Re: on energy conservation....
- From: abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:35:00 +0200
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:16:43 +0100, "Mark Williams"
<spam.me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rj6v23p2s00op9d0orhu459he3q30pkg8f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:15:32 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
continuation
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,476231-4,00.html
"....The south-facing glass side of the structure captures the winter
sun, but during the summer the sun is high enough in the sky so that
the rooms don't heat up.
The building, a so-called positive energy house, actually produces
more energy than its residents need -- it's essentially a tiny power
plant. The solar panels on the roof produced almost 9,000
kilowatt-hours of electricity in the first year. Subtract the
structure's own power usage along with heating costs and there's still
a surplus of around 2,000 kilowatt-hours left over. The monthly
expenditures of ?100 for electricity and heat are more than offset by
the ?400 in revenue the solar panels bring in.
Except that ignores the cost of buying the solar units. In Germany they
typically assume that solar units produce the energy equivalent of 900 hours
at peak output, so 9000 kWh of electricity implies a capacity of 10kW, which
would run to a cost of around ?40,000 including roof strengthening,
installation and inverters. The tariff in Germany for solar powered
electricity is just under 50 cents per kWh, so the extra 2,000 kWh will
bring in ?1,000 per year not ?400 per month. ?1000 per year doesn't really
pay for a ?40,000 investment with a 25 year life.
it did look a bit odd to me when i cut it.....it looks to me as if the
writer is confused
in germany there are heavy subsidies for pv arrays.....
In the real world we would only get 7 cents per kWh for electricity, so this
domestic generation is only feasible with massive tariff subsidies at
present. But watch out for thin film technology.
the field is moving at one hell of a rate....
thin film is *much* less efficient.....the market is going to sort
this stuff out....
i haven't yet got all the figures straight in me hed.....
the general quote in the usa is ~$5 a watt...double that
for installation....but i'm not confident how efficiency
ratings are reported....
more here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/photovoltaics_solar_cells.php
i'm looking at trying a bit of it out 'soon' when i'll get some
hands on and see how much they lie/cheat me!
damn you've converted all the ? sign into ? marks....
i'll 'correct' them all and see what happens...
alt gr and 4 usually has euro signs
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: on energy conservation....
- From: Mark Williams
- Re: on energy conservation....
- References:
- on energy conservation....
- From: abelard
- Re: on energy conservation....
- From: abelard
- Re: on energy conservation....
- From: Mark Williams
- on energy conservation....
- Prev by Date: Re: The E.U., Bloggers and the B.N.P.
- Next by Date: Re: The E.U., Bloggers and the B.N.P.
- Previous by thread: Re: on energy conservation....
- Next by thread: Re: on energy conservation....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
