On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:11:09 +0100, "Highland Ham"
wrote:


To date land based machines produce on average only 16% of their rated
capacity ,due to periods without adequate wind and to technical outage /
maintenance. Yet they seem profitable. In the Netherlands many farmers have
them on their land ,especially
in the northern provinces.

Those 16 % rated capacity figures seems to be quite low, since usually
20-30 % is quoted for land based windmills near the coast over here.
Of course, if you use a too big generator for a particular place and
wing size, the percentage will go down.

If you use a smaller generator with the same turbine and same
location, the percentage will go up, however, during stronger winds
you can only utilise the amount of power as the generator is rated for
and some of the wind energy is "lost" during stronger winds compared
to a larger generator.

During system design, you can select the percentage by selecting the
generator size. The generator cost compared to the other costs of the
windmill will determine the most economical generator size and thus
also this percentage.

Paul OH3LWR

"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.

"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.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:18:45 -0700, Anthony Matonak
wrote:
[snip]

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.

Anthony

Sure they do. While you are dicking around with solar cells the big
power companies will build a solar-powered steam plant with *huge*
servo'd mirrors. I put pencil-to-paper once upon a time... you can do
marvelously if you've got the acreage.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:18:45 -0700, Anthony Matonak
wrote:
[snip]

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.

Anthony

Sure they do. While you are dicking around with solar cells the big
power companies will build a solar-powered steam plant with *huge*
servo'd mirrors. I put pencil-to-paper once upon a time... you can do
marvelously if you've got the acreage.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Anthony Matonak wrote:

KR Williams wrote:

In article , box says...

It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.


So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years from
now, for about a hundred years.

Your _doomsday_ assertion that oil reserves are ending is totally
ridiculous. There are a zillion gallons of oil locked up in shale in
North America, just waiting for an economical way to extract them.
Problem is, they cost too much to extract, so that's not practical
_at_this_time_. But if the price of petroleum continues to go up, then
finally someday the point will come where the cost to extract it *is*
competitive. Then it will get included in reserves.

Another possibility is that if the cost of petroleum continues to rise,
the cost of alternative energy sources may become more competitive, and
will replace petroleum. Alcohol from corn is one that comes to mind.

Maybe if the cost of gas goes up another buck or so, I'll be able to
drive down the street without having to fight so much traffic. All
those gas guzzling vehicles will drive their owners to the poorhouse and
they'll stay off the roads. ;-)

The tipping point will certainly
come, but the large generators will make it there before your ****-ant
house will.

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.

Anthony

Anthony Matonak wrote:

KR Williams wrote:

In article , box says...

It isn't cost effective for most of us yet, but the tipping point
is coming.


So is the end of the oil reserves. It's been coming twenty years from
now, for about a hundred years.

Your _doomsday_ assertion that oil reserves are ending is totally
ridiculous. There are a zillion gallons of oil locked up in shale in
North America, just waiting for an economical way to extract them.
Problem is, they cost too much to extract, so that's not practical
_at_this_time_. But if the price of petroleum continues to go up, then
finally someday the point will come where the cost to extract it *is*
competitive. Then it will get included in reserves.

Another possibility is that if the cost of petroleum continues to rise,
the cost of alternative energy sources may become more competitive, and
will replace petroleum. Alcohol from corn is one that comes to mind.

Maybe if the cost of gas goes up another buck or so, I'll be able to
drive down the street without having to fight so much traffic. All
those gas guzzling vehicles will drive their owners to the poorhouse and
they'll stay off the roads. ;-)

The tipping point will certainly
come, but the large generators will make it there before your ****-ant
house will.

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.

Anthony

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

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

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...

While you are dicking around with solar cells the big
power companies will build a solar-powered steam plant with *huge*
servo'd mirrors. I put pencil-to-paper once upon a time... you can do
marvelously if you've got the acreage.


They already have.

http://www.volker-quaschning.de/downloads/VGB2001.pdf

Scroll down to page 5.