Will Honea

XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure of the
energy used to produce it - they don't get that energy free and they sure
as heck aren't going to lose money on the sale if they can help it. Fast
way to get a WAG is to divide the continuous output into the price (assumes
the whole cost of producing it is energy) and see how long you would have
to use the device to recover the cost. To be realistic, divide the cost of
the device by 3 (since you are probably talking retail price) and repeat
the calculation. Even my little 500 ma jobs reach 100% payback in a
reasonable time and there is certainly no economy of scale there!

--
Will Honea

Will Honea

XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure of the
energy used to produce it - they don't get that energy free and they sure
as heck aren't going to lose money on the sale if they can help it. Fast
way to get a WAG is to divide the continuous output into the price (assumes
the whole cost of producing it is energy) and see how long you would have
to use the device to recover the cost. To be realistic, divide the cost of
the device by 3 (since you are probably talking retail price) and repeat
the calculation. Even my little 500 ma jobs reach 100% payback in a
reasonable time and there is certainly no economy of scale there!

--
Will Honea

Will Honea

XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure of the
energy used to produce it - they don't get that energy free and they sure
as heck aren't going to lose money on the sale if they can help it. Fast
way to get a WAG is to divide the continuous output into the price (assumes
the whole cost of producing it is energy) and see how long you would have
to use the device to recover the cost. To be realistic, divide the cost of
the device by 3 (since you are probably talking retail price) and repeat
the calculation. Even my little 500 ma jobs reach 100% payback in a
reasonable time and there is certainly no economy of scale there!

--
Will Honea

Shirley U. Jeste

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
>>>> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, like any 'product', the cost-to-benefit curve is flexible. An
affluent person spending far too much money on bleeding-edge computer
equipment is what brings the prices down on those same products for Joe
User. Same here. I /think/ we're at a revenue-neutral stage right now,
cost and benefits being roughly equal. Benefits will outstrip cost at some
point unless the entire idea is abandoned for some reason.

And I doubt if you'll find much on the Web. It's mostly a pro vs. con
issue with very high monetary and political rewards at stake.
Consequently, truly unbiased and highly technical info is hard to find.

And 'alternative energy' topics cause instantaneous internal thermodynamic
gastrointestinal issues with many people. As a contentious topic,
remember, there are still tens of thousands (if not many more) folks who
completely believe in the legendary 'gasoline pill'....

Since an easy answer doesn't exist, I think you really need to read a full
book on the topic -- and there are many. I have one around here somewhere,
a 2006 edition, so it's current <arr! arr!> and it's a compilation of
essays and engineering reports and so on on the fabrication costs and
collateral costs and benefits.

Try alt.binaries.e-books.technical; if there's nothing there at the
moment, give it a week or two -- or post a request.

They frequently have jeep manuals and tech reports, too, both old and new.

Shirley U. Jeste

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
>>>> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, like any 'product', the cost-to-benefit curve is flexible. An
affluent person spending far too much money on bleeding-edge computer
equipment is what brings the prices down on those same products for Joe
User. Same here. I /think/ we're at a revenue-neutral stage right now,
cost and benefits being roughly equal. Benefits will outstrip cost at some
point unless the entire idea is abandoned for some reason.

And I doubt if you'll find much on the Web. It's mostly a pro vs. con
issue with very high monetary and political rewards at stake.
Consequently, truly unbiased and highly technical info is hard to find.

And 'alternative energy' topics cause instantaneous internal thermodynamic
gastrointestinal issues with many people. As a contentious topic,
remember, there are still tens of thousands (if not many more) folks who
completely believe in the legendary 'gasoline pill'....

Since an easy answer doesn't exist, I think you really need to read a full
book on the topic -- and there are many. I have one around here somewhere,
a 2006 edition, so it's current <arr! arr!> and it's a compilation of
essays and engineering reports and so on on the fabrication costs and
collateral costs and benefits.

Try alt.binaries.e-books.technical; if there's nothing there at the
moment, give it a week or two -- or post a request.

They frequently have jeep manuals and tech reports, too, both old and new.

Shirley U. Jeste

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
>>>> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, like any 'product', the cost-to-benefit curve is flexible. An
affluent person spending far too much money on bleeding-edge computer
equipment is what brings the prices down on those same products for Joe
User. Same here. I /think/ we're at a revenue-neutral stage right now,
cost and benefits being roughly equal. Benefits will outstrip cost at some
point unless the entire idea is abandoned for some reason.

And I doubt if you'll find much on the Web. It's mostly a pro vs. con
issue with very high monetary and political rewards at stake.
Consequently, truly unbiased and highly technical info is hard to find.

And 'alternative energy' topics cause instantaneous internal thermodynamic
gastrointestinal issues with many people. As a contentious topic,
remember, there are still tens of thousands (if not many more) folks who
completely believe in the legendary 'gasoline pill'....

Since an easy answer doesn't exist, I think you really need to read a full
book on the topic -- and there are many. I have one around here somewhere,
a 2006 edition, so it's current <arr! arr!> and it's a compilation of
essays and engineering reports and so on on the fabrication costs and
collateral costs and benefits.

Try alt.binaries.e-books.technical; if there's nothing there at the
moment, give it a week or two -- or post a request.

They frequently have jeep manuals and tech reports, too, both old and new.

Shirley U. Jeste

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> "Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
>>>> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
> generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
> *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
> into the equation at all.
>
> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
> requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
> that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
> reference.)
>
> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
> projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
> techniques since but who knows?
>
> That's what I'm trying to find out.....

Well, like any 'product', the cost-to-benefit curve is flexible. An
affluent person spending far too much money on bleeding-edge computer
equipment is what brings the prices down on those same products for Joe
User. Same here. I /think/ we're at a revenue-neutral stage right now,
cost and benefits being roughly equal. Benefits will outstrip cost at some
point unless the entire idea is abandoned for some reason.

And I doubt if you'll find much on the Web. It's mostly a pro vs. con
issue with very high monetary and political rewards at stake.
Consequently, truly unbiased and highly technical info is hard to find.

And 'alternative energy' topics cause instantaneous internal thermodynamic
gastrointestinal issues with many people. As a contentious topic,
remember, there are still tens of thousands (if not many more) folks who
completely believe in the legendary 'gasoline pill'....

Since an easy answer doesn't exist, I think you really need to read a full
book on the topic -- and there are many. I have one around here somewhere,
a 2006 edition, so it's current <arr! arr!> and it's a compilation of
essays and engineering reports and so on on the fabrication costs and
collateral costs and benefits.

Try alt.binaries.e-books.technical; if there's nothing there at the
moment, give it a week or two -- or post a request.

They frequently have jeep manuals and tech reports, too, both old and new.

Bob Officer

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>"Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
>Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
>generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
>*ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
>into the equation at all.
>
>IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
>requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
>that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
>reference.)
>
>The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
>projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
>techniques since but who knows?
>
>That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
>
>
>

I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75



--
Ak'toh'di

Bob Officer

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>"Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
>Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
>generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
>*ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
>into the equation at all.
>
>IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
>requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
>that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
>reference.)
>
>The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
>projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
>techniques since but who knows?
>
>That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
>
>
>

I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75



--
Ak'toh'di

Bob Officer

On Sun, 13 May 2007 23:35:50 -0700, in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>"Shirley U. Jeste" <dontcallmeshirley@anytime.bud> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:33:39 -0700, XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:39:01 -0700, in
>>>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Anyone know if that's true or not?
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>
>>> References? I got it from a pretty reliable source.
>>
>>
>> http://www.windsun.com/Grid_Tie/solar_econ.htm
>>
>> http://www.solarexpert.com/grid-tie/...advantges.html
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel
>
>Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary cost of
>generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar panels but the
>*ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels. Dollars don't enter
>into the equation at all.
>
>IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime but
>requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing proposition, and
>that's what I've heard (although the numbers I just made up for
>reference.)
>
>The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on similar
>projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in manufacturing
>techniques since but who knows?
>
>That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
>
>
>

I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75



--
Ak'toh'di