Re: OT: GO SOLAR ! Was: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Matt Giwer <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:25:21 GMT
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
[...]
Start with DC electricity from 30% efficient solar cells and peak
Last time I looked, PV solar cells never paid back for the electricity they generated before they died of old age. Installation is too expensive for present electricity costs.
I agree. But in my approach I was not making any cost analysis in any manner. I pointed out problems which would lead to unanticipated costs. My exercise was simply to see if solar was a practical solution. I did not explicitely say they would last forever but as I assigned not cost to them in either investment or maintence (acquisition or ownership) the 30% efficiency was giving the idea the best of it. It was something no one advocating solar could seriously object to as the real number back in the late 80s was so much lower.
Direct (water & living space) heating is a good idea however. Still requires about 10 years to get 'payback' for here in the UK.
Actually it depends upon how you do it. I read an article (presuming the author was honest) of essentially replacing the southern wall of his home with one he could winch down during the day. This exposed gallon, black painted milk jugs full of water to the sun. He had a new inner wall. He claimed a few fans after dark kept the house warm. If it is further north add cheap aluminum foil to the inner side of the outer wall which will collect more heat and save heat at night.
Sounds like a plan if you are willing to make the changes and construction regulations permit it. Except for the fans it is absolutely passive. Placing the fans, force in and pull out, is going to take much experimentation but is doable.
I am not and was never against the idea. But in the fuel crisis days I worked in a building with a thousand engineers of all stripes. (The offices of several HQ navy commands.) It was a passing hobby for most to find ways to save fuel. There was a fortune in it for a simple, affordable method. We never came up with one. And if someone had left and made his fortune doing it we would have heard and so would you.
I also agree solar can be a great contributor if we build all new houses or do major retrofits on existing ones. But there comes a point where it costs more than the cure. Consider the fossil fuels needed for just this activity. But since the fuel crisis all new homes are built much better and middle class homes have been retrofit as part of normal maintenance and remodeling. Thirty years but it has happened.
-- July 2005 Each week Iraq costs America 15 dead, 120 wounded and $2 billion. A week costs Iraqis at least 15 times as many dead and wounded. Americans cannot stop it. Iraqis cannot stop it. Americans do not want it. Iraqis do not want it. Who wants it? Why is it happening? Why is no one answering? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3487 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8 .
- References:
- Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Rob Dekker
- Re: Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Matt Giwer
- OT: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Rob Dekker
- OT: GO SOLAR ! Was: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Rob Dekker
- Re: OT: GO SOLAR ! Was: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- From: Martin 53N 1W
- Detecting ETI via CO2
- Prev by Date: Re: Present life on Earth (Was: Life outside the Earth)
- Next by Date: Seta@Home Classic
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: GO SOLAR ! Was: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- Next by thread: Re: OT: GO SOLAR ! Was: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|