Question on the 45 watt chicago electric solar panel that Harbor Freight sells for $150.00 .Anybody have any experience with these units ? What could a person power with one ? coffee pot ,light bulb? thanks for any responses hlb
For use in a home, you would generally use the panel to charge a battery bank, and then power things from the battery bank.
Mean delivered power wil be close to 20-30 percent, or ~10 watt. Paying 150 dollar for that seems to be a very bad investment, as additional cost(installation, battery bank, convertor , etc, needs a payback time of about 100 years. As a source of power in an inaccessible locations, it might be useful, like battery maintenance in a remote location.
Andy comments.
If it was in Dallas, which has 5.5 full sun hrs per day, the panel would generate 5.5 x 365 days x 45 watts = 90 kwh per year.
At 11 cents per kwh, that would be $9.90 worth of electricity per year, if purchased off the grid......
That is about the same as one would get in interest if the $145 plus shipping ($10) plus battery($60) plus wiring ($10) plus inverter($50) were put in the bank instead, and one would still have the money available......
It isn't a business decision, it is a hobby toy.
Andy in Eureka, Texas
then again, if you had a gate opener at the end of 2 mile driveway that is battery powered and no handy power line, it might be just the thing to get to keep a small battery charged.
Thanks for all answers . I don=91t think I really need one after all. hlb
Andy writes: Absolutely correct. There is a definite niche for solar power, or wind power, or for bicycle operated generators. Any place one needs a continuously availble source of a small amount of power, solar will do nicely.... usually.... except maybe in things like coal mines (grin).....
However, if the purpose is to "get off the grid" and "replentish the earth" or some such, the operator needs to make a business decision regarding costs, maintenance, reliability..... and solar isn't even in the running to replace an existing grid source...... the ONE exception being on government buildings where taxpayer money is used to set up a million dollar installation where the maintenance cost exceeds the electric bill.... Since the taxpayers are paying for it, and the politician can get a few votes from avid tree-huggers, it is cost effective...
Andy in Eureka, Texas
You make a couple of good points.
In addition is is not within the boundaries of physics to run this country off of sunbeams, yet we keep pouring (government) money into the quest for perpetual motion, er..., Sasquatch, er..., ah, I've got it, "Solar Power."
The ONLY way it would be POSSIBLE to run a city or a state off of sunbeams is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.
And for the umpteenth time, solar/= electricity. Photovoltaic or focused-mirror steam (or salt-slurry) power generation only makes sense for certain niche applications (at least with current technology), or in certain areas where the sun shines most of the time, and the feeling is laid back. But passive solar, if designed in, can pay for itself almost anywhere, as long as the people using the building are willing to put up with the daily and seasonal changes in routine to take advantage of it. (Or you automate the whole thing, but that is still currently pretty expensive.) Every gallon of water or cubic foot of air you heat however many degrees with solar, is that many less BTUs of electric or oil or gas you need to use. And if the house is shaped right, and the local outside air is tolerable, solar can provide plenty of 'free' inside airflow. The 1902 building I work in used to be set up that way, until they 'modernized' it and tore out all the elevated openable skylights and air shafts, and blocked off all the transoms above the doors when they added the drop ceilings.
That must explain why Walmart, (a publically traded company that is LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the best interest of shareholders financial interests) is doing it all over the place. If it didn't have a demonstrable ROI, they couldn't do it. They are responsible and legally bound to the shareholders.
It doesn't have to be a complete replacement for anything else to be effective.
If we can get 2% of our energy needs from solar, that is a monsterously huge benefit.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong
How do they turn a profit on the 100s of millions they give to charities each year? I think they are earning good will with their solar installs- not ROI.
In the long run that is a good thing because maybe, someday, solar will be a viable option. But that time isn't here yet.
Jim
We will never get there unless we start. How much did the first heart transplant cost, and how well did it work compared to ones done today?
What Walmart is doing is exactly how mankind's greatest advances have all been accomplished.
People who stand around waiting for "something to happen", will always be disappointed and look like losers.
Or, of course, you could whine and complain like lost sheep, while China works their collective asses off, and beats us to it.
Then you could whine about that, too.
Hmm. Has anyone started on a "brain transplant?" There are some things that just cannot be done.
China is opening, on average, one coal-fired power plant per week, at least
500 in the next decade.
So there are currently no working photo voltaic solar panels? It can't be done? Is that your argument?
Walmart can get generous payments from the government that your average homeowner may not be able to manage and they also write some of this off to advertising. A whole lot of Florida residents are still waiting for their promised $4 a watt for solar installs and the program is broke. A big corporation might be able to wangle a tax break, unavailable to mortals.
The other unanswered question is what impact does the solar installation have on the lifespan of your roof and who pays to remove and reinstall it when the roof goes bad?
I looked at all of this and passed on the idea, mostly because I found out the Florida rebate wasn't coming.
BTW the other thing I found out, the cheap way to get some used collectors is to talk to a roofer. If you are willing to remove them yourself they might be close to free.
On 10/21/2010 9:32 AM snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com spake thus:
You mentioned Walmart: what about eBay, which has a huuuuge solar installation (leased from Solar City) on their campus down here in Silly-con Valley?
eBay's not exactly the company that pops into mind when one thinks of tree-hugging-type organizations, and yet they consider it a good BUSINESS DECISION to go solar. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And "harry", try 12% efficiency, not 5%. And rising (thin-film technology, dontcha know).
No. My argument is "it is impossible to run this country/state/city off of sunbeams."
The total radiation falling on the surface of the earth is about 1,300W/m^2. At 23 degrees of latitude. At noon. With no clouds. Adjusting for latitude, clouds, hours of darkness, and assuming 50% efficiency, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq mi) to provide for the power needs of just California (~50GW).
Imagine the cost, time to construct, and maintenance of a mechanical apparatus 35 miles on a side. Heck, that's bigger than the pyramids!
How much of that was picked up by the beleaguered California tax payer?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.