Re: [Biofuel] Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline

2005-06-13 Thread Jeffrey Kumjian
How do you buy a electric Car or van?? Jeffrey

--- MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline 
  By Stephen Killough 
 
  Charging an electric vehicle with sunlight
  costs less than running a vehicle on gasoline 
  May 31, 2005 
 

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=articlestoryid=856
 
 
  Are solar cells a waste of money?
  Not if you compare them to gasoline. 
 
  Most people consider solar cells to be impractical.
  They always make comments like solar cells are too
 expensive,
  useless at night, ugly, undependable because of
 clouds, and
  would require cutting down trees. For the typical
 home application,
  these are unfortunately valid complaints, mainly
 because solar cells
  have to compete against cheap coal. However,
 compared with gasoline,
  solar cells can be quite competitive. 
 
  This example deals with one of the largest users of
 gasoline,
  people driving to work. Of course I am talking
 about
  battery-electric cars recharged by solar cells, but
 for a
  different twist I am proposing that the cells be
 located
  not at the owners home, but instead in the parking
 lot where
  the owner works. Why at work? Because when the sun
 shines,
  that’s where the car is. In addition, expansive
 employee parking
  lots are not shaded by trees, and shade from cells
 mounted above
  the car keep the car from becoming hot on summer
 days, and
  can reduce rust and paint fading caused by rain and
 sunshine.
  And nobody will accuse you of harming the
 appearance of their
  beautiful asphalt lot. The nine-hour stay in the
 parking lot is
  compatible with the recharge time for most
 batteries, and the
  lower voltage of the cells is safer than regular
 electrical outlets,
  especially in wet outdoor locations. The employer
 would not have to
  provide anything except anchor points to keep the
 panels from blowing over. 
 
  Even more interesting are the economics. A typical
 parking space is
  9 by 18 feet, or 2.74 by 5.48 meters, for a total
 of 15 square meters.
  A typical latitude in the U.S. is 35 degrees, so
 tilting the panel to
  face the sun allows more panel space to be mounted
 above the
  same parking space, or 18.3 square meters. Typical
 solar radiation is
  1000 watts per square meter, and using high
 efficiency solar cells like
  the 20% efficient A300 units from Sunpower, 200
 watts can be obtained
  per square meter. Without a tracking mechanism to
 continually point the
  cells toward the sun, the average power over 9
 hours is 60% of the
  peak power, or 120 watts per square meter. All this
 adds up to around
  20,000 watt-hours for a typical 9 hour work day.
 This is a significant
  amount of energy that can be collected from one
 parking space,
  although this also points out how much land we
 waste parking our cars,
  but that’s a story for another day. 
 
  The present day cost for solar cells is about $5
 per peak watt, so
  the 3660 peak watt system described here would cost
 $18,300.
  Using a mortgage calculator we can calculate a loan
 for
  this system using a 20 year loan and 6% interest
 rate.
  This comes out to a cost of $131 per month. 
 
  An efficient battery electric car, such as an EV1,
 consumes
  170 watt-hours per mile. The 20,000 watt-hours
 collected by the
  solar panel would thus power this car for 118 miles
 per day.
  A typical month has 22 working days, during which
 the solar panel
  could power the car for about 2600 miles. Compare
 this to a very
  efficient gasoline powered car that got 40 miles
 per gallon,
  traveling 2600 miles and paying $2 per gallon for
 gas.
  The monthly gasoline payments would be $130,
  essentially the same as the solar powered case. 
 
  Some of you may think that it would be better for
 the environment
  to connect the solar cells to the electric power
 grid to displace the
  use of coal. Per basic heating power, gasoline does
 generate less
  carbon dioxide than coal because much of the heat
 comes from
  the hydrogen in the gasoline molecules. However,
 coal generating
  plants are more efficient than internal combustion
 engines, so the
  carbon dioxide emissions are similar whether using
 gasoline in a
  car or coal in an electric power plant. Therefore
 solar cells can
  displace a similar amount of emissions in either
 case. But my
  objective is to promote more solar cells, and the
 way to do this is
  to sell them in a market where they are already
 competitive, which
  is the gasoline market. Furthermore, in many cases
 solar power
  does not displace coal, but displaces more
 expensive fuels like
  natural gas, even though natural gas is cleaner.
 Economic wise, it
  will always be difficult to displace coal because
 it is so cheap.
  After all, the commodity can be simply scraped off
 the ground
  from huge coal fields in Wyoming, delivered in
 railroad cars
  without even requiring a lid to shield it from the
 weather, sent to
  the furnace after very little refining, and 

Re: [Biofuel] Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline

2005-06-13 Thread Michael Redler

Solar (PV)may become an even biggercontributortoour future energy scheme thanpreviously imagined. If it looks good now, the technology seems to have nowhere else to go but up.


"A solar cell with the simplest possible physical structure could achieve 50 percent efficiency or better, far higher than any yet demonstrated in the laboratory."
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-MSD-multibandsolar-panels.html
"After working on the problem for about 3 billion years, nature has achieved an energy transfer efficiency of approximately 97 percent," says Graham Fleming, director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division and an internationally acclaimed leader in spectroscopic studies of photosynthetic processes. "If we can get a complete understanding as to how this is done, creating artificial versions of photosynthesis should be possible." 
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/Oct-2004/3-INCITE-Photosynthesis.html
MikeMH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline By Stephen Killough Charging an electric vehicle with sunlightcosts less than running a vehicle on gasoline May 31, 2005 http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=articlestoryid=856 Are solar cells a waste of money?Not if you compare them to gasoline. Most people consider solar cells to be impractical.They always make comments like solar cells are too expensive,useless at night, ugly, undependable because of clouds, andwould require cutting down trees. For the typical home application,these are unfortunately valid complaints, mainly because solar cellshave to compete against cheap coal. However, compared with gasoline,solar cells can be quite competitive. This example deals with one of the largest users of gasoline,people driving to work. Of course I am talking
 aboutbattery-electric cars recharged by solar cells, but for adifferent twist I am proposing that the cells be locatednot at the owners home, but instead in the parking lot wherethe owner works. Why at work? Because when the sun shines,that’s where the car is. In addition, expansive employee parkinglots are not shaded by trees, and shade from cells mounted abovethe car keep the car from becoming hot on summer days, andcan reduce rust and paint fading caused by rain and sunshine.And nobody will accuse you of harming the appearance of theirbeautiful asphalt lot. The nine-hour stay in the parking lot iscompatible with the recharge time for most batteries, and thelower voltage of the cells is safer than regular electrical outlets,especially in wet outdoor locations. The employer would not have toprovide anything except anchor points to keep the panels from blowing over. Even more interesting are the economics. A typical
 parking space is9 by 18 feet, or 2.74 by 5.48 meters, for a total of 15 square meters.A typical latitude in the U.S. is 35 degrees, so tilting the panel toface the sun allows more panel space to be mounted above thesame parking space, or 18.3 square meters. Typical solar radiation is1000 watts per square meter, and using high efficiency solar cells likethe 20% efficient A300 units from Sunpower, 200 watts can be obtainedper square meter. Without a tracking mechanism to continually point thecells toward the sun, the average power over 9 hours is 60% of thepeak power, or 120 watts per square meter. All this adds up to around20,000 watt-hours for a typical 9 hour work day. This is a significantamount of energy that can be collected from one parking space,although this also points out how much land we waste parking our cars,but that’s a story for another day. The present day cost for solar cells is about $5 per peak watt,
 sothe 3660 peak watt system described here would cost $18,300.Using a mortgage calculator we can calculate a loan forthis system using a 20 year loan and 6% interest rate.This comes out to a cost of $131 per month. An efficient battery electric car, such as an EV1, consumes170 watt-hours per mile. The 20,000 watt-hours collected by thesolar panel would thus power this car for 118 miles per day.A typical month has 22 working days, during which the solar panelcould power the car for about 2600 miles. Compare this to a veryefficient gasoline powered car that got 40 miles per gallon,traveling 2600 miles and paying $2 per gallon for gas.The monthly gasoline payments would be $130,essentially the same as the solar powered case. Some of you may think that it would be better for the environmentto connect the solar cells to the electric power grid to displace theuse of coal. Per basic heating power, gasoline does
 generate lesscarbon dioxide than coal because much of the heat comes fromthe hydrogen in the gasoline molecules. However, coal generatingplants are more efficient than internal combustion engines, so thecarbon dioxide emissions are similar whether using gasoline in acar or coal in an electric power plant. Therefore solar cells candisplace a similar amount of emissions in either case. But myobjective is to promote more solar 

Re: [Biofuel] Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline

2005-06-13 Thread Darryl McMahon
http://www.econogics.com/ev/evdl.htm#Sale

http://evfinder.com/

Darryl McMahon

Jeffrey Kumjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:

 How do you buy a electric Car or van?? Jeffrey
 
 --- MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline 
   By Stephen Killough 
  
   Charging an electric vehicle with sunlight
   costs less than running a vehicle on gasoline 
   May 31, 2005 
  
 
 http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=articlestoryid=856
  
  
   Are solar cells a waste of money?
   Not if you compare them to gasoline. 
  
   Most people consider solar cells to be impractical.
   They always make comments like solar cells are too
  expensive,
   useless at night, ugly, undependable because of
  clouds, and
   would require cutting down trees. For the typical
  home application,
   these are unfortunately valid complaints, mainly
  because solar cells
   have to compete against cheap coal. However,
  compared with gasoline,
   solar cells can be quite competitive. 
  
   This example deals with one of the largest users of
  gasoline,
   people driving to work. Of course I am talking
  about
   battery-electric cars recharged by solar cells, but
  for a
   different twist I am proposing that the cells be
  located
   not at the owners home, but instead in the parking
  lot where
   the owner works. Why at work? Because when the sun
  shines,
   that’s where the car is. In addition, expansive
  employee parking
   lots are not shaded by trees, and shade from cells
  mounted above
   the car keep the car from becoming hot on summer
  days, and
   can reduce rust and paint fading caused by rain and
  sunshine.
   And nobody will accuse you of harming the
  appearance of their
   beautiful asphalt lot. The nine-hour stay in the
  parking lot is
   compatible with the recharge time for most
  batteries, and the
   lower voltage of the cells is safer than regular
  electrical outlets,
   especially in wet outdoor locations. The employer
  would not have to
   provide anything except anchor points to keep the
  panels from blowing over. 
  
   Even more interesting are the economics. A typical
  parking space is
   9 by 18 feet, or 2.74 by 5.48 meters, for a total
  of 15 square meters.
   A typical latitude in the U.S. is 35 degrees, so
  tilting the panel to
   face the sun allows more panel space to be mounted
  above the
   same parking space, or 18.3 square meters. Typical
  solar radiation is
   1000 watts per square meter, and using high
  efficiency solar cells like
   the 20% efficient A300 units from Sunpower, 200
  watts can be obtained
   per square meter. Without a tracking mechanism to
  continually point the
   cells toward the sun, the average power over 9
  hours is 60% of the
   peak power, or 120 watts per square meter. All this
  adds up to around
   20,000 watt-hours for a typical 9 hour work day.
  This is a significant
   amount of energy that can be collected from one
  parking space,
   although this also points out how much land we
  waste parking our cars,
   but that’s a story for another day. 
  
   The present day cost for solar cells is about $5
  per peak watt, so
   the 3660 peak watt system described here would cost
  $18,300.
   Using a mortgage calculator we can calculate a loan
  for
   this system using a 20 year loan and 6% interest
  rate.
   This comes out to a cost of $131 per month. 
  
   An efficient battery electric car, such as an EV1,
  consumes
   170 watt-hours per mile. The 20,000 watt-hours
  collected by the
   solar panel would thus power this car for 118 miles
  per day.
   A typical month has 22 working days, during which
  the solar panel
   could power the car for about 2600 miles. Compare
  this to a very
   efficient gasoline powered car that got 40 miles
  per gallon,
   traveling 2600 miles and paying $2 per gallon for
  gas.
   The monthly gasoline payments would be $130,
   essentially the same as the solar powered case. 
  
   Some of you may think that it would be better for
  the environment
   to connect the solar cells to the electric power
  grid to displace the
   use of coal. Per basic heating power, gasoline does
  generate less
   carbon dioxide than coal because much of the heat
  comes from
   the hydrogen in the gasoline molecules. However,
  coal generating
   plants are more efficient than internal combustion
  engines, so the
   carbon dioxide emissions are similar whether using
  gasoline in a
   car or coal in an electric power plant. Therefore
  solar cells can
   displace a similar amount of emissions in either
  case. But my
   objective is to promote more solar cells, and the
  way to do this is
   to sell them in a market where they are already
  competitive, which
   is the gasoline market. Furthermore, in many cases
  solar power
   does not displace coal, but displaces more
  expensive fuels like
   natural gas, even though natural gas is cleaner.
  Economic wise, it
   will always be difficult to displace coal 

[Biofuel] Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline

2005-06-12 Thread MH
 Solar PV Is Cheaper Than Gasoline 
 By Stephen Killough 

 Charging an electric vehicle with sunlight
 costs less than running a vehicle on gasoline 
 May 31, 2005 
 http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=articlestoryid=856 

 Are solar cells a waste of money?
 Not if you compare them to gasoline. 

 Most people consider solar cells to be impractical.
 They always make comments like solar cells are too expensive,
 useless at night, ugly, undependable because of clouds, and
 would require cutting down trees. For the typical home application,
 these are unfortunately valid complaints, mainly because solar cells
 have to compete against cheap coal. However, compared with gasoline,
 solar cells can be quite competitive. 

 This example deals with one of the largest users of gasoline,
 people driving to work. Of course I am talking about
 battery-electric cars recharged by solar cells, but for a
 different twist I am proposing that the cells be located
 not at the owners home, but instead in the parking lot where
 the owner works. Why at work? Because when the sun shines,
 that’s where the car is. In addition, expansive employee parking
 lots are not shaded by trees, and shade from cells mounted above
 the car keep the car from becoming hot on summer days, and
 can reduce rust and paint fading caused by rain and sunshine.
 And nobody will accuse you of harming the appearance of their
 beautiful asphalt lot. The nine-hour stay in the parking lot is
 compatible with the recharge time for most batteries, and the
 lower voltage of the cells is safer than regular electrical outlets,
 especially in wet outdoor locations. The employer would not have to
 provide anything except anchor points to keep the panels from blowing over. 

 Even more interesting are the economics. A typical parking space is
 9 by 18 feet, or 2.74 by 5.48 meters, for a total of 15 square meters.
 A typical latitude in the U.S. is 35 degrees, so tilting the panel to
 face the sun allows more panel space to be mounted above the
 same parking space, or 18.3 square meters. Typical solar radiation is
 1000 watts per square meter, and using high efficiency solar cells like
 the 20% efficient A300 units from Sunpower, 200 watts can be obtained
 per square meter. Without a tracking mechanism to continually point the
 cells toward the sun, the average power over 9 hours is 60% of the
 peak power, or 120 watts per square meter. All this adds up to around
 20,000 watt-hours for a typical 9 hour work day. This is a significant
 amount of energy that can be collected from one parking space,
 although this also points out how much land we waste parking our cars,
 but that’s a story for another day. 

 The present day cost for solar cells is about $5 per peak watt, so
 the 3660 peak watt system described here would cost $18,300.
 Using a mortgage calculator we can calculate a loan for
 this system using a 20 year loan and 6% interest rate.
 This comes out to a cost of $131 per month. 

 An efficient battery electric car, such as an EV1, consumes
 170 watt-hours per mile. The 20,000 watt-hours collected by the
 solar panel would thus power this car for 118 miles per day.
 A typical month has 22 working days, during which the solar panel
 could power the car for about 2600 miles. Compare this to a very
 efficient gasoline powered car that got 40 miles per gallon,
 traveling 2600 miles and paying $2 per gallon for gas.
 The monthly gasoline payments would be $130,
 essentially the same as the solar powered case. 

 Some of you may think that it would be better for the environment
 to connect the solar cells to the electric power grid to displace the
 use of coal. Per basic heating power, gasoline does generate less
 carbon dioxide than coal because much of the heat comes from
 the hydrogen in the gasoline molecules. However, coal generating
 plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines, so the
 carbon dioxide emissions are similar whether using gasoline in a
 car or coal in an electric power plant. Therefore solar cells can
 displace a similar amount of emissions in either case. But my
 objective is to promote more solar cells, and the way to do this is
 to sell them in a market where they are already competitive, which
 is the gasoline market. Furthermore, in many cases solar power
 does not displace coal, but displaces more expensive fuels like
 natural gas, even though natural gas is cleaner. Economic wise, it
 will always be difficult to displace coal because it is so cheap.
 After all, the commodity can be simply scraped off the ground
 from huge coal fields in Wyoming, delivered in railroad cars
 without even requiring a lid to shield it from the weather, sent to
 the furnace after very little refining, and usually burned without any
 treatment of the combustion products. 

 Another reason why solar cells, and even wind power, can be
 more useful charging electric cars is that battery charging is
 forgiving of one of the main problems with