At 08:44 15-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > The alternative is a complete net-connected system, which would cost ~USD
> > 32,000. Still a lot of money, but affordable.
> >
>
>OK, but you see the problem, don't you? A net connected system relies on
>conventional power plants for those times when the solar cells don't work.
>Without storage, the solar cells will only work during the day, will not
>work very well at all during winter or on cloudy days. Thus, one will need
>enough conventional power plants to meet the full load for those days where
>solar just won't work.
As I pointed out in an other post, ecological power is not intended (at
least not for the next few decades) to supply all the energy needed for a
household, but to reduce the amount of kWh's you need to get from
conventional power plants that use coal or natural gas. The objective is to
reduce the amounts of fossil fuels used, thereby reducing the effect
burning fossil fuels has on the environment.
> > >Plus, there would be a significant maintained cost.
> >
> > I don't think those costs would be much (if any) higher than an other
> > system. Basically, you'll need someone to clean the panels a few times per
> > year, and check the hardware once a year. A few replacement parts every
>few
> > years, and that's it.
> >
>
>OK, let me be generous 5% of origional purchace price in maintainance and
>replacement. That's about $3,000 per year for a full system. (I can't see a
>solar system that goes off line every night and virtually off line for much
>of the winter worth considering as a major source of energy.) Plus, think of
>the deaths that will occure as millions of people climb on the roof several
>times a year. Let me do some quick numbers. If the chance of falling to
>one's death is 1 in 100,000 every time one climbs on one's roof and one
>climbs on the roof 5 times a year, and there are 250 million households in
>Europe, then if everyone had solar power, it would be responsible for about
>12,500 per year.
I can play this game, too. How many people worldwide work in nuclear power
plants or have work that is related to nuclear power? All those people
(save the occasional telecommuter) has to travel from home to work and
back, most of them five times per week. There is a certain chance that you
will be killed in a traffic accident, so one could easily claim that
nuclear power is responsible for a certain number of deaths in traffic
every year. That is however not an argument to shut down all nuclear power
plants, just like the chance of falling off the roof is a reason not to
install solar panels.
Of course, if you fall off the roof you probably didn't take protective
measures...
> > High maintenance costs? Yes, you'll get that for nuclear power plants. We
> > can't tear down the Dodewaard nuclear power plant for at least 40 years;
> > maintenance alone is expected to cost NLG 164 million. That's a lot of
> > money to spend maintaining something that doesn't produce energy anymore.
>
>But, you realize that you are talking about a system that supplies many
>households compared to a system that supplies just 1.
Um, no, those 164 million is the cost of maintaining a *shutdown* reactor
for the next 40-50 years. Because it is shut down, it doesn't supply energy
to any household -- it just sits there, costing the public about 4 million
guilders per year. And a lot more once the plant at Borssele shuts down too.
>OK, please refer me to a website that gives the environmental impact of
>solar panel production.
Nope. I'm not the one using the "environmental impact of production"
argument as a reason NOT to use solar power, so I shouldn't be the one to
provide such a reference. It's not up to me to prove someone else's claims.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
