Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power in the Third World
KTS writes: "Over at Wired, there's an interesting article about the use of solar energy by the rural poor in the Dominican Republic. Soluz, Inc., a Massachussetts-based company, has installed thousands of solar panels on an island where most of the rural population is cutoff from the power-grid. Says the article: "Rural communities rely on solar energy for everything from pumping clean water from aquifers to recharging cell phone batteries." According to another article, the Dominican Republic now has "more [solar panels] per capita than anywhere else in the world." After constantly hearing about the misuse of technology, stories like this make you feel good. With solar power, it looks like developing countries can avoid much of the downside that comes with electric power, while reaping the benefits. Zero polution, no overhead lines, and no squandered petroleum (after all, we need the oil for ourselves)."
"PV panels are built using much the same technology as computer chips. These solar panel factories would be building a product with a lifetime of approximately 20-25 years. At the end of that time, thousands of acres of old panels start heading for landfill. In 1986, when the first PCs were gaining popularity, people had no idea computer disposal would turn out be the problem it is today, only 15 years later. Computers and their chips, it turns out, are filled with complex and toxic chemicals. These are issues that the solar panel industry will also have to face. "
This sort of low tech micro solar has been spreading rapidly throughout the third world for life critical power needs in remote areas and for rural lighting projects. Helped mainly by charitable and philanthropic groups it really is a boon to those who use it. Want to see more examples (Burma, Vietnam, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nepal, Africa, etc) and lots of details on exact system desgins , layout and costs...check out Home power magazine here grab a PDF of the latest issue ..always free. Back issues are avail. via their SOLAR CD rom series.....
Genetic enginaring negates that arguement
Assume the cost of the solar cell itself is 100% electricity cost, based on your lowest residential kilowatt rate. $100 at $0.20 a kw? That's 500 Kilowatts (maximum).
Interesting maths there.
.au uses about 20kWh/day. In .au you get an average of about 5 hours of full sun equivalent/day. So your 1 square mile gives you:
1 square mile = 1 mile x 1 mile
= 1600m x 1600m
= 2560000m^2
You get ~1kW/m^2 of sunlight, so that's 2560000kW of raw sunlight, which at 30% efficiency is:
2560000kW * 0.3 = 768 000kW == 768MW
The average house in
768MW * 5 = 3840 000kWh/day
Which is enough for 142 _thousand_ households or about 300,000 people.
Either American's use a _lot_ more electricity than this (say about 10kW/hour on average) or something is wrong in your maths.
Stephen
That's the thing I always loved about MIR.. you just jump in there, see if it floats, runs, whatever, on the leanest shoestring possible, and in the most hostile of conditions, and guess what? The truly good technology eventually wriggles its' way to the top. Very darwinistic.
I'm surprised that many big corps aren't knocking each other over to rush into places like this.. it's the best sort of test bed ever.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Of course some of us store 8-12" of snow on ours for 3-4 months out of the year. :)
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Well Siemens is by far NOT the only quality manufacturer. There are many. If you look around, you'll see that the base cost of solar cells is about $4/Watt. You'll still need to add housing, cooling (cells work better in the cold), voltage control, storage, and distribution. These cost. But the largest cost is the cells themselves. Which are generally rated for 25 year life span.
Of course, if Net Metering were in full effect (see my post on Net Metering further down), our storage systems wouldn't need to be so large, which would save quite a bit of money.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Lots of good discussion here of how feasible solar PV is, but I think people are overlooking one important thing: most of our energy use goes to moving heat around.
This is something solar can do very, very well -- far more efficiently than current photovoltaic technology. A typical home burns most of its energy on air conditioning, refridgeration, space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying. All of these can be done with solar thermal technology far more cost effectively than with a bunch of PV panels and batteries.
If you're really interested in going off-grid, or solving U.S. energy problems, start with solar space heating and solar water heating. Then look at solar refridgeration, air conditioning, and cooking. Worry about photovoltaic loads (like running computers and light bulbs) last. And before you start buying PV, assess where your electricity is going. Chances are you're wasting most of it.
If it's so great then why don't you go and live there? As far as I'm concerned I'm happy where I live with clean running water, choice of DSL or cable modem, full service gas stations, etc etc
---
I'm all for more drilling and taking advantage of cool technology but that doesn't mean we should dump barrels of oil in the sea...you know there's something called balance and moderation. That means it's a good idea to turn the light off if you're not using it but I don't have the arrogance to try to get the government to force you if you don't care.
---
except for all the toxic manufacturing byproducts.
And the horrendous expense. and the maintenance costs, MTBF, etc. of solar plants, including keeping panels dust and dirt free.
Solar is great, until you look toward the details. It makes lots of sense in very specialized circumstances, but is not a panacea, is most certainly not a "clean" technology. it has problems, too.
the fount of negativity, josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
So if
1. We manufacture the solar cells, semiconductors, and plastic cases and cabinets here where it not only involves nasty chemicals that may eventually wind up in the air or the water but requires energy created by burning stuff as well, and
2. We continue to rely almost totally on a petroleum based economy and infrastructure, while
3. The third world keeps on having cleaner air and water and less vulnerability to being blackmailed by OPEC,
are we making it possible for them to outcompete in the "information age", as the very rich and the very technically talented leave the polluted first and second worlds for islands with
1. pristine beaches,
2. state of the art communication infrastructures (no legacy systems to support),
3. electrical systems that are back up the day after a hurricane (with battery backup during the hurricane and no worries about backfeeding transformers and killing power company linemen), and
4. banking and legal structures they can control instead of having to let the "great unwashed" exercise any real political power, while
5. spending enough money buying our politicians to shift their defense needs and expenses to us,
is it going to be a case of "last one to leave what used to be called civilization, don't forget to turn out the lights, assuming any are still working" ?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You don't get it. It's not about the color of the light. It's about the flicker. I have not seen any flourescents that don't flicker at mains frequency. You can't see it, but it does affect many people. I disabled the lights above my desk at the office for this reason. My eyes are sensitive to the flickering of the lights. Until they give a replacement for incandesant that does not flicker AT ALL, I will not buy them. As it is I use lights hardly at all. In my house there is often ONE light running. I use less power than anyone I know.
For a demonstration of flicker set your monitor refresh to 60hz for the US or 50hz in the UK and Europe. Use that for a few days and tell me the flicker isn't a problem.
no - but if that's the way it's going to be, lets see, I NEED a Ferrari GT, a Sony Vaio, a bigger house in the hills (w/ a summer cottage on the beach, furnished), a Waring blender, a harum of SuperModels, two DVD players w/ the complete MGM library, a home theatre system, an all expense paid vacation in Hawaii, $50,000 cash, a full time lawyer, an arsenal of high power weapons, political pull in DC with influence over UN policy. As for abilities, I have none, so gimme gimme gimme!!!
Bloody thieves....
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
Major household appliances are all AC devices. Solar cells generate DC. How does one bridge the gap without custom-made appliances, and what is the efficiency hit of that?
Are you sure you are talking about current flourescent lights? The old ones were flickery and gave poor light, but the new ones (such as the compact flourescents talked about) are much better.
Of course this pollution is in Massachussetts, where the cells are manufactured, not in the third world countries :-)
A first world attitude clears your conscience to make it zero polluting.
i wish i had some moderator points, so i could mod this up.
Yes, but a real solar power station won't be based on PV cells.
Actually, Green Mountain (who are my electric supplier) have a photoelectric grid local to me. Whilst I don't think it's a huge installation, it is a commercial generating site.
think about that when you see someone driving that SUV.
:)
i do think about that whenever i see someone driving an suv. personally i ride a bike or take a bus. recent events with the ford explorer and the jeep grand cherokee have made me question the exsistance of a god. could he be striking down the yuppies? i hope so
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Yeah, who is going to keep the solar panels clean after pesky old mother nature deposits a layer of sand/grit/plastic bags on them after a storm?
Look up the story "Know Nukes" in http://www.global.org/jphogan/mmande/mmande.html for a very good discussion on energy.
Actually, they don't directly heat the water. They keep a reserve of sodium liquid at 500 degrees, then the mirrors heat that to about 1400 degrees. This can be used to steam the water or be stored in a tank for later use. Say, at night.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Currently, the power companies are beginning to install huge superconducting electric storage facilities to do just that. Store energy in the grid.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I've been looking into solar cells and I agree. When the government put money into solar cells, people got into the business just to make money. Once the goverment stopped, all the hacks left the field, leaving the people who were serious about solar.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I have seen new Kyocera 120-watt panels for under $500 US.
:-) Although I would try to see if a PIC 12Cxx could do the job. No xtal, just power, ground, and 6 IO pins :-) For about (or under) a buck.
Cool! Excellent!
Besides, a cheap shunt controller can be made from a 68HC08 microcontroller and a few bucks of analog components.
I was thinking it shouldn't be too expensive
Thanks for the info!
A dingo ate my sig...
Yeah...because (a) those flourescent bulbs suck for light quality, which is a problem in the wintertime when we have very little natural light to begin with (Seasonal Affective Disorder, anyone?) and (b) when it's 40 degrees below zero, I don't really mind my lights generating a little extra heat.
For those who aren't familiar with the bulbs, we had them in the hotel I lived in last year (college overbooked)--after spending a few months with the lampshades off so that we'd have enough light to do homework, I struck upon the realization that 60-watt bulbs from StopNShop would make the place a lot better to hang out in.
Jimmy Carter killed Solar Energy. No president has done anything with it including Clinton.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
The one overstatement that immediately jumps out at me is the 30% figure. I don't think it's anywhere NEAR that high. The highest I've ever seen to date is 15%. For a large manufacturing run that is. Not an R&D unit.
The other part is that manufacturing plants of all types use a LOT of power. So if you are an industrialised nation you need much much more power per capita than undeveloped countries. The typical number you always see is about 1.0KW/hr per household here for residential use. Industrial use, well forget it.
Isn't there also the theory about where petroleum comes from? The old standby is that ancient organic material decayed into it (the dinosaur theory). I've read (somewhere - I'm trying to track down a link right now) that a new theory is that there is an enormously rich biosphere of micro-organisms in the rock of the mantle, and these organisms may explain why our known petroleum reserves are not going down as fast as we thought they should be, taking into account all know production and discovery etc... Petroleum may be being created much faster than previously thought.
All five of the major grid control regions in the USA have the same basic curve shape. The high and low of the three major peaks in a day may differ in magnitude but they are there. Also, it's well known in the UK that at TV commercial breaks in the evening, the electric load spikes due to several hundred thousand electric teakettles being turned on at the same time. Heh.
Industrialized nations power consumption does indeed change significantly at night. It doesn't go to zero obviously, but it does change according to a known cycle. If you would like to see what a real load cycle looks like you can go to the CalISO page and look at the current grid load graph for most of the State of California, or click here.
Actually, I use that address because of folks like you who have nothing better to do than flame for no comprehendable reason.
Of course, I at least include one...
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Dude, what is your problem?
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
It's nice to hear that the rural poor in third world countries have a way to recharge their cell phone batteries
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
I would imagine that it's more like someone in a town where there is no electrical grid has a cell phone. I an area where there are no installed phone wires, a cell phone may be more economical than trying to get a land line.
The cool thing about flourescent bulbs is that they now come in standard "edison" screw type sizes so you don't need to buy those long tubes. On top of this, they are over 80% efficient (only 20% of energy is turned to heat) and last 10,000 hours! [5 - 7 years under average use] Good old incandescent bulbs only last 1,000 hours at most and are only 15% efficient. (85% of the energy goes up as heat.)
Think of the kind of ENIAC computer you could build with that kind of lamps! I guess you just cant stop evolution.
As petty as it sounds, I don't like them because they are not dimmable. I have X10 all over and if I cannot dim the lights, then I don't want them. Plus, even if they fit standard Edison sockets, they are still larger and don't fit in enclosed fixtures.
Am I the only one who thinks that K. Marx said that?
-Peter
Do you mean these are unusual in the U.S.?, in Britain they are very common.
11 MW to 10 Mpeople is a bit off. You probably meant 11 GW per 10 Mpeople.
...) filling the same area could provide power for a small country (several million poeple).
At 11 MW / 10 Mpeople gives 1.1 Watts power consumed per person. Hell, power consumption in the 1800s per person was probably higher through candles alone.
It is more like 1 kW per person (your mileage may vary outside the US).
Thus, the ~40 MW power from a square mile of solar cells could supply a small town of 40,000 people. A conventional power plant (gas, nuclear, coal,
Kevin
Applied physicist, eh? Does that mean you don't ignore gravity, mass, and wind resistance like the normal physicists? :)
Something like that. Also, don't forget economics.
Kevin
There is no emoticon for what I am feeling.
- The Comic Book Store Guy
What if they are using their solar panels to charge batteries for .... [dramatic pause] The Alan Parsons Project?
Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!~
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
Check out http://www.homepower.com for more information on realistic costs and solar/battery setups.
Interested in weather forecasting?
Of course there isn't (I think Denny's will give you one on your birthday...), but since the non-solar industry gets huge tax breaks and indirrect subsidation shouldn't we elliminate that too?
The bailout monies being talked about for the California energy companies are similar in magnitude to that required to set up solar panels on enough roofs to generate the energy shortfall currently causing blackouts. Which is a better use of our monies?
oops, should have previewed, heres the missing address http://www.nrel.gov/wind/potential.html
Solar power is really perfect for Air Conditioners. When it's oppressively hot, it's usually sunny too. With a million solar power plants on a million root tops, I think that would REALLY help during the summertime power spikes. It would not be enough by its own of course, but it would kick in when needed the most.
Let's just hope Dubya doesn't find out about this project. I'm sure he'd close it down in a heartbeat.
Stop the brainwash
Electricity companies are not stupid. They do everything they can to avoid generating "exess" electricity. Matching as closely as possable the power generated to the expected/actual consumption.
Sometimes excess elcetrictity is generated. Usually because nukes need to generate a minimum amout of electricity to remain safe, and, because it is often not worth the shutdown/restart overheads in really large oil/coal burners.
In these cases energy is stored by pumping water uphill for later use by hydro stations.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
In southern Eurpoe (especially Greece) solar power is used extensively to heat water.
The basic technoligy is a no-brainer you just trickle water over black painted panels which sit on the roof.
There is some messing around with pumps and valves to make the system more users friendly.
A basic low cost system with 2 meter square panel heats enough water for about five really hot showers per day.
The system is used a lot on islands where energy costs are high, and, the whole thing is driven purely by market forces. Its cheaper in the long run so people buy and install the systems.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
It takes hard-core chemical usage to manufacture photovoltaic cells
Don't forget all the hard-core chemicals you need to manufacture the damn batteries. I believe batteries are the only way to store power for use at night or in low light conditions. You can bet they are lead acid or some other tasty environmentally friendly compound.
There is a BJ's that installed solar panels on their roof in Consohocken, PA. I think it was in cooperation with Green Mountain Power They are getting 43KW hours out if it a day. I'm trying to find the article but can't....
Of course the NE is not the best spot to get solar energy, and with electricy being sold for $0.0557/KWH, it can't get much cheaper than that. Of course, in PA 60% of our electricity is coal produced.
Did that include battery back up? I thought costs should be around $20k-$25k.
Personally I think Solar power in the U.S. should be supplemental power. Durning the day, the solar panels feed extra electricity into the grid, and at night, a home draws from the grid. They you wouldn't have to worry about batteries and all their hazardous materials.
You probably already have checked out this website if you were in the market for a solar solution, but in case you haven't Homepower
Good luck in your quest. Check out GreenMountain and purchase "cleaner" electricity. It's a start (if you are in on of the deregulated states.)
Think of your own city or town, and where you would put that much solar cells.
Over here buildings come equipped with a wonfderful device called a roof.
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
You sure they didn't divert you to California?
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
- Solar power doesn't do them much good if they have to buy expensive replacements every time it breaks.
I think that's why most of the customers rent them for $10-$20 a month.Read
The
Article
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
In other words, US power consumption is a symptom of koyaanisqatsi (for the link-challenged, it's a Hopi word meaning, amongst other things, 'a state of life that calls for another way of living').
It's all very well getting defeatist, but don't get defeatist just because you can't fix the symptoms. Look at the causes first
TomV
11 MW : 10 million people
So, in one square mile, you've powered approximately 35 million USA citizens, or say 60 million DR citizens.
Before you say "Thats Great!", you can produce the same energy with a combustion turbine in 1/4th an acre... thats a self-contained, indoor, weather-proof weather-independant generator. No worries with cells breaking in a hurricane, and you can control your line frequency! (something that's difficult to do with solar) Yes, we love 60HZ! Modern United States AC electronics crap out if the frequency drops 59HZ, and typically, we control the grid to run between 59.997 and 60.003 HZ... our control can be that precise over 2/3rds of the continent!
You've overlooked one tiny detail in your critique! The sun uses fusion, not fission! Terrestrial fission reactors that generate electricity do so by an unnatural process of allowing fissionable material (uranium, etc) to generate heat/steam through a dangerous nuclear reaction.
The fusion furnace around which our planet orbits has been in operation for billions of years using only the most natural, economic and safe method of producing energy using an extremely safe and abundant fuel source (hydrogen).
This same technology is in use in countless fusion energy plants throughout our galaxy, and indeed the entire cosmos!
(yes, I know you were kidding... so am I. I just couldn't resist.)
---
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
(guess my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as yours, eh?)
---
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
It seems like the rest of the world would catch on. Third world countries usually don't have the pollution problems that others do.... and yet they still use the cleaner powersources.... doesn't make sense!
So stick the cells somewhere else. We're told repeatedly that there are several large areas of desert which we've made uninhabitable through nuclear testing - sounds like a good place to me.
-- Free Luna!
I run my house on 1.2kW of solar array capacity. This takes up only a few square yards of space. On this amount of array I manage to run several computers, efficient washer and dryer (Maytag Neptune, dryer heats with gas), big TV and DVD, stereo, normal dishwasher, normal complement of household lighting (with compact fluorescent bulbs instead of 19th century Edison technology), etc. High-BTU loads are hi-efficiency propane(even with this we still consume way, way below the average - I fill a 280-gallon tank once a *year*). I hardly live like a Dominican, but I also don't leave 14 (yes, *14*) incandescent porch lights on at night like my neighbor does...
Renewable resources will be the death of us in the long run. Our current level of medical technology has seriously interfered with the natural evolutionary process. People with extreme vision defects, the weak, and the elderly are allowed to survive, propagate, and continue consuming resources through our "society." This can only lead to an eventual propagation of genetic defects which will counter thousands of years of evolution. Only by consuming to the point of social collapse can we truly further the advancement of the human species. Screw solar. Consume! It's the only way to save our species!
Decentralization would lead to higher fixed costs, which would make solar power more expensive to deploy and maintain overall.
Your magic words there were "Government Rebates". All that means is that someone else pays the cost of your upgrade. If everyone does it, then everyone pays the difference in the form of higher taxes. There IS no free lunch.
For Solar to truely be successful, it must stand on it own merits.
You can get dimmable Edison socket flourescent lamps. I have one I've been using for three years now. They cost a bit more, but work fine. Note, they don't dim down as far as incadescents though. They reach a "flicker point" at what seems (to human eyes) 20% max brightness.
Which is why we need to make a public decision to tax petroleum to make this dirty, environmentally damaging, unhealthy way of generating power reflect its true costs (which are more that $$$).
This pushes solar, wind and the scheme described above into a more reasonable realm. Overall the cost for engergy is higher, which is fine, we should also start looking at conservation and a net REDUCTION in consumption in North America.
Mourn on the 4th of July, set a place at the table for Thomas Jefferson, and toast "Next Year, In Philidelphia
.sig?
What does this mean? What do you mean by using this as a
In a city area, that's likely. In a rural area with a village of a hundred, it's not. It's a matter of anonymity, which in a small village is nil, and perceived ownership (phone cable is owned by the phone compay, not the guy next door.). Everyone knows everyone. As to the perceived ownership, the village depends on it and will keep an eye on it if there is a problem with these getting stolen. If it shows up in the next village over the hill it won't take long to be found out. If you were involved, you'll likely get thumped on. Just because the village is poor, doesn't mean they are unrealistic enough to not guard something like this if it needs it.
. . . the reason the price has risen this much, is that americans are using so much gasoline that they have to import extra from europe, making *our* prices rise due to your excessive demands
This is so laughably wrong to begin with. Then to see it marked "insightful"!?! Petrol prices in EU are almost all taxes. For the USA to "Take" European oil, US prices would have to be higher than European ones.
1Alpha7
Live to be Moderated
If the sun blows up, we are all completely fucked. Lack of solar power would be the least of our worries :)
Other considerations need to be thought about as well. In some countries, children play a role of water carriers. Go in and start pumping water with solar panels, and you've changed the social aspects of the community. The children must be given some other role to play.
Ummm... How about they play the role of going to school? One of the benefits of rural electrification in the developing world is to reduce the amount of manual labor needed by a family so that their children have a better chance of getting educated.
Remember, before elementary and secondary schooling became compulsory in the US, the role of children in many rural societies was that of farm laborers. I would say that changing the roles of children in this case wasn't a bad thing.
More drilling is the answer, no matter what these loony tree-hugging liberal third world commies think.
I know this because George W. Bush said so!
Don't read this!
Yep, it's disgusting. Americans are pretty stupid for the most part. And no, most haven't really "seen the light". They're so used to buying standard incandescent bulbs they never stop to think about why (they shouldn't.) And to the poster who said that the light hurts his/her eyes, well I can say that R&D has fixed that problem as well. Most of the new screw type flourescent bulbs produce a "warm incandescent-like" light, rather than the old "cool white" (harsh) light.
I have a number of transformer ballast compact fluorescents, and I've never seen them flicker as much as a standard cool-white "regular" fluorescent. I think this is because of the persistance of the phosphors. I just wish someone would convert mercury vapor and both low and high pressure sodium lighting to electronic ballasts, I definitely can see the flicker in those. And noisy, too. Ever been inside a basketball gym lit with transformer ballasted lamps? The buzz can be deafening.
This, if taken seriously, would be a pretty powerful argument against ever doing anything anywhere.
If this is bad enough to worry about - after all, kids are supremely adaptable - then everything is.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Not to mention that a country which relies on solar power isn't likely to go to war over oil.
Er, do you know a thing called roof?
I don't mean to be intrusive, but must roofs I am sure are used for nothing anyway.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re: I just got the literature in the mail and the cost, less installation cost, runs about $45,000 for a 30 kWh/day system." Hmm. I might be able to work my home (with a bit more conservation) with that power output. Does that include Nicad wet cells instead of lead-acid batteries? Wet cell Nicads last virtually forever. The cost increases if you add solar heating, even if you only use solar for hot water. At that cost, only those not near an existing power grid can justify it.
I was in Port-au-Prince, Haiti for 32 days, and let me tell you, they are poorer then their neighbors, which is really sad. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Let me tell you, honestly, that the unless you are the poorest of the poor of America, you cannot understand the utter poverty of Haiti. A trailer home is a Godsend in comparison. 5 meals a weak, dirt roads, and until recently, a government so corrupt there was a large US and UN presence (thought there still is some presence, but not like there used to be). There is rich in Haiti, even by American standards, and it is really depressing when three blocks up the street you can see a multi-million dollar home, and three blocks down the street you can see a house that was *literally* built from stuff the owner found in the street.
To keep this post on topic, I believe that the use of solar power can be very useful to such people, who's power needs are very minimal. As someone pointed out, Solar is not the most efficient, but the need is so minimal it doesn't matter. It is reliable (sun up, power comes in) and I think it would go a long way to improving the life in the communities in developing nations.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
That was an Onion story.
... but I have been using Edison-style fluorescents (both circlite and folded-tube) for about seven years. I'm also a couple of thousand miles away from California.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
IIRC, conversion efficiencies of silicon solar cells are in the high single digits for amorphous silicon and low to mid-teens for single-crystal. Efficiencies for inverters can be upwards of 80%; Trace Engineering quotes the peak efficiency of their SunTie series synchronous inverters at 92% or 94%, depending on the model (spec sheet).
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Living in So. Cal. the place first and hardest hit with rising energy prices, I spent some time investigating a solar system. Even with the state of CA paying for 50% of the system, I calculated that it would take 20 years to just break even at the currently outrageously high energy prices. So, the economics just aren't there yet. It was pretty dissapointing. MAYBE in the future with ultra high density cells and high efficiency air-gell storage systems it could become more reasonable. But right now, it just doesn't make any sense for anyone that is connected to a large energy grid. (Atleast in the US, no idea about power prices elsewhere)
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
> As petty as it sounds, I don't like them because
> they are not dimmable. I have X10 all over and
> if I cannot dim the lights, then I don't want
> them.
One workaround would be to put lamps with different outputs in various places. If you need it bright, you turn on the 20W/20W/20W lights on the ceiling and if you want it darker, turn those off and use the 5W corner lamp instead. I had a standup lamp with three separate fixtures in it and I put a 20W, a 15W and a 5W compact fluourescent in there and turned them on according to my current needs/wants. Worked out very well.
> Plus, even if they fit standard Edison sockets,
> they are still larger and don't fit in enclosed
> fixtures.
That's true...a lot of old enclosed fixtures and even shade lamps still on sale today have not accomodated for these new lightbulbs. However, in my experience, it's absolutely worth the extra effort to change the fixture to something new. These lights pay themselves within three months compared to a equal light-output incadescent bulb. So even if you need to pick up a new fixture for 20 bucks, you'll still be saving massive amounts. In our house, once we changed over to compact fluourescents, we chopped our energy bill almost into half. Once you see that, you'll regret every day you haven't used them.
Generally we're using the Lights of America "Twister" bulbs. They're bright, don't flicker or hum annoyingly, the light is warm and yellow (you can't tell the difference between those and incadescents if you don't see the bulb itself) and sell here for about $8 a piece.
Current prices, taxes and all included, would have you pay close to $6 for a regular 60W incandescent light, if you had it on 24/7 for a month. To get the same light with a CF light bulb, you'd be using a 15W version, thus costing you only around $1.25 per month for the exact same light output.As has been pointed out already by other posters, they also last far longer (ca. 10.000 hours vs. 1000-2000 hours incandescent). We got started getting them a couple years ago and so far not one has broken. As a nice side-effect, we also experience far less switch blow-out's because of the reduced load on the (somewhat old) wiring system in the house.
Why does the government fund anything ?
DUH!!!!! Because it's in the best interests of it's citizens, the people who control the government. Only a fool believes that the market can solve all our problems ahead of time.
What rock did you crawl out from?
First off, I'm with you on your side wrt your analysis of what will happen as coal/gas/etc get scarce. However:
The reasons I don't buy the green house gas malarkey...
Nothing bad has happened in the past 100 years to a place you've been to, so nothing bad will happen in the next 200 years? That's the extent of your common sense logic?
Dozens of critical competitive disagreeable scientific teams have modeled what's happened in the past and what's going to happen in the future, and they all come to one conclusion. Increased CO2 leads to bad things. How many things have the governments of the world come together on lately? Not much: Human rights. Land mines. Ozone hole. Global warming. It's not some off the wall crackpot theory.
Not only that, but there's a chance that there will be a compound efect, where the warming causes less CO2 to be trapped in the ecosphere (aka forests) because it's a bit drier, and so even more CO2 goes in the atmosphere, etc etc, and it compounds the effects way in excess of what we ourselves put out.
There's another more ominous event that could happen. (And yes, this one is much more speculative, but it's a possibility). The runaway greenhouse. MASSIVE amounts of CO2 in the oceans, arctic oceans, and elsewhere get freed up, triggered by our small global warming, and the temperature of the earth rises 15 full degrees in 20 years.
"Common sense" just doesn't cut it when you get into the real world. The real world is aweful complicated. Only real science has a chance to predict what's going to happen. It's one thing to play the skeptic to new theories, that's ok, that's part of the scientific process. But it's another to stick your head in the sand.
I think it would be WELL worth it to "pretend" that we don't have all this fossil fuel to burn. If you're so confident that things will be all hunky dory when fossil fuels DO run out, why not bit the bullet RIGHT NOW? Or are you just being cheap, hoping that you don't have to be part of the generations that pay the real price for sustainable energy usage.
"...use of solar energy by the rural poor...for everything from pumping clean water from aquifers to recharging cell phone batteries.
Rural poor have cell phones? My cell phone doesn't work, and I'm not rural or poor! What they need to come up with is a solar charging cell phone that charges while you talk. Not that I get much sun anyhow.. do flourescent lights count?
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Your comment about the solar panels being used as tables reminded me of this.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Rather than defend another person's figures, I'll just site my source as I should have done: Giancoli - Physics 4th edition page 449.
The 30% figure seems high (they're actually claiming "over 30%"). The fact is that the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is absolutely huge, and we're able to harness such a small percent of it (10, or 15% like you said) that it's simply not worth it on a big scale - maybe in Dominica, but not in America. Don't listen to a damn thing Green Peace tells you otherwise.
Lastly, in answer to A.C.'s mathematical diatribe, 18,000 was based on a ratio of 1700 MW per 300,000 people. I stand by the figures I listed (except the "30%" as I just explained). I don't know why our numbers don't match up, so I'm forced to concede victory to you.
Do you *need* your computer???
For the same reason photovoltaic cells do. There is no pre-existing infrastructure. It's easier and cheaper to use cell-phones than to run phone-lines.
KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.
KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.
There is no contradiction.
Life changing experience?
What's next for the Vásquez family? A wireless internet connection so they can further change their lives by watching the Big Brother 2 live feeds?
Why? Because saying the truth hurts?
Since even you admit that deregulation *and* individual responsibility works best, then to ever say the opposite is to betray your real feelings.
Government distortions in the market have fostered polution on a vast scale, hidden the damages and costs of inefficient technologies (like monolythic-style atomic power), and been used as political game-pieces to pay off powerful friends.
I am very carefull when saying "statements like this". I say them loudly, and often.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Loudly said: Deregulate.
Deregulate solar. Deregulate oil. Deregulate speech. Deregulate sex. Deregulate money. Deregulate pleasure. Deregulate choice.
To quote the short-movie "Closet Cases of the Nerd Kind", "He keeps on saying the same thing."
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Only funny in America? Nah. I'm British, and I found it hysterical.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
Wow, only 15 years after the introduction of Edison- type fluorescent lights in Europe, they finally have seen the light (pun intended) in the US! An all it took was regular power outages in California. Way to go dudes!
Hmm... gotta come up with a decent
>How long will all this last? My guess is that the cells may (may!) last 10 years
:)
Hello, the major manufacturers offer 10-year and even 25-year warranty for their panels.
In Brazil, because of the energy crisis (hey, if it's good for California...), the government has dropped almost all taxes for alternative energy.
Nevertheless, it still can take about 30 years for a solar system (!?) to pay for itself, because "wired" electricity costs US$ 0.075 per kW.h.
Now, don't forget that when a country deploys "solar farms", it's actually using other country's energy (unless the panels are locally manufactured). Making a solar panel requires a lot of energy. In a way, if I buy a panel manufactured in California, I'll have clean energy here at the expense of more pollution in the US
Anyone knows how long does it take for a panel to "pay" for this energy?
Technology in developing countries can be a double edged sword and must be implemented slowly and carefully. Having witnessed many defunct projects as Peace Corps volunteers in Papua New Guinea, my wife and I quickly realized the importance of ownership by the community (monetary and sweat equity), passage of maintenance knowledge to the community, and relationship building between the community and their own government. Many countrys' governments have the expertise for such projects, however, aid/church organizations cut them out of the loop. Finally, technology can have subsurface cultural ramifications that are completely hidden from outsiders' views, often resulting in vandalism, land disputes, etc. Teach independence, not dependence.
Yes, but a real solar power station won't be based on PV cells. It'll be a concave field, many miles across, filled with mirrors mounted such that they can turn and follow the sun. You can power this bit just by spare heat from sunlight. The mirrors are curved to focus the sunlight on a huge black obelisk in the middle of the field. This obelisk is filled with a network of pipes.
The sun comes out, the mirrors reflect the sunlight to focus on the obelisk and it gets real hot, real quick. Cold water gets pumped in, gets superheated into steam, then drives turbines which generate electricity. The steam then gets routed to run CHP in a hearby town, then cooled and either pumped back in, or vented harmlessly into a river.
That's how to use solar power on an industrial scale, but I don't know if there's anything like this in production yet.
You have higher total fixed costs, but you can cope better with relatively few people paying. Centralized power costs less per person, but a lot more total; if you don't have the installed base to amortize the costs over, US-style plants are just impossible. If you have to get power lines put in all the way from a central location instead of just a fork off of the neighbors', the cost of infrastructure will overwhelm the cost of electricity, no matter how it's produced. And if you're the only person on the power lines, they're going to get much less maintenance and service than something you can take care of yourself.
Flourescent lights hurt my eyes. How about LED lights? they've come a long way, baby. The most efficient, coolest, and longest lasting of all light sources (other than the sun) invented so far. The problem is their spectrum is limited, so getting nice, white light out of them has been difficult. But a lot has happened lately. There are already LED flashlights, expect to see more of them in the next few years.
I'm going to build a new home next spring so I decided to check out solar as an option. The largest solar panel maufacturer, and the only company that manufacturers UL certified panels is, Siemens. I just got the literature in the mail and the cost, less installation cost, runs about $45,000 for a 30 kWh/day system. Unless electic prices really spike on the East Coast this just isn't a realistic system. I guess they must do somthing in the Dominican Repulic back-country that makes this more feasible and economic than running gas/fuel generators.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I spent a few weeks in the DR a few years ago and remember being impressed with some of their power problems/solutions. I recall one house that I visited that had a couple solar tiles on the roof, enough to run a few light bulbs and/or a small TV. Oddly (according to US standards), that was one of maybe 2 or 3 powered houses in the town. I also was told of one of the coolest power hacks I have heard of in a while: car batteries. A car battery can easily power a light for a while, and can then be recharged for a few pesos by a passing pickup truck. Nice simple power that doesn't rely on a central company running wires for you!
Posted from the wireless couch.
I sense a bit of confusion on this sub-thread.
Some fuel cells, like the ones on the space shuttle, combine H2 and O2 to generate electricity and water.
Other fuel cells use methane or propane plus O2 to generate electricity.
For hydrogen fuel cells, you have to create and store the hydrogen gas. With other fuel cells that use hydrocarbon fuels directly, that's not necessary.
There are many ways to store energy that could be considered zero pollution. One of the favorites (large scale) is to take two dams, a high one and a low one. Genereate energy by letting water flow down through a turbine. Store energy by pumping water up.
On a smaller scale, this can be done with in closed vessels. The height is quite important, however.
Compressed air can be used to store energy in small amounts.
You need to define how much energy you need to store before looking for the optimum solution.
OTOH, this is the physical world. The laws of thermodynamics won't go away. Anything you do will have an environmental cost. Anything. The trick is to carefully choose the least expensive, calculating ALL the costs. That gets quite tricky.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I know this is off-topic, but I am getting really tired of people's completely fake "Big Lie" .sigs propagating through SlashDot.
The phrase "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs",, which you credit to Jefferson, is usually attributed to Karl Marx as translated from his Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875 (source: Brooks Spencer, 1997). Spencer notes "It is curious that the first [phrase] closely parallels a phrase from Saint-Simon, the second one from Fourier and both, from phrases from Babeuf." I find it interesting that in the consitution of the People's Republic of China this is transmogrified to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' (source: Article 6, PRC constitution, 1982).
Now, in reality, Marx cribbed this wholesale from a Frenchman who said it in the 1700s. For penance, you may search out the original quote - I couldn't find it on the web anywhere.
NOT JEFFERSON!!! And don't believe most of the Ben Franklin and Adolf Hitler quotes you see on Slashdot either, they are generally fakes.
--Charlie
Should the sun blow up, we would have no lack of solar power. In fact, we would have rather too much.
I agree with you on the completely fucked part, though.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
I am slowly converting my house to be 100% PV. Cost does not even enter my mind, and there are a lot of others who feel the same way.
Yes, I consider myself to be "green". No, I am not a tree hugging hippy. However, I am getting tired of polluting and reqiring mega-corp to furnish me with whatever it is I need.
Fuel cells require some sort of fuel for them to work - in the case of most of the ones I have seen for home use, that fuel is natural gas. That is all fine and good, but that means I have to pay a utility to get it to me. Last winter natural gas prices shot through the roof here in Missouri.
PV, on the other hand, does not require that. You set it up, do some regular maintenance on it, and for at least the next 30 years those panels are going to be generating power. There are quite a few of the very first panels still pumping out the electrons.
Sure, it is going to take me a hell of a long time to pay off any panels I buy. I don't care. However, when the local grid goes down, who's house it still going to have power? Better still, after some sort of a natural disaster, who is going to still have power when the natural gas lines go kablooie?
PV is getting cheaper and cheaper all the time. The people who are doing all the PV FUD are the politicians who have all the oil company bribes in their back pockets.
I know a town of 18,000 (okay, it's 15,000). The land area of this town is one square mile. The typical property there has a roof area of 25% of the ground area.
Putting solar cells on roofs is a great idea. When we get the right materials technology, paving our streets with it is even better. But that still won't be enough to be engergy self-sufficient.
When we get solar cells with 90% efficiency, it will be real smart to use them. But they still won't replace other sources of power.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
One square mile is a LOT of area.
Think of your own city or town, and where you would put that much solar cells. I live in Mountain View, California. In order for it to work for us, we would either have to pave over a significant portion of the San Fransisco Bay, or declare war on Palo Alto and take their surface area.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Cool. I did, in fact, read the studies I claimed to. This is cool though.
I wonder what the effects of covering 3% of the US landmass with windmills will do to ground weather patterns?
Well.. I can't quote any numbers.
In our current global economic climate, solar power (and wind power, and every other type of power, except maybe Hydro... but that's only a guess..), is quite a bit more expensive per power unit.
I recall reading some studies showing how we could not simply 'convert' north america to solar/wind power, because there is simply no way to generate the same amount of energy, regardless of cost.
So, in that respect, solar power is much more expensive.
But if you try to use your diesel generator in these countries, first you have to find a supply of diesel... that gets expensive. Solar power is fairly self-sufficient, even though it has a higher initial cost. It just works.
If you factor in environmental costs... solar power is far cheaper. No pollution (other than manufacturing the units, don't forget that...). They have a long, long life cycle.
If you have limited power available,
But money isn't everything. Asking the typical North American society to change it's ways and use a hundred times less power isn't going to happen... but to these people, power is a new thing.
Their society can adapt to use the power they have in the best possible way... let's all hope that 100 years from now they aren't chugging out huge amounts of pollution, but instead have roof material made of solar cells, and perhaps a manufacturing plant leading the world in cell design.
Yes, especially in DC current, it's amps that kill you, so to speak. But it takes voltage to move amps.
However.. with household AC power, it's the 50 or 60 hz cycle *fibrilating the heart* and causing heart attack that kills people, not the actual amount of power. It doesn't take much AC voltage to kill people, only enough to make the signal reach the heart.
In that respect, 220 is more dangerous. That will only cause burns. Short of enough current to burn organs, all you have to fear is some surface burns (that could be bad).
A great deal of the electronics that run the US of A come from Asia and central/south america, NOT the US of A. DOes that make the US dependant?
How is this different?
Would selling them far cheaper generators and then selling them oil be better?
Another fact the environmentalists miss sometimes.
We could put huge cells covering the desert, say.. in NM, AZ, etc... After all, we aren't gonna build anything there, right?
Hmm. But... that means we'll be blocking the sun from many square miles of desert.. doesn't that have an environmental impact?
I compiled a summary of some of the info I found on renewable energy sources recently. Got some interesting data on the cost of various means of producing power. Photovoltaics seem to be one of the more expensive renewable resources, but still justifiable on cost grounds alone in a lot of situations, especially where grid power is expensive or not available.
Not that I'm against solar power. I quite like the idea, actually. But I've yet to see it as at all economical in my situation. $70,000 for a home setup (I number ISTR from a back issue of Home Power or somesuch) is a tad steep. At even $300/month for electricity, that'll take 20 years to pay itself off. And by that time the system would be way too outdated. I can do better things with $70,000. Even at a 5% rate of return, I could turn it into $185,730, which could buy one whopping nice solar panel system in 2021, even if it _would_ be worth only about $103,834 in today's dollars. Now get that price down by a factor of ten, and I'd snap at the chance, esp. because I myself only use about $30/month, and would thus be putting $270/mo. back into the system and thus making money underneath net metering.
But if you try to use your diesel generator in these countries, first you have to find a supply of diesel... that gets expensive. Solar power is fairly self-sufficient, even though it has a higher initial cost. It just works.
Don't forget the value of predictability and self sufficiency. For rich people, our wealth buffers us from the full effects of fluctuations in energy costs. Rural poor folk I know who rely heavily on propane are getting smacked pretty hard now.
Another way of looking at this is -- does Bill Gates need health insurance? Of course not. For the average person, you are essentially paying the insurance company to turn a wildly fluctuating expense into a constant one which is, on average, higher by the overhead and profit the insurance company makes. If you have the resources to cover the fluctuations, you can afford to have expenses and income fluctuate more.
I think poor folk need self sufficiency more than rich folk, who can use their captial to quicdkly adapt to change and buffer themselves from its worst effects.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is indeed cool. But "1st world countries" that think cell phones and solar power are useful for "third world countries" should be careful.
One great story is where the "advanced" white man brought a bunch of solar panels to a third world country. The locals found that they worked great as tables but not much else.
Other considerations need to be thought about as well. In some countries, children play a role of water carriers. Go in and start pumping water with solar panels, and you've changed the social aspects of the community. The children must be given some other role to play.
It all sort of reminds me of time travel in the movies, where the person goes back, changes one small thing, and suddenly a chain reaction of events occurs, forever changing history, often for the worse.
Hiding those production costs behind tax incentives, grants, EPA loopholes, does not stop the polution, nor clean it up. Only honesty in the real costs of production would drive incentive to clean up the process.
Although I agree that the right long-term solution is for people to always pay the full cost of their pollution, you should be careful with statements like this. The truth is that none of our power industries have to pay the full cost of construction and operation once environmental effects are taken into account.
In the long term, we should remove subsidies and tax pollution across all industries. But in the short term, it makes sense to subsidize solar at least as much as we do, say, nuclear and coal.
The reason I said that you should be careful is that you were making a true statement that could give a false impression, namely that solar is somehow more subsidized or more coddled than other power industries. I agree that all subsidies should be removed eventually, including the hidden subsidy of the ability to pollute. But continuing to subsidize coal and nuclear while pulling the plug on solar's subsidies is foolish and dangerous.
Apparently you're more excited about the "loudly, and often" part; perhaps you should try focusing more on being "carefull".
As a matter of fact, that hydrogen has to come from somewhere. We don't find it in nature, so we have to produce it. By using other sources of energy, such as fossil fuels, solar energy or whatever.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
If you have to purchase power producing equipment on the international market, because you can't produce it domestically, the problem is a shortage of money. (Or rather, the money that is available has to be spent on more critical needs. (Probably military spending, unfortunately))
And, don't discount the fact that electricity usage varies. One of the greatest advantages of the united states is the widespread, electrified infrastructure. Energy use does not tend to increase as much as transform itself. From gas-lamps to the light bulb. From oil-heating to electrical heating. Which is more effecient, a million small coal-fired steam plants running steam turbines in factories, or a few centralized powerplants that run far more effeciently and clean up the pollution emissions.
Our incredibly electrified country os something to be proud of,
How about hydrogen fuel cells? (Or for that matter, the other metal fuel cells)
-bugg
Not true. It takes from one to several years to break even, depending on the technology, but the claim that they take more energy than they put out is pure FUD.
Also, if you're far enough away from the grid it can actually be cheaper to install a photovoltaic system than to run copper and get on the grid.
The above is the standard repost from the last solar power article. Thanks to Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) for the real scoopIn fact, it is our generation's right (and the one before) to consume the last drop on non-renewable fossil fuel. Let our children and their children curse in the cold and dark.
And everyone knows you are full of shit.
www.homepower.org
They point out the energy payback in in under-5 years based on a German study.
Wind power has a under 3 year payback based on the power used to produce it.
Do you have some links to prove your POV, AC?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Semiconductor production also takes a huge amount of electricity -- which is generated by coal, nuclear, etc.
I've been told that solar cells, given their lifespan of 30 years or so (what the article linked said, I believe), a solar cell cannot generate in its lifetime, in full sunlight, more energy than it took to create it in the first place. Now, this may no longer be true, or it may never have been true. I've also been told it's an urban legend. I could figure out how much a given solar cell could generate over that period of time, but I know nothing about how much power every single process needed to make the solar cells takes.
Anyone know if this is truth or fiction?
I've always been partial to wind power, myself -- even if not electric, you can rig up something simple out of wood and fibre to pump water or provide mechanical power. Things that are easier to do are invariably easier and cheaper to bring to the masses.
There is an experimental system similar to what you describe. I do not have its present status. The first generation system was run and then shut down. It was a useful experiment but not cost effective. The second generation uses a central tower in a field of flat mirrors to heat salt. This generates a large pool of molten salt that can then be used for thermal power generation at times when power is most valuable, rather than times when the sun is shining. It also deals with the issue of power at night much better than batteries do.
Neither is likely to be cost effective at present electricity prices and construction costs. These are funded as research efforts to gain experience with the technology at full scale. Given present politics it will be very hard to make the change to price electricity high enough to justify this as a power source unless someone finds a way to drop construction costs and operating costs dramatically.
Meanwhile PV and wind both offer cost effective solutions in their individual niches.
Also, they quote rates of 1.25/kwh for solar, which is the cheapest there, but is about 15 times more expensive than in the U.S (excluding california, its getting close there, maybe 2x more expensive)
Also, did you know that the NUCLEAR reactions in the sun create millions of tiny particles that can pass throgh the entire earth, without even slowing down? that these NUCLEAR reaction products have unknown health effects, and it is UNKNOWN whether RADIATION collectors such as solar panels might interact with them, with disastrous result.
you can make anything scary, even neutrinos, the most harmless particles in the universe.
Essentially, he's working on computer controlled networked solar power systems. The power management controller is refurbed AST 286 running Linux(!) and will control an automated switching and power management system for the solar panels in a community of 200 people. All people have to do is connect their rooftop panels to it(they have to be within 100m for the higher loss cable he's using) , and the system does the rest. Power redistribution, battery charging, dynamic loading, the whole deal. The whole system costs $800 -including a rack of 64 used deep cycle marine batteries - though there is an additional cost for the wiring. If there's any way to break the cycle of industrialization that destroys third world countries, this is it. Sorry no URL, though Home Power Magazine is a great place to look.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
Once fuel gets to be in such short supply that oil costs so much that gasoline is $4 a gallon (will happen eventually) it will become VERY economical to use solar power.
Solar power has low ongoing costs - no refinery workers to pay, no use of fuel to refine fuel (refineries USE quite a bit on energy), just the costs to make them and some occasional maintenance (you would have that with ANY power source).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Once fuel gets to be in such short supply that oil costs so much that gasoline is $4 a gallon (will happen eventually) it will become VERY economical to use solar power.
Hello? Newsflash! gasoline is already over $5 a gallon here in the Netherlands, but i don't see anyone using solar power... Also, the reason the price has risen this much, is that americans are using so much gasoline that they have to import extra from europe, making *our* prices rise due to your excessive demands... think about that when you see someone driving that SUV.
Wrong. Fuel cells don't store anything. A fuel cell is a conversion device - it converts some fuel directly to electrical power. A fuel cell is just an engine with no moving parts. Some use methanol for fuel, others use propane etc.
A solar panel is also a conversion device, converting solar radiation to electrical power.
And yes, the two are in competition with each other. The Santa Fe Railroad (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe) used to use solar panels to power their remote communications units, but switched to propane powered fuel cells. Why? Lack of sufficient power at night or under cloudy conditions, plus, wind and hail repeatedly damaged their expensive solar panels.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Magius_AR
Cell phones in rural areas that are cut off from the power grid ? :-)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
http://www.windsun.com
You city dwellers that want to actual help, instead of just verbalize you ignorance can do one of several things.
1. Buy solar panels and a grid tie system to 'help' out the local power company.
2. Buy a bank of lead acid batteries and an inverter and use grid power only during off peak hours and your own juice during peak hours.
3. Don't use electricity during peak hours, period.
4. Shut up, sit back, learn, and do something constructive with your life.
What country developed the technology for solar cells? Who is the leader in MOSFET, IGBT technology? Who for microprocessor technology? Lead acid battery technology? (other batteries just don't cut it for cost and efficiency) In short, what country is slowly making solar technology affordable for everyone? If nothing else, what country should be getting the extra green house gas producing credits for making the solar panels and electronics for the Domincan Republic (not that I believe the green house gas arguments anyway). The free market economy is working people. When we do run out of oil (no time soon) then the price of oil generated electricity will skyrocket....solar panels will be the cheap alternative....peace on earth will break out...the tree huggers will find something else to whine about.
Slightly off topic. The reasons I don't buy the green house gas malarkey:
1) I'm an aero engineer. I've seen the code used to produce these models. When they can start telling me the weather next month, I MIGHT start to believe their 10 year predictions. Yes I know the difference between climate and weather.
2) Islands like Wake Island in the Pacific are only a few feet above sea level. The highest point of the island (actual 3 islands) is 22 feet. A big wave can wash right over the entire island. This island and the Marshal Islands will be some of the first things to go under if the sea level rises. So what happened during the 20th century. Nada, zilch. I've been to some of these islands and have seen them with my own eyes.
What is it with Slashdot and the tree huggers. Is VA an arm of Greenpeace or what? BTW I love trees and consider myself an environmentally friendly guy, but not to the point of a frontal lobotomy.
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
lots of people are discussing the economics of solar PV vs. standard energy. Yes, if you just want to retrofit your home, or you design a standard home and want to make it solar, it's a very large expense. However, even though the cost may be slightly greater per kwh, you can drastically reduce the cost of a full solar PV system by designing the home to be energy efficient in the first place. Use DC appliances, optimize your solar collection facing and use a myriad number of design tricks to reduce your power usage. it semms most of us waste as much energy as we use practically. If you could be completely self-sufficient for electricity for the next 25 years for $20,000, would you do it? I spend 90 as a household here in Maine, monthly. and the economics only improve with grid tied systems. sure you need some additional equipment, but you don't *need* a battery bank and net metering can make a large difference in the economics.
I think by that logic, burning oil is not exactly a source of energy, just a battery-like release of chemical energy. I guess, then, only collection of natural radiation counts as an energy source.
--
--hongpong.com
But if you have heaps of batteries you could store a heap of energy from the blast.
I have a friend who did the calculations on a common type fo solar cell himself and found that, at least 5 years ago, they did take more energy to make than they were getting out of them. Economy of scale might be a part. But there are different types of solar cells too. The technology may have improved in the last 5 years too.
I would think of it less as FUD and more as outdated info.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
My experience in Guyana suggests that the PV side of solar energy is the easy part. The correct setup and, critically, maintenance of the inverters and batteries is where most installations fall down.
My former boss has a lovely setup at his retreat house up the mighty Essequibo River - miles and miles from the nearest road, nevermind power grid. He has 4 panels which track the sun (delivers about 20% more) and the seasons (negligable this close to the equator). Trace/Heart Interface inverter/charge controller and four big deep cycle gel-filled truck batteries. Runs a DC fridge, 12-15 low power flourescents and, on really hot days, a fan.
Oh - 2 laptops too!
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
I wonder if the third world will end up being the futuristic society that we have been promised since the 1940's? It's interesting that because of first-world dependence on backwards compatible technologies (ie, gasoline engine, coal burning power plants, etc) that the newer and more environmentally friendly technologies are taking root in the third world nations. I guess I think of it as getting a chance to (technilogically) start over with a clean slate in many cases instead of having to work within the somewhat outdated framework of modern, first-world technology.
Just a thought anyways.
Say "NO!" to tax money for religious groups.
Read
My
Lips
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
First off, the electric situation is terrible in that country. This is not just for the remote undeveloped rural regions. In the major metropolitan areas, even the capital city, Santo Domingo, just about everyone who can afford it has their own gas generator. Why? Because the power outages are frequent and of great duration. Sounds like Nigeria (where a friend is working with the government to set up some computer labs and training). The power goes out frequently enough that "Oh NEPA!" (NEPA = Nigerian Electrical Power Administration) has entered the vernacular. Lots of businesses, especially in Lagos, and not just computer-based ones find it difficult to work when the power drops out randomly and for long stretches.
- Intermittent power makes it impossible for the poor and lower-middle class people to have appliances we consider basic, such as refrigerators and microwave ovens.
- This forces the people to depend on vendors and shops for perishable foods and cooking fuel.
- The shops and fuel merchants are owned by the wealthy, who get healthy markups.
- Reliable electricity would allow people to buy food less frequently and shop for price, and use electricity for cooking instead of fuel. This would replace high-margin sales by the shops with a few "white goods", further revenue going to the utility operator.
- Accordingly, the wealthy classes do not want reliable electricity as it would cut into their immediate profits.
Is there any truth to this?--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
You can get a cheap Lights of America CF circlite that even does 3-way dimming in your same old lamp fixture. Same light output as a 150-watt incandescent, for 34 watts max. Best of all, you'll have trouble telling the light color from the last bulb (it's a pinkish-warm color, not the bluish "cool white").
BTW, the flicker frequency of an iron-ballast fluorescent is twice the line frequency. You'd be really exaggerating by comparing it to a 50 Hz or 60 Hz monitor refresh.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
The third world is in the same situation of having little infrastructure. They didn't lose it, they never had it, but the fundamental issue is the same: they are building from scratch. Instead of piles of copper phone lines, they are wiring with cellular and optical fiber right off. Some are still hauling coal and diesel fuel to run small, inefficient and unreliable generators, but solar panels have come down to the point where they are cheaper than diesel fuel and far cheaper than cutting swaths for high-tension transmission lines through the countryside. Are they "ahead" of us? I'm not sure about "ahead", but they are getting more for their money doing it the "green" way than they would doing it the old way. You can argue about the politics and science making sense, but you can't argue about the dollars and cents.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Getting a certain amount of energy is easy. Getting it into the required form is harder. Delivering it as needed, when needed and where needed... that's a lot more costly, and is by far the larger amount of the cost and difficulty with intermittent sources of energy.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
However, solar cell production is neither cheap, nor clean. Heavy metals and lead, light metals like arsenic, or non-metals such as silicon, all contribute to the polution load for their manufacture.
Hiding those production costs behind tax incentives, grants, EPA loopholes, does not stop the polution, nor clean it up. Only honesty in the real costs of production would drive incentive to clean up the process.
Ronald Regan did not "kill" solar cells, his administration stopped the artificial incentives for wasteful production. Research has gone on, and clean (and therefore cheap) production methods will either be developed, or solar cells will remain a niche market.
I also believe in the export of high-tech to "developing" regions as quickly as possible, to prevent their needing to pass through the awfully poluting "heavy industry" cycle just because some politicians are too cowardly to admit that "brown" people are people too.
Bob-
Mourn on the 4th of July, set a place at the table for Thomas Jefferson, and toast "Next Year, In Philidelphia."
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The thing that really makes solar better for them than anything else is that you can have your own solar panels, and the power doesn't have to be sent anywhere. That means that you don't rely on power lines which may go unmaintained or a power plant which may go offline. The first-world power grids work well because there's a lot of redundancy and utilities which can maintain the power lines.
If you don't have thousands of other paying customers on the same segment as you, you're not going to get great service, and you'd do better to just do it yourself with a solar system or a generator, and solar's just easier at that scale.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Fuel cells are not in competition with solar energy, because fuel cells are not an energy source. They are a method for storing energy (like batteries, but better). You still have to generate that energy somehow (and solar is as good a method as any)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It's extremely difficult to do a complete audit of the environmental impact of any technology. There is definitely a "tip of the iceberg" effect at work. For example for every pound of household trash, several pounds of trash were created before the materials ever reached the house. This effect is very pronounced in the case of PV, but it exists for alternatives such as fossil or biomass fuels as well. You have to do a a rigorous audit of EVERY alternative.
Another important factor is scale. You cannot compare the environmental impact of, say, a wool coat with a polypropylene fleece one, without taking into account the scale of production. To produce a single coat, the cost of the polypro coat is vastly greater, but the marginal effect for each new coat is less, whereas the environmental impact of wool increases at least linearly and possibly faster at very high scales of production. At some point, the marginal impact of the next wool coat may meet or exceed the polypro.
Perhaps an alternative to complicated environmental auditing is simply to internalize the costs of pollution by regulating disposal of wastes and charging a fair price to cart what can be disposed of "away". If the PV cells are indeed manufactered in Massachusetts, then the cells are manufactured under some of the strictest environmental regulation and enforcement in the world. Very likely the environmental costs of PV cells are much more fully accounted for in their price than the costs of fossil fuels.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I was there in February (great place,except Puerta Plata) and there were constant blackouts. Most hotels and restaraunts had backup generators to provide power. The main power plants were diesel barges in the harbor. In the countryside I rarely came accross power at all unless it was by a generator...actually I went to a few places that didn't which adds quite a bit of time to your day. I didn't notice any solar power. But I'm happy to hear that they are attempting to use it. A very good way to get out of poverty is to have the extra time given by available power and sewage systems. I estimated that lack of these things added about 3 hours of work to an average person's day just to keep clean and prepare food. Time that could be much better spent at other educational or profitable endeavors. If anyone goes there. Go to the k-ramba bar on Calle Isabella in Santo Domingo. The energy engineers hang out there and it is a very good bar.
Third world?! You mean the place you can't place a call to because the locals tear down the COPPER wire to sell? That's where you're putting in solar panels that cost more than a person can earn in 5 years?
They'll be gone by the end of the week.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
anyone know the lifecycle cost of solar cell power vs other types of power?
:-)
Sorry, I forgot to answer the second part of your question
Let's assume that this 40 watt system will operate at 12 hours a day, and let's derate the output to 40 watts over 8 hours (instead of 12). That gives us 320 watt hours per day of work, or 115 kilowatt hours per 360 sunny days. You will have to reduce that figure depending on the local climate.
Where I live, electricity costs about 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, so this setup would be worth about $11 per year. Not much of a bargain - for me anyway. (In case you are wondering, I probably get 350 days of full sunshine per year.)
But I don't think MY cost comparison is of any interest to the people in the article. The first few hundred watts are probably the most productive anyway. After that, the watts are probably just "wasted" on entertainment.
A dingo ate my sig...
The best solar cells generally have about 30% efficiency, relative to the total flux of sunlight hitting the earth in the given area. To output 100 MW requires about 1 square mile of cells
---------
Interesting maths there.
You get ~1kW/m^2 of sunlight, so that's 2560000kW of raw sunlight, which at 30% efficiency is:
2560000kW * 0.3 = 768 000kW == 768MW
---------
Point of view from an applied physicist:
Sunlight from the earth is 1.2 kW/m^2 (higher than your estimate). However, 30% efficiency is a pretty big overestimate of how much you can get from a presently economical solar cell. There are solar cells approaching 30%, but these tend to be made out of more exotic materials and are not as easily manufactured.
Starting from an incident flux of 1.2 kW/m2:
Half the time it is night. So averaged over a day gives: 600 W/m2.
But in most places, not every day is sunny. So, hack another half off that: 300 W/m2.
Also, the efficiency of a solar cell is strongly dependent on the angle of incidence of the sunlight. Assuming a low cost installation where the cells aren't pivoting (expensive and prone to break down) to catch the rays gives a loss in available flux. Using a generous a cos^2 depenenced takes us down to: 150 W/m2
(Note: It is probably much worse as the cos^2 only accounts for effective reduction in solar cell cross-section area as the sun rises and sets. For grazing incidence light most of the sunlight will reflect off the solar cell. And yes, exotic solar cells have been designed to reduce this, but this adds to cost and manufacturing difficulty.)
Now, apply a realistic 20% solar cell efficiency: 30 W/m2.
Thus, a typical solar cell can be expected to yield on average (a generous estimate):
30 W/m2.
Of course, this ignores the efficiency of any storage system you might have if you want to make use of the power generated when the sun is not directly overhead on a clear day. So to try to get a more realistic feel, hack off another half to account for efficiency and grazing reflection:
15 W/m2.
So, a square mile array of solar cells could make an average contribution of:
1600 m * 1600 m * 15 W/m2= 38,400,000 W
This is one-twenth the value of the previous poster and a bit closer to the original post, but 38.4 MW can power a fair number of homes.
However, as the previous poster pointed out, in most cities, you could get more bang for your real-estate via other means.
However, when the sun is directly overhead, on a sunny day, you will get a peak performance of roughly 240 W/m2.
Since this is the time when power is most needed anyways, this points to solar cells being used to offset peak power demand when everybody's air conditioning kicks on simultaneously. I don't expect solar cells to be the primary source of power anytime soon except in special situations.
Kevin
Several semesters ago in one of my college classes, my profesor told us about his research. He goes to guatemala(where I'm from), to install solar stoves. They are very simple, but they work very good. It decreases their need for firewood. Any way, here is the link to the article. It was posted in the University's magazine.
And what's more, in 'developed' countries, we've already made a huge investment in power stations to supply our mains electricity, plus systems to distribute that power.
So one important comparison has to be that between spending, say $10,000 for a solar facility for a village (still a lot of money in most places on the planet), and $several_million to build gas/coal/nuclear/whatever powered centralised power stations and distribution networks. Which might end up more economical when calculated across an entire country, but has to be done in one fell swoop rather than being achievable piecemeal, village by village, region by region.
And then there's the ongoing cost of fuel, the carbon release or nuclear waste disposal, the moving parts, the high operating costs...
It will cost us a lot of money to convert to solar in the short term, but, as Keynes so nicely put it, in the long term, we're all dead. and it's in the long term that our grandchildren will thank us for having the foresight and wisdom to take a hit today and set the change in motion.
TomV
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You could always try a flywheel.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Unless the technology can be maintained with local expertise it is just putting the people in a dependant relationship on more industrialized nations. There is a path that technological development has to go on to empower the people, and sometimes that means that less good technologies have to be used.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
First off, the electric situation is terrible in that country. This is not just for the remote undeveloped rural regions. In the major metropolitan areas, even the capital city, Santo Domingo, just about everyone who can afford it has their own gas generator. Why? Because the power outages are frequent and of great duration. In the US, if the power goes out frequently, anywhere, (say like California recently) it makes front page news, people are crying out because "We were out of power for 4 HOURS last night!" In DR there are parts of the city where they measure the time the power is ON like that, not where it is off. It's more like "Woo Hoo, we had a full 6 hours of power today!" The solution to this problem for many is gas generators. But these are really expensive to purchase, so it's the middle to upper class (who are vastly outnumbered by the lower class) that are able to buy them. These generators are also very expensive to operate, since gas isn't exactly cheap in the third world (like it is here, he says sarcastically) so most people can't have them or even operate them.
I believe the idea of solar panels to be a blessing for the country. Goodness knows that the government is corrupt, and the ruling class doesn't give a shit about the poor. It's a lack of will and cash that is preventing the outskirts from even being wired, and it's corruption that causes the places that ARE wired to remain dark. Solar panels are a way for the people to power themselves, cheaply. This has to be good.
anyone know the lifecycle cost of solar cell power vs other types of power?
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
This is one of those ideas that makes such perfect sense. Solar is currently an expensive solution on a per KWh basis to add to an existing grid. But, when there is no power infrastructure in place, it's not surprising to see it as a good solution. I'm glad there are people finally out there trying to get it going.
The big trick with a low input power system like that is the user's energy budget. Here in the states, we're used to having a huge budget for power. But, when you live on battery or generator power, you learn to economize. Folks in rural areas won't have the energy budget we may be used to in an urban area, but any power is better than none, and Solar is often a great solution. One reason many long distance cruisers (sailboats) rely heavily on big batteries and a rack of solar cells...
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Not only that, but youre using a NUCLEAR power source! Not many of you may know this, but the sun is a giant NUCLEAR furnace, where hydrogen is built into helium, at a temperature of MILLIONS of degrees. Were you also aware that most solar panels actually collect the RADIATION put out by the sun? I dont know about you, but I dont want RADIATION collectors anywhere near me or my CHILDREN. We need to stop all use of NUCLEAR power, including solar, and move to safe, clean COAL energy, just like our VP says to.
Only in America can the above statement be Funny :-(
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
What I learned, however, was that the sun is much better at heating things up than creating electricity. Heat a home, or water for a home, or a greenhouse - at these the sun excels. Also, we're still not very good at converting that energy into electricity. We would have been much farther along 'cept for fucking Ronald Reagan (link's dated, but funny). Bastard killed off solar energy research in the 80s.
Anyway. Solar power is useful, yes, especially in 3rd-world countries where people aren't such energy hogs. But until our technology improves vastly (or we all start using much less energy), solar-generated electricity isn't going to help the 1st world very much.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
It seems to me that I don't use much of my roof space. I mean, I can't even get up there to bask in the sun or get drunk and fall off for the neighbors' amusement. Think there might be a square mile of south-facing roof in your town?
He has many hundreds of usenet posts, ideas about converting an existing house to 100% solar, low cost and warm homeless shelters, and is conducting solar heating experiments, all using inexpensive / easily obtainable materials.
If you're interested in solar heating, you should check him out.
The Department of Energy does actually have a few programs set up in the United States to promote solar power use in the US. One is the Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR) which provides grants to state and local partnerships to try develop uses for solar energy in communities. The program plans to have a million solar roof systems in place in the United States by the year 2010.
There is a map of current locations of partnerships in the United States here:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/millionroofs/tally.html
The main webpage for the program can be found here:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/millionroofs/"
And here is a list of projects that have already been put into place in the United States related to this program:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/millionroofs/news.html
bbh
While this may sound crazy, flourescent lights have come a long way and the technology is fairly common and is becoming cheaper everyday.
The cool thing about flourescent bulbs is that they now come in standard "edison" screw type sizes so you don't need to buy those long tubes. On top of this, they are over 80% efficient (only 20% of energy is turned to heat) and last 10,000 hours! [5 - 7 years under average use] Good old incandescent bulbs only last 1,000 hours at most and are only 15% efficient. (85% of the energy goes up as heat.)
Not only is this a boon for 3rd world countries, but it is helpful for 1st world ones with states that have rolling black-outs. :^)
So if you're a Californian trying to get in on the 20/20 deal, you might want to look into getting flourescent lights for your house. Not only do they produce less heat, they consume only 1/5th the electricity.
The best place that I've found to buy flourescent bulbs online is some company called http://www.energyguide.com and New Englanders get a $5 discount per bulb making them practically free. So what are you waiting for? Save yourself some money by lowering your electricity bill! (and perhaps avoid rolling blackouts!)
Living here in California where people are constantly complaining about rising electric rates and rolling blackouts that disrupt your soap opera viewing, articles like this really help put things in perspective. Imagine a country where renting a 40-watt photovoltaic panel can be a life changing experience. Totally alien to our own way of life.
--
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- T. Jefferson
If the government really cared about getting alternative energy in use here in the US, they'd enforce net metering laws. What this means is: you hook up your [wind|solar|thermonuclear] electrical source to the grid, and when you put electricity back into the grid you get credit for it. Simple enough. With older technology, all that was required was a device to make sure that your current was in phase with the grid, and your meter would run 'backwards'. Now with the new, electronic meters, doing so would make you PAY for the electricity you put into the grid! This is absurd. In many states there are LAWS that REQUIRE the utilities to implement net metering, but they are being blatantly ignored. If you want more info, read Home Power Magazine, which has really good info, all in an archive for FREE! (but hey, subscribe, send them some money, it's a worthy cause).
It takes hard-core chemical usage to
manufacture photovoltaic cells. Just remember
that there are other ways to exploit the sun,
as well (solar ovens, solar heating ranges,
et cetera).
The economics of solar power are actually excellent. A few pertinent facts:
1.) Solar cell sales have grown at a CAGR over 15% for the last 15 years. PV production has been running at capacity for over 10 years, despite construction of new PV manufacturing facilities. PV sales are on allocation and have multi-year backlogs.
2.) PV sales are now far more dominated by considerations of cost effective power generation than by considerations of cost effective publicity generation.
3.) US installations of solar cells are very widespread, but are now being installed mostly by people who do not spend money on publicity regarding the installations.
4.) Most installations are cost justified by the cost of installing grid power vs the cost of installing the PV system. For a small data monitoring system (commonly needed for railroads, natural resource sites, etc.) the cost of the PV system is usually less than the cost of installing one utility pole. So you see PV power even in fairly urban areas. For larger installations, the construction cost tradeoff is usually something like 1-2 miles from power line to power need. Then PV makes sense. There are lots of sites like these, but they are all miles from the nearest road and get little publicity.
The question of solar power is not whether it is useful or not, or clean or not. It's really a matter of whether it's economical or not.
In the Dominican Republic, a small island isolated from the immense power grids of places like the USA and Europe, with limited ability and resources to produce its own power, it's perfectly feasible (even with the high cost of replacing solar panels in the long run). However, we have a huge infrastructure for pumping, transporting, and burning petroleum.
High efficiency, low-maintenance solar cells are a good direction in which to spend research $$, but I think it'll take a major shift in economics to make this work--especially with competing fuel sources like fuel cells on the very-near horizon.
The best solar cells generally have about 30% efficiency, relative to the total flux of sunlight hitting the earth in the given area. To output 100 MW requires about 1 square mile of cells - that's enough power for about 18,000 people (Americans, that is... or about a million Dominicans).