How many solar cells to power my house?

[magnifier661]

It looks to me like a single solar panel generates 80 watts in direct sun. 50 panels would be 4000 watts.

4000 watts is enough power for 40 x 100 watt light bulbs, or 10 computers, or a moderate sized central air conditioning system, etc. A refrigerator uses about 1400 watts.

The solar panels only work in the daylight, so you must be paying for electricity from the electric company for as many as 16 hours a day. Granted, you are paying for that power when your A/C doesn't need to work as hard, etc.

The panels were 250 watt panels. That's what it says on the contract

 

[THE HCP]

I have a large negro boy who runs on a giant hamster wheel in my backyard to keep my power flowin'!

 

[Denny Crane]

The panels were 250 watt panels. That's what it says on the contract

12,000 watts makes sense if you really use 6000 and need to push 6000 to the grid to make up for night time and rainy days.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have a large negro boy who runs on a giant hamster wheel in my backyard to keep my power flowin'!

That's funny. I know a large negro boy who has you running on a giant hamster wheel.

 

[jlprk]

A bicycle propelled by a hamster wheel.

 

[MARIS61]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jlprk again.

 

[jlprk]

As a rep Scrooge, I commend Maris for receiving 1 of the 4 reps I have given in my almost 4 years on this board.

You other 3, I forgot who you are, probably didn't deserve it. I was just feeling too generous those days.

 

[jlprk]

If I see a rainbow out my window right now at 10:38 pm, I will feel instructed to rep Maris.

 

[mook]

Dang, I guess I'm spoiled but it's pretty stunning you had a $780 electric bill. Jesus. My highest ever was probably $150. But then I live about 10 miles from a federal government-built hydroelectric damn. I benefit from electricity that was subsidized in 1950, as do most gubmint-hatin' Idahoans.

 

[magnifier661]

Dang, I guess I'm spoiled but it's pretty stunning you had a $780 electric bill. Jesus. My highest ever was probably $150. But then I live about 10 miles from a federal government-built hydroelectric damn. I benefit from electricity that was subsidized in 1950, as do most gubmint-hatin' Idahoans.

Well the electric bill during fall and winter is smaller, but my average per month for the summer months are around $1,800. I live in the high desert where the summers are above 100.

 

[blazerboy30]

Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.

 

[magnifier661]

Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.

I didn't do it to go green. I did it to save money.

 

[blazerboy30]

I didn't do it to go green. I did it to save money.

As Denny pointed out, the only way it might save people money is because it is being drastically subsidized by the government. Which agrees with my point: Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.

 

[magnifier661]

As Denny pointed out, the only way it might save people money is because it is being drastically subsidized by the government. Which agrees with my point: Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.

Well fortunately it's saving me money. I am going to take advantage of the liberals that want to save some trees! Go me!!!!

 

[mook]

One aspect that really gets overlooked with solar is the iteration cycle. Innovation in coal or hydroelectric or gas takes a while, as the plants are large and expensive to build. Upgrading them after completion is a major undertaking. In addition, they operate within confined geographic areas with limited competition, so often there isn't much incentive to innovate. With solar, on the other hand, there are a number of players in the field, they all have basically the same goal (drive down cost per watt), and an innovation in one market can quickly be applied to another market. It's that ramped-up innovation cycle that has been a huge driver in the decreasing costs (from $76/watt in 1976 to as low as $.74/watt in 2013) over the years.

Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade. Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely.

The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of capacity. Power-station construction costs can add $4 to that, but these, too, are falling as builders work out how to do the job better. And running a solar power station is cheap because the fuel is free.

Coal-fired plants, for comparison, cost about $3 a watt to build in the United States, and natural-gas plants cost $1. But that is before the fuel to run them is bought. In sunny regions such as California, then, photovoltaic power could already compete without subsidy with the more expensive parts of the traditional power market, such as the natural-gas-fired “peaker” plants kept on stand-by to meet surges in demand. Moreover, technological developments that have been proved in the laboratory but have not yet moved into the factory mean Swanson’s law still has many years to run.
...
One consequence of all this progress is that subsidies for wind and solar power have fallen over recent years. In 2013, they will fall further. Though subsidies will not disappear entirely, the so-called alternatives will be seen to stand on their own feet in a way that was not true in the past. That will give them political clout and lead to questions about the subventions which more traditional forms of power generation enjoy (coal production, for example, is heavily subsidised in parts of Europe).

Fossil-fuel-powered electricity will not be pushed aside quickly. Fracking, a technological breakthrough which enables natural gas to be extracted cheaply from shale, means that gas-fired power stations, which already produce a fifth of the world’s electricity, will keep the pressure on wind and solar to get better still. But even if natural gas were free, no Swanson’s law-like process applies to the plant required to turn it into electricity. Nuclear power is not a realistic alternative. It is too unpopular and the capital costs are huge. And coal’s days seem numbered. In America, the share of electricity generated from coal has fallen from almost 80% in the mid-1980s to less than a third in April 2012, and coal-fired power stations are closing in droves.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Those that think solar (and wind) power is a solid way to improve our energy problems and costs are out of touch with reality or don't understand physics.

Not trying to start anything with you but your statement is a little vague. Can you provide some more detail and facts?

A couple of things come to mind but I am not an expert in these things.

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized and not one nuclear power plant in the US has ever turned a profit.

Oil is subsidized via tax credits.

Are you talking about where the solar panel industry stands at today for forever? Seems like improvements in technology and manufacturing will make solar panels cheaper and more efficient.

No don't get me wrong, living in Portland we have had 3 different solar panel manufacturing businesses get paid tens of millions of dollars by the state to come here and set up shop only to go tits up within a few years. Total bullshit. But I also realize that there were over 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States from 1896 to 1930 with the vast majority going out of business but that doesn't mean the automobile industry didn't or doesn't work.

 

[blazerboy30]

Let's think about this logically from a physics perspective, that so many solar advocates want to ignore.

Energy sources found on Earth ultimately come from the sun. There is an approximately constant amount of energy coming from the sun. You have to decide if you want to make a trade-off of time or space when choosing the energy source. In the case of fossil fuels, they are dense and take very little space, but take a LONG time to be produced. In the case of solar, you have to have a LOT of space to meet your energy demands. There isn't some magical creation of energy that solar is providing. When you take into account it's lack of efficiency, it just isn't a great long-term solution for our energy needs.

 

[blazerboy30]

Not trying to start anything with you but your statement is a little vague. Can you provide some more detail and facts?

A couple of things come to mind but I am not an expert in these things.

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized and not one nuclear power plant in the US has ever turned a profit.

Oil is subsidized via tax credits.

Are you talking about where the solar panel industry stands at today for forever? Seems like improvements in technology and manufacturing will make solar panels cheaper and more efficient.

No don't get me wrong, living in Portland we have had 3 different solar panel manufacturing businesses get paid tens of millions of dollars by the state to come here and set up shop only to go tits up within a few years. Total bullshit. But I also realize that there were over 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States from 1896 to 1930 with the vast majority going out of business but that doesn't mean the automobile industry didn't or doesn't work.

See my response above.

 

[magnifier661]

Let's think about this logically from a physics perspective, that so many solar advocates want to ignore.

Energy sources found on Earth ultimately come from the sun. There is an approximately constant amount of energy coming from the sun. You have to decide if you want to make a trade-off of time or space when choosing the energy source. In the case of fossil fuels, they are dense and take very little space, but take a LONG time to be produced. In the case of solar, you have to have a LOT of space to meet your energy demands. There isn't some magical creation of energy that solar is providing. When you take into account it's lack of efficiency, it just isn't a great long-term solution for our energy needs.

I disagree.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/int...ip-are-tiny-but-mighty/11347?tag=search-river

Startup Semprius took the transfer-printing technology it originally developed for flexible electronics and applied it to solar cells. What did they create in return? Tiny solar cells — each a dot the size of a ballpoint pen tip — able to convert 41 percent of solar energy into electricity using low-cost lenses to concentrate the sun more than 1,000 times.

How it works

Semprius makes solar concentrating photovoltaics — a clean-energy mashup of solar panels and solar thermal tech — that uses mirrors and lenses to concentrate light from the sun onto super-efficient cells.

Semprius makes the array of gallium arsenide-based micro cells by growing a semiconductor on a substrate and then using a machine to rapidly transfer it to a wafer. Layers are added to create a triple-junction solar cell. This patented micro-transfer printing process allows thousands of cells to be stamped at once.

The triple-junction cells are tiny and occupy only one-one thousandth of the entire solar module area. Lenses are then used to concentrate light on the tiny solar cells.

Each solar cell’s tiny footprint and the low-cost lenses allow modules to pack more power in a smaller space. And by using lots of small cells, unwanted waste heat is distributed more easily over the cell’s structure and eliminates the need for expensive thermal management hardware, according to the NREL. The upshot? Semprius execs say it can slash manufacturing costs by 50 percent.

The technology is getting much more efficient. In my area, they are building parking garages that have the panels on the top. With Solar, there is no sound or pollution. It's actually starting to become fashionable and pleasing to the eye, seeing these systems covering cars.

Also, there is developing technology by using windows as a solar cell. High rises can become farms. Commerce areas can produce large amounts of energy without polluting the largely populated areas.

 

[magnifier661]

Here is another company that created 30 cent per watt, which is cheaper than burning coal.

http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal. These coatings are as thin as a layer of paint and can transfer sunlight to power at amazing efficiency. Although the underlying technology has been around for years, Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets. The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S.

 

[blazerboy30]

I disagree.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/int...ip-are-tiny-but-mighty/11347?tag=search-river



The technology is getting much more efficient. In my area, they are building parking garages that have the panels on the top. With Solar, there is no sound or pollution. It's actually starting to become fashionable and pleasing to the eye, seeing these systems covering cars.

Also, there is developing technology by using windows as a solar cell. High rises can become farms. Commerce areas can produce large amounts of energy without polluting the largely populated areas.

You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. Solar technology isn't magically defying physics.

And where do you think all of this energy that is being captured by all these "high rises becoming farms" is going to go?

 

[magnifier661]

You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. Solar technology isn't magically defying physics.

And where do you think all of this energy that is being captured by all these "high rises becoming farms" is going to go?

Pretty simple.... Back to the heavily populated areas. They consume enough to buy that energy.

And I just gave you two links that explain that the current systems are only collecting 30% of the actual solar energy. The newest system is collecting 40%. When the demand goes up, manufactures will produce them for a less price, reducing the cost of the cells. So in the end, the panels will be cheaper and easier to install. A coal power plant takes years to build. You can build a gigawatt powerplant in less than a year.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not trying to start anything with you but your statement is a little vague. Can you provide some more detail and facts?

A couple of things come to mind but I am not an expert in these things.

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized and not one nuclear power plant in the US has ever turned a profit.

Oil is subsidized via tax credits.

Are you talking about where the solar panel industry stands at today for forever? Seems like improvements in technology and manufacturing will make solar panels cheaper and more efficient.

No don't get me wrong, living in Portland we have had 3 different solar panel manufacturing businesses get paid tens of millions of dollars by the state to come here and set up shop only to go tits up within a few years. Total bullshit. But I also realize that there were over 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States from 1896 to 1930 with the vast majority going out of business but that doesn't mean the automobile industry didn't or doesn't work.

These links seem to dispute your statements about oil subsidies and nuclear plant profits...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl...tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/nuclear-power-profits/2450

 

[blazerboy30]

Pretty simple.... Back to the heavily populated areas. They consume enough to buy that energy.

And I just gave you two links that explain that the current systems are only collecting 30% of the actual solar energy. The newest system is collecting 40%. When the demand goes up, manufactures will produce them for a less price, reducing the cost of the cells. So in the end, the panels will be cheaper and easier to install. A coal power plant takes years to build. You can build a gigawatt powerplant in less than a year.

Sorry, you're missing the point.

If solar is used to absorb enough energy to provide our energy demand, the by product of "using" that energy has to go somewhere. For example, if you use 500 watts to power your computer, almost 500 watts of unusable power (heat) has to be rejected somewhere. It has nothing to do with whether or not "heavily populated areas will consume it".

 

[Denny Crane]

Pretty simple.... Back to the heavily populated areas. They consume enough to buy that energy.

And I just gave you two links that explain that the current systems are only collecting 30% of the actual solar energy. The newest system is collecting 40%. When the demand goes up, manufactures will produce them for a less price, reducing the cost of the cells. So in the end, the panels will be cheaper and easier to install. A coal power plant takes years to build. You can build a gigawatt powerplant in less than a year.

Wikipedia says,

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 20.1% in new commercial products[3] typically lower than the efficiencies of their cells in isolation. The most efficient mass-produced solar panels[disputed – discuss] have energy density values of up to 16.22 W/ft2 (175 W/m2).[4]
[edit]

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Well the electric bill during fall and winter is smaller, but my average per month for the summer months are around $1,800. I live in the high desert where the summers are above 100.

Mags, where in the high desert you living? I thought you were closer-in.

 

[Denny Crane]

Another worthwhile read...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54781

 

[MARIS61]

These links seem to dispute your statements about oil subsidies and nuclear plant profits...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl...tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/nuclear-power-profits/2450

No, they really don't dispute anything SPD posted.

They actually support what he posted, but attempt to justify it by lumping other subsidized industries with them.

All big business in America is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, where in the high desert you living? I thought you were closer-in.

Lancaster, California

 

[Denny Crane]

No, they really don't dispute anything SPD posted.

They actually support what he posted, but attempt to justify it by lumping other subsidized industries with them.

All big business in America is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

No, they're not. A baseball team is subsidized when the city pays for the ballpark. But if the team pays 99% of its income to taxes, the remaining 1% is no subsidy. Rather the 99% is theft.