I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
done.
That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
the truck and we installed it this week.
Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.
Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
expected.
If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
call.
If you're up here in Canuckistan (SW Ontario region), hit the info
button on my website www.topworks.ca and I will set it all up for you.
Very happy r
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> "mac davis" wrote
>>
>>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>>> initial
>>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>>
>> IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except
>> in savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
>
> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> energy used.
>
> People who like to work with really sharp pencils may want to figure in
> costs associated with buying, installing, maintaining (etc) the baseline
> conventional system, but I don't even bother - and I encourage people to
> keep whatever heating system they already have as a backstop for
> protracted periods of unusually cold, dark weather.
>
> It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
> period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
> year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
> panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
> than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
> free heat.
>
Morris,
What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me that it could
not be window glass because of the heat.
Chris
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me
>> that it could not be window glass because of the heat.
>
> I use a twinwall polycarbonate - not because of the heat but because
> it's a good insulator and because it's much less vulnerable to breakage
> than glass.
>
> Neither Heat nor temperature is a problem. The panels are designed so
> that any increase in input results in a faster airflow (more heat energy
> at same temperature). The normal operating temperature at sea level is
> in the neighborhood of 110F increasing to about 125F at 5,000' above sea
> level.
>
> The polycarbonate glazing is good to about 800F and it'll survive an 80
> mph hardball pitch, so it's well suited for the job. A cross section
> slice would look like a ladder.
>
Thank you. I did not think about the heat leaving.
Chris
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8318c721-d935-45e1-838f-0073219c6aa0@d23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 11:29 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
> only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
> done.
>
> That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
> ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> the truck and we installed it this week.
>
> Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
> had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
> and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.
>
> Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
> expected.
>
> If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
> location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
> call.
> If you're up here in Canuckistan (SW Ontario region), hit the info
> button on my websitewww.topworks.caand I will set it all up for you.
>
> Very happy r
I will post some pics in the next week or so, as soon as we trim it
out nicely and do a little painting.
**************************
I was going to suggest some photo's. Sounds like a win - win situation to
me. Any idea yet as to the actual amount of heat generated? Any plans to
add more panels?
And Morris, good on ya. Keep up the good work.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
On Dec 6, 11:34 am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> > Morris Dovey wrote:
> > ...
>
> >> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> >> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> >> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> >> energy used.
> > ...
> > What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
>
> A really accurate answer would involve more waffling than I can tolerate
> (weather patterns, geographic location, snowfall, whatever's in front of
> the panel, ad nauseum) so I'll give you the short, over-simplified (and
> somewhat conservative) answer that each two-foot section delivers heat
> comparable to a milk-house heater on "High" when there's no snow on the
> ground. If there's clean snow between the panel and the sun, then add
> 75-90% to account for reflected energy.
>
Soooo.. if I were to put a 4x8 sheet of something...like white
melamine in front of this panel, on the ground.......
*************************
An interesting idea. The material would need to be stable, durable and
highly reflective. It would probably need to be washed now and then too. I
don't think birds could resist using such a bright surface as a target.
Still....., if this works, it would just improve the numbers on payback,
etc.
On Dec 6, 11:34=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> > Morris Dovey wrote:
> > ...
>
> >> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> >> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> >> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> >> energy used.
> > ...
> > What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
>
> A really accurate answer would involve more waffling than I can tolerate
> (weather patterns, geographic location, snowfall, whatever's in front of
> the panel, ad nauseum) so I'll give you the short, over-simplified (and
> somewhat conservative) answer that each two-foot section delivers heat
> comparable to a milk-house heater on "High" when there's no snow on the
> ground. If there's clean snow between the panel and the sun, then add
> 75-90% to account for reflected energy.
>
Soooo.. if I were to put a 4x8 sheet of something...like white
melamine in front of this panel, on the ground.......
On Dec 5, 12:44=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My design is very much geared toward CNC production.
What a coinkidink!
"mac davis" wrote
> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
> initial
> investment back from savings in utilities..
IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 6, 12:57=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > Swingman wrote:
> >> "mac davis" wrote
>
> >>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
> >>> initial
> >>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>
> >> IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except i=
n
> >> savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
>
> > Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> > panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> > conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> > energy used.
>
> > People who like to work with really sharp pencils may want to figure in
> > costs associated with buying, installing, maintaining (etc) the baselin=
e
> > conventional system, but I don't even bother - and I encourage people t=
o
> > keep whatever heating system they already have as a backstop for
> > protracted periods of unusually cold, dark weather.
>
> > It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
> > period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
> > year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
> > panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
> > than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
> > free heat.
>
> =A0 That looks like a winning cost trade. =A0Thus far, all of the other
> alternatives like solar electric don't come even close. =A0I did a trade
> earlier this year and couldn't get the system to even pay for itself over
> the advertised 25 year life span. That took into account any credits and
> rebates available and included paying cash for the system (i.e., no
> interest cost) and not assuming any lost investment value on the cash.
> What was really ironic was that the company selling the solar system was
> willing to issue a 30 year note on a system for which they were advertisi=
ng
> a 25 year life.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
I would say you got in concert with a goof troop of a AE company or
you made some grave miscalculations. The data out there is pretty well
established as to payback of well designed and well located AE
systems. While in many areas they can be markedly less cost effective
none I have seen have a 30 year payback even in states with no
rebates. I would have to think something in your calculations was
incorrect or your system was overblown, poorly designed, etc. This
wouldnt surprise me in the least as when capitalist greed gets
involved installers usually pork up the system and install.
Most simple calculators available on line that take into consideration
generating 75% of your residential power and a modest 6% annual
increase in energy costs will show that an average house with a $75/mo
electric bill will save some 30,000-40,000 dollars over the 20 year
life of a 9-11k system. In many states this system will cost 3-4k out
of pocket and less if you can do any of the install yourself.
Of course all calculations are speculative in that none of is know
where the cost of energy is going in the next 25 years. If we can keep
scaring OPEC over the loss of their cash cow we may be able to hold
their feet to the fire keeping petro low. Have heard two or three
times on the news here lately that some project if this low stays low
we could again see 1.00 gasoline though it would of course be
unsustainable. These low costs will, and are there to, thwart AE in
any form. It is actually quite sad when we need to be forced to
innovate.
Mark
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
> For fun I looked at a grid of cells that covered my roof. It would
> be about 40x120 feet. It was about $300,000 for the array and I
> could expect an average of 30-40% for a year from it. Three months
> of the year - hot summer - less than 50% and winter months - very
> low.
>
> Payback was very very long. Doubtful the array could last that long.
>
>
> The biggest issue is cloud cover. Zero power under clouds. They
> work on long waves. If someone would invent a microwave or rather
> ultraviolet sensing cell they could clean up. Then it would work as
> long as the sun was up.
>
> I'd buy it if I won the lottery. Otherwise it is a foolish thing in
> this area. Yea, I'd help me and all about 35% of the time, but it
> doesn't break even or pays off.
If you're located between Terre Haute and Springfield, you could
probably heat your 4800 sq ft home indefinitely using passive solar for
less than 10% of the cost of your PV array...
...and the solar cooling project is underway. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
For fun I looked at a grid of cells that covered my roof. It would be about
40x120 feet. It was about $300,000 for the array and I could expect an average
of 30-40% for a year from it. Three months of the year - hot summer - less than
50% and winter months - very low.
Payback was very very long. Doubtful the array could last that long.
The biggest issue is cloud cover. Zero power under clouds. They work on long
waves. If someone would invent a microwave or rather ultraviolet sensing cell
they could clean up. Then it would work as long as the sun was up.
I'd buy it if I won the lottery. Otherwise it is a foolish thing in this area.
Yea, I'd help me and all about 35% of the time, but it doesn't break even or
pays off.
Martin
mac davis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
>> look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
>> They haven't.
>>
>> The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
>> <//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/> Selecting a 2000 kWh
>> system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
>> pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
>> energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
>> rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.
>>
>> For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
>> previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
>> $75/month?
>>
>> I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
>> order for it to be cost effective.
>
> I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at it a
> little differently...
> He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
> batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of his
> solar system, so he went with it..
>
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
mac davis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took
>> a
>>look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
>>They haven't.
>>
>> The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
>><//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/> Selecting a 2000 kWh
>>system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
>>pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
>>energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
>>rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.
>>
>> For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
>>previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
>>$75/month?
>>
>> I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed
>> in
>>order for it to be cost effective.
>
> I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at
> it a little differently...
> He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
> batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of
> his solar system, so he went with it..
>
That's a totally different mindset. If somebody wants to pay tens of
thousands of dollars for the satisfaction of saying, "I'm not paying
anything to the electric company [sub-vocal, 'my system will never pay for
itself']" then that's a status kind of thing. From a practical standpoint,
cost-effective solar just isn't there yet.
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:40 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
>look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
>They haven't.
>
> The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
><//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/> Selecting a 2000 kWh
>system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
>pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
>energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
>rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.
>
> For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
>previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
>$75/month?
>
> I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
>order for it to be cost effective.
I think California has a bit more of an incentive, but my brother looks at it a
little differently...
He wanted to go solar but didn't want to buy or have a place for the
batteries... When they came up with the "grid" plan, that cut the cost of his
solar system, so he went with it..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Dec 12, 6:55=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> jw wrote:
>
> >> many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. =A0One disclaimer, =
my
> >> computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company,
> >> assuming that most of my use is after daylight hours. =A0While I know =
that
> >> to be the case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) year=
s
> >> that will be unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it
> >> only makes sense, the electric company is going to buy at wholesale an=
d
> >> deliver at retail). That will make a significant difference when that
> >> occurs in terms of lengthening the time before break-even.
>
> > Which is what I found when I looked into it. =A0It made sense, until I
> > learned their buyback rate. =A0They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
> > me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.
>
> > No thanks. =A0It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.
>
> > JW
>
> =A0 Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I t=
ook a
> look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
> They haven't.
>
And this has 'what' to do with passive solar heating?
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:29:05 -0800 (PST), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
>expected.
Just playing the dark side here, bro... What was your cost on the project?
They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your initial
investment back from savings in utilities..
Might just be our location, though. Electricity is very inexpensive here..
Now, in the Republik of Kalifornia your savings would be much more..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Dec 5, 1:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:11=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy wro=
te:
> > > I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door wa=
s
> > > only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the jo=
b
> > > done.
>
> > > That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> > > Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> > > friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5=
-
> > > ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> > > the truck and we installed it this week.
>
> > You need a new tape rule - it's 4'x6'. :)
>
> We're metric here...*smirk*
That also explains why we needed a 20-pound sledge to get it into the
hole.
Robatoy wrote:
> I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
> only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
> done.
>
> That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
> ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> the truck and we installed it this week.
You need a new tape rule - it's 4'x6'. :)
> Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
> had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
> and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.
And people keep saying that fusion power is a non-starter...
> Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
> expected.
And now you *know* why fish have scales. ;)
> If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
> location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
> call.
I'd like that - but I'm /still/ encouraging those who have the ability
and the tools to build their own...
> If you're up here in Canuckistan (SW Ontario region), hit the info
> button on my website www.topworks.ca and I will set it all up for you.
>
> Very happy r
And that's what it's all about. You've made my day.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
-MIKE- wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> I'd like that - but I'm /still/ encouraging those who have the ability
>> and the tools to build their own...
>
> Are the plans on your site?
Not yet - see http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Journey.html for the full story
on that issue.
Meanwhile, I provide a lot of text/photo/drawing clues on my web site
about what works well. I care a great deal that people make a real
effort to think through what they do, and I really do hope that enables
them to actually improve on what I'm doing.
My design is very much geared toward CNC production. Different tools
will lead to at least minor design changes - and I'd prefer to let
people work out designs that are a good fit with their capabilities.
There is a wealth of free DIY info at http://www.builditsolar.com and I
encourage you to take a long look at the site.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
DJ Delorie wrote:
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> writes:
>> And people keep saying that fusion power is a non-starter...
>
> http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/abd4/
I might have to get one of those. :)
Thanks!
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 5, 1:02 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 12:11 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
>>>> only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
>>>> done.
>>>> That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
>>>> Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
>>>> friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
>>>> ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
>>>> the truck and we installed it this week.
>>> You need a new tape rule - it's 4'x6'. :)
>> We're metric here...*smirk*
>
> That also explains why we needed a 20-pound sledge to get it into the
> hole.
Did the sledge survive?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Stuart wrote:
> In article
> <326a0450-a0f9-4c92-ae14-a018a044c782@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
>> location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
>> call.
>
> Not sure he'd come and install in the UK ;-0
I would, but you don't need me to do the install. A local construction
tradesman wouldn't have any difficulty and would probably involve a lot
less red tape.
The bigger obstacle, of course, is the small-quantity shipping costs. At
some point it might make sense to set up a production facility on your
side of the pond someplace where there's a well-managed timber supply.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Swingman wrote:
> "mac davis" wrote
>
>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>> initial
>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>
> IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
> savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
energy used.
People who like to work with really sharp pencils may want to figure in
costs associated with buying, installing, maintaining (etc) the baseline
conventional system, but I don't even bother - and I encourage people to
keep whatever heating system they already have as a backstop for
protracted periods of unusually cold, dark weather.
It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
free heat.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
dpb wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> ...
>
>> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
>> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
>> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
>> energy used.
> ...
> What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
A really accurate answer would involve more waffling than I can tolerate
(weather patterns, geographic location, snowfall, whatever's in front of
the panel, ad nauseum) so I'll give you the short, over-simplified (and
somewhat conservative) answer that each two-foot section delivers heat
comparable to a milk-house heater on "High" when there's no snow on the
ground. If there's clean snow between the panel and the sun, then add
75-90% to account for reflected energy.
> And, how is the heat distributed and what do you do about the heat load
> during hot IA or KS summers?
Although there isn't one, the panel /acts/ as if it had a moderately
hefty blower. For really good heat distribution, it's difficult to beat
a ceiling-hugging variable speed ceiling fan turning slowly to prevent
heat stratification near the ceiling. On my web page with the shop
photos, you can see the ceiling fan right in the middle of the shop -
it's used to both prevent stratification and to push warm air down to
warm the floor, which is what keeps the shop warm overnight. Without the
fan, it'd still be warm during the day (but less evenly so) and it'd be
probably 5-10F cooler overnight.
As summer approaches, the vertical panel shuts itself off by reflecting
more and more of the sunlight to the ground in front of the panel (DAGS
"critical angle" for a technical explanation).
To shut the panels completely off, you could install a cover over the
glazing - but none of my customers have yet done this (and they all
asked the same question <g>).
> (I'm wondering if an area on the barn would be feasible--do these
> actually replace wall sections if I read correctly--don't really think
> I'd want to do that on a moderately historical structure...)
They replace all but the inner surface (drywall or paneling) of the
wall. The barn would need to be reasonably "tight" and "well-insulated"
for /any/ kind of heating to be worth the money - and you're right about
adding a "high tech" look to historical structures...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> ... what do you do about the heat load during hot IA or KS summers?
> As summer approaches, the vertical panel shuts itself off by reflecting
> more and more of the sunlight to the ground in front of the panel (DAGS
> "critical angle" for a technical explanation).
More on this at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Astro/Seasons.html
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> Soooo.. if I were to put a 4x8 sheet of something...like white
> melamine in front of this panel, on the ground.......
By George, I think he's got it!
Heh - how about a little spray adhesive and some aluminum foil on that
melamine if you're going to be /really/ greedy?
Or... You could get a dozen 4x8 sheets of rear-silvered polycarbonate
mirror material and make your shop really toasty. :-)
See photos at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html to
see how to produce serious warmth...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
-MIKE- wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Or... You could get a dozen 4x8 sheets of rear-silvered polycarbonate
>> mirror material and make your shop really toasty. :-)
>>
>> See photos at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
>> to see how to produce serious warmth...
>
> Do you watch Mythbusters? :-)
I've heard of but never seen (no cable TV). What did they do?
This heat, BTW, is used to run an engine whose only moving parts are air
and water (in keeping with my fondness for keeping things as simple as
possible).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> That looks like a winning cost trade. Thus far, all of the other
> alternatives like solar electric don't come even close. I did a trade
> earlier this year and couldn't get the system to even pay for itself over
> the advertised 25 year life span. That took into account any credits and
> rebates available and included paying cash for the system (i.e., no
> interest cost) and not assuming any lost investment value on the cash.
> What was really ironic was that the company selling the solar system was
> willing to issue a 30 year note on a system for which they were advertising
> a 25 year life.
Solar thermal can be awesomely efficient and solar photovoltaics offered
on the consumer market (as opposed to those made for aerospace
applications) have energy conversion efficiencies of only 10-15%.
I've been working to develop a couple of fluidynes (Stirling cycle heat
engines) capable of converting sunlight directly to mechanical energy.
These have a theoretical maximum efficiency of only about 55% - and I
don't expect to do better than 25-30% with my design but, still, they'll
be a lot more efficient than using PV panel to charge a battery which is
then used to run a motor (with losses at each conversion).
OTOH, direct solar doesn't work very well at night...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
-MIKE- wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>> See photos at
>>>> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html to see how
>>>> to produce serious warmth...
>>>
>>> Do you watch Mythbusters? :-)
>>
>> I've heard of but never seen (no cable TV). What did they do?
>>
>
> They did an episode on Archimedes' Death Ray, which purportedly was used
> to burn up attacking ships out in the sea. Thousands of solders holding
> mirrors pointing at a ship.... phhhhhew, it bursts into flames.... so
> legend has it.
Yuppers, I'd read about that. I've heard that references have been found
to a description of a steam engine in the Library at Al Iskanderia.
> Some of their "experiments" closly resembled your parabolic.
> I'm guessing a youtube search could yield both episodes in their
> entirety.
> Although I'm guessing there would be a lot of, "Nooooooo," and "That's
> not how you do it," coming from your lips. :-)
Yeah, I'll admit to being at least that much a geek. Isn't it amazing
just how little of all this technology is actually /new/?
> Ever work with geothermal? Not volcanic steam they get in Greenland,
> but piping buried underground to get the constant 55 degree temp.
I haven't, but here's a bit of native Iowa geothermal technology:
http://www.cobett.com/
The gentleman whose shop you looked at has one of these and added
horizontal plastic pipe runs at the bottom for a bit of added heat. He
introduced me to the guy who came up with the stock waterers, and I can
vouch for him being a good guy to do business with (blatant plug).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
dpb wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
> ...
>>> What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
>>
>> A really accurate answer would involve more waffling than I can
>> tolerate (weather patterns, geographic location, snowfall, whatever's
>> in front of the panel, ad nauseum) so I'll give you the short,
>> over-simplified (and somewhat conservative) answer that each two-foot
>> section delivers heat comparable to a milk-house heater on "High" when
>> there's no snow on the ground. If there's clean snow between the panel
>> and the sun, then add 75-90% to account for reflected energy.
>
> We're beef not, dairy so I don't have a clue of what you think a
> milk-house heater on "High" BTU output is... :)
Oops - sorry. Usually 1300 - 1500 Watts.
> I don't give a patootie about really accurate, I was just looking for
> ballpark sizing guesstimates.
>
> So, iiuc, this is relying on ground reflection not direct solar? The
> thoughts I had were more for hayloft.
Ballpark without reflection as above. Reflected energy is a variable
bonus in addition to that.
> The point about tight is a good one--that's a real issue for the barn
> which is why the free fuel source is attractive--if it could at least
> knock of the worst in an area w/ some internal baffling to reduce the
> draft it would be more than have presently.
The panels will certainly add heat, but warm air rises and is guaranteed
to find any upward path to the outdoors. If you have a specific area
you'd like to heat, then a bit of framing to support insulation and some
plastic film might provide a way to retain much of the heat...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> If you can get the efficiency up there and turn an alternator, you may
> have something
I figure I'll have something as soon as I can get these things to
irrigate the first million acres of marginal cropland through a dry season.
>> OTOH, direct solar doesn't work very well at night...
> No, but if you can get the effiecencies a bit above what you are thinking,
> one can either charge batteries or sell back to the electric company. Right
> now, a lot of places they do 1 for 1, in the future I would expect that to
> change to more like 2 for 1 cost to buy-back ratio. Still that might be a
> good trade for having to buy and replace a battery farm.
My first priority is availability, rather than efficiency. As with many
engines and motors, the first increment of efficiency is almost free and
the final increment defines unaffordability.
I'm taking the lazy man's way out by trying to solve the easy problem
first... :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mike O. wrote:
> There was an interesting article in the Nov PM mag about an Arizona
> company named Stirling Energy Systems. They're testing a 38' wide
> dish powering a 25KW Stirling engine that heats and cools hydrogen
> gas. They claim to have set an efficiency record for a commercial
> solar device at 31.25 %.
Unless you're looking for a new hobby (or have bottomless pockets) don't
get caught in the efficiency trap. An increase in efficiency allows you
to get a little more out of an improved engine, usually at a greater
cost. Each increment of additional efficiency is likely to cost
appreciably more than the previous.
With this technology you can almost always arrive at the output you need
by scaling up an appropriate amount and using a bit more of that free
sunshine - without having to pay the penalty for bleeding-edge efficiency.
Methinks their efficiency record won't stand long. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Chris wrote:
> What kind of glass do you/they use on these panels? It seems to me that
> it could not be window glass because of the heat.
I use a twinwall polycarbonate - not because of the heat but because
it's a good insulator and because it's much less vulnerable to breakage
than glass.
Neither Heat nor temperature is a problem. The panels are designed so
that any increase in input results in a faster airflow (more heat energy
at same temperature). The normal operating temperature at sea level is
in the neighborhood of 110F increasing to about 125F at 5,000' above sea
level.
The polycarbonate glazing is good to about 800F and it'll survive an 80
mph hardball pitch, so it's well suited for the job. A cross section
slice would look like a ladder.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
<and Morris snipped extensively>
> The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
> with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
> people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
> only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so rosy
> a picture.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
"jump on board in a heartbeat" part.
"The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
well-exceeded.
> Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
> some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy prices
> do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
> worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
> competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.
Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.
> As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
> someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
> electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
> it that they will never break even?
Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.
Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> Morris, the "Drill-Baby Drill" crowd will never get it. Their way of
> solving the energy crisis is not to make things more efficient, but to
> develop new ways to make money so that the high prices won't bother
> them.
And yet, even I have to admit that petroleum-based energy has been
comfortable - and the idea of switching to non-petroleum transportation
is intimidating for me.
> All you have to do, is make sure you have enough money that YOU can
> still drive your SUV when others can't.
> Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
> to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
> bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
> ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
> yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
> THEM for the last drop.
> That makes WAY more sense.
> OR... better yet.. convert all the food crops into fuel and starve the
> bastards away from the pumps so there WILL be more fuel for the SUV's.
Yes, but that's not the /whole/ story. I think a lot of the situation
stems from preferring the devil one knows to a strange angel.
There is risk in change, and people are especially averse to risk in
times of uncertainty. "How can I recover if this doesn't work out as
expected?" is a very important question, and so far, I've seen every
purchase (including yours) as an act of real courage - so let me
encourage you to show yours off. :)
> I find that in most cases, when trying to have a conversation about
> alternative energy, the 'vision' is most often restricted by the same
> blinders that keep the sunlight out.
>
> Take your panels as an example. When one accepts that they work as
> well as they do, then the next step will be the attempt to make them
> better and cheaper. To walk away at this stage by saying, that they're
> too expensive today, therefore unacceptable is dumb.
It's going to be very difficult to make 'em work significantly better -
although I do know how to make 'em last at least 4 or 5 times as long as
the current 25-year projection.
I already know how to bring the price down, but if everyone waits for
that they'll end up buying 'em from whoever replaces me (or him) who may
not have much/any interest in bringing the price down. Currently the
fixed overhead exceeds the selling price of the panels. It truly is a
matter of "I lose a little on each one, but could make it up by selling
at a lower price in quantity."
OTOH, as long as the payback period is shorter than the time required to
significantly reduce the cost/price, it actually does make sense to buy
at the current price. I wonder if anyone ever considers that...
> I could rant on, but a new dawn is coming. Free energy...oops can't
> have that..there must be a way we can keep the serfs small by making
> them pay for simple stuff like heat! What is this world coming to? No
> KBR? No Chevron? heavens-to-betsy... how will we raise money to buy
> politicians??..<G>
I haven't looked to the politicians to smooth my path (and I'm fairly
sure that the cost of having them do that would be more than I could
afford) - I think I'd rather not have their "help".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
[email protected] wrote:
> What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?
Good question. It's designed to turn itself off as summer approaches.
The angle angle at which sunlight strikes the glazing - see the
explanation at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Astro/Seasons.html - provides
seasonal control. You can get more information still by doing a Google
search on "critical angle".
It's also possible to shut the panel off completely in any season by
covering the glazing.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Gerald Ross wrote:
> Before electricity became common in south Georgia, our neighbor had a
> refrigerator that ran on propane. After college I worked in a huge drug
> store in Tennessee whose air conditioner used a gas burner instead of a
> compressor. Has anyone ever made a room cooling system that used solar
> heat to drive the ammonia cycle and passive convection instead of a fan
> to spread the cooler air? A lot of our electricity in the south is used
> for cooling, but I've never heard this discussed.
It's theoretically possible, but loaded with so many practical problems
that the problem will probably be solved in some other way.
As resources have permitted, I've been working another approach which
seems promising - and talk about the approach (without providing much
detail) in the web page at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Journey.html
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> "mac davis" wrote
>>
>>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>>> initial
>>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>>
>> IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except
>> in savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
>
> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> energy used.
I'm guessing that the payback period for passive heating panels might be
a bit shorter for a lot of the 1+ million home and business owners in
New England who're without power today...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article
<326a0450-a0f9-4c92-ae14-a018a044c782@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
> location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
> call.
Not sure he'd come and install in the UK ;-0
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
> many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. =A0One disclaimer, my
> computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company, assumi=
ng
> that most of my use is after daylight hours. =A0While I know that to be t=
he
> case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years that will b=
e
> unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it only makes sens=
e,
> the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and deliver at retail).
> That will make a significant difference when that occurs in terms of
> lengthening the time before break-even.
Which is what I found when I looked into it. It made sense, until I
learned their buyback rate. They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.
No thanks. It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.
JW
On Dec 5, 11:29=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
> only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
> done.
>
> That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
> ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> the truck and we installed it this week.
>
> Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
> had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
> and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.
>
> Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
> expected.
>
> If you have a shop/garage with a south wall, and you're in a cold
> location, run, don't walk to your nearest computer and give Morris a
> call.
> If you're up here in Canuckistan (SW Ontario region), hit the info
> button on my websitewww.topworks.caand I will set it all up for you.
>
> Very happy r
I will post some pics in the next week or so, as soon as we trim it
out nicely and do a little painting.
BDBConstruction wrote:
> On Dec 6, 12:57Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> > Swingman wrote:
>> >> "mac davis" wrote
>>
>> >>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>> >>> initial
>> >>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>>
>
... snip
>> > It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
>> > period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
>> > year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
>> > panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
>> > than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
>> > free heat.
>>
>> That looks like a winning cost trade. Â Thus far, all of the other
>> alternatives like solar electric don't come even close. Â I did a trade
>> earlier this year and couldn't get the system to even pay for itself over
>> the advertised 25 year life span. That took into account any credits and
>> rebates available and included paying cash for the system (i.e., no
>> interest cost) and not assuming any lost investment value on the cash.
>> What was really ironic was that the company selling the solar system was
>> willing to issue a 30 year note on a system for which they were
>> advertising a 25 year life.
.. snip
>
> I would say you got in concert with a goof troop of a AE company or
> you made some grave miscalculations. The data out there is pretty well
> established as to payback of well designed and well located AE
> systems. While in many areas they can be markedly less cost effective
> none I have seen have a 30 year payback even in states with no
> rebates. I would have to think something in your calculations was
> incorrect or your system was overblown, poorly designed, etc. This
> wouldnt surprise me in the least as when capitalist greed gets
> involved installers usually pork up the system and install.
>
> Most simple calculators available on line that take into consideration
> generating 75% of your residential power and a modest 6% annual
> increase in energy costs will show that an average house with a $75/mo
> electric bill will save some 30,000-40,000 dollars over the 20 year
> life of a 9-11k system. In many states this system will cost 3-4k out
> of pocket and less if you can do any of the install yourself.
>
First, 6% is hardly a modest annual increase in annual energy costs and is
not born out historically. Checking to determine whether it would be cost
effective to change out my old heat pump for a newer, more efficient one, I
checked my electric use for the past 10 years -- energy costs have not
increased by that much on average. A more realistic average is closer to
3% per year.
However, starting with your estimate of $75 over 20 years with 6%
increases, one gets the following:
Year Per month Per Year Cumulative 75% Savings Cum savings
1 $75 $900 $900 $675 $675
2 $80 $954 $1,854 $716 $1,391
3 $84 $1,011 $2,865 $758 $2,149
4 $89 $1,072 $3,937 $804 $2,953
5 $95 $1,136 $5,073 $852 $3,805
6 $100 $1,204 $6,278 $903 $4,708
7 $106 $1,277 $7,554 $958 $5,666
8 $113 $1,353 $8,908 $1,015 $6,681
9 $120 $1,434 $10,342 $1,076 $7,757
10 $127 $1,521 $11,863 $1,140 $8,897
11 $134 $1,612 $13,474 $1,209 $10,106
12 $142 $1,708 $15,183 $1,281 $11,387
13 $151 $1,811 $16,994 $1,358 $12,745
14 $160 $1,920 $18,914 $1,440 $14,185
15 $170 $2,035 $20,948 $1,526 $15,711
16 $180 $2,157 $23,105 $1,618 $17,329
17 $191 $2,286 $25,392 $1,715 $19,044
18 $202 $2,423 $27,815 $1,818 $20,861
19 $214 $2,569 $30,384 $1,927 $22,788
20 $227 $2,723 $33,107 $2,042 $24,830
However, applying the more realistic 3% increase:
Year Per month Per Year Cumulative 75% Savings Cum savings
1 $75 $900 $900 $675 $675
2 $77 $927 $1,827 $695 $1,370
3 $80 $955 $2,782 $716 $2,086
4 $82 $983 $3,765 $738 $2,824
5 $84 $1,013 $4,778 $760 $3,584
6 $87 $1,043 $5,822 $783 $4,366
7 $90 $1,075 $6,896 $806 $5,172
8 $92 $1,107 $8,003 $830 $6,002
9 $95 $1,140 $9,143 $855 $6,857
10 $98 $1,174 $10,317 $881 $7,738
11 $101 $1,210 $11,527 $907 $8,645
12 $104 $1,246 $12,773 $934 $9,580
13 $107 $1,283 $14,056 $962 $10,542
14 $110 $1,322 $15,378 $991 $11,533
15 $113 $1,361 $16,739 $1,021 $12,554
16 $117 $1,402 $18,141 $1,052 $13,606
17 $120 $1,444 $19,585 $1,083 $14,689
18 $124 $1,488 $21,073 $1,116 $15,805
19 $128 $1,532 $22,605 $1,149 $16,954
20 $132 $1,578 $24,183 $1,184 $18,138
Now, that is still respectable and would provide a return on investment
beginning in the 6'th year as long as maintenance is not required.
However, I would expect some maintenance in terms of batteries or other
storage devices required to achieve the stated 75% savings since one must
be able to get some of that savings at night. If you are relying upon
selling the energy back to the electric company at a 1 for 1 trade to serve
as your storage system, one can't rely on that in the out years if more
people start using this approach.
The systems I saw for solar electric sufficient for home electric
generation were on the order of $60k, vs the $3 to $4k you indicate.
> Of course all calculations are speculative in that none of is know
> where the cost of energy is going in the next 25 years. If we can keep
> scaring OPEC over the loss of their cash cow we may be able to hold
> their feet to the fire keeping petro low. Have heard two or three
> times on the news here lately that some project if this low stays low
> we could again see 1.00 gasoline though it would of course be
> unsustainable. These low costs will, and are there to, thwart AE in
> any form. It is actually quite sad when we need to be forced to
> innovate.
>
> Mark
The 10 year average I used should be fairly applicable since it began at a
period when gas prices were below $1 and have carried through this year's
$4+ prices. The fly in the ointment in the future will be if this cap and
trade taxation scheme ever gets implemented and destroys the cost of
electric power.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Dec 5, 12:11=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
> > only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
> > done.
>
> > That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> > Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> > friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
> > ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> > the truck and we installed it this week.
>
> You need a new tape rule - it's 4'x6'. :)
>
We're metric here...*smirk*
BDBConstruction wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:21Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>snip>
>>
>> The 10 year average I used should be fairly applicable since it began at
>> a period when gas prices were below $1 and have carried through this
>> year's $4+ prices. Â The fly in the ointment in the future will be if this
>> cap and trade taxation scheme ever gets implemented and destroys the cost
>> of electric power.
>>
>> --
>> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
>
> Even the most conservative speculations are not looking to even the
> recent past as an accurate gauge of where our energy prices could be
> headed in the next 20 years. We are by no means on a level grade
> though it is of course all speculation.
That is why using historical data is of value. Will it be 100% accurate?
Of course not, but it provides a reasonable point of departure for planning
purposes. If I take your 6% per year estimate and apply it to my average of
$192 per month (all electric home in Arizona) for 2000 and forward-price
that to 2008, it shows my average monthly energy cost would be $306 per
month. That is not the case, even after this year's extra-ordinary cost
increases and the fact that my December bill is not yet factored into the
mix. The reality is that this year's average is on the order of $220,
reflecting an average annual cost increase of only about 2.5%. Could
energy price increases accelerate in the future? Of course, but if one is
planning a large expense, one should use a more solid foundation than
speculation. For the 6% per year energy increase to become true, energy
rates would need to increase at more than twice the rate they have
increased in the past.
As far as not being on a level grade, if you had been asked this summer if
gas prices would ever reach $1.60 per gallon again, would you have answered
in the affirmative? Energy as a commodity rises and falls with demand and
economic conditions.
The concern here is going to be non-market factors such as government
interference attempting to do social engineering by artificially inflating
conventional energy costs.
> The auto exec's surley based
> their business on an unmitigated analysis focused squarely on the past
> with no eye to the future and look where it has gotten their
> businesses.
There were numerous things that have contributed to the auto companies'
problems, but not all of them are germain to this subject.
> I have no idea if you are one that feels there is a never
> ending supply of oil and NG and we are all being snowed with regards
> to the energy and environmental issues we face in the future.
The fact is there are significant energy reserves that have been walled
off to development and some of that are not yet cost effective to develop.
The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so rosy
a picture.
As far as environmental issues, if you are one who has bought into the
man-made global warming (oops, that didn't work since it's getting cooler),
um, man-made global climate change; then I fear further discussion is
pointless.
> If that
> is the case than the conversation is pointless as we can all rest our
> bones and just boost the thermostat.
>
I always love it when someone points out issues in alternate energy
computations or projected cost savings and is answered with one of
those, "fine, go home and turn up the thermostat then" kind of responses.
> With regards to system sizing/pricing I merely referenced a 1.5-2kw
> system which of course is not going to cut it for a large or all
> electric or wasteful/non-conserving home. Nor one in poor location for
> PV. This is a system that would cost 9-11k or less without storage.
> With federal and state rebates could be as low as I mentioned. This is
> a system respective of the 75.00 a month electric bill in most
> locations. However, if ones bill is more than 75, its more, system is
> bigger, savings are bigger.
System is bigger, initial cost is bigger.
> The common averages state that one can
> expect a 8-12 percent return on investment over 20 years depending on
> system cost and location (rebates). Most portfolios are lucky to hit
> that in decent times and arent further bolstered by tens of thousands
> of tons of reduced carbon footprint. At some point we have to stop
> merely looking at our wallet. Though it will always be the
> overwhelming factor at some point we are going to have to factor other
> things in that we may not be instantly compensated for or that we
> merely break even financially over the 20 years.
>
OK, you do buy into the anthropogenic global climate change hoax.
> Given this is for CA but a simple calculator found in many forms on
> the net - http://www.suncalsolar.com/costs/costs.htm
>
> This link is from a company we have used and these examples are more
> geared toward off grid homes. They all include costly batteries
> however also use grid tie-able inverters.
> http://www.backwoodssolar.com/reference/examples.htm . Examples 2-4 would
> be similar (less the batteries, trading them for panels) to what I was
> referring to. Even the largest system on the list isnt 60k though it
> doesnt include any installation.
>
> With regards to system maintenance yes, of course there will be
> maintenance as well as risk. It isnt any different than any other
> investment you make. Just like hail can trash your car or home, a
> lightning strike, power surge, falling tree, could damage your system.
> Just like your vehicle oil changes, tires, and home require
> maintenance so will it though without batteries it would require
> virtually none. If there is storage involved replacing battery banks
> every 5-7 years will be factored in. However most grid tied homes opt
> to forgo storage and trade those $$ for more panels as the grid is a
> far more effective storage module than batteries. This would
> additionally boost output. This is something that always gives me a
> chuckle. When someone wants a cedar sided house, tiled roof, or an
> Escolade they dont "run the numbers". They just want it. The cost of
> owning it is offset by emotion. Yet when something like this is
> actually practical and in many cases even profitable it is held to
> unrealistic standards of scrutiny by some.
Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy prices
do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.
As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
it that they will never break even?
>
> The simple fact of the matter, is most all calculators out there call
> out 8-12 percent return on investment with many factors included.
> Given some of this is based on state and fed rebates and it varies
> from state to state. Savings is savings. From my perspective if you
> can come within +/- 2 points of the average interest rate of the same
> period for investing your money its a no brainer simply due to doing
> more with less and supporting new and innovative industries.
>
> Sadly, most of the blanket nay sayers with regards to AE in general
> come from a very biased viewpoint to begin with and will only be
> swayed if they get paid. Break even wont even move them. Its the Me
> Millennium, Welcome to the future.
You'd do a lot better making your case without the condescension and
derision.
>
> Mark
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>> That looks like a winning cost trade. Thus far, all of the other
>> alternatives like solar electric don't come even close. I did a trade
>> earlier this year and couldn't get the system to even pay for itself over
>> the advertised 25 year life span. That took into account any credits and
>> rebates available and included paying cash for the system (i.e., no
>> interest cost) and not assuming any lost investment value on the cash.
>> What was really ironic was that the company selling the solar system was
>> willing to issue a 30 year note on a system for which they were
>> advertising a 25 year life.
>
> Solar thermal can be awesomely efficient and solar photovoltaics offered
> on the consumer market (as opposed to those made for aerospace
> applications) have energy conversion efficiencies of only 10-15%.
>
> I've been working to develop a couple of fluidynes (Stirling cycle heat
> engines) capable of converting sunlight directly to mechanical energy.
> These have a theoretical maximum efficiency of only about 55% - and I
> don't expect to do better than 25-30% with my design but, still, they'll
> be a lot more efficient than using PV panel to charge a battery which is
> then used to run a motor (with losses at each conversion).
>
If you can get the efficiency up there and turn an alternator, you may
have something
> OTOH, direct solar doesn't work very well at night...
>
No, but if you can get the effiecencies a bit above what you are thinking,
one can either charge batteries or sell back to the electric company. Right
now, a lot of places they do 1 for 1, in the future I would expect that to
change to more like 2 for 1 cost to buy-back ratio. Still that might be a
good trade for having to buy and replace a battery farm.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Morris Dovey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?
>
> Good question. It's designed to turn itself off as summer approaches.
> The angle angle at which sunlight strikes the glazing - see the
> explanation at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Astro/Seasons.html - provides
> seasonal control. You can get more information still by doing a Google
> search on "critical angle".
>
> It's also possible to shut the panel off completely in any season by
> covering the glazing.
>
Before electricity became common in south Georgia, our neighbor had a
refrigerator that ran on propane. After college I worked in a huge
drug store in Tennessee whose air conditioner used a gas burner
instead of a compressor. Has anyone ever made a room cooling system
that used solar heat to drive the ammonia cycle and passive convection
instead of a fan to spread the cooler air? A lot of our electricity in
the south is used for cooling, but I've never heard this discussed.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
A man with a briefcase can steal more
money than any man with a gun.
On Dec 5, 1:56=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 1:02 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Dec 5, 12:11 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:> Robatoy wr=
ote:
> >>>> I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door w=
as
> >>>> only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the j=
ob
> >>>> done.
> >>>> That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> >>>> Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative an=
d
> >>>> friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x =
5-
> >>>> ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> >>>> the truck and we installed it this week.
> >>> You need a new tape rule - it's 4'x6'. :)
> >> We're metric here...*smirk*
>
> > That also explains why we needed a 20-pound sledge to get it into the
> > hole.
>
> Did the sledge survive?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
It melted... fusion power and all that stuff...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
THEM for the last drop.
Well, you know why that's happening don't you? It's because it's being
looked at from the bean counter's accountant point of view. It's a tried and
true method that has worked well up to this point and it's easier for them
to select that route because they know it works. And, you're right. Human
beings as they are, are afraid of or just too damned selfish to make a
change. Or, most of them at least.
On Dec 6, 10:03=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
Morris Doveys follow up is spot on,...
> =A0 As far as not being on a level grade, if you had been asked this summ=
er if
> gas prices would ever reach $1.60 per gallon again, would you have answer=
ed
> in the affirmative? =A0
I wouldnt have guessed below two dollars this quickly but I was in
complete agreement with several outspoken sources that repeatedly
stated the gasoline prices were being artificially inflated by
capitalist greed and OPEC. I had many conversations with individuals
that as soon as these prices became unsustainable and AE began to once
again look viable it would be crushed by an immediate price drop as
not to undermine the system and that is where we are today.
It has been publicly stated numerous times that the petroleum industry
has been more than willing to make it clear that they will price any
competition out of existence to protect their market share or until
they themselves can profit from it.
The fixing in ares like the food and gasoline markets going on in the
past year is right out of the Enron/Tyco/K Street playbook. Greed,
greed, greed. Reducing quantity, quality, raising the price, and
record profits all the while blaming corn growers, truckers, supply,
hurricanes that never make land fall, on and on. Around here everyone
is skwaking that their vehicles which never had a problem before are
now knocking and pinging like crazy, mileage is lower. It is clear
producers are tweaking anywhere they can all the while driving the
screws even deeper.
So yes, I did state that gasoline would drop and there is plenty of
margin for it to drop more as there is in food and other commodities.
> =A0 There were numerous things that have contributed to the auto companie=
s'
> problems, but not all of them are germain to this subject.
What IS germain is the flawed philosophy of in extremely dynamic
situations heavily weighting the past in planning how to move forward
in the future. Its why we struggled for a while in a new generation
war we didnt know how to fight. No front line, no clear enemy, etc.
Yet we go in with the strategies of Custer and WWII. All through the
election we hear about Hoover, FDR, Lincoln, Regan, on and on. We are
moving into times that many of them could not even comprehend yet all
we heard was "a return to ...". It is perfectly germain to the
conversation in that these people who harken the past most generally
look for big overarching solutions to very complex problems and
unfortunately our future has more facets than the Hope diamond. I had
to have heard Britt Hume say 500 times "yeah, but whats his
overarching message?" The past.
It just like your energy issues with your house. You could likely gain
SOME of your heat from passive solar, SOME from active solar, SOME
from electricity, SOME from NG, and come out financially,
environmentally, and self sufficiently, ahead with a multi-pronged
heat source that worked in power outages, saved you when electricity
was high and NG was low, had built in redundancy, and did more with
less.
All we hear is "electric cars arent the solution". But they are part
of it. CNG isnt the solution. But it is part of it. Wind isnt the
solution. But it is part of it. The politics of the past, and mainly
the republican politics of the past, only want to see a single facet
solution. Its more profitable and easier to control.
> =A0 The fact is there are significant energy reserves that have been wall=
ed
> off to development and some of that are not yet cost effective to develop=
.
Not significant enough to weight them as a sole solution.
> The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
> with those sources of energy.
In your calculations for your home power you want to factor in every
little thing to make it a non viable option, cost of operation, long
term, short term, risk, change, esthetic's. Does it increase or
decrease the long term value of your home. Even 5% ROI isnt enough.
Likewise when if you factor in every little thing positive with AE
many of them DO compete with petroleum today. However some of these
things are not ones people can immediately see, they are not gee gaws
and buttons, and heated seats, shinny paint. They are long term
advances in efficiency and independence and just plain doing more with
less. Look, the simple fact of the matter is things like CFL' s. It
has been stated for years that if every home in the US changed ONE of
their most used bulbs to CFL it would be the equivalent of taking
1,000,000 cars off the road immediately. Yet it is not done. I dont
personally like CFLs everywhere, they are not the best light for
certain applications, however there are many that are and I use them
there. Many wont yet they are completely cost effective, highly
profitable for the individual.
> =A0 I always love it when someone points out issues in alternate energy
> computations or projected cost savings and is answered with one of
> those, "fine, go home and turn up the thermostat then" kind of responses.
Thats not what I said, I said IF "we" are being snowed "we" can all
sit back and turn up the thermostat. What is most perplexing is that
the past 8 years of chest drumming and near public lynching of anyone
who didnt fly a flag on their car or a ribbon on their trunk, why in
gods name would we, as the most advanced and supposed innovative
nation on the face of the earth and many would say the universe not
expect ourselves to continually strive for improvment and innovation?
Why would we NOT want an SUV that goes 45 miles on a gallon of gas?
Not want a home that you can heat for 400.00 a year in New England.
Even if there is no global warming why would we not innovate? Everyone
wins, Mfr's, consumers, the list goes on. To hell with global warming,
why not be in a constant state of advance? Yet our auto industry has
been stagnant for 30 years resisted everything thrown at it and lived
in the pocket of petroleum. Homebuilding is some of the least
efficient of the advanced nations. Heating systems, mechanical
systems, all way behind the curve. Some of the most wasteful
appliances made in the world are for US consumption. Our auto industry
makes some 30+ CNG cars that are not sold in the US? We've gotten fat
and lazy and now we pay.
> =A0 System is bigger, initial cost is bigger.
Savings are bigger, the percentages run parallel until you hit the
rebate cap.
> =A0 As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than whe=
n
> someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
> electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
> it that they will never break even?
I dont know many that smugly claim $0 electric bill. The cost of the
system and maintenance are amortized over the life of the system and
in a case like ours in a state with no rebates what so ever and a
political system tied to coal that will likely never implement a
profitable grid tie program it is the most expensive power you can
have. In these cases it is relegated to pieces of property that are
cost prohibitive to run grid power to.
IMHO where the focus needs to be is imagining every new home and
commercial property built from this day forward had some quantity of
grid tied PV incorporated directly into the roofing system. No
storage, just daylight generation. In a short time many areas would be
generating substantial percentages of their daylight power via PV.
With a modest increase in federal rebates this would be very cost
effective and with the grid already in place it would be a direct
offset to coal, NG, and petrolem which could then be diverted to
better use. This could then be expanded to re-roofs and so on where a
major capital expenditure was already planned and needed.
> =A0 You'd do a lot better making your case without the condescension and
> derision. =A0
There is no condescension, I simply despise bias in any way shape or
form.
Mark
On Dec 6, 11:29=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> <and Morris snipped extensively>
>
> > The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
> > with those sources of energy. =A0If they can do so, then that is great,
> > people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources ca=
n
> > only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so =
rosy
> > a picture.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
> "jump on board in a heartbeat" part.
>
> "The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
> experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
> to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
> well-exceeded.
>
> > =A0 Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one m=
akes
> > some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. =A0If energy p=
rices
> > do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it will be
> > worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually be cost
> > competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.
>
> Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
> the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.
>
> > =A0 As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than w=
hen
> > someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
> > electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produ=
ce
> > it that they will never break even?
>
> Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
> what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
> social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
> than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.
>
> Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
> ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
> do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris, the "Drill-Baby Drill" crowd will never get it. Their way of
solving the energy crisis is not to make things more efficient, but to
develop new ways to make money so that the high prices won't bother
them.
All you have to do, is make sure you have enough money that YOU can
still drive your SUV when others can't.
Here we have somebody advocating that it might not be cost efficient
to invest in solar energy, but that it is perfectly okay to blow
bezillions of dollars (backed by the tax payers) on more outrageous
ways the squeeze the last drop of oil from the earth.... or better
yet, blow bezillions of dollars capturing foreign land and squeeze
THEM for the last drop.
That makes WAY more sense.
OR... better yet.. convert all the food crops into fuel and starve the
bastards away from the pumps so there WILL be more fuel for the SUV's.
I find that in most cases, when trying to have a conversation about
alternative energy, the 'vision' is most often restricted by the same
blinders that keep the sunlight out.
Take your panels as an example. When one accepts that they work as
well as they do, then the next step will be the attempt to make them
better and cheaper. To walk away at this stage by saying, that they're
too expensive today, therefore unacceptable is dumb.
I could rant on, but a new dawn is coming. Free energy...oops can't
have that..there must be a way we can keep the serfs small by making
them pay for simple stuff like heat! What is this world coming to? No
KBR? No Chevron? heavens-to-betsy... how will we raise money to buy
politicians??..<G>
</rant>
On Dec 7, 11:45=A0am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:17:35 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"mac davis" wrote
>
> >> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
> >> initial
> >> investment back from savings in utilities..
>
> >IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
> >savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
>
> Exactly....
> Sort of like changing out the windows for double pane or putting dark tin=
t on
> the widows that get sun..
>
All things passive appeal to my passive nature.
jw wrote:
>
>> many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. Â One disclaimer, my
>> computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company,
>> assuming that most of my use is after daylight hours. Â While I know that
>> to be the case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years
>> that will be unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it
>> only makes sense, the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and
>> deliver at retail). That will make a significant difference when that
>> occurs in terms of lengthening the time before break-even.
>
> Which is what I found when I looked into it. It made sense, until I
> learned their buyback rate. They would pay ~2.5 cnts/kwh but charge
> me ~11.5 cnts/kwh.
>
> No thanks. It turned my 5-6 yr subsidized payback into about 30.
>
> JW
Tucson Electric Power was advertising their program yesterday, so I took a
look at the website to see if things had become more cost competitive.
They haven't.
The following web site was the only one that listed prices:
<//www.tfssolar.com/solar-residential/calculators/> Selecting a 2000 kWh
system (smaller systems are equivalent), the cost of the system after some
pretty large subsidies was $38,200. My estimate for payback with various
energy increase estimates ranged from 12 to 16 years. Given the buyback
rate you list above, it would exceed the life of the system.
For a system that would be equivalent to the $75/month rate someone
previously discussed, the subsidized cost would be $10.2k. To save
$75/month?
I really want to see solar power succeed, but a breakthrough is needed in
order for it to be cost effective.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Dec 5, 11:33=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 11:29=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I had to knock down a wall in order to get my CNC in. My back door was
> > only 48" wide, so, with with jack posts and air-hammers we got the job
> > done.
>
> > That particular wall is facing South. I had been intrigued by Morris
> > Dovey's work for quite some time and after a few very informative and
> > friendly e-mails and phone conversations, Morris shipped one 4-ft x 5-
> > ft panel on a skid to Port Huron MI. My guys picked it up there with
> > the truck and we installed it this week.
>
> > Today, minus 7-degrees Celsius. We took down the temporary walls we
> > had built outside of the gaping hole, (for security and heat reasons)
> > and the first sunlight hit the panel just an hour ago.
>
> > Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
> > expected.
>
This afternoon, it was 28F outside, Direct, full sunlight on the
panel. I thumbtacked a strip of paper over the 'exhaust' and merrily
wiggled in the stream of warm air.
Film at 11
<G>
On Dec 6, 6:21=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>snip>
>
> =A0 The 10 year average I used should be fairly applicable since it began=
at a
> period when gas prices were below $1 and have carried through this year's
> $4+ prices. =A0The fly in the ointment in the future will be if this cap =
and
> trade taxation scheme ever gets implemented and destroys the cost of
> electric power.
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Even the most conservative speculations are not looking to even the
recent past as an accurate gauge of where our energy prices could be
headed in the next 20 years. We are by no means on a level grade
though it is of course all speculation. The auto exec's surley based
their business on an unmitigated analysis focused squarely on the past
with no eye to the future and look where it has gotten their
businesses. I have no idea if you are one that feels there is a never
ending supply of oil and NG and we are all being snowed with regards
to the energy and environmental issues we face in the future. If that
is the case than the conversation is pointless as we can all rest our
bones and just boost the thermostat.
With regards to system sizing/pricing I merely referenced a 1.5-2kw
system which of course is not going to cut it for a large or all
electric or wasteful/non-conserving home. Nor one in poor location for
PV. This is a system that would cost 9-11k or less without storage.
With federal and state rebates could be as low as I mentioned. This is
a system respective of the 75.00 a month electric bill in most
locations. However, if ones bill is more than 75, its more, system is
bigger, savings are bigger. The common averages state that one can
expect a 8-12 percent return on investment over 20 years depending on
system cost and location (rebates). Most portfolios are lucky to hit
that in decent times and arent further bolstered by tens of thousands
of tons of reduced carbon footprint. At some point we have to stop
merely looking at our wallet. Though it will always be the
overwhelming factor at some point we are going to have to factor other
things in that we may not be instantly compensated for or that we
merely break even financially over the 20 years.
Given this is for CA but a simple calculator found in many forms on
the net - http://www.suncalsolar.com/costs/costs.htm
This link is from a company we have used and these examples are more
geared toward off grid homes. They all include costly batteries
however also use grid tie-able inverters. http://www.backwoodssolar.com/ref=
erence/examples.htm
. Examples 2-4 would be similar (less the batteries, trading them for
panels) to what I was referring to. Even the largest system on the
list isnt 60k though it doesnt include any installation.
With regards to system maintenance yes, of course there will be
maintenance as well as risk. It isnt any different than any other
investment you make. Just like hail can trash your car or home, a
lightning strike, power surge, falling tree, could damage your system.
Just like your vehicle oil changes, tires, and home require
maintenance so will it though without batteries it would require
virtually none. If there is storage involved replacing battery banks
every 5-7 years will be factored in. However most grid tied homes opt
to forgo storage and trade those $$ for more panels as the grid is a
far more effective storage module than batteries. This would
additionally boost output. This is something that always gives me a
chuckle. When someone wants a cedar sided house, tiled roof, or an
Escolade they dont "run the numbers". They just want it. The cost of
owning it is offset by emotion. Yet when something like this is
actually practical and in many cases even profitable it is held to
unrealistic standards of scrutiny by some.
The simple fact of the matter, is most all calculators out there call
out 8-12 percent return on investment with many factors included.
Given some of this is based on state and fed rebates and it varies
from state to state. Savings is savings. From my perspective if you
can come within +/- 2 points of the average interest rate of the same
period for investing your money its a no brainer simply due to doing
more with less and supporting new and innovative industries.
Sadly, most of the blanket nay sayers with regards to AE in general
come from a very biased viewpoint to begin with and will only be
swayed if they get paid. Break even wont even move them. Its the Me
Millennium, Welcome to the future.
Mark
Morris Dovey wrote:
> I'd like that - but I'm /still/ encouraging those who have the ability
> and the tools to build their own...
>
Are the plans on your site?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> energy used.
...
What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
And, how is the heat distributed and what do you do about the heat load
during hot IA or KS summers?
(I'm wondering if an area on the barn would be feasible--do these
actually replace wall sections if I read correctly--don't really think
I'd want to do that on a moderately historical structure...)
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Or... You could get a dozen 4x8 sheets of rear-silvered polycarbonate
> mirror material and make your shop really toasty. :-)
>
> See photos at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html to
> see how to produce serious warmth...
>
Do you watch Mythbusters? :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Morris Dovey wrote:
> dpb wrote:
...
>> What kind of output would that 4x6 panel yield, Morris?
>
> A really accurate answer would involve more waffling than I can tolerate
> (weather patterns, geographic location, snowfall, whatever's in front of
> the panel, ad nauseum) so I'll give you the short, over-simplified (and
> somewhat conservative) answer that each two-foot section delivers heat
> comparable to a milk-house heater on "High" when there's no snow on the
> ground. If there's clean snow between the panel and the sun, then add
> 75-90% to account for reflected energy.
We're beef not, dairy so I don't have a clue of what you think a
milk-house heater on "High" BTU output is... :)
I don't give a patootie about really accurate, I was just looking for
ballpark sizing guesstimates.
So, iiuc, this is relying on ground reflection not direct solar? The
thoughts I had were more for hayloft.
The point about tight is a good one--that's a real issue for the barn
which is why the free fuel source is attractive--if it could at least
knock of the worst in an area w/ some internal baffling to reduce the
draft it would be more than have presently.
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> See photos at
>>> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html to see how
>>> to produce serious warmth...
>>
>> Do you watch Mythbusters? :-)
>
> I've heard of but never seen (no cable TV). What did they do?
>
They did an episode on Archimedes' Death Ray, which purportedly was used
to burn up attacking ships out in the sea. Thousands of solders holding
mirrors pointing at a ship.... phhhhhew, it bursts into flames.... so
legend has it.
Some of their "experiments" closly resembled your parabolic.
I'm guessing a youtube search could yield both episodes in their
entirety.
Although I'm guessing there would be a lot of, "Nooooooo," and "That's
not how you do it," coming from your lips. :-)
> This heat, BTW, is used to run an engine whose only moving parts are
> air and water (in keeping with my fondness for keeping things as
> simple as possible).
>
I'm really enjoying reading your info.
Ever work with geothermal? Not volcanic steam they get in Greenland,
but piping buried underground to get the constant 55 degree temp.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Morris Dovey wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> ...
>>> ... the guy who came up with the stock waterers, ...
>>
>> I'd be most interested in that, too, Morris...
>
> Here it comes 'round again:
...
Oh, sorry...I thought that was an indirect connection referred to.
I'm on way out of town; will check at some more length later on.
Am still curious about the approximate Btu panel output, though...
--
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:04:58 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This heat, BTW, is used to run an engine whose only moving parts are air
>and water (in keeping with my fondness for keeping things as simple as
>possible).
There was an interesting article in the Nov PM mag about an Arizona
company named Stirling Energy Systems. They're testing a 38' wide
dish powering a 25KW Stirling engine that heats and cools hydrogen
gas. They claim to have set an efficiency record for a commercial
solar device at 31.25 %.
After reading that, I'm wondering how many mirrors I can glue to my
neighbor's old 6' satellite dish.
Mike O.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> "mac davis" wrote
>>
>>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>>> initial
>>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>>
>> IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
>> savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
>
> Yuppers. The payback period is figured by dividing the cost of the
> panels by the averaged annual conventional heating cost. The
> conventional cost varies from place to place and current cost of the
> energy used.
>
> People who like to work with really sharp pencils may want to figure in
> costs associated with buying, installing, maintaining (etc) the baseline
> conventional system, but I don't even bother - and I encourage people to
> keep whatever heating system they already have as a backstop for
> protracted periods of unusually cold, dark weather.
>
> It'll take Robatoy a while to get enough data to calculate his payback
> period - but a typical number for rural Iowa when I ran the numbers a
> year ago appears to be just a bit over two years. A properly installed
> panel whose exterior wood surfaces are kept painted should last longer
> than 25 years, so a panel (here) should provide at least 23 years of
> free heat.
>
That looks like a winning cost trade. Thus far, all of the other
alternatives like solar electric don't come even close. I did a trade
earlier this year and couldn't get the system to even pay for itself over
the advertised 25 year life span. That took into account any credits and
rebates available and included paying cash for the system (i.e., no
interest cost) and not assuming any lost investment value on the cash.
What was really ironic was that the company selling the solar system was
willing to issue a 30 year note on a system for which they were advertising
a 25 year life.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:56:03 -0800, mac davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:29:05 -0800 (PST), Robatoy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Amazing.....Just absolutely amazing. Free heat!! And way more than I
>>expected.
>
>Just playing the dark side here, bro... What was your cost on the project?
>
>They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your initial
>investment back from savings in utilities..
>Might just be our location, though. Electricity is very inexpensive here..
>Now, in the Republik of Kalifornia your savings would be much more..
>
>
What happens with this thing in the heat of summer? More free heat?
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> <and Morris snipped extensively>
>
>> The fact is that alternate energy approaches need to be able to compete
>> with those sources of energy. If they can do so, then that is great,
>> people will jump on board in a heartbeat; if those alternate sources can
>> only be competitive by government fiat and subsidy, then that's not so
>> rosy a picture.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, disagree (sadly) with
> "jump on board in a heartbeat" part.
>
> "The way I'm used to doing things" has just an incredible inertia. My
> experience has led me to conclude that people generally aren't willing
> to change established methods until their pain threshold has been
> well-exceeded.
I don't think it's an inertia thing so much as having to be cost-effective
enough to be worth the pain and hassle of going through the change. Even
when changing out conventional systems for another conventional system,
most folks will postpone that change as long as possible, both for monetary
and convenience reasons.
>
>> Given the numbers I'm seeing, it's still not practical unless one makes
>> some outrageous extrapolations for future energy prices. If energy
>> prices do start to skyrocket at the rate you are speculating, then it
>> will be worthwhile to look into, solar energy may at that time actually
>> be cost competitive, and most likely will be somewhat more mature.
>
> Sadly, if conventional energy prices do again start to skyrocket, then
> the _price_ (if not the cost) of alternative energy will follow.
>
There is that consideration. Just as in other things, it's a matter of
deciding the right timing.
I did run the numbers that the OP gave (both $9k and assuming a 30%
federal subsidy) with the idea that rather than trying to replace all grid
power, using it only as supplemental. i.e, use the solar power to reduce
the total electric bill, not expecting it to pull the whole load. Loading
the average monthly daylight hours, assuming about 80% of the day as being
capable of generating 2.5kW, the payback starts getting more reasonable.
It's on the order of 9 years unsubsidized and 7 years subsidized. Everyone
has a different threshold, but my personal threshold would be for a 5 year
or less payback period. Anything further out and you are dealing with too
many unknowns to feel confident in the investment. One disclaimer, my
computations assumed a 1 for 1 buy-back from the electric company, assuming
that most of my use is after daylight hours. While I know that to be the
case right now, I would guess that in several (unknown) years that will be
unsustainable and a lower buy-back will be instituted (it only makes sense,
the electric company is going to buy at wholesale and deliver at retail).
That will make a significant difference when that occurs in terms of
lengthening the time before break-even.
>> As far as pure emotion, how much closer to that can you come than when
>> someone pays for a system that lets them smugly claim they have a $0
>> electric bill but have paid such a large amount for the system to produce
>> it that they will never break even?
>
> Yabbut - let's peel the cover from that claim. In the case you describe,
> what was /actually/ purchased was bragging rights and/or perceived
> social position, and the energy production capability is nothing more
> than a context for that (IMO superficial) goal.
>
> Unsurprisingly, the usual response to such behavior is resentment that
> ends up poisoning acceptance of worthwhile technologies which actually
> do offer reasonable (or even excellent) ROI.
>
Good observation
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:17:35 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"mac davis" wrote
>
>> They do a lot of solar here in Baja, but it takes years to get your
>> initial
>> investment back from savings in utilities..
>
>IIRC, this is passive solar heat ... no electricity involved, except in
>savings providing it was used to formerly heat the space.
Exactly....
Sort of like changing out the windows for double pane or putting dark tint on
the widows that get sun..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> writes:
> And people keep saying that fusion power is a non-starter...
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/sciencemath/abd4/