Solar Panels and batteries that could recharge an Aptera?

[plateauhops]

Wait, wouldn't the green police congratulate me for having zero carbon emissions? OH I SEE, then there'd be no work at my home for measuring pollution since all my utilities would be renewable. Dee Williams got the Governor's award (an 84 square foot home- a bit too small for me, but a space heater covering 100 square feet could be powered on solar alone...if there are enough panels, which I'm not sure if they could cover the roof to do so):

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/GovAward/winners08.html

I'm also interested in atmospheric water generators- they make potable water- 1-3 gallons a day. Not an advertisement, but they connect to solar at an efficient 280 watts:

http://www.ecoloblue.com/30sDeluxeSolar

Thus, I like looking for expensive alternatives, then see how to scale it up even more and see how it could power things they weren't intended for. Then they could be mass produced and possibly, the price could go down...
That's the only way to get closer to that reality I think; if I didn't ask this question- how to power cars with solar, it wouldn't be developed until much later.

Some counties ban rainwater harvesting. I've read the same monopolistic worries that something like an AWG would be banned since it could take business away from bottled water companies, and the utilities. Greywater dumping is banned in some places which I may agree with as it can pollute aquifers. So I am interested in systems that do not dump greywater into the ground. For example, an AWG would produce enough potable water, using a lot of electricity, or rainwater could be filtered and used for showers, faucets, etc. The resulting greywater could be refiltered, and I''m not sure if solid waste could be extracted from that- but that would, however, end up in a landfill. But if it could I would like a constant filtration which only requires a small amount of water to be refilled, among that which is not absorbed by human use. Then I'd have a separate system for composting, using sawdust/peat moss. That too I'm curious if there are regulations on the soil quality and if it's acceptable for reintroduction into the environment. In that sense, there could be a completely solar, electrically powered home- stoves, space heater, water (AWG), water pump, filter. What would a greywater filter collect? Anyways, just some additional thoughts.

When and If EV's become mainstream I can easily see manufactures offering an OPTIONAL charge port for a Renewable Energy source like Solar or Wind Turbine. But that is well off into the future, well beyond most of our life times left on earth.

I do see EV's in the next 20 years becoming mainstream with all the money being poured in from both private and public sectors for battery development as it is the best and viable method to replace ICE transportation for the light vehicle market. The big question is where will the electric power generation come from. Right now the answer is inexpensive, clean and safe nuclear power for the next 1000 years. There is no answer for medium and heavy transportation except fossil or food crop fuels.

I would avoid nuclear by just focusing on renewables to make them cheaper. That or non-fission, non-fusion nuclear, like LENRs- untested of course as are Johnson Thermoelectric Converters (combination of closed system hydrogen fuel cells and solar thermal, not nuclear, though)

[Sunking]

Wait, wouldn't the green police congratulate me for having zero carbon emissions?

No, at least not the educated ones. For the most part battery systems do not offset carbon emmisions because it takes more energy to make all the components of the system, than what the system will ever generate.. Not only does it not offset Co2 but overall resources. It would be less expensive, use less natural resources, and less wasted energy to just buy it from the local utility using coal for fuel.

I would avoid nuclear by just focusing on renewables to make them cheaper. That or non-fission, non-fusion nuclear, like LENRs- untested of course as are Johnson Thermoelectric Converters (combination of closed system hydrogen fuel cells and solar thermal, not nuclear, though)

That is another subject, but just let me say you might be wrong. We have a few thousand years of domstic fuel right here with no waste or pollution. So safe you can install a reactor and store enough fuel in you bedroom closet to run your whole neighborhood for 100 years existing technology right now.

[plateauhops]

No, at least not the educated ones. For the most part battery systems do not offset carbon emmisions because it takes more energy to make all the components of the system, than what the system will ever generate.. Not only does it not offset Co2 but overall resources. It would be less expensive, use less natural resources, and less wasted energy to just buy it from the local utility using coal for fuel.

To recoup the energy of production and resources of the components, there are many reports of varying accuracy. Some say 3 years and others say 25 years.

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/how-much-co2-does-one-solar-panel-create

Also, panels and renewable energy components could be produced using electricity that came from a renewable plant, such as a hydroelectric dam, so they don't have to have originated from a factory near a coal plant. Not only that, but if I decided to purchase a set of appliances that were made efficiently and I picked a cap for my peak electric use, such as 5kw, or a 15kw residential system for a 1000square foot home or less, I wouldn't have to fall back on the "comfort" of unlimited electricity because most people would waste extra since it's available. Efficient DC appliances over their life time use much less electric. For example a Sun Frost RF12 uses .29kwh a day, or 105kwh yearly, whereas some fridges use hundreds of watts an hour, and over a 1000 kwh a year. That's a lot of coal that's needed at the power plants. It's better to make the parts fit the under energy cap rather than having a blank check to fill out every month for the utility bill. That's also the reasoning I'd use to distinguish between long range cars, which are nice to be able to drive more than 300 miles+ on a 10 gallon tank of gas on a whim, but for everyday needs, I'd rather buy something for commuting if I could power it on just electric. The majority of car users drive less than 40 miles a day, which is what many new electric cars are capable of. I suppose in emergencies, there is a benefit to being able to to drive much further, but I'd probably call a cab or rent a car for something like that.

And their electric bills end up being more than 1500kwh a month=hundreds of dollars when a 3000 square foot home can run more efficiently on less than 600kwh (or 20kwh a day). Thus, I prefer to calculate what the maximum needs are for energy intensive appliances and add them up before choosing a residence and the utility system.

That is another subject, but just let me say you might be wrong. We have a few thousand years of domstic fuel right here with no waste or pollution. So safe you can install a reactor and store enough fuel in you bedroom closet to run your whole neighborhood for 100 years existing technology right now.

I know they've become safer for humans, but nuclear also requires cooling using water. So it'd have to be closed-loop cooling. It's the externalities I'm concerned about: "Currently, industrial plants take more than 16 billion gallons of water daily from New York waterways for cooling, killing more than 17 billion fish and their eggs annually. The new policy would require closed-cycle cooling for all existing facilities, which recycle and reuse water. This would reduce the amount of water taken in by about 98% and greatly minimize the environmental impact."

I'm more interested in technologies where every step of the production/manufacture can be examined for its environmental, cultural, and economic impact, rather than costs going up in the long term just because in the short term it may be cheaper. Maybe Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, but that requires investment and more tests. For example, if Lithium-Iron-Phosphate underwent dramatic improvements in energy density (even though they're already decent for many appliances) and mass-production skyrocketed, then I would also consider the ramifications of a major industrial mining era, which could happen in Bolivia, where Lithium is abundant. So if Lithium were sought out in even larger quantities, I'd be cautious as to exactly what that would lead to, if there were any negative consequences. Since Bolivia may be more stable than some other countries, then maybe I wouldn't feel so bad if it brought many jobs to the country and they went about it in a peaceful way. But if it became a corrupt industry, such as diamond mining in Zimbabwe, then I would not even consider buying one. Granted, some electronics parts in households today come from some unstable and untraceable regions.

[viralshah]

that is the main thing to for the best way and we are good directiliy tro gather.try to this link

Solar Water Heater
Solar Power In India

[Mike90250]

I love it when someone compares a 6CF sunfrost, no freezer, manual drain, to a modern energy star 20CF fridge/freezer <1kwh day.

5 years ago, the sunfrosts had the advantage, but now, unless you only need 4cf of cold storage, the energy star fridge, costs less, and you can buy a couple 200W panels for the price differenece.

[plateauhops]

I love it when someone compares a 6CF sunfrost, no freezer, manual drain, to a modern energy star 20CF fridge/freezer <1kwh day.

5 years ago, the sunfrosts had the advantage, but now, unless you only need 4cf of cold storage, the energy star fridge, costs less, and you can buy a couple 200W panels for the price differenece.

I based my comparison on their specs and they still offer a competitive efficiency. First, the RF 12 is 8.07 cubic feet internal for the fridge, not 6, and has a freezer, which is 2 Cf, for a total of 10 cf:

http://www.sunfrost.com/refrigerator_specs.html

I haven't looked at other DC fridges, but I used to run a small, relatively efficient AC Mini-fridge that ran at about 225 watts in a small apartment and as an experiment, I used very little electricity to see how much my bill would be, which was mainly the fridge. The only other things I used were about 3 CFLs, a netbook, and a microwave and toaster about 2 minutes a day. My usage averaged to 1.6kwh a day, meaning my fridge used around a 1kwh a day or possibly less, which would average to 365kwh a year. You're right, it's not near 2.7kwh a day which would result in nearly 1000kwh a year, but the fact that the similarly sized RF12 slims 1kwh to 290Wh a day may pay off in the long term. I haven't calculated how much solar energy I'd be able to collect in one day, but my research is a bit more academic in the extreme engineering curiosity sense rather than a perfectly acceptable energy star fridge that I'd otherwise use myself if I had some slack left over. So if the costs do end up being where two PVs can compensate for the extra wattage of a less expensive fridge and maybe even some left over then I'd go for it. So thanks for keeping me up to date on fridges though.

[Sunking]

To recoup the energy of production and resources of the components, there are many reports of varying accuracy. Some say 3 years and others say 25 years.

I understand your confusion, the public at large is very easily duped. Using a poly crystalline or thin film panel in a grid tied system in some place like California with excellent Solar insolation it is possible to achive a EROI in 3 to 5 years. It has to be put into context. But that is not what you are talking about. A grid tied system is around 77 to 80% efficient and utilizes every available watt hour produced. If you do not use it, your neighbors do.

You are talking about a battery system which is extremely inefficient, and you will not even come close to using every watt hour it is capable of generating. In fact most of the power it is capable of producing is never used or utilized. In a battery system you have many more components like a charge controller and the batteries that have to be input into the equation. Secondly batteries, at least lead acid batteries, have to be replaced every 5 years or so. Those things do not fall out of the sky or grow on trees.

Personally as an engineer I am not concerned with emissions, I am concerned about conservation and Energy Return On Investment. It makes no sense if you have to spend 3 unit to 10 units, to get 1 unit out of it. You are tossing money into a fire, wasting valuable resources, wrecking your economy,, and if you are concerned with emissions you loose that argument too. This is why things like ethanol and hydrogen economies will not work. They are energy carriers, not energy sources. And any energy carrier will always be a multiple of the source fuel to produce it. This is why with battery systems you have to pay 10 to 30 times more for electricity, it is a multiple of the source fuel.

Look at this way. you have two gas stations across the street from each other. One sells gasoline for $3 per gallon, and the other sells for $10 per gallon. Which one do you choose, and which one will go out of biz? Now think globally. USA sells a gadget for $100 at Walmart, and China sells the same gadet at Walmart for $30. Guess who looses his job?

I know they've become safer for humans, but nuclear also requires cooling using water. So it'd have to be closed-loop cooling. It's the externalities I'm concerned about: "Currently, industrial plants take more than 16 billion gallons of water daily from New York waterways for cooling, killing more than 17 billion fish and their eggs annually. The new policy would require closed-cycle cooling for all existing facilities, which recycle and reuse water. This would reduce the amount of water taken in by about 98% and greatly minimize the environmental impact."

Man you are talking about antiquated WWII technology.

[plateauhops]

This is why things like ethanol and hydrogen economies will not work.
Look at this way. you have two gas stations across the street from each other. One sells gasoline for $3 per gallon, and the other sells for $10 per gallon.

I don't believe ethanol or hydrogen based economies would work either, but I do believe there is a way to look beyond energy sources and energy carriers if all externalities are considered. I also believe in conservation, and I will explain how I'd go about that. First, A lot of e-waste is already produced from gadgets that are unnecessary, and factories that are built for making tamagotchi pets or lava lamps that are a waste of resources too. Americans buy so much material products and fill up their houses as to make them hard to breathe in, like the TV show Hoarders, where people become so emotionally attached to their posessions, they can't even function without them. And in other countries people are happier with less material wealth, they go outside and play with imaginary props. Huckleberry Finn, a classic American novel, encouraged Americans to explore and enjoy things like whitewashing a fence. Today's youth deifies Harry Potter, and is unhappy when they only receive one video game based on him and not two. For what? We have been convinced that we need materials to be happy, and I'm only convinced we need materials for the basic necessities of utilities. A perfectly good flat panel TV today will be thrown out or donated because someone wants a 3D TV. We can manufacture LCD panels but we can't manufacture enough Photovoltaics panels because there isn't enough demand for them. Energy independence isn't exciting for most people. Self-sufficiency isn't exciting. Our inhibitions have been lowered by instant gratification, and many of us are incapable of being satiated with happiness derived from less material wealth. If more people demanded an off-grid home system with a good backup system, a brown-out would never occur. Power would be decentralized and stable. There would be no risk of security breaches on centralized power system because everyone would have their own source. They'd have to replace it once in a while, but it wouldn't require expensive daily monitoring of a utility station at a large dependent level. Another example is the printing press. 100 years ago, you had to go to the New York Times to publish an opinion if you wanted it read. Today, we can publish news on a blog, or buy an inkjet printer and post flyers in public areas. Hand written posters work too, but the point is that computers and off-grid energy systems represent an independence of one's personal economy as well as being able to reach a mass audience. The same goes for 3D printers such as the RepRap. One could assemble a 3D printer using open-source parts for under $300 and manufacture their own knick knacks like coat racks and coat hangars and tupperware using biodegradable bioplastics using modular and free templates from a public domain. They'd never need to shop for many basic household items if they could produce their own, plus they'd save on packaging and transportation costs. It's not yet at the practical stage for many items, but it has surpassed the proof-of-concept stage. http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page. It brings more freedom to each user. One's home business does not depend on the utility company to restore power lines after a snow storm so they can keep their servers running, which would be connected to satellite internet, mesh-networking, or ad-hoc internet, not cable internet/dsl. And there wouldn't be a bill, if everyone kept their own computers on using a next gen ultra-low wattage computer. For a really cool concept, check out Netsukuku and Freifunk. The sooner more people demand their own energy systems, the quicker that world can become reality. And there's no reason it can't be made cheaper. LCD panels are cheaper today because so many people demanded it and they were mass produced. If flat screen TV panel factories were converted into PV factories, that would be a better use of our manufacturing resources. A battery for essential needs is a better use of industrial manufacturing than all the plastic electronics on a Walmart electronics shelf. From all the money that a battery company makes from people interested in renewable energy (the battery isn't renewable I know, but it's one part of the equation) who buy batteries, they should be required by law to put a part of their profits back into R&D, to make a better battery, one that lasts longer, and can be made cheaper, using "greener" components. That's the ethical cycle of industrial progress. But I'm not going to deny or the laws of supply and demand, which is exactly why our stores are so large, because the demand for toys and gadgets are bought at a near wholesale level by the average consumer. I might sound like I want to take some of the profits away from a company that earned their fruits because I'm telling them how to spend some of their money, but that's not the same as wanting that money.

Here's a fun hypothetical (which is not too far off from reality) example. If I were an oil company that was founded in 1920, and the only expenses I had to pay for (in a completely laisezz-faire world like some capitalists dream of) were for the minimum costs of running my operation- paying my workers and the instruments they need to produce oil and sell it, I would not be legally required to develop a better energy resource. Which means that my investment, which could have cost tens of thousands of dollars in 1915, would pay off after 5 or so years. Meaning, in 1925, I would be allowed to make profits indefinitely- 85 years to this day and theoretically forever, if I lived forever, for selling a product (oil) that does not change, no matter how much it changes the environment. So, I think it's only ethical to be required to spend some of the money that one makes off ruining the environment towards fixing exactly what they made uninhabitable for the earth.

Oil has hidden costs. April's Gulf Spill? Well, someone's gotta clean it up, and fishermen have lost their businesses. An externality that may or may not have been anticipated, because there is there is no legal obligation to clean it up, and thus the taxpayer has to do it. In the long term, the hidden costs of oil and coal are slowly becoming noticeable, if not already, because someone's hometown in Appalachia no longer has public drinking water, after toxic sludge from mountaintop removal leaked into their water supply and now they have to buy bottled water, and that drives up costs. Looking forward and anticipating these things will make that $3 gallon of gasoline that you describe look a lot more like $15 dollars if you add it in the costs of new importations- bottled water, car repairs that involve gasoline engine parts, oil change, etc.

Man you are talking about antiquated WWII technology.

It doesn't matter if the technology is antiquated or not; if it's still being used it is a contemporary problem that affects today's world. Hydroelectric is an antiquated technology, but it's not causing the problems that an old, but still running nuclear facility is. I understand what you mean by my own economy, the things that save me money, and it's the same reason the company that has no obligation to upgrade it's nuclear facility wants to save on their cash. But what's right is not always a price people want to pay. What's cleaner in the long term is not always cheap. I support countries like Norway that ethically believe that from all the money they make off oil drilling, some of it goes back into research and development, so whenever coal and oil becomes too dirty for the air and groundwater in too many places, they will have another industry in place- and that's why they manufacture wind turbines. They also manufacture the Think City Car. It's charged by electric, but their power plants are 99% hydroelectric. Sure, laborers had to build and maintain it. But laborers have to maintain oil plants too. All things costing the same at face-value, why not choose the cleaner one? They may even subsidize the cost and make renwewable energy cheaper than oil, and only because they are at least trying to. I'm not convinced the same can be said about Big Oil in the UK or US. BP was so stingy on their costs that they decided an acoustic backup switch to plug their oil spill was too costly or useless (they have billions in net revenue)- it would have only cost them $500,000-pocket change for them. Norway, which has a state-run oil company and also makes billions in profit, bought theirs, foreseeing the safety and potential issues it could cause without one. They just care more, because their people have a stake in the natural resource and their well being. When a natural resource is privatized like that and decisions that effect tens of thousands or millions of people is based on a shareholder's economy, everyone else loses. It's as simple as that. Maybe the acoustic switch might not have worked, but if 500,000 wealthy, informed Norweigian citizens had to make the decision, most would pay $1 for it, to improve their backup opportunities for safety, since their economy is doing so well...

I'm not asking the average or poor consumer to go out and buy expensive green technologies. I'm writing this towards the investors and decision makers of the energy sector who have options with what to do with the fruits of their profits- ones that pay for themselves in the long term, and others that are consumed and aren't generated again for hundreds of thousands of years.

[russ]

You don't have any idea of R&D expenses I believe.

From what you wrote it sounds like you follow green sites or a green politician that is airborne - feet haven't touched the ground for a few years or more.

Quote, 'Today, we can publish news on a blog' end quote. How much of what is published today is either correct or meaningful? Maybe 1% if we are lucky. İn the past there was an editor involved to catch the worst. Now blogs are posted as news with zero fact and 100% conjecture and zero control.

A substantial part of the present world economic problem today is caused by misinformation overload. The average Joe/Jane has no idea what it all means or what is correct.

One of the purposes of Solar Panel Talk is to try to help people interested in solar to sort out the wheat from the chaff (truth from the BS). There are thousands out there who post bad information for either personal gain or often times, just to try to make themselves important.

Russ

[plateauhops]

From what you wrote it sounds like you follow green sites or a green politician that is airborne - feet haven't touched the ground for a few years or more.

Quote, 'Today, we can publish news on a blog' end quote. How much of what is published today is either correct or meaningful? Maybe 1% if we are lucky. İn the past there was an editor involved to catch the worst. Now blogs are posted as news with zero fact and 100% conjecture and zero control.

A substantial part of the present world economic problem today is caused by misinformation overload. The average Joe/Jane has no idea what it all means or what is correct.

One of the purposes of Solar Panel Talk is to try to help people interested in solar to sort out the wheat from the chaff (truth from the BS). There are thousands out there who post bad information for either personal gain or often times, just to try to make themselves important.

Russ

You're certainly right about mis/information overload, and I apologize if any of my responses are unscrutinized conjectures. I wasn't saying that just because many people can blog today they are better off; I'm saying that more educated and professionally trained journalists following ethical guidelines in local communities can document news at a more affordable cost, especially if in the past there was only one news agency that broadcast national news and had a monopoly over editorial news perspective that did not favor another journalist's, who perhaps may have been turned away from a journalist position. I'm not trying to sound self-important or advertise for any of these sites- I discuss these ideas or observations to analyze alternatives to the energy resources that are used. And I know that most of the other things I said are off topic to the purpose of this forum, so I won't talk about it more.

[plateauhops]

Hello, long time member, but I just read this article and remembered back 10 years ago when I first posted in this forum. It seems l had an idea 10 years into the future: https://thedriven.io/2020/12/05/apte...ge-of-1600kms/ Solar powered Aptera kind of became a thing. But 10 years ago it was a wild and unrealistic idea here.

[J.P.M.]

Hello, long time member, but I just read this article and remembered back 10 years ago when I first posted in this forum. It seems l had an idea 10 years into the future: https://thedriven.io/2020/12/05/apte...ge-of-1600kms/ Solar powered Aptera kind of became a thing. But 10 years ago it was a wild and unrealistic idea here.

Reading this whole thread from 10 yrs. ago was interesting for me to confirm that old ideas and ignorance are mostly of the same nature as what is around today.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it - B.S. thinking included.