It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I guess they can import from other countries grids if need be?
To reach this all-important milestone, we will likely have to wait for ITER. Latin for “the way,” ITER will be the largest and most powerful fusion generator in the world, and is expected to to cross the break-even point. ITER is projected to produce 500 MW of power with an input of 50 MW, and be able to hold plasma for half an hour or more. That’s enough energy to power roughly 50,000 households.
Based on the tokamak design, the project is the result of a collaboration between the European Union and six other countries, including the U.S., that have pooled resources and expertise to build a reactor that is expected to be the gateway to useable fusion energy.
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
It´s not really hard. It´s just that you miss the knowledge. What do you want to know specifically? I´m an electronics engineer... just ask.
The current efficiency is at 18,9%, according to WINAICO, a german supplier.Inverters are up to 98.5% efficient.
Stunning drops in the cost of wind and solar energy have turned the global power market upside down.
For years, opponents of renewable power, like President Donald Trump, have argued they simply aren’t affordable. The reality is quite different.
Unsubsidized renewables have become the cheapest source of new power — by far — in more and more countries, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
In just one year, the cost of solar generation worldwide dropped on average 17 percent, the report found. The average costs for onshore wind dropped 18 percent last year, while those for offshore wind fell a whopping 28 percent.
The result is “more bang for the buck,” as the U.N. and BNEF put it. Last year saw 138.5 gigawatts of new renewable capacity. That not only beat the 2015 record of 127.5 GW, but it was built with a total investment that was 23 percent lower than in 2015.
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
Then let me explain:
Depending on the Wp (maximum power output), Size and type of pv-cells (mono-/poly crystal and laminated types) it takes 2-4 years to get even with manufacturing energy / payback energy.
It´s not that easy to calculate, because it depends on those factors:
You can expect up to 1-5% power loss each year, stopping at around 20% total power loss if realy bad. Or everything is fine, it mostly depends on the heat conditions and manufacture errors. Normally manufactures give at least 5-10 year warranty on the cells and up to 25 years (!) warranty that the degradation is less than 10%.
Location / Module:
-Module type: there are mono- and polycristal and laminated types similar to those in calculators (they are somewhat flexible)
-Orientation (East, South, West)
-Mounting angle: the best angle depends on your location.
-Dirt accumulation: mid degree is around 15% loss.
-Heat conditions: a windy area is better, because cooler modules have a better efficiency
-Efficiency: around 18% is max. That means 1000W/m² * 0.18 = 180Wp per square meter. Here is a datasheet:
www.winaico.com...
This module has roughly 1.7m² and up to 340Wp.
-Correct electrical installation.
Inverters:
-Heat conditions: Hot inverters limit the output power or shut down to cool.
-Maximum power point tracker: has to run faultless to surf at optimum power harvest.
Cables:
-Length and conditions (animal bites, cuts)
Then there is:
-Weather
-Dirt
-Animals (some birds drop stones on the panels, humans do golf balls, basket balls)
Those are the factors that you have to look at. But it´s definitly a myth that solar panels never pay back there energy. This happens at 3 years approximately, if you do not mount the modules up side down, in the plain shadow or faced straight north.
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
the financial payback is real, see my posts above, where I do the math based on my case. I installed it myself so if you add workhours to it, your payback takes longer. of course it depends on the €cent per kw/h you get. 43cent is excellent, nowadays it´s around 13cent (?) in Germany for new installations, I think.
Newer modules also have a better efficiency with scattered light, meaning a cloudy day for example. Comes in handy in the winter, where you have lots of reflections from snow, freezing cold so good efficiency and depending on the mounting angle, a good harvest because the sun comes in lower than in summer.
In the link to the datasheet, try to replace the DE with EN for the english version, maybe it works. It´s also not 340Wp, it´s 315Wp, my mistake (should not matter much, I have 275Wp and do fine)
originally posted by: TheScale
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
the financial payback is real, see my posts above, where I do the math based on my case. I installed it myself so if you add workhours to it, your payback takes longer. of course it depends on the €cent per kw/h you get. 43cent is excellent, nowadays it´s around 13cent (?) in Germany for new installations, I think.
Newer modules also have a better efficiency with scattered light, meaning a cloudy day for example. Comes in handy in the winter, where you have lots of reflections from snow, freezing cold so good efficiency and depending on the mounting angle, a good harvest because the sun comes in lower than in summer.
In the link to the datasheet, try to replace the DE with EN for the english version, maybe it works. It´s also not 340Wp, it´s 315Wp, my mistake (should not matter much, I have 275Wp and do fine)
financial payback is an entirely different argument then the one im making. checkout my previous posts about the costs of producing a panel. to get the resources, gather them up, get them to a factory to produce the panel and ship it to a customer for installation all has energy costs associated with it. many panels still to this day will not give more energy over their lifetime then it took to manufacture and the ones that are energy positive, were just barely over the hump. the ultimate goal is to be completely off fossil fuels but to do that the pv systems need to provide far more power then they cost to produce. for example id gladly take a 5% efficient panel over a 100% efficient one if the 5% panel gives back 10X the power it cost to produce vs a 100% efficient panel that maybe produces 90% of what it costs to make. yeah one is very efficient but its not self a sufficient ecosystem and will always rely on outside power.
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: TheScale
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
the financial payback is real, see my posts above, where I do the math based on my case. I installed it myself so if you add workhours to it, your payback takes longer. of course it depends on the €cent per kw/h you get. 43cent is excellent, nowadays it´s around 13cent (?) in Germany for new installations, I think.
Newer modules also have a better efficiency with scattered light, meaning a cloudy day for example. Comes in handy in the winter, where you have lots of reflections from snow, freezing cold so good efficiency and depending on the mounting angle, a good harvest because the sun comes in lower than in summer.
In the link to the datasheet, try to replace the DE with EN for the english version, maybe it works. It´s also not 340Wp, it´s 315Wp, my mistake (should not matter much, I have 275Wp and do fine)
financial payback is an entirely different argument then the one im making. checkout my previous posts about the costs of producing a panel. to get the resources, gather them up, get them to a factory to produce the panel and ship it to a customer for installation all has energy costs associated with it. many panels still to this day will not give more energy over their lifetime then it took to manufacture and the ones that are energy positive, were just barely over the hump. the ultimate goal is to be completely off fossil fuels but to do that the pv systems need to provide far more power then they cost to produce. for example id gladly take a 5% efficient panel over a 100% efficient one if the 5% panel gives back 10X the power it cost to produce vs a 100% efficient panel that maybe produces 90% of what it costs to make. yeah one is very efficient but its not self a sufficient ecosystem and will always rely on outside power.
Well, the energy consumed in the production has to be paid by someone, so it will end up in the price.
With nowadays produced cells you should hit energy balance in about two years.
It is an economies of scale thing, with increasing demand there will be increasing investment in more efficient/cheaper production.
...
many panels still to this day will not give more energy over their lifetime then it took to manufacture and the ones that are energy positive were just barelly over the hump
...
yeah one is very efficient but its not self a sufficient ecosystem and will always rely on outside power.
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: TheScale
originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TheScale
the financial payback is real, see my posts above, where I do the math based on my case. I installed it myself so if you add workhours to it, your payback takes longer. of course it depends on the €cent per kw/h you get. 43cent is excellent, nowadays it´s around 13cent (?) in Germany for new installations, I think.
Newer modules also have a better efficiency with scattered light, meaning a cloudy day for example. Comes in handy in the winter, where you have lots of reflections from snow, freezing cold so good efficiency and depending on the mounting angle, a good harvest because the sun comes in lower than in summer.
In the link to the datasheet, try to replace the DE with EN for the english version, maybe it works. It´s also not 340Wp, it´s 315Wp, my mistake (should not matter much, I have 275Wp and do fine)
financial payback is an entirely different argument then the one im making. checkout my previous posts about the costs of producing a panel. to get the resources, gather them up, get them to a factory to produce the panel and ship it to a customer for installation all has energy costs associated with it. many panels still to this day will not give more energy over their lifetime then it took to manufacture and the ones that are energy positive, were just barely over the hump. the ultimate goal is to be completely off fossil fuels but to do that the pv systems need to provide far more power then they cost to produce. for example id gladly take a 5% efficient panel over a 100% efficient one if the 5% panel gives back 10X the power it cost to produce vs a 100% efficient panel that maybe produces 90% of what it costs to make. yeah one is very efficient but its not self a sufficient ecosystem and will always rely on outside power.
Well, the energy consumed in the production has to be paid by someone, so it will end up in the price.
With nowadays produced cells you should hit energy balance in about two years.
It is an economies of scale thing, with increasing demand there will be increasing investment in more efficient/cheaper production.