, but it works for tons of off-grid folks, so it can sure help the rest of us out a lot. Check out Germany sometime... they are utilizing solar PV more than most countries, and they get less sun per year than Seattle.
Me, I'd rather have lead-acid batteries in my basement than a nuke plant within 1,000 miles of my house. Oh wait, I already do!... twelve Trojan L-16 deep cycle batteries, that's about 1,450 lbs of lead and those babies last 8-11 years, even more if you've got a good desulphator and treat them right, FYI... and I bought them and the rest of the gear (5,500W sine wave inverter, 8kW diesel genny, control panels, etc. for $1,500 used... sounded reasonable to me!)
-Norm.
To each his own but I'll take the nuclear plant within a couple of hundred miles from me. We have one on each side of me and they don't pollute like the batteries that get thrown out every day leaching into the ground water. Recycle them, sounds great but unfortunately the majority do not do so.
Come on up Piney, we'll leave a light on for ya. ;D
I may be talking out of ignorance, but if everyone was using solar technology and it was all plugged back into the grid, why would we need batteries? We would reduce our need for energy to the point that the grid power that we are all accustomed to would then become the secondary alternative, back up energy source. The cloudy day power. The night time power. "The Grid" could be the battery.
I may be answering you out of ignorance, as well. The grid is a delivery system, not a storage system.
They're going to do away with our caps on our electric bills. Caps were put on when we went into deregulation. We have loads of capacity in the state. Lots of nukes, coal fired, hydro, wood fired, and natural gas. Probably a few oil fired plants, as well. Our costs are going to probably double.
Ok, lets say that the battery system is faulty and you don't really want to put in batteries. You put up solar and that helps in level out the peak periods during the day. That would help in the need to put up more power plants. It also drains some of the monopoly out of the power companies. I see that as a win for the consumer.
Germany subsidizes their solar industry very heavily. I don't think it is a good economic example of the technology.
That is true. The grid would be primarily needed at night.
Up until December 31, 2008, the US and the state of Georgia
are also heavily subsidizing. The offer stands until then. If
I spend the bucks, I get a tax credit between the two sources, totalling to over half the
cost of the system. Limitations do apply.
Take a look at the fine print, however, in your state.
Georgia Power (part of the Southern Company) is a first come first served buyer of solar.
Once they reach .2% of their peak demand, they are no longer bound to buy any more alternative energy
from other producers who are hooked into their grid. POINT TWO PERCENT! If i happen
to hook up after they reach their quota, any excess is just theirs, unless I disconnect.
As you can tell, I have been considering it, but the big boys are well protected against we
common folks. Right now, the law in Georgia says they buy back at a rate of 17.4 cents
per kWhr which is not bad - about 60% of retail value.
I'm going to PO some of you. >:( >:(
Talking about Batteries not being good for the land or sky, then, what about TIRES ???
Are they ALL recycled ???
Everyone talks about the hybrid cars being so great. The Prius gets LESS MPG per tankful, than some of the compact cars ???
I had an ORIGINAL Edison Battery Bank, that was Nickel-Iron technology. They were 60+ years old, when I used them as Battery power for my house in Ar.
Pineywoods. I really enjoy your posts, and the info on the SOLAR kiln. Why did you go SOLAR ???
Bottom line is, everyone feels ENTITLED to cheap power. Electricity, gasoline, Diesel, Batteries, Solar Panels.
If y'all would stop talking and start buying, you would CUT dependence on some BIG BUSINESSES domonation. ::) ::) ::)
Down here, it WAS cheaper to buy electric. Price will nearly double SOON. Hourly wages for most Ticos is $1.40 for farm workers. They DO get benefits, like Fred's operation, but, you can't EAT benefits. How will THEY keep food cold and lights on ???
I went through the same crap when I was trying to get things going, in the 70's. I was told, " I could take THAT cost, put it in the bank, and pay my light bill". My followup question was, Do you HAVE that price in your pocket or bank RIGHT NOW ???
"Well, of course not". ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Jeff is close to being in the ballpark, along with Ron. Problem is, night time. That's what makes WATER power so nice. Close the flow down to meet demand. Nuclear is great, BUT, non adjustable to load conditions.
Funny, NO ONE has mentioned the nearly free price of Nuke fuel, paid for by the taxpayers ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
There has been plenty of talk about nuke, and there will be plenty more, but this thread is about solar. ::)
I have a good friend who is running his home on PV cells. He has a bank of batteries in the shed, has a small genset for backup, cooks with gas, heats with wood, and he built his house tall for convection cooling. During the daytime when demand is low and production is high, he runs the pump to fill a large tank for watering the garden. He also has a gravity feed tank in his attic for household water. They seem to be doing quite well with that setup.
Doug, that nano solar technology is interesting. I hope it pans out and will bring down the price of panels. I have a 85x25 shed with a 10/12 roof right by the house that would be perfect for the installation. ;D
There are other ways to store energy besides batteries. One that comes to mind is hydroelectric. Use the solar energy excess to pump water from a low reservoir to a high reservoir and then run generators at night. It's not 100% efficient but its cheap and durable. They are working on capacitors which will behave more like a battery. They can be cheap and very efficient and can charge very fast.
Lead acid batteries are very recyclable. Just because idiots choose to dump in the trash or along the road does not make them bad.
I've always been attracted to solar power...especially if it will keep a dollar in my pocket. I've followed solar developments and they are all announced with great promise but seldom pan out.
So...were building a new house and it has been proclaimed heating hot water with the sun provides the quickest payback. Put a watthour meter on our electric hot water heater to see how much it cost us. For two old folks taking leisurely showers (most laundry is cold water) it cost's 12 dollars a month to run the hot water heater...at the power companies most expensive rate. Payback for a solar hot water system was exactly...never. I'm sure it would be different if we had kids at home, a hot tub, and swimming pool.
Guess I'm in the nuclear power generation camp. When I'm shown a realistic way to save dollars with solar I will.
One thing I've thought about some is most power companies speak with forked tongues. On one hand they encourage conservation...some even promote there green image by throwing dollars at windmills...wether they are efficient or not. On the other hand they give deep discounts when you use a lot of power. Why not do the reverse and make the first 1,000 kilowatts cheap? After 1,000 kilowatts the rate would go way up...bet we wouldn't need any new power plants for a long time.
Hey, lots of good comments..... Just for the record, I have a solar dry kiln, and I'd go solar on the house if it was feasible to do so. Right now, the payback is never. Us ole retired po-boys can't afford that. Been followin the nano cell subject with interest. Just wonder what one of these southern hailstorms would do to that printed-on circuitry. Another bit of good news. There's a new battery technology under development by Catapillar. It's lead-acid but 3 to 5 times the capacity of current lead-acid batteries at close to the same price. That puts it in direct competition with lithium ion. Patience....Payback is gettin closer all the time...
If they do get the solar cells out for a dollar a watt I will be definitly being putting them in here. 8)
We are net metering here so the meter can spin backwards during the day. :)
At this time Delaware will pay 50% of the cost for a solar or wind personal system. A two way (net metering) electric meter is put in and you sell the extra electric you generate back to the electric supplier in shares. No batteries to worry about.
http://www.awea.org/smallwind/delaware.html (http://www.awea.org/smallwind/delaware.html)
Wind for me would be so-so acording to the map. Solar would take approx 8 years before I would break even on my investment. Something to think about. Not just cuz it's green but it might just be a pretty good return on investment.
http://www.delawaresolar.org/ (http://www.delawaresolar.org/)
Gordon
Quote from: Norm on June 28, 2008, 08:49:06 AMTo each his own but I'll take the nuclear plant within a couple of hundred miles from me. We have one on each side of me and they don't pollute like the batteries that get thrown out every day leaching into the ground water. Recycle them, sounds great but unfortunately the majority do not do so.
Sorry Norm, I still disagree. If you don't think nuke plants pollute, you should come out to eastern WA state and visit Hanford or Richland and talk to the folks there and see if they agree. Your point that lead batteries pollute might be true, but I'd be willing to bet more lead has been put into ground water over the years through bird shot and bullets than batteries... and with the price of lead scrap climbing, I bet you'll see way less batteries dumped anywhere...
Quote from: Ron Wenrich on June 28, 2008, 09:37:34 AMGermany subsidizes their solar industry very heavily. I don't think it is a good economic example of the technology.
You're right Ron, Germany does subsidize solar... but let's remember we heavily subsidize nuke and coal power here (and they did in Germany, too)... solar has traditionally had to "make it on its own", so this is just starting to level the playing field as far as subsidies go.
For those that say they "can't afford solar"...
If someone tried to sell you a phone and told you it cost $6,000... would you even consider buying it? What if they told you that you could make 1,000 minutes of calls on it every month for the next ten years... so you were in essence "pre-paying" for your phone and usage? Most people would still say they can't afford a phone like that... but then they won't think twice about paying $50 a month (or more) for their phone bill. If you pay this phone bill for 10 years, that's $6,000... so what's the difference?
Of course the difference is that the cost is spread out over 10 years... and that's exactly what some of the progressive solar folks are trying to do here... it's not subsidies, but financing... they are actually working on having the power companies finance the cost of the equipment... so you could have, say $30,000 worth of solar gear installed on your house, generate a good portion of the power you use, and pay a monthly cost to the power company (pay off the equipment) for the next xx number of years... it helps the power company by taking a load off their plants, and it produces power in a more distributed way. I for one would like to see it be as easy to borrow $30,000 to install a solar system as it is to borrow $30,000 to buy a car (ie., an energy gain vs. an energy drain)..
So with PV... think of it as pre-paying your power bill for the next 7 to 15 years or so (of course, it depends on how much power costs you now, how much it will go up in the next 7 to 15 years, how much you will use, how big a system you install, and how much sun you get at your site) You should also remember that most PV panels carry a 20 to 25 year warranty, (can you think of any other electronic device that even comes close to this?) and you'll see that the majority of your system (especially if you're grid-tied) has about zero maintenance and will be working 25 years from now (you can't truthfully say this about any wind turbine). I should also mention that the first PV panels built by Bell Labs over 50 years ago are still working.
Of course, I need to remind myself... like anything else, no one needs to buy new. I've bought used PV panels twice... the first time was a set of 55W Siemens panels for $2 a Watt, and the second time was a set 120W panels for $2.76 a Watt... both sets of panels are the high-quality, single crystal type... (not polycrystalline or amorphous) these prices are about 1/3 of new cost, so there are "deals" out there if you look...
-Norm.
As long as we're talking solar incentives...
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have big hydro, and consequently some of the cheapest electricity in the world... my county PUD charges us $0.06 per kWh. However, if you install a renewable energy system (and do it correctly), you can sell the power to the utility for much more.
Our breakdown for incentives here is as follows:
1. Federal tax credit - Everyone in the US is eligible for this, until December 31, 2008... basically it's a 30% tax credit on the cost of the equipment and installation, with a cap of $2,000 for residential and no cap for commercial. You can get $2,000 for a PV system and an additional $2,000 credit for a solar hot water system. Of course you have to owe taxes to use the credit.
2. Green tags - Bonneville Power and some of the other utilities will buy the "greenness" of the power you produce for $0.05 per kWh... and then sell "green energy" to other customers that don't have RE systems, at a premium price.
3. State sales tax exemption - There is no WA state sales tax charged on solar, wind, and fuel-cell systems.
4. Net metering - WA is a net-metering state, so the utilities must buy the power that your solar, wind or micro-hydro system (under 25kW rating) puts into the grid. Systems over 25kW negotiate co-generation contracts.
5. WA state production incentives - Our governor here (Christine Gregoire) has implemented incentives to encourage creating and keeping renewable energy jobs in our state. These incentives currently apply to solar PV and wind systems (not hydro... yet).
- If you install a system with components NOT made in WA state, you get $0.15 per kWh.
- If your inverter is made in WA state, you get $0.18 per kWh.
- If your PV panels are made in WA state, you get $0.36 per kWh.
- If BOTH your inverter and PV panels are made in WA state, you get $0.54 per kWh.
The production incentive is capped at $2,000 per year.
SO... if you do everything right, you can sell power to the grid all summer for $0.54 per kWh... and then you can buy it back all winter long (when we have little sun) for $.06 per kWh.
There are currently three inverter manufacturers in WA state... AFAIK, only one of them actually builds their grid-tie inverters here (Outback Power) so their inverters count towards the WA State production incentive. When Gregoire implemented these incentives, there was no PV panel manufacturer in-state... but in the past year, Outback has formed a company called Silicon Energy, and they are now making PV panels here in WA state... so I believe the incentives are working the way they were intended (jobs created in-state, distributed power created in-state)
-Norm.
Solar (PV) panels don't really go bad, or wear out. Some of the earliest panels ever made are still generating in excess of 85% of their original rated output.
I bought a BP solar panel because it had the highest efficiency rating of any 50 Watt panel on the market at the time. I was told that BP is moving away from making low wattage panels, and concentrating on the high output models.
BP says on their website that the average ROI for a PV system is seven years. Most utilities will buy net metered power at wholesale rates, which is the same that they pay to other power generators. But they still sell it back to you at full retail. So in order to "make" money, you need to put in the largest PV system you can afford to cover the difference between selling power wholesale and buying it retail.
A local high school installed a PV system over the entire roof surface of the building. They are generating a positive cash flow of $2000 per month starting from the first month of operation. If every school did this, it might save all of us some money on the property taxes that we pay towards education.
Quote from: StorminN on June 28, 2008, 10:12:08 PM
You're right Ron, Germany does subsidize solar... but let's remember we heavily subsidize nuke and coal power here (
In what way is coal power subsidised in the USA? :-\
Quote from: pigman on June 28, 2008, 11:08:05 PMIn what way is coal power subsidised in the USA? :-\
Pick one:
9 Billion dollars in coal subsidies (http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980)
Inside US energy subsidies, refined coal subsidy $29.81 per MWh, more than solar or wind (http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/inside-us-energy-subsidies.html)
Lawmakers push for big subsidies for coal processes (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29coal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
-N.
All I know for sure is that in 6 years when we start building on the farm it will be set up for a PV array with a gen. backup. We have to run a 1/2 mile of copper wire up to the farm and it has to be burried. It has been awhile ago but the price of the wire was $18k, that doesn't include getting it in the ground or hooking it up.
For us spending that kind of money just for the gurantee of having to pay the power company every month doesn't make sence. We're hoping that as more folks purchase the price will come down and the technology will become more reliable.
Mc Cain's proposal for a 300 million dollar prize for new battery technology kind of makes sense when reading this thread.
Part_Timer,
Indiana's recently-expired incentives for wind and solar were excellent.
Hopefully, they will renew a program at least as good, considering our
energy situation.
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map.cfm?State=IN&CurrentPageId=1&RE=1&EE=0
Considering your need to be off-grid and save that 1/2 mile of copper,
battery technology is your key component. Reliability is already there.
It is the intermittent nature of both wind and solar which is the problem.
Either backup generators or batteries cover those gaps. I believe that
research into improving performance and cost for the automotive batteries
may provide the answer to this problem for home-owners. Except for wanting
to avoid that long run to the grid, the grid itself is a sufficient backup for most
of us down here where it doesn't get so cold in the winter. Being off-grid, you
have to have the battery system, even if you do have generators. But a generator
can reduce the quantity of batteries you need.
As Hand Andy points out, battery storage is the weak link. McCain is showing
that he has a grasp on the overall problem by proposing that incentive. It is
THE KEY to electric vehicles and to affordable systems to independently-power homes.
Obama could have simply responded, "Yes, power storage is the key to many
alternative energy system problems. How about a $30 million dollar prize and
special protection on the patent rights for that battery design?"
[Of course, I do admit that we could throw 300 BILLION to the government and
it might come up with a battery.]
I'm on an electric vehicle email list (SEVA)... the folks over there have been talking about this McCain battery prize thing for a week or so... here's the link to the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy
And the following are some of the comments to the EV email list:
"I like the idea of an incentive to encourage new battery technology, but the technology is already evolving so quickly because of the huge financial incentive of building millions of expensive car batteries over the next 10-20 yrs. What we really need is an incentive so that people can buy EV's which will not be cheap because of the high cost of batteries. The worst thing that could happen is that people can't afford these EV cars, while we as a nation send $700 Billion/yr to foreign oil producers. This is how this must be viewed."
"exactly! I agree completely why should we give money to the big guys for doing something they are already doing and charging an arm and a leg for?! I don't think we need a new better battery. I think we need a market. this $300M ought to be used to buy a fleet of government vehicle, postal vans etc."
"I have been unimpressed with this from the get go. seems like an attempt to grab some voters, nothing more. The fact that he said he'd cut 3 pork barrels to fund this shows you that it's just meaningless. They are still all so wrapped up in pet projects and washing each others backs....if they wanted to make progress, they'd stop federal income tax, and close down the IRS. It is a waste of money."
"With 3 trillions dollars spent in Irak, and all the militar budget allocations provision for next 10-20 years., both goals, incentives to adquisicion of EVs and R and D in alternative sources of energy including batteries, could be attained and achieved. But our politicians are late as always..... they just think in what corporation and for how much are supporting them...."
"Given that A123 [lithium battery manufacturer] has already raised $250 Million in private funding, McCain's proposal, and his understanding of the magnitude of the problem, and his understanding of the value of any solution, seems particularly pathetic."
"Hopefully the plan calls for actually producing them and not just creating a new battery:/"
Norm
I saw a CNN spill on electrics tonight. Not a one of them was practical.
Those e-mails you copied are very informative.
I have been checking seriously into used Prius or an Insight.
These hybrids seem to be a fairly mature product. I saw a used one
for sale on Ebay with 217,000 miles on it. That answered my questions
as to longevity.
Quote from: StorminN on June 28, 2008, 10:12:08 PM
Of course the difference is that the cost is spread out over 10 years... and that's exactly what some of the progressive solar folks are trying to do here... it's not subsidies, but financing... they are actually working on having the power companies finance the cost of the equipment... so you could have, say $30,000 worth of solar gear installed on your house, generate a good portion of the power you use, and pay a monthly cost to the power company (pay off the equipment) for the next xx number of years... it helps the power company by taking a load off their plants, and it produces power in a more distributed way. I for one would like to see it be as easy to borrow $30,000 to install a solar system as it is to borrow $30,000 to buy a car (ie., an energy gain vs. an energy drain)..
A distributed power production system is even good for national security. Maybe someone should tell both
presidential candidates that fact.
The way Georgia's incentives are set up is very different from the ones which StorminN outlines for his own Washington State. Although different in nature, their aim is similar. Washington's deal is so good that it would really be hard to resist.
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on June 30, 2008, 10:38:15 PMNorm
I saw a CNN spill on electrics tonight. Not a one of them was practical.
Phil,
I'm wondering what was not practical about them, other than there are very few for sale? If you could buy one of these
Wikipedia - Rav4 EV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4_ev) for $30k, would it be worth it to you? What if it was $20k? For me, a car like this would cover maybe 90% of my needs, and I could use my full-sized diesel van or pickup for the other 10%.
Of course, for extended trips, it would be nice if a car like this was a hybrid and had an unlimited range (given you still have gas stations), but I think I'd rather have the simplicity of design of an all-electric car than the complexity of a hybrid. I prefer to have equipment that I can work on myself (or at least think I can). This is why I'll probably be converting an electric truck soon... I've got a Nissan pickup that's a candidate...
-Norm.
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on July 01, 2008, 06:40:05 AMA distributed power production system is even good for national security. Maybe someone should tell both
presidential candidates that fact.
Yes, it would be much harder for someone to destroy 1,000 sites with solar panels or wind generators, vs. one nuclear power plant... not to mention, the fallout from the solar panels or turbines would not be radioactive.
-N.
StorminN
You stunned me on the RAV4EV. I knew I did not remember it in the special I saw.
Here is why:
"Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide
in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV."
SOURCE: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/rav4ev/
"Toyota discontinued the RAV4 EV program one day after the passing of new air-quality
requirements by CARB. CARB eliminated most of the Zero Emissions Vehicle requirement,
substituting a greater number of partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs) to meet the requirement."
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav4_ev
I really hate that the RAV4EV (and its battery production) did not survive. It was a bonafide
serviceable option. It could have been a long lasting pure electric vehicle.
There is a very good solar energy solution that doesn't need batteries. It is very reliable, very well tested and the initial investment is cheap enough even Ticos are using it.
It doesn't even take a lot of know how to do it.
It is called hydro-electric. How do you think that water got to the top of the mountain, anyway? ;D
In Dublin, GA's early (first?) heyday a nine story bank building was built. A century later, it has
been a landmark only - for about the last twenty years.
If I could build a giant funnel and tank on top of that baby, maybe
I could use some of that Costa Rica solar! Otherwise, its just too flat
and definitely too dry.
Yeah, there is a slight requirement that you have a hill - and rain.
Quote from: crtreedude on July 01, 2008, 03:49:08 PM
.........even Ticos are using it......
How do you think that water got to the top of the mountain, anyway? ;D
Are you trying to tell me the Ticos have been carrying the water to the top of the mountain?? :D :D
Quote from: Tom on July 01, 2008, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: crtreedude on July 01, 2008, 03:49:08 PM
.........even Ticos are using it......
How do you think that water got to the top of the mountain, anyway? ;D
Are you trying to tell me the Ticos have been carrying the water to the top of the mountain?? :D :D
Well,....
Those Ticos must be hard workers if they lift the water from the bottom of a well and carry it up the mountain! :D Who said solar is not a joke!!
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on July 01, 2008, 03:28:42 PMI really hate that the RAV4EV (and its battery production) did not survive. It was a bonafide
serviceable option. It could have been a long lasting pure electric vehicle.
Phil,
I totally agree. There were other totally-electric cars available ten years ago, too... the Honda EV Plus and the GM EV1, for starters:
Honda EV Plus - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV%2B)
GM EV1 - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_EV1)
These cars were designed to be all-electric from the start. Then there were the factory-produced all-electric cars based on existing chassis, like the RAV4-EV, the Ford Ranger EV, The GMC S10-EV, etc.
As soon as the CARB standards were revoked in California, many of these cars went away. GM would only allow leases on the EV-1's, they did not sell any of them outright... so as people's leases ran out, GM repo'd the EV-1's and crushed nearly every one of them. Bob Lutz of GM claims to this day that each of the EV-1's cost $80k to manufacture, and they lost a billion dollars on that project. Of course, GM only built about 2,200 of them over three years, so it's my opinion that if they had actually marketed the EV1 (you should see the old commercials!) and allowed them to be sold, they could have sold 10's of thousands of them, and the manufacturing cost would have come down... economy of scale.
Now GM is "going to" introduce the Volt in 2010 or 2011, which in many peoples' minds is a step back from the EV1 that they already manufactured 12 years ago. I saw an EV1 once in Las Vegas, in about 1997... I knew a lady in California that had the car, it was impressively
fast (it could burn rubber) and it was quiet and had
NO emissions. (charge it with solar panels on your house and you REALLY have no emissions).
If you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely rent the movie
Who Killed the Electric Car (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/), though it will probably make you angry...
P.S. There were all-electric cars available over 100 years ago, too.
100-Year Old Electric Cars (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4215940.html)
-Norm.
I bet GM wishes they had those production lines right now.
If they did, they could be raking it in.
Toyota says that they learned a lot from the RAV to apply to the Prius.
They may have also learned that people wanted the convenience of
hybrid design over the hindrance of battery charging. The problem right
now is that hybrid makers don't have enough production capacity.
The mentality of solar feeds into the idea of all electric cars. Sometimes
the cost and practicality issues just don't jive, however.
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on July 01, 2008, 08:11:15 PMThe mentality of solar feeds into the idea of all electric cars. Sometimes the cost and practicality issues just don't jive, however.
The costs sure didn't add up quite as well in 1996 with $1.30 a gallon gas, but in 2008 with gas at $4.50 a gallon and more, they are starting to make more sense...
Same thing with solar... solar PV setups generally run about $0.20 per kWh to generate... so with electricity at $0.06 a kWh, it's a hard sell... but as electricity prices go up and people in some places are paying $0.58 a kWh, it starts to make more sense. I'm hearing more and more about electricity prices going up, whether it's through deregulation, or a higher cost for the combustibles (NG, coal, oil).
-Norm.
Several people have mentioned upcoming/impending electric utility price hikes.
Anybody got some substantive surveys or forecasts to add?
The reason this is pertinent to the topic, is, as StorminN says, solar gets more
practical as the utility costs rise.
NEWS FLASH
"By as early as next year our demand for electricity will exceed
reliable supply in New England, Texas and the West and,
by 2011, in New York and the mid-Atlantic region."
SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/energy/forbes/2008/0630/038.html
Trivia from the same article:
This May in Texas, $4 per kilowatt-hour, 25 times the average retail rate in the country.
Recent hikes in Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio have ranged from 20% to 80%.
Some regulators predict a wholesale increase of 90% for New York.
In spite of some building of new power generation and wind projects, the
excess generation capacity of the country is predicted to lose ground
at least through 2016.
Looking more at averages, the article below suggests that the national average increase
will be around 6%, but that average over the next seven years will be an increase of 69%.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1394774
Well, what does this tell us? Solar and wind are becoming more practical, because of the
expectation of repeated increases in the cost of conventional electricity.
Oh, almost forgot. The Forbes writer suggests that some people go ahead a buy a few candles.
The word is we are in for a mid year increase in electricity. They read the meter today and I will have the bill by this weekend. I will let you guys know if and what percentage it goes up if it does.
In my county, we're in a PUD... the electricity rate has not changed in a long time, but two months ago they raised the "having an electrical hookup" cost from $9 to $15... so even if I don't use any electricity, it costs $6 more per month.
-Norm.
It seems to me that I remember the old Mother Earth News had articles on how to convert a car over to electric. I wonder if that isn't even more practical now, especially with better electronics than what we had in the '70s.
Quote from: Ron Wenrich on July 02, 2008, 05:56:07 AMIt seems to me that I remember the old Mother Earth News had articles on how to convert a car over to electric. I wonder if that isn't even more practical now, especially with better electronics than what we had in the '70s.
Ron, this sounds like the start of another thread!... :D ;D but yeah, it's easier now and the electronics are far better. Most people say start with a lightweight, manual transmission, fairly aerodynamic vehicle. Then decide whether you're doing an DC or AC conversion. Most people do DC... it's simpler and cheaper. With AC, regenerative braking is easier to do, but the cost of equipment is higher.
There are a few suppliers of adaptor plates (to bolt the electric motor to your existing transmission), here are the main two:
Electro Automotive (http://www.electroauto.com/)
Canadian Electric Vehicles, Inc. (http://www.canev.com/)
Most folks are still going with lead-acid batteries, simply because of cost. NiMh and Li-ion batteries have a better power density (more Watts per pound), but are much more expensive than lead acid.
Here's an album with some cars that people have converted:
EV Album (http://www.evalbum.com/)
I think I'm going to convert a Nissan pickup truck in the next year or so...
-Norm.
I find it ironic that the only thing keeping me from putting in solar power on my property is trees. Specifically, my neighbor's trees.
You need some copper nails. ;)
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on July 01, 2008, 10:31:35 PM
Several people have mentioned upcoming/impending electric utility price hikes.
Anybody got some substantive surveys or forecasts to add?
I just received a letter from Dominion Power here in VA saying they are requesting an 18% increase in the kW/h rate from the State Corporation Commission, due to increased fuel costs. I'm connected to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, which buys power from Dominion Power and passes cost increases on to me. My rate went from 11 cents per kW/h last fall to 14 cents per kW/h this spring (27% increase). A few years of similar price increases and the large cash outlay for solar starts to make economic sense!
QuoteSpecifically, my neighbor's trees.
Check with your town-city-province-, whatever. There HAVE been laws passed, that a neighbor can NOT block your yard to stop solar gain. Same as a neighbor can NOT build a 2-3 story house that will affect your property.
This was way back in the day, but, it DID become law, maybe just localized. ???
A couple on copper nails driven through the bark will poison the trees and kill them rather quickly.
Thanks for the link Phil, our place will be in SW Virginia so winters should be a bit milder and we have great sun on the place. We will have a generator or 2 for backup but batteries will be the key. We have a lot of research to do but some time to work it out. I need to look and see what the price of electric fork truck batteries are since they are made for that type of charge and discharge cycle.
We had a meeting with the AEP rep. for our company a couple of months ago and he told us that they have a rate hike increase turned in to the powers that be. We don't know if it will go through but our electric bill is $185,000 per month so even a 10% increase makes a huge impact on the bottom line.
I figured supply would become an issue sooner or later but I wonder when just getting the juice down the lines will become a problem. More demand more lines. With the price of copper and other materials, adding new supply lines will cost big $$$$. Sooner or later that will go on the bill also.
The law FlaD mentions is currently in effect in Georgia. It may apply to
someone doing something new which will block EXISTING solar panels, rather
than dealing with blockages such as trees which predate proposed intallations.
Probably in that fine print.
I think it is in effect at the federal level, but I haven't had time to check back on that.
Lurcherman
Maybe you could get some true tree-huggers to come
and hug those neighbor's trees to death.
:D
Quote from: fencerowphil (Phil L.) on July 03, 2008, 10:33:58 PM
Lurcherman
Maybe you could get some true tree-huggers to come
and hug those neighbor's trees to death.
:D
On the plus side, one of their larger ashes just split down the middle, and half is laying in their yard. My neighbor is building a shed, and there a maple in bad shape that's going to fall right on it, and they are planning on putting on an addition so the walnut will have to come down. So there's hope yet...
I might have to try out that copper nail thing...
Quote from: Part_Timer on July 03, 2008, 09:17:51 PMWe don't know if it will go through but our electric bill is $185,000 per month so even a 10% increase makes a huge impact on the bottom line.
HOLY COW!!! :o :o :o What the heck are you powering?? I thought our factory's bill was bad at $3,000+ per month!!!
-Norm.
Farmerdoug
I had to look into your claim about copper nails and trees. After reading up on it, I can't find anything to support it. One response was from a tree trimmer that had found a ring of copper nails embedded in a tree. Apparently, the tree responded quite well to the intrusion by growing around the nails.
I've also sawn many bullets in trees that have copper in them. Some of those trees have been used as backstops for target practice. Trees were very much alive at the time of harvest.
I think you might have more of a myth than a proven method of tree death. Have you tried it?
Ron, I have used it on maples and it worked. The nail has to be in the inner bark area to work. It may not work on all species of trees though.
Bullets then to go right into the wood. Copper sulfate on the ground around the tree works pretty too. ;)
We are running a 400 ton per day recycle papermill. We have an electric boiler to help offset the cost of natural gas. The E-boiler is 2.3 mw and runs during our off peak hours. Right now with natural gas at $12 per DTherm we are saving just under $10K per week. You have to understand though that our peak charge is $16 and some change per KW and our usage charge is .03....... per KW. Very cheap for around here. We are a 10mw consumer during the off peak hours and run about 7.8mw during the day depending on how our other equipment is pulled up.
That 'splains it!
Hey, they make single wind turbines which will output enough for that boiler to run
even during the day. What would payments run on one of those?
(Oops, wrong thread.)
Quote from: farmerdoug on July 03, 2008, 11:31:10 AM
A couple on copper nails driven through the bark will poison the trees and kill them rather quickly.
Quote from: farmerdoug on July 04, 2008, 07:54:33 AM
Ron, I have used it on maples and it worked. The nail has to be in the inner bark area to work. It may not work on all species of trees though.
I've used taps made of copper water lines several years in a row, for tapping maples.
Taps were in as long as two months at a time with no noticable problems with the trees.
Some trees had three taps each.
Well Furby, Copper kills trees around here but I wondering if those nails I used had something else in them too.
I was looking for some roof screws today and came across this on Fabrals website, solare standing seam roof. Anyone seen one installed, know costs, relibility, etc? We have 2 prospects that have expressed interest in pv.
http://www.fabral.com/solarssr.asp
If I was going to stay in this house for another 10 yrs, I'd look into it. I could use a new roof to replace the existing metal roof. When I move on, this place will probably be torn down.
But, I'll be looking into it for the next place. ;)
We need the Chrysler Turbine car to come back, it ran on just about any combustible fuel and was very cool to drive! It sounded just like a jet and my dad got pulled over several times during his drives by curious police officers. If they could get 22 mpg back in the 60's imagine what they could accomplish now. My brothers thought exhaust may have been hot enough to roast marshmallows (we tried it). The exhaust was virtually smog free.
I am not sure how the solar panels would work on roofs in MI that are covered with 10-15 inches of snow? Also, we in MI only get the Federal money nothing else!! :( Currently our house uses only about 700-1000 KWH per month and with a 1KW solar panel costing us $3000 without the batteries and inverter it sounds like it would take decades to recoup the $3000+++. I can not afford the $3000 anyway. The only programs the utilities offer are programs we pay extra per month so they draw from renewable sources,what a rip off. Some states virtually pay for the solar system to be installed but not MI!
I can see a quicker payback in gas costs by installing a fireplace though, but that is off topic.
Don P
That standing seam roof is definitely new technology, based on two metals
rather than silicon.
I really think Nanosolar is going to leapfrog everybody. If they hit the proclaimed
price target, they will be king of the hill. Their coating is based on four metals,
is more efficient, and can be applied to flexible substrates. Nano is presently installing
high volume production in California. It would be hard to beat the durability of conventional
PVs, but if the price is so much lower, that might not be a factor - just keep the rest of
the system and in 15 years, replace the membrane portion.
Quote from: Furby on July 04, 2008, 12:29:14 PM
I've used taps made of copper water lines several years in a row, for tapping maples.
Taps were in as long as two months at a time with no noticable problems with the trees.
Some trees had three taps each.
I was wondering about the use of copper for tapping maple. I recall they used oxidized copper to line some multi-pots to grow tree seedlings. The purpose was to keep the trees from getting too root bound and the copper would kill the tips of the feeder roots. Just remembering about that gives me some concern. I believe the copper in it's stable metallic form in the soil is fine , but when it oxidizes/corrodes and becomes soluble it may be harmful. Depending on the size of the tree, duration the copper is embedded in the tree and how deep it is set, the chances of ill effects may be small. Copper piping usually only oxidizes on the surface like on roofing.