My parents are in the midst of building a new house -- their retirement home, as it were -- and I spent a little time (okay, very little) trying to persuade them to include some green building techniques. The pat answer was that there's not enough sun in Middle Tennessee to run solar panels.
Put aside the fact that solar is the tip of the green-building iceberg. Is it true that solar panels are only useful in areas with tons of direct sunlight?
According to a fascinating post from Jamais Cascio, no: Solar can be effective even in areas where it -- gasp -- snows. Read the post and follow the links. Interesting stuff.
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 10:09 am
23 Dec 2005
So here is my subversive comment:
If you are a techno-optimist, wait a couple years. Who wants to see their $10K system cost $5K next year?
If you are a techno-pessimist, buy now. It'll just be more expensive, with inflation, in years to come.
(Personally, given the huge amount of optimism flying around the net, I'd put off an expensive system for a year or so, to see what happens next.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 pm
23 Dec 2005
The high cost of PV cells is the problem. Expensive arrays that only get enough light to operate 30% of the time in cloudy climates need to be 3 times larger than the a panel in a very sunny locale to generate equivalent power.
Likewise in more northern regions in winter not as many hours per day are productive for solar power.
But what if one substitutes inexpensive collectors that concentrate light even on cloudy days and focus enough light even early mornings and evenings to make thaose very expensive PV cells produce the same amount of power in a cloudy northern clime as in a sunny southern desert?
Well then it is not necessary to install 4 times as many of those PV cells in the cloudy region to get enough power from the sun.
There is the added cost of the collecters, but that can be offset by producing heat from the same installation. Which will also allow the PV cells to be liquid cooled and thus produce more power on sunny days thasn they normally would.
As far as cost odo, check out the line on factory second PV cells at otherpower.com that you wire up and install in panels yourself. That takes the initial cost way way down!
Do-it-yourself solar even in cloudy northern areas with a few years payback period is feasible.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:47 am
24 Dec 2005
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:29 am
24 Dec 2005
"Compound parabolic concentrating collectors (CPCCs) use mirrored surfaces to concentrate the sun's energy on an absorber called a receiver, similar to parabolic trough collectors. CPCCs achieve moderate concentration and moderately high temperatures but, unlike parabolic trough collectors, they can collect both direct and diffuse sunlight and don't require an automated sun-tracking system."
The key phrase is "they can collect both direct and diffuse sunlight". The light that comes through clouds is diffuse light.
But I suppose in a cloudy enough climate the collectors would need to be so large as to make the system uneconomical.
At least here in the northern midwest we get plenty of wind in the winter to make up for the cloudy weather.
You guys may have to settle for one of atomic rod's nuclear engines every other block. Yikes, that's not even funny, sorry.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 8:44 am
24 Dec 2005
As for money, if the panels pay for themselves in 10 years instead of 8 years, is that such a big deal? As with hybrids, the fact that the technology isn't free and doesn't pay for itself really fast shouldn't be held against it; if your parents build a jacuzzi, is it going to pay for itself? There's no such thing as a free lunch.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
jrnesbit Posted 12:21 am
25 Dec 2005
In an effort to have some power at a remote camp a few years ago I purchased some "lesser" panels and deep cycle batteries and justified the cost as an experimental hobby. The cost was never recovered, and the power attained never adequate for anything but lv lighting. Factors are too numerous to mention here, as to why it was ineffective but they are many. Living in FL things such as clouds, trees, wind, mold and mildew clouding the surfaces etc all play a roll. Having years of experience in power plant maintenance, I think the average person would also be susceptible to maitenance costs by those who might be "certified" to do so. That factor hasn't been mentioned, only the installation cost.
Fact is that panels still cost what they did a decade ago, and batteries still are about the same. The "home-brewer" can save money but the mainstream still will be stuck on the grid until a "package" could be offered, such as installation and maintenance in a bundle, this again would add to cost.
Permalink