|
Post by WebDragon on Nov 21, 2012 4:10:37 GMT
I think it was Spork (ziploc) who suggested that the miniscule audio component will eventually dissipate into heat. Blew my mind. Erm... he was wrong?.... Sound is energy, yes, but it is sound, and not heat.?.... This may get into "If the tree falls in the wood and no one is there will it make a sound" thing, but if that hum escapes the room, its "Loss"?... Electricity 100% (Or near enough to that) efficient, Do we buy that?... I dont. Is The waste of turning fossil fuel and other energy sources into electricity is still to be accounted for?... "Line loss" in transferring the power to your house... Your last point first... this leg of the thread is referring to a long lost conversation @ Disco. That conversation referred to "the device" rather than it's energy origins. The "miniscule" amount of acoustic energy conversion that I referred to is indeed converted to "micro-miniscule" amounts of heat through friction (air vs wall/flooring). Other posters referencing mass conversion are absolutely correct. However, an appreciation of "scale" and "significant digits" comes into play at some point. A "room" vs "the universe" separates a "split hair" any day.
|
|
|
Post by srracing on Nov 21, 2012 23:54:02 GMT
For example, you call a heat pump a device that moves heat from one location to another. that helps you average person understand how they work better than throwing around the CoP of the system. A little unweildy? Like I just replaced one of my heat pumps last month. " Or... "I just replaced one of my devices that moves heat from one location to another. " I am sticking with heat pump. If someone thinks it is 100 efficient, so be it. Besides, then you have "transformer" vs. "device that converts power via a magnetic field to power again with some losses due to resistance, eddy currents, etc." Not to mention what "computer" would be. Isn't this just another form of political correctness?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2012 6:56:30 GMT
For example, you call a heat pump a device that moves heat from one location to another. that helps you average person understand how they work better than throwing around the CoP of the system. A little unweildy? Like I just replaced one of my heat pumps last month. " Or... "I just replaced one of my devices that moves heat from one location to another. " I am sticking with heat pump. If someone thinks it is 100 efficient, so be it. Besides, then you have "transformer" vs. "device that converts power via a magnetic field to power again with some losses due to resistance, eddy currents, etc." Not to mention what "computer" would be. Isn't this just another form of political correctness? I think you are unnecessarily complicating things. "a device that moves heat from one place to another" is how we EXPLAIN the heat pump, not what we name it.
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 22, 2012 9:47:47 GMT
I don't recall that particular exchange. I think I recall a similar exchange in which someone suggested that some of the emissions would escape through the window as photons and leave our atmosphere without being converted to heat. But I'm curios about what part of your exchange blew your mind? I thought that was in a conversation about whether all energy ultimately ends up as heat. but yes, I tell customers that all electric heaters are equally efficient about turning electricity into heat - though each has different delivery characteristics. You remember what the outcome is? Now I am curious, does it?
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 22, 2012 9:57:27 GMT
Never mind, read further in the thread
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 22, 2012 10:03:54 GMT
as long as that distinction is made....
Electricity is a good efficient power source, agreed, but the process of generating electricity in the first place.... "Needs more work"...?.....[/size]
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2012 17:42:14 GMT
as long as that distinction is made.... Electricity is a good efficient power source, agreed, but the process of generating electricity in the first place.... "Needs more work"...?..... [/size][/quote] solar radiation is a good efficient power source - but some of our methods of harnessing it require a pretty inefficient process.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 24, 2012 10:13:54 GMT
We are getting the idea of Solar Panels in the UK right now... Ok, so they are expensive to install, but "Free" electricity?.... I get that!...
I have design ideas that include the replacement of my whole roof for one BIG solar panel.....
As soon as I find someone who can actually manufacture to that size and standard, its a "Go".... I have estimated thats its a viable cost when factoring in that my Roof need some future maintenance in the next few years, and why NOT go for something useful?....
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 24, 2012 12:58:03 GMT
We are getting the idea of Solar Panels in the UK right now... Ok, so they are expensive to install, but "Free" electricity?.... I get that!... I have design ideas that include the replacement of my whole roof for one BIG solar panel..... As soon as I find someone who can actually manufacture to that size and standard, its a "Go".... I have estimated thats its a viable cost when factoring in that my Roof need some future maintenance in the next few years, and why NOT go for something useful?.... Not sure if its come to market yet, but I remember reading a article within the last few years about a substance that was basically a paint-on solar panel. You would lay copper strips to collect the energy, and paint some substance on the roof, turning the roof into a solar panel. IT was not as efficient as conventional panels, but it had the potential to be a lot cheaper. No idea if it ever made it to market, though.
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Nov 24, 2012 14:38:20 GMT
We are getting the idea of Solar Panels in the UK right now... Ok, so they are expensive to install, but "Free" electricity?.... I get that!... I have design ideas that include the replacement of my whole roof for one BIG solar panel..... As soon as I find someone who can actually manufacture to that size and standard, its a "Go".... I have estimated thats its a viable cost when factoring in that my Roof need some future maintenance in the next few years, and why NOT go for something useful?.... Does the UK get enough sunshine for this to be viable?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 25, 2012 8:40:11 GMT
The sun doesnt have to shine to get electricity. Solar panels these days you just have to get above a certain lumen level, and that can be on a cloudy day even..... They are getting better and better each year. You can get on an average size 3bed semi a panel that if the roof faces south will cut your electricity bill by 25 to 50%..... It may not be a alternative to the national grid, but by 'eck, 50% off yer sparks tab?... thats worth having isnt it?....
|
|
|
Post by srracing on Nov 25, 2012 21:52:22 GMT
You can get on an average size 3bed semi a panel that if the roof faces south will cut your electricity bill by 25 to 50%..... It may not be a alternative to the national grid, but by 'eck, 50% off yer sparks tab?.. If we all used all of our electricity during the peak of the day, you could save some on the bill. However, storage of the energy is still the primary issue. Most US homes have service entrance at 150 to 300 amps. We may use half of that at peak. Know how many sq feet of panel at even 30% efficiency it would take to provide that? Until they can get better efficency (not at even 30% yet) and better storage methods, solar (via cells) is a long way off without a major life style change. The investment in cells and storage methods today would take a 50 year break-even business case today.
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 25, 2012 22:54:34 GMT
You can get on an average size 3bed semi a panel that if the roof faces south will cut your electricity bill by 25 to 50%..... It may not be a alternative to the national grid, but by 'eck, 50% off yer sparks tab?.. If we all used all of our electricity during the peak of the day, you could save some on the bill. However, storage of the energy is still the primary issue. Most US homes have service entrance at 150 to 300 amps. We may use half of that at peak. Know how many sq feet of panel at even 30% efficiency it would take to provide that? Until they can get better efficency (not at even 30% yet) and better storage methods, solar (via cells) is a long way off without a major life style change. The investment in cells and storage methods today would take a 50 year break-even business case today. A common technique storage-wise is to not store it at all, but feed it back into the grid. What power you don't use goes back into the grid, turning your meter backwards. When you need the power again, your meter just turns forward again. These systems don't work during a blackout, but nonetheless they do work, and are fairly cheap. Not sure if all areas are setup to do this though.
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 26, 2012 5:00:48 GMT
Most US homes are 'sprawling' in comparison to UK and European homes.
They, therefore, have a higher external surface area and higher heat losses.
They also consume significantly more energy with air-conditioning and other devices considered as extravagant luxuries in the UK.
The "major lifestyle change" isn't such an issue on this side of the pond.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 26, 2012 5:28:48 GMT
You can get on an average size 3bed semi a panel that if the roof faces south will cut your electricity bill by 25 to 50%..... Not unless your entire electrical load consists of a 14" LCD TV and a window fan. Why do you think so many solar panel manufactures, including the Chinese ones, are going bankrupt? It's because the consumer has discovered that they just don't work. From an economic standpoint, photovoltaic panels are the worst of the worst for producing electricity. You simply can not even come close to producing electricity with solar panels as cheaply as you can buy it from the grid. The only place that solar panels are a viable source of electricity is for low power applications where it is next to impossible to connect to the grid.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 26, 2012 6:42:03 GMT
NO storage. The idea of the solar panel is to "Sell back" un-used electricity back to the national grid...
You are not off grid, and you dont have to count how many lightbulbs are on when you turn the kettle on. The electricity meter works BOTH ways.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 26, 2012 14:42:52 GMT
NO storage. The idea of the solar panel is to "Sell back" un-used electricity back to the national grid... You are not off grid, and you dont have to count how many lightbulbs are on when you turn the kettle on. The electricity meter works BOTH ways. Economics was never my strong suit, but let me get this straight. You can buy electricity from the power company for 10 cents per kWh and you can sell it back for 4 cents per kWh. Now the electricity you are selling back from your solar panels costs you 40 cents per kWh to produce. And you can save money doing this? BTW, those numbers are pretty close for a small scale solar system. At least in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2012 17:47:58 GMT
The sun doesnt have to shine to get electricity. Solar panels these days you just have to get above a certain lumen level, and that can be on a cloudy day even..... They are getting better and better each year. You can get on an average size 3bed semi a panel that if the roof faces south will cut your electricity bill by 25 to 50%..... It may not be a alternative to the national grid, but by 'eck, 50% off yer sparks tab?... thats worth having isnt it?.... the key is that they don't REPLACE the grid, the SUPPLEMENT the grid. the big savings of photovoltaic panels is not that they produce electricity for 40c per KWH that you could buy for 10. the big savings is that they delay the need for the power company to build a big new power plant and a new line of high voltage transmission lines that will push your power bill up to 20c per KWH, for several years. or perhaps you don't live near enough to a major city to hear about rolling brownouts/blackouts that happen when the demand exceeds the capacity of the system. ) (hint: in the US that usually occurs during air conditioning season - when photovoltaic output would be highest)
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 26, 2012 18:07:16 GMT
In case you haven't noticed, those rolling blackouts only occur in California. The reason? On every turn, the environuts blocked the construction of new transmission lines and power plants, including alternative power.
They want their energy but they block every means to make and distribute it. You can't have it both ways. And THAT'S why you have your blackouts.
|
|
|
Post by chriso on Nov 26, 2012 21:01:33 GMT
where did you get the .40 per kilowatt? As I understand it, you make a big payment now, and then just sweep off your roof every now and then and the panels last 35 years. Which, according to some figures from the internet (35 years, 2 kilowatt system for 10 kilowatts a day, 16000 installation...) is giving me around .12 cents over its lifetime... is their maintenance costs I am missing, or did I Google something wrong?
|
|