"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
....
I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.

Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to maintain.
The cells may last 100 years, but the inverters, storage batteries and the
like, are more typically 5-10 years. And, many of us do not live where
sunlight is all that reliable. The more unreliable, the larger and more
expensive the system that is required, and the more severe compromises have
to be made to keep the night light on. The PV systems, to obtain maximum
practical usage for the civilization as a whole, need to be installed in
mass in the desert regions down in the temperate zones in the us, Texas and
like that. This puts the big power companies in the cat bird seat, still.
But it is that, or pay 3-4 times as much for the same electricity from a
system that gives you constant headaches maintaining yourself, and one that
may actually consume more power to build and install than it can produce in
it's life, because we insist on living where we want instead of where solar
power pays off.

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.

Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. Big power companies have to buy the same
parts as individuals and would mostly pay similar prices. The large
infrastructure to build and maintain them is called "the rest of
civilization" for the most part and is accessible for an individual
as it is for a big power company.

The cells may last 100 years, but the inverters, storage batteries and the
like, are more typically 5-10 years. And, many of us do not live where
sunlight is all that reliable. The more unreliable, the larger and more
expensive the system that is required, and the more severe compromises have
to be made to keep the night light on. The PV systems, to obtain maximum
practical usage for the civilization as a whole, need to be installed in
mass in the desert regions down in the temperate zones in the us, Texas and
like that. This puts the big power companies in the cat bird seat, still.

Oddly enough, many people do live where the sunlight is fairly reliable
and a PV system can be small enough to be practical for an individual.
The civilization as a whole is just a collection of individuals when
you look at it closely enough.

But it is that, or pay 3-4 times as much for the same electricity from a
system that gives you constant headaches maintaining yourself, and one that
may actually consume more power to build and install than it can produce in
it's life, because we insist on living where we want instead of where solar
power pays off.

Grid tied systems need close to zero maintenance so I hardly see that as
giving constant headaches. Even with a battery system, I've heard about
some that only require a checkup every six months or so. Lastly, while
PV may be more expensive than grid power, I don't think that a big power
company can build solar PV all that much cheaper than anyone else.

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
....
I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. Big power companies have to buy the same
parts as individuals and would mostly pay similar prices. The large
infrastructure to build and maintain them is called "the rest of
civilization" for the most part and is accessible for an individual
as it is for a big power company.

So, first you have to build and support a huge civilization, not stand alone
as an individual. Big point that. The power company would buy in really
large blocks, install in a single area without pre-existing structures in
the way. I would be surprised if their PV installed cost were (assuming they
are in this for profit not subsidies) any more than a third what the
individual must suffer. Of course a skilled do it yourselfer with time to
hunt up bargains might do a lot better, but this has to apply to the whole
people, not just the few.

....
Oddly enough, many people do live where the sunlight is fairly reliable
and a PV system can be small enough to be practical for an individual.
The civilization as a whole is just a collection of individuals when
you look at it closely enough.

I am not saying that an individual cannot spend an arm and a leg, buy a
system that is three times the size of an optimized well sited system,
overwhelm everything with massive and expensive battery storage, and be
perfectly happy with running out of power in the middle of microwaving his
hot dogs, but you gotta recognize that overall this process needs to be made
as inexpensive as possible or it will make most of us a lot poorer. I am
concerned that you are seeing that a PV system can be built, but not what
the trade offs of this system imply to our lives. I believe that when PV
electricity becomes cheaper than coal/natural gas/uranium, (if it can), then
most of us will be buying most of our electricity from huge PV arrays in the
southern deserts, not from a little farm outside our town. There will be few
who will "roll their own", and some small town back up plants for summer
peaks and such, but the bulk power has to be the cheap power and that has to
be large and in the right place to make solar power.

....
Grid tied systems need close to zero maintenance so I hardly see that as
giving constant headaches. Even with a battery system, I've heard about
some that only require a checkup every six months or so. Lastly, while
PV may be more expensive than grid power, I don't think that a big power
company can build solar PV all that much cheaper than anyone else.

Grid tie is great for a small system or two. If we get more than 20% from
such systems, the grid has to be redesigned to be a storage system of sorts.
I overstated what I think is the actual level of difficulty to get you to
think about the demand you are making on the ordinary citizen to maintain
his private power system. Every few years he has something break down, and
he knows nothing about it. The maintenance costs eat his profit for dinner.
A tree branch, an ice storm, a battery failure, a lightening bolt, and his
system is disconnected from the grid so he can turn his lights on, and we
are back to the centralized distributions system. Your last point, that you
think a big company can not build PV much cheaper than Joe, and the general
implication that the cost to Joe of electricity from his local PV system is
competitive with ConEd from the Mohave Desert by way of the grid, needs a
lot more quantification I think. As I recall there is around a 3 to 1
difference in the average solar insolation between Seattle and Phoenix, for
example. It is pretty hard to make up for that kind of a cost differential,
but on top of that you have to add even more storage someplace for all that
electricity, since the winter insolation up here is really crappy for months
on end. That is one heck of a lot of storage, and to do it locally is
generally from hard to impossible. (In Seattle we might be able to find a
nearby mountain valley we could turn into a lake for hydrostorage, but a lot
of locations are a long ways from any possible storage site). .

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.


Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.


I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Oh, if that was the point then it's already been decided. Right now,
solar PV is not economical or profitable except in niche applications
not connected to the grid. Tomorrow... who knows? It does seem to be
getting cheaper all the time.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the question of "Is the
profitable use of solar PV limited to big mega-corporations?"

If we go back a couple of articles in this thread...

KR Williams wrote:
In article , box
says...
KR Williams wrote:

My guess though, is that solar cells for the individual will
never become cheaper than power from the grid, since the power
company has access to the same technology and a *lot* better
financing possibilities. ...and they don't have to have the pay-
back in my lifetime.

They have access to the tech, BUT, they also have to maintain the
distribution system. ...
All this is avoided cost on home solar.

There is still a huge advantage of scale.

Some technologies simply can not be affordably implemented on a small
homeowner scale and for them to be used you need a big company or co-op.
Solar PV is not in that category. The example of a solar powered radio
shows this. It does not require huge resources to build, buy or
maintain. The basic idea is that when it comes to solar PV installations
there really isn't much advantage of scale. A huge installation will
cost only slightly less per watt as a smaller one.

Anthony

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:11:38 -0700) it happened Anthony Matonak
wrote in :

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Oh, if that was the point then it's already been decided. Right now,
solar PV is not economical or profitable except in niche applications
not connected to the grid. Tomorrow... who knows? It does seem to be
getting cheaper all the time.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the question of "Is the
profitable use of solar PV limited to big mega-corporations?"
I like it that the Dutch solar car went cross Australia in 3 days or so
with an average of over 100 km/h last year.
Now here is a very sensible application in a suitable 'solar' climate.
Those photocells were the same as used by the European Space Agency.
I would love to have a few square meters of those to play with.
JP

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:11:38 -0700) it happened Anthony Matonak
wrote in :

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Oh, if that was the point then it's already been decided. Right now,
solar PV is not economical or profitable except in niche applications
not connected to the grid. Tomorrow... who knows? It does seem to be
getting cheaper all the time.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the question of "Is the
profitable use of solar PV limited to big mega-corporations?"
I like it that the Dutch solar car went cross Australia in 3 days or so
with an average of over 100 km/h last year.
Now here is a very sensible application in a suitable 'solar' climate.
Those photocells were the same as used by the European Space Agency.
I would love to have a few square meters of those to play with.
JP

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.

I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.

Oh, if that was the point then it's already been decided. Right now,
solar PV is not economical or profitable except in niche applications
not connected to the grid. Tomorrow... who knows? It does seem to be
getting cheaper all the time.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the question of "Is the
profitable use of solar PV limited to big mega-corporations?"

If we go back a couple of articles in this thread...

KR Williams wrote:
In article , box
says...
KR Williams wrote:

My guess though, is that solar cells for the individual will
never become cheaper than power from the grid, since the power
company has access to the same technology and a *lot* better
financing possibilities. ...and they don't have to have the pay-
back in my lifetime.

They have access to the tech, BUT, they also have to maintain the
distribution system. ...
All this is avoided cost on home solar.

There is still a huge advantage of scale.

Some technologies simply can not be affordably implemented on a small
homeowner scale and for them to be used you need a big company or co-op.
Solar PV is not in that category. The example of a solar powered radio
shows this. It does not require huge resources to build, buy or
maintain. The basic idea is that when it comes to solar PV installations
there really isn't much advantage of scale. A huge installation will
cost only slightly less per watt as a smaller one.

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
....
I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. Big power companies have to buy the same
parts as individuals and would mostly pay similar prices. The large
infrastructure to build and maintain them is called "the rest of
civilization" for the most part and is accessible for an individual
as it is for a big power company.

So, first you have to build and support a huge civilization, not stand alone
as an individual. Big point that. The power company would buy in really
large blocks, install in a single area without pre-existing structures in
the way. I would be surprised if their PV installed cost were (assuming they
are in this for profit not subsidies) any more than a third what the
individual must suffer. Of course a skilled do it yourselfer with time to
hunt up bargains might do a lot better, but this has to apply to the whole
people, not just the few.

....
Oddly enough, many people do live where the sunlight is fairly reliable
and a PV system can be small enough to be practical for an individual.
The civilization as a whole is just a collection of individuals when
you look at it closely enough.

I am not saying that an individual cannot spend an arm and a leg, buy a
system that is three times the size of an optimized well sited system,
overwhelm everything with massive and expensive battery storage, and be
perfectly happy with running out of power in the middle of microwaving his
hot dogs, but you gotta recognize that overall this process needs to be made
as inexpensive as possible or it will make most of us a lot poorer. I am
concerned that you are seeing that a PV system can be built, but not what
the trade offs of this system imply to our lives. I believe that when PV
electricity becomes cheaper than coal/natural gas/uranium, (if it can), then
most of us will be buying most of our electricity from huge PV arrays in the
southern deserts, not from a little farm outside our town. There will be few
who will "roll their own", and some small town back up plants for summer
peaks and such, but the bulk power has to be the cheap power and that has to
be large and in the right place to make solar power.

....
Grid tied systems need close to zero maintenance so I hardly see that as
giving constant headaches. Even with a battery system, I've heard about
some that only require a checkup every six months or so. Lastly, while
PV may be more expensive than grid power, I don't think that a big power
company can build solar PV all that much cheaper than anyone else.

Grid tie is great for a small system or two. If we get more than 20% from
such systems, the grid has to be redesigned to be a storage system of sorts.
I overstated what I think is the actual level of difficulty to get you to
think about the demand you are making on the ordinary citizen to maintain
his private power system. Every few years he has something break down, and
he knows nothing about it. The maintenance costs eat his profit for dinner.
A tree branch, an ice storm, a battery failure, a lightening bolt, and his
system is disconnected from the grid so he can turn his lights on, and we
are back to the centralized distributions system. Your last point, that you
think a big company can not build PV much cheaper than Joe, and the general
implication that the cost to Joe of electricity from his local PV system is
competitive with ConEd from the Mohave Desert by way of the grid, needs a
lot more quantification I think. As I recall there is around a 3 to 1
difference in the average solar insolation between Seattle and Phoenix, for
example. It is pretty hard to make up for that kind of a cost differential,
but on top of that you have to add even more storage someplace for all that
electricity, since the winter insolation up here is really crappy for months
on end. That is one heck of a lot of storage, and to do it locally is
generally from hard to impossible. (In Seattle we might be able to find a
nearby mountain valley we could turn into a lake for hydrostorage, but a lot
of locations are a long ways from any possible storage site). .

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Fred B. McGalliard wrote:

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

I think the main point is that solar PV is a technology that
does not require massive infrastructure. It's something that
can be done on an individual and distributed basis. The big
power companies really don't have that much advantage over
individuals.


Sorry Anthony, but I think this is quite wrong. Solar PV requires a very
large infrastructure to build, and a substantial infrastructure to
maintain.


I don't know about that. Solar PV can be used in any size from digital
watches to powering hotels. [snip]

The point is not whether or not they can be used, but whether or not
they can be used economically and profitably.