I'n pretty sure this hurt Nader. People who were willing to trade might have voted for him anyway when it can to election day. And, having several such sites likely meant that some votes traded early and often. Most importantly it hurt the green party because subsequent ballot access can be determined by voting strength in a state. Glad to know it isn't illegal, but I don't think it is good idea either. -- Did you know APS in Arizona has net metering?http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slash dot-users-selling-solar.html
Maryland just passed a law saying that if enough other state will go along, their electoral college votes will be cast for the nationwide winner rather
that the winner of the state. -- Rent solar power with net metering even in Phoenix: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
In 2000, at the suggestion of a conservative columnist, I distriubuted clothspins to my republican neighbors in Virginia to help them vote. They got theirs for free, but you might need to purchase one to get you through.
I agree. The vote counters and observers form social bonds that make politics go more smoothly. Having machines do this bit of work is a lost opportunity. Make election day a holiday and things will be even better. Smaller precincts are also a plus. Many hands make light work. E lauhoe mai na wa`a; i ke kâ, i ka hoe;
i ka hoe, i ke kâ; pae aku i ka `âina. --
Solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
In my original post, that was the point. You can power your house AND your car, not just your house. For me, I'll just put panels out back when the car is ready but it is still nice to see the advance.
The principle investigator sounds like he has a clue and a half. But, there are high efficiency cells for special applications such as on orbit. They are just pretty expensive. If they are planning on making one per soldier, this should give some scale.
This might be true if you kept a tarp over it for the first 13 years. Panels take 2 years to payback energy. If you are willing to keep using them until their efficiency is degraded to 40% of new (that takes 100 years or more) the the EROEI is 33, higher than just about anything else (air dried firewood is 25 in favorable conditions). If you then recycle panels, the recycled ones have a payback of 1 year since you did not have to refine the silicon. The eventual EROEI approaches 66, beating all other technologies. -- Solar for the future starting now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
In photovoltaics, this is considered progress. There are some things you can do a 3% efficiency, some more at 6%, 19% gets a lot of applications but 50% breaks new ground. The power-to-weight ratio gets interesting. That is kind of the point of the effort. I'll buy you a beer when they get to 100%.
That's 2.1% in 7 months. So, how long to get to 50%? 50-42.8=7.2, at 3.6%/year that's 2 years. Is it news that things are advancing so quickly? To the army it is. Taking 20 pounds off is going to save lives. Might want to read the article.
Once you concede that renewables are cheaper than alternatives, then the rest of the economy will also be converting. Aircraft manufacturers are certainly looking at biofuels as aviation fuel now, the energy used to manufacture goods will also be converting. So long as renewables are enhansing prosperity, they'll become a larger and larger part of the energy mix. Economic activity can only hasten the conversion since it leads to more rapid reinvestment. Poverty is more likely to be the lot of those economies that hold back. -- Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
We can't beat $0.07/kWh yet and still make a profit but most people pay more than you do. At $1.50/Watt retail (about ten years hence on the cost curve) you'll likely be looking at this more closely.
I thought this estimate for solar thermal to be interesting:
Even without pricing cost externalities, the cost of solar thermal power is going down. Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per k/Wh. However, many economists and investors predict that this price will continuously drop over the next ten years with increased installed capacity, to 6 cents per kW/h, as a result of technological improvements, economies of scale and volume production.
For states with renewable energy standards, this does not seem all that expensive. There is quite a range in what is paid for electricy at the supply end because spinning reserve is expensive. A peak demand matched profile may well be economical.
High efficency panels (concentrators are built in) are going to have applications where they compete at retail rather than wholesale. We'll know where these particular ones are at in about three years. -- Solar power for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
You are correct that looking at the durability of the panels is important. Aten solar sells panels for $3.00/Watt:http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_p anels.htm with a 25 year warranty (performance above 80%).
So, with a cheapo ground mount (the panels are not very efficient) that you cut yourself from the woods and $1/watt for a 4000 W inverter (corrected to 25 year life) you are looking at
$0.03/kWh if you are willing to keep the panels until they degrade to 40% of their original efficiency (100 years; 66 years new equivilent; you need to figure out the smaller and likely cheaper inverters for the last 75 years which might take you up to $0.034/kWh). Oh, and plus gas for the chainsaw. If you are not so cheap, or you figure you won't live that long and don't want to pass on the investment, you are looking at $0.09/kWh bailing after 25 year and just junking the panels (no aftermarket). This assumes and average of 5 h/day peak production equivilent which is typical: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may200 4.jpg.
So, if you have the land, you can either match utility rates or substantially undercut them. For rooftop applications $4+/Watt is standard retail for more efficent panels. Now, mounting costs something and you need to consider the reroofing timescale. By cutting out the middleman, we match utility rates with a rental model and can fix the rate for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. This makes solar power an overall savings rather than a luxury.
In fact, roof top concentrators look quite practical: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. I wish the original article had given a diagram of how their system is laidout, but it definitely mentioned rooftop use.
You won't be all that competitive is you are producing 11% efficient solar today. I think perhaps you are thinking that most solar panels already sold have a lower efficiency. One company is selling at $3.00/watt for lower efficency panels as compared with $4.20/watt for most. You have to compete on price to offset the higher installation costs of lower efficeincy panels. -- Solar power you can afford: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Hey Greg!
That is true on orbit. The solar constant is taken at the top of the Earth's atmopshere but by the time it gets to the ground you get about 1 kW/m^2 when it is clear. This map gives average anual per day energy adjusted for clouds and such in kWh/m^2:http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annua l_may2004.jpg. This map is for tilted panels. Tracking concentrators have a somewhat different behavior, doing better in the southwest and, surprisingly, worse in New York:http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_ may2004.jpg. Panels are less sensitive to clouds and haze. For panels, 5 kWh/m^2/day is a typical value which you then multiply by the panel efficiency. Note that Northeast Alaska is a pretty good place for tracking concentrators. Tracking panels might do even better; they'd have to spin 360 though. -- Solar power without the spin:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot- users-selling-solar.html
The article was editied. I made the comparison to point out that this leaves roof area for charging a plug-in hybrid. Under most net metering laws you don't want to generate more power than you use because, after a year, the utility just confiscates the extra power, paying you nothing for it. Most home roofs have enough surface area to handle the power used by the building but it can be a tight fit. Adding in charging a car could mean drawing more from the utility, possibly at a higher price than today's electricity. So, developing the option to get more power from less area enables powering transportation as well as the home in most cases. To be fair, kdawson did add in the 17% number which I had left vauge. It is actually system efficiency that stands near 17%, panel efficiencies are a bit higher (about 19%). -- Get solar power that matches your changing use of electricity:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/sl ashdot-users-selling-solar.html
I razzed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on my blog yesterday saying he is trying to keep the southerneastern US off solar so he can build a huge New Mexican Solar Power Monopoly to supply them: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html(tinfoil hat warning). One of the projects linked there aims to do just this, havesting the heat generated at the panels for building heating. Engulf and Devour, that's his motto. -- Register your home for solar power; fixed competitive rates for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
What I'm facinated by is the battery aftermarket. In the US where the largest electricity market is, this could really shift the expense of batteries. At present we rely on the most expensive energy sources to meet peak demand. But getting a second life from the batteries prior to recycling looks like it could eliminate much of the need for the more expensive sources of energy. If you can treat batteries more gently in a power storage application than in a transportation application, the lifetime in the aftermarket could be substantially longer. So, if we are flowing storage capacity from the transportation sector to the power supply sector, we fairly quickly get to a day or two's worth of storage so long at the transportation sector adopts this technology as the majority mode. A couple days of storage means that both expensive power sources and some base load sources, especially those that have inconvinient square wave availability with month-long down times, could be eliminated. This is a very interesting concept could provide reduced costs for both the transportation and electric supply sectors. -- Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/10/schneider.e lectoral/index.html. Vote swapping writ large....
I'n pretty sure this hurt Nader. People who were willing to trade might have voted for him anyway when it can to election day. And, having several such sites likely meant that some votes traded early and often. Most importantly it hurt the green party because subsequent ballot access can be determined by voting strength in a state. Glad to know it isn't illegal, but I don't think it is good idea either.h dot-users-selling-solar.html
--
Did you know APS in Arizona has net metering?http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slas
Maryland just passed a law saying that if enough other state will go along, their electoral college votes will be cast for the nationwide winner rather that the winner of the state.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with net metering even in Phoenix: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In 2000, at the suggestion of a conservative columnist, I distriubuted clothspins to my republican neighbors in Virginia to help them vote. They got theirs for free, but you might need to purchase one to get you through.
I agree. The vote counters and observers form social bonds that make politics go more smoothly. Having machines do this bit of work is a lost opportunity. Make election day a holiday and things will be even better. Smaller precincts are also a plus. Many hands make light work. E lauhoe mai na wa`a; i ke kâ, i ka hoe; i ka hoe, i ke kâ; pae aku i ka `âina.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In my original post, that was the point. You can power your house AND your car, not just your house. For me, I'll just put panels out back when the car is ready but it is still nice to see the advance.
The principle investigator sounds like he has a clue and a half. But, there are high efficiency cells for special applications such as on orbit. They are just pretty expensive. If they are planning on making one per soldier, this should give some scale.
This might be true if you kept a tarp over it for the first 13 years. Panels take 2 years to payback energy. If you are willing to keep using them until their efficiency is degraded to 40% of new (that takes 100 years or more) the the EROEI is 33, higher than just about anything else (air dried firewood is 25 in favorable conditions). If you then recycle panels, the recycled ones have a payback of 1 year since you did not have to refine the silicon. The eventual EROEI approaches 66, beating all other technologies.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar for the future starting now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
They are partnering with DuPont to take it up to production.
The original comparision was there to say you could power your house AND your car too. It got edited.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power that grows with you: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In photovoltaics, this is considered progress. There are some things you can do a 3% efficiency, some more at 6%, 19% gets a lot of applications but 50% breaks new ground. The power-to-weight ratio gets interesting. That is kind of the point of the effort. I'll buy you a beer when they get to 100%.
That's 2.1% in 7 months. So, how long to get to 50%? 50-42.8=7.2, at 3.6%/year that's 2 years. Is it news that things are advancing so quickly? To the army it is. Taking 20 pounds off is going to save lives. Might want to read the article.
Once you concede that renewables are cheaper than alternatives, then the rest of the economy will also be converting. Aircraft manufacturers are certainly looking at biofuels as aviation fuel now, the energy used to manufacture goods will also be converting. So long as renewables are enhansing prosperity, they'll become a larger and larger part of the energy mix. Economic activity can only hasten the conversion since it leads to more rapid reinvestment. Poverty is more likely to be the lot of those economies that hold back.s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
We can't beat $0.07/kWh yet and still make a profit but most people pay more than you do. At $1.50/Watt retail (about ten years hence on the cost curve) you'll likely be looking at this more closely.
For states with renewable energy standards, this does not seem all that expensive. There is quite a range in what is paid for electricy at the supply end because spinning reserve is expensive. A peak demand matched profile may well be economical.
High efficency panels (concentrators are built in) are going to have applications where they compete at retail rather than wholesale. We'll know where these particular ones are at in about three years.
--
Solar power for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You are correct that looking at the durability of the panels is important. Aten solar sells panels for $3.00/Watt:http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_p anels.htm with a 25 year warranty (performance above 80%).
So, with a cheapo ground mount (the panels are not very efficient) that you cut yourself from the woods and $1/watt for a 4000 W inverter (corrected to 25 year life) you are looking at
$0.03/kWh if you are willing to keep the panels until they degrade to 40% of their original efficiency (100 years; 66 years new equivilent; you need to figure out the smaller and likely cheaper inverters for the last 75 years which might take you up to $0.034/kWh). Oh, and plus gas for the chainsaw. If you are not so cheap, or you figure you won't live that long and don't want to pass on the investment, you are looking at $0.09/kWh bailing after 25 year and just junking the panels (no aftermarket). This assumes and average of 5 h/day peak production equivilent which is typical: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may200 4.jpg.
s -selling-solar.html. This makes solar power an overall savings rather than a luxury.
So, if you have the land, you can either match utility rates or substantially undercut them. For rooftop applications $4+/Watt is standard retail for more efficent panels. Now, mounting costs something and you need to consider the reroofing timescale. By cutting out the middleman, we match utility rates with a rental model and can fix the rate for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Yes, I think this shows the usefulness of DARPA's rapid development model. Their phased approach and willingness to tryout high risk ideas seems to be working.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In fact, roof top concentrators look quite practical: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. I wish the original article had given a diagram of how their system is laidout, but it definitely mentioned rooftop use.
s -selling-solar.html
You won't be all that competitive is you are producing 11% efficient solar today. I think perhaps you are thinking that most solar panels already sold have a lower efficiency. One company is selling at $3.00/watt for lower efficency panels as compared with $4.20/watt for most. You have to compete on price to offset the higher installation costs of lower efficeincy panels.
--
Solar power you can afford: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Depending on where you live, there may be such a law. Look at the access laws column in this table: http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/reg1.cfm?&Cu rrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1. Everyone should be supporting the SOLAR access legislation now in Congress: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/65431047 0 s -selling-solar.html
--
Simple solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Hey Greg! That is true on orbit. The solar constant is taken at the top of the Earth's atmopshere but by the time it gets to the ground you get about 1 kW/m^2 when it is clear. This map gives average anual per day energy adjusted for clouds and such in kWh/m^2:http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annua l_may2004.jpg. This map is for tilted panels. Tracking concentrators have a somewhat different behavior, doing better in the southwest and, surprisingly, worse in New York:http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_ may2004.jpg. Panels are less sensitive to clouds and haze. For panels, 5 kWh/m^2/day is a typical value which you then multiply by the panel efficiency. Note that Northeast Alaska is a pretty good place for tracking concentrators. Tracking panels might do even better; they'd have to spin 360 though.- users-selling-solar.html
--
Solar power without the spin:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot
The article was editied. I made the comparison to point out that this leaves roof area for charging a plug-in hybrid. Under most net metering laws you don't want to generate more power than you use because, after a year, the utility just confiscates the extra power, paying you nothing for it. Most home roofs have enough surface area to handle the power used by the building but it can be a tight fit. Adding in charging a car could mean drawing more from the utility, possibly at a higher price than today's electricity. So, developing the option to get more power from less area enables powering transportation as well as the home in most cases. To be fair, kdawson did add in the 17% number which I had left vauge. It is actually system efficiency that stands near 17%, panel efficiencies are a bit higher (about 19%).l ashdot-users-selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power that matches your changing use of electricity:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/s
I razzed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on my blog yesterday saying he is trying to keep the southerneastern US off solar so he can build a huge New Mexican Solar Power Monopoly to supply them: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html(tinfoil hat warning). One of the projects linked there aims to do just this, havesting the heat generated at the panels for building heating. Engulf and Devour, that's his motto.s -selling-solar.html
--
Register your home for solar power; fixed competitive rates for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
What I'm facinated by is the battery aftermarket. In the US where the largest electricity market is, this could really shift the expense of batteries. At present we rely on the most expensive energy sources to meet peak demand. But getting a second life from the batteries prior to recycling looks like it could eliminate much of the need for the more expensive sources of energy. If you can treat batteries more gently in a power storage application than in a transportation application, the lifetime in the aftermarket could be substantially longer. So, if we are flowing storage capacity from the transportation sector to the power supply sector, we fairly quickly get to a day or two's worth of storage so long at the transportation sector adopts this technology as the majority mode. A couple days of storage means that both expensive power sources and some base load sources, especially those that have inconvinient square wave availability with month-long down times, could be eliminated. This is a very interesting concept could provide reduced costs for both the transportation and electric supply sectors.s -selling-solar.html
--
Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Too late, Furby already does this.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get warm and fuzzy with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Thanks, here is some push in Congress http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-repor t-shows-economic-0046.htmlto get a national renewable energy standard which might lead to a national net metering law but so far these have been going state-by-state.s -selling-solar.html
--
Silicon! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user