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.

 

For me is a Tesla powerwall and solar package worth it.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2022 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD



Also what quality of materials are you planning to use. You can cut down the wear and tear by using quality materials but those aren't cheap...and if you go cheap expect to replace stuff much more often.

Your post sounds kind of arbitrary as if you had no idea about PV panels and inverters at all. I run such a power plant and it was my job to analyze their power output and find any faults. My experience in the field led me to buy and install one, it has a ROI lower than 7 years.

Thanks for your opinion.


edit on 19.2.2022 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2022 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DaRAGE



😎



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: robsmith
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I wreck in s diesel generator back up would be great, along with a battery of lead acid batteries, with an inverter might work.

Where is that promised home nuclear reactor


I have an adiabatic reactor, it only makes about 5kws, could be scaled up to 10kws if I go 220vac. Will have to look into that if Canada still exists after this BS Emergency Orders vote. Otherwise, I am going to go south.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 21 2022 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
It's a con. Your solar cells lose efficiency from the first year but really lose lots of efficiency after 10 years, as much as 50% in some cases

I comment just about the modules now, not interested in arguing a lot (because I worked in that field) but this has to be pointed out:

The efficiency loss was found to be almost non existent by now, even for older modules. The ten year number is a miss understanding from your side or someone that has no idea, and relayed the information to you. The 10 year number is an average. Just the number in the datasheet, that is by factor 10x too high for most modules, as practice showed but they won't change it because the market accepts these figures and they are save. Nobody looks at that when they buy modules, what matters is power density Wp/m².

I would be interested in a real life example about the 50% figure, because I think it's dirt, not degradation you talk about. Yes there are product lines of modules that now show some efficiency loss but not even close to 10% after ten years.

I run a PV plant and have analyzed them before, was my job. I am not a "fan" but what you wrote is just not the truth, except whoever gave you that info or yourself, looked at one very fringe case and ignored everything else.

And 2.5 years energetic re-harvest time, not "never" as some say or whatever. May those that read this believe the lies or now got smarter and go out and look for themselfes.




Add to be more precise

Monetary degradation:
400Wp module avrg. 100€ = 0,25€Wp
94% base efficiency = 6% (1%=4Wp) = 24Wp loss in generation power over 10 years or 6€.

So simply said, a 100Wp module will "only" give you 94Wp after ten years. On top of that, the figure is only valid for 100% optimum irradiation, that you will never get all the time. So it means, that your module at maximum irradiation is then only capable of giving you 94% of it's power output.

But most of the time, the irradiance is lower and the effect is even less heavy on the efficiency, because you need to divide the 6% loss through the amount of cells that is 60-120 normally so you can now see yourself how numbers can trick you.



Regardless of what you claim to be isolated or one-of efficiency loss numbers, my math is correct and actually quite conservative since the costing on solar panels, batteries, inverters and installation could be almost double that $50k and that doesn't even include the ridiculous cost of the car. The cost of the panels are still much more expensive than running a regular moderately efficient gasoline driven vehicle. If you want to talk about carbon footprint comparisons, I can give you a right good go there, depending on whether you want to talk about the morality and ethics of using child labour to mine materials or the actual carbon footprint to mine, process, create all the materials used plus employees driving their cars, buses, trucks, trains, planes, generating stations and their CO2 emissions lol.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 22 2022 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That's always the reaction as the last resort. The killer argument that tells me you have no arguments against my calculations. Your math is shallow and does not take a lot if things into account.

A phrase that is true for many manufactures but not all.



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join