Jun 11
13

Fully Charged Episode 21 Solar PV

25 Comments

0 Fully Charged Episode 21 Solar PVFollowing the installation process for photovoltaic panels and seeing the possibility of true, carbon zero transporation.

Duration : 0:6:20


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in photovoltaic panels by admin 25 Comments

25 Responses to "Fully Charged Episode 21 Solar PV"

  • nodr84 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Awesome Array! What …
    Awesome Array! What manufacture did you go with? Hope you get your own EV to hang on to, soon. Leaf withdrawal can be a rough, especially without a chaser. 2012 Tesla model S is the cure.

  • PaulWay says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @rustybinproduction …
    @rustybinproduction: crap. Energy != volts. You may step down in volts but you go up in amps. Inverter losses are typically around 10% to 20% depending.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @TheSteveDSD Sadly …
    @TheSteveDSD Sadly that is false assumption.

  • drees76 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @ …
    @RustyBinProductions Modern DC/AC PV inverters are actually very efficient at converting DC electricity to AC electricity. Nearly all are at least 95% efficient at converting DC to AC and some of the newest ones from SMA have peak efficiences over 99% efficient.

  • Smidge204 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @XitUp Interesting! …
    @XitUp Interesting! On that I found fitariffs (dot) co.uk and apparently you get both: Money for generating AND paid for what you send out. Guess they’re more serious about it than they are here in the US. Thanks for the info.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @polpotsdog yup, …
    @polpotsdog yup, the country has plenty of spare cash for that kind of thing doesn’t it?

    Look up passive solar. Much cheaper, much more environmentally friendly, much better use of limited funds.

  • meforpeace2 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @XitUp What’s more …
    @XitUp What’s more likely in the future, is a system in which solar power producers are payed for what they produce and do not use. Some friends in the States belong to an electric cooperative and use a solar system to produce power. They generally produce more electricity than they use and this electricity is purchased by the electrical cooperative. They can buy electricity back at a later date for the same or similar price, if their solar panels are not producing enough power.

  • mjkobb says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    I’m fascinated by …
    I’m fascinated by your feed-in tariff. In Pacific Gas & Electric territory in California, it works very differently. My 5.3kW solar array makes more energy during daylight hours than the house is using. So, the power is fed onto the grid and gets used up by other houses in the neighborhood. This is metered, and I get a credit for the energy produced, but ONLY if it’s fed out to the grid. If the house consumes the array’s production, I don’t pay, but I’m not paid either.

  • TheSteveDSD says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @XitUp Ahh, true, I …
    @XitUp Ahh, true, I was assuming that a new build house would already be well insulated and have efficient heat/light design in addition to power generation or hot water heating from solar.

  • mjkobb says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @fullychargedshow …
    @fullychargedshow Robert, wait a sec. You’re confusing voltage with power there. It’s common to run the array at a higher _voltage_ than the interconnected grid. When stepping down to grid voltage, the inverter will put out a lower voltage, but at a higher current. Since power is voltage times current, so long as the current goes up when voltage goes down, power is preserved.

    There will be some losses in the inverter, but they are typically around 95% efficient or better.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @meforpeace2 Yup, …
    @meforpeace2 Yup, that would be a much more sensible and fair idea.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @TheSteveDSD The …
    @TheSteveDSD The money would be much better spent on decent insulation and passive heating.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @fullychargedshow …
    @fullychargedshow obviously it’s not exactly the same as giving money to the oil companies, although it is money that would be better spent elsewhere. I’m not a fan of subsidies for anything in the private sector, be it farming, drilling for oil or generating a bit of electricity. I feel the money would be better spent on grants or loans for decent home insulation.
    As for Germany, fancy a bet on it? Ten grand says its a bad idea. Have a dig under your settee for some change and let me know. ;)

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @Smidge204 Nope, …
    @Smidge204 Nope, you get paid for what you produce, even if you use it yourself. You get extra if you sell it back to the grid.

  • RustyBinProductions says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @Smidge204 …
    @Smidge204 Absolutely, and well said. I merely wanted to point out that the process of converting the DC solar energy into AC was wasteful (even if it’s only 10%)… and as you said, heating water with DC is more efficient anyway.
    It wasn’t to criticize his setup (it’s lovely, really is), just to eduform others.

  • Smidge204 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @ …
    @RustyBinProductions But any decent inverter would be 90+% efficient, so I don’t see a “colossal amount” of power being wasted. Of course if your goal is to generate heat (hot water for example) then it’s more efficient to heat the water directly… but if you want electricity 90+% ain’t bad. Plus the sunlight is free and nonpolluting so efficiency isn’t as critical! Lower efficiency only means more panels and higher install costs for the same output.

  • Smidge204 says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @XitUp I think that …
    @XitUp I think that might be an description error of Robert’s part? Usually a FiT only pays for what goes out into the grid through the meter (Generated – Used = Supplied to grid = What you get paid for). This is typically handled using net metering. There might be a separate incentive for installation, based on system size, to help cover the initial costs but that’s not a FiT. I suppose anything is possible though and I can only speak for what I’ve personally experienced.

  • RustyBinProductions says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @fullychargedshow …
    @fullychargedshow That’s true; and of course the sun’s consumption of energy is conducive to the ebb and flow of the universe…. whilst ours is not. How fitting it is that the sun is fuelled by Hydrogen (and, in its death-throws, Helium). Such a shame that it’s simply not possible to produce a stable (sustained) fusion reaction within an atmosphere!

  • fullychargedshow says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @XitUp I promise a …
    @XitUp I promise a follow up quite regularly, and surely the feed in tariff is just to encourage more people to install the panels now. I’m sure you are right, it is only a temporary measure, not more than 10 years at most. I disagree that it’s the same as subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies who take vast amounts of money out of our economy every day, and as for Germany and nuclear, well, we shall see, I would suggest they might be on the right track.

  • fullychargedshow says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @ …
    @RustyBinProductions I have heard that and in fact the inverter tells the truth. It has very clear graphics which show say 415 volts coming off the panels, then 280 going into the grid. A substantial loss, I suppose the only solace is that nothing was burnt to produce the 415 volts, well, nothing on the planet, obviously the sun is doing a bit of fuel consumption :-)

  • WillMasterke says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Have you tried …
    Have you tried converting to Eneco? 100% renewable energy for your home :) it is awesome!!!

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @ThalassTKynn Small …
    @ThalassTKynn Small wind turbines are pretty pointless. I’m being pretty vague here but its something like if you square the size of the turbine you’ll cube the output.
    Bigger is much better.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    @DBSpy1 I’m …
    @DBSpy1 I’m confused. If I’m stupid enough to crash my car, or unlucky enough to be crashed into by some other idiot, how is that the fault of the car maker?

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    p.s. using Germany …
    p.s. using Germany as an example of forward thinking energy policy is a bit daft after their recent decission to scrap nuclear.

  • XitUp says:
    June 13, 2011 at 6:14 am

    The feed in tariff …
    The feed in tariff is just as stupid as subsidies to oil companies. Why should you be paid for something that you’re not even putting back into the grid?

    And you can guarantee they will scrap that as soon as more people buy these things, making your pay back time much longer.

    It will be interesting to see how much you generate anually, I’ll look forward to a follow up episode this time next year.

Leave a Comment

Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.