Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.
Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.
That doesn't sound like a lot of water.
Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
"replace every 10 years".
The building is pretty big. The article says it's enough power to power
That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.
for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.
what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.
BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so there's
maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then there's snow/ice
removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).
Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.
So I still don't see a lot of water being used.
Yeah, what about them. They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.
The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.
They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.
Read the article or do more research.
I don't get it. Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the panel.
Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard it
all before. I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything but
growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power into the
grid. It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me this is a bad thing.
i have 44 panels on my roof. it takes about 2 gallons of water to wash them.
no additives to the water, just plain water. at the end, i get dirty water,
that goes on a plant.
if you have tree sap on your panels, then you have them installed in the
wrong place. there shouldn't be any nearby trees.
simple dusting won't work. the dust gets baked on and sticks.
mine are warranteed for 25 years for failure and will produce 95% of new
the converter has a 10 year warrantee. that doesn't mean the need
replacement at that time. they could last 25 years or more.
your a/c has a 5 year warrantee. do you replace it every 5 years?
No I don't.
Just trying to be generous. The original statement was that inverters
required "maintenance". I thought maintenance on a piece of electronics
sounded weird so I looked it up. The only thing I could find is someone
saying to replace them every 10 years.
If it was my PV array, I'd take that as a cue to have a replacement on
hand around year 10 if I really had to keep the array going.
Like you, I wouldn't be surprised at 25 years.
Anyway, all these arguments about the draw backs of PV arrays strike me
as weird. As if someone had a belief system that wouldn't survive if
they admitted that PV arrays generate power.
"warranteed for 25 years";the company probably will not be in business when
you need to replace your failed inverter. B-)
If it fails,you are without an inverter until you send yours to the
company,have it repaired,and then returned.
Or you have to buy TWO,and keep one as backup.
Do you think high power inverters don't produce heat,don't have cooling
fans,or don't collect dust?
You need a backup in case of ANY potential failure,that could happen at ANY
time. Otherwise,you're "down" until you get yours repaired or replaced.
"down" is bad,it means "NO power".
Just because they say "10 years" doesn't mean they all last that
long.there's infant failures, and longer term failures.
Oh,I know solar panels generate power,but how much,how reliable,and how
cost-effective is the problem.IOW,how PRACTICAL they are.
For specialized apps,they're fine.I see them all around Orlando,on poles
powering small devices,such as school crossing signs,that are only on a
The subsidies are paid to:
1. Benefit specific corporate interests and
2. Benefit selected wealthy investors, like Al Gore, and
3. Maintain the "green jobs" myth.
If residential solar panels are such a damn fine investment
why do they need subsidies?
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
email@example.com wrote in wrote: All power plants have
"you don't see";
there's the problem.
BTW,how often do you need to wash a car that's left outside? Or just run
your windshield wasers? If I leave my car outside for 2 weeks,no rain,it's
COVERED in dirt,along with tree sap and bird crap.
You can write your name in the dirt,and pranksters often do.
that lowers solar panel output significantly.
read the article again. that is where I got it from.
besides,the fact that your panels ARE covered by snow means you get ZERO
output from them,for some length of time.
So,that power has to come from some other,more reliable source.
Likely peak output.
MY point is that it's a "feel good" action,not truly practical.
With a lot of money spent,and probably with Federal tax credits,or as the
"progressives" call them;"loopholes" to be plugged.
And you end up with an intermittent power source,not reliable,won't output
it's rated power consistently or at night.And 20 years later,you have to
buy all new panels,sooner if there's a hailstorm.
Wait until that grass grows high enough.
It appears from the picture included in that article that mowing would be a
It does say that.
I drive by the panels frequently, they sure look like the
are rigidly mounted...
Yes, that's the one issue I saw with their setup.
I thought they'd put down mulch or something.
Maybe if they're motorized they'll just move them perpendicular and then
be able to run a mower down the lanes.
Looks like you are replying to me, but you must mean someone else.
I live in the garden spot of the US, central NJ.
Actually, it's amazingly beautiful here, but don't tell anyone.
As for my car, it goes for years at a time without being washed.
A good rain gets it clean enough for me.
Our main issue here is tree sap and pollen.
Bell Labs doesn't have the 150ft monsters (Tulip Poplars)
on it's front lawn like the rest of the town. I'm sure
their cleaning issue will be minor.
If that's a "fact" I guess there's no point, but what the hell...
The link provided refers to a "Bentek" report but if there is a link to
the report, I must have missed it.
Here's the Bentek web site:
"We are a recognized leader in natural gas, oil and NGL market
On the link provided, there's this odd bit:
The Global Wind Energy Council, one of the industry's main lobby
groups, claims that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere "is the most important environmental benefit from wind
I suppose CO2 emissions could be important, but it seems to me, having
a power source that doesn't run out seems pretty strategic to me.
The rest of the page deals with CO2.
I don't know about you, but I LIKE power sources that don't pollute.
I'm willing to pay a little more just for that benefit.
But the real issue is being prepared for the future.
We're hearing all this crazy deficit talk as if we're creating a problem
for our children. I think using up resources on the only planet we have
is much more important.
You're presuming that CO2 is a pollutant.
Were it not for CO2, there wouldn't be any plants. With no plants, there
would be no cattle. With no cattle, there'd be no food. We'd starve.
We're NOT using up resources. More precisely, we're using resources but
we're accessing more than we're using. Today, there is five times the known
reserves of natural gas than there was just five years ago.
Look up the Simon-Ehrlich wager in which a doom-sayer* wagered $10,000 with
a more pragmatic scientist over whether the scarcity of ten commodities
(picked by Ehrlich) would cost more (and therefore be harder to find) in ten
years. Ehrlich lost.
* Paul R. Ehrlich's works include:
- The Population Bomb
- The Race Bomb
- Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future
- Healing the Planet
- How the Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future
- The End of Affluence
And so on. And on. And on.
I mis-remembered. There were five (picked by Ehrlich). The wager was $1,000
each. Whatever the differential in price after a decade would go to the
chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten
"Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800
million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by
September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's
selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped significantly.
Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in
1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade
It doesn't. Being harder to find makes them cost more. Price is a convenient
metric for scarcity.
That's what Malthus thought. He was wrong. That's what Ehrlich thought. He,
too, was wrong. In fact, EVERYBODY who has EVER predicted that
over-population spells our doom has been wrong.
By the principle of inductive reasoning, I suggest that you, too, are wrong.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.