135i Hybrid

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by oldcarskickass

First of all i do not think that there will be a free energy source EVER introduced to the general public. There is no money in that.

You can buy solar electric systems right now that are capable of providing all your energy needs. They're still pricey, but with incentives they're expected to reach "grid parity" within the decade. Solar is the only alternative energy that makes sense, nearly everything else is an indirect form of solar (wind, hydro, biofuels), and it's time we stopped messing around with it and went straight to the source.

[tbird]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

You can buy solar electric systems right now that are capable of providing all your energy needs. They're still pricey, but with incentives they're expected to reach "grid parity" within the decade. Solar is the only alternative energy that makes sense, nearly everything else is an indirect form of solar (wind, hydro, biofuels), and it's time we stopped messing around with it and went straight to the source.

I would put Wind power equal to Solar, especially since each has its own environment that it is suited for that the other one is not, and that neither require any source of fuel (whether healthy fuel or not).

Down here in SoFL, when the tax credits/rebates/etc get to a point where it is affordable, I will cover my roof in solar panels. But if I lived up north or out west, I would have to do wind. Maybe both if I was somewhere in the Rockies.

I dream of the day I can have the Grid as "Backup-Only". Plug in the commuter car at night, run everything off the solar-charged batteries.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by tbird

I would put Wind power equal to Solar, especially since each has its own environment that it is suited for that the other one is not, and that neither require any source of fuel (whether healthy fuel or not).

The problem with wind power is the mechanical side of it. I'm not against it by any means, and you're absolutely right that the location makes a big difference in which one you're better suited for. The thing with PV installations is that they're pretty much maintanence free, if you're doing a grid tied system with no batteries (which is the one that makes the most sense right now). Most of the cell manufacturers are providing 25 year warranties, and the supporting equipment is as much as 15 years.

There's always going to be a mechanical aspect to the wind turbines, and they're pretty much at their peak efficience right now, because it's a mature technology. There might be a couple of % points to be picked up over the next decade, but it won't be significant. PVs on the other hand still have plenty of room for improvement, and with the massive amount of production capacity that's coming on line over the next 18 months, we'll see the price take a serious down turn. There's actually some talk in the manufacturing community that they've overbuilt, and surplus capacity is a great thing for the end user.

[singular]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The problem with wind power is the mechanical side of it. I'm not against it by any means, and you're absolutely right that the location makes a big difference in which one you're better suited for. The thing with PV installations is that they're pretty much maintanence free, if you're doing a grid tied system with no batteries (which is the one that makes the most sense right now). Most of the cell manufacturers are providing 25 year warranties, and the supporting equipment is as much as 15 years.

There's always going to be a mechanical aspect to the wind turbines, and they're pretty much at their peak efficience right now, because it's a mature technology. There might be a couple of % points to be picked up over the next decade, but it won't be significant. PVs on the other hand still have plenty of room for improvement, and with the massive amount of production capacity that's coming on line over the next 18 months, we'll see the price take a serious down turn. There's actually some talk in the manufacturing community that they've overbuilt, and surplus capacity is a great thing for the end user.

Solar panels are fundamentally semiconductors. Due to exponentially rising cost of manufacturing of semiconductors, there are fewer and fewer suppliers that can make the investments needed to get to the next generation of process technology.

Anybody worried about energy independence in the face of Abu Dhabi's recent deal to buy one of the few remaining semiconductor fab companies?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125228002851089603.html

Looks like the oil-barons are on the path to becoming the solar-barons.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by singular

Solar panels are fundamentally semiconductors. Due to exponentially rising cost of manufacturing of semiconductors, there are fewer and fewer suppliers that can make the investments needed to get to the next generation of process technology.

.

That's not the case. There have been MASSIVE increases in PV production capacity over the last 12 months that will come on line in the next 12 to 18. There are so many players in the game right now there are fears of saturation, and my company has pulled out of it completely.

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/massi...collapse_in_2/

The photovoltaics industry will become a victim of its own success in 2009, according to Dr. Henning Wicht, Senior Director and Principal Photovoltaics Analyst at iSuppli Corp. Eight consecutive years of growth coupled to low barriers to entry have resulted in a significant expansion in solar module production that will see supply exceed demand by 102% in 2008 and reach a massive 168% excess in 2009. Module revenues are expected to fall nearly 20 percent in 2009 to US$12.9 billion, compared to US$15.9 billion in module revenues expected in 2008.

“Supply and demand were already unbalanced in 2008 with 100 percent more modules produced than installed,” said Dr. Henning Wicht, Senior Director and Principal Analyst, photovoltaics for iSuppli. “The short-term boost in demand from Spain and Germany kept installation companies busy and solar orders and module prices high. But this boom is over. In 2009, average prices for panels for new installation contracts will collapse to the $2.50 to $2.75 per watt range by the end of 2009, down from the current level of $4.20 per watt. The average price for the year will be $3.10 per watt.”

According to Wicht, solar module installations will reach 3.8GW in 2008 and rise to 4.2GW in 2009, a 9.6 percent rise. However, PV module production will reach 7.7GW in 2008 and 11.1GW in 2009, forcing module prices down, overall revenue decline and a significant risk of many new entrants, especially from China and Taiwan going out of business.
During the second half of 2010, after a number of manufacturers have exited the market, Wicht expects prices and revenues to rebound. The forecast for 2010 is for revenues to reach US$17.8 billion, a 38.2% rise over 2009, followed by growth of 11.1% in 2011 and 29.1% in 2012.
The plummeting module prices in 2009 could, according to Wicht, actually fall close to production costs for c-Si panels but could spark an additional 20% growth in installations with market revenue rising by 15.7%. The limited upside growth would be due to installers being unable to meet demand.

[aesthetect]

Originally Posted by oldcarskickass

First of all i do not think that there will be a free energy source EVER introduced to the general public. There is no money in that.

as jeremy noted, this is essentially the true definition of renewable. in an "infinitely sustainable" sense, this is exactly the only thing we want to use. technology is never free, though.

Secondly the internal combustion engine is technologically stuck in early 1900's, not to mention earlier (i.e. steam engines in trains) (a piston pushing a rod, then the crank blah blah blah).

There are millions of other more efficient engines ( bourke engine comes in mind now) but this is not the solution, because it would take a lot of money to introduce a solid engine to the public. And if an ULTRA low mpg engine comes to the market the oil industry will be VERY VERY disappointed (conspiracy theory No 1)
......

The CO2 levels are going up not only due to internal combustion engines used in automobiles, there is also on overgrowing population that needs air and resources to live, and the CO2 levels are going hand to hand with the population.
I do not believe that NOONE has ever designed an engine that it thermo efficiency would exceed the louzy 50 - 60 % of the modern diesels. (conspiracy theory No2) That engine is not cost efficient...

practical, working designs of AC motors have been around since before the turn of the 19th century. the best claimed efficiency of a bourke engine is 55%, on par with the best diesel engines. there is an ideal cycle, it is called the carnot cycle. no cyclic heat/work process can have a higher efficiency, and it has a peak efficiency limited by the second law of thermodynamics. we are not going to get much better than a diesel cycle. (electric motors can average out to around 90% efficient, on the other hand)

I think the solution for the environmental problem (mostly emissions because cars will still be produced) is diesel engines and generally engines that use fuel that otherwise is going to waste. For example diesel engine as far as i know can burn ANY kind of oil, either its fossil or common vegetable oil used in potato frying. Check diesel engines using svo or wvo. (Straight Vegetable Oil / Waste Vegetable Oil respectively). These engines DO have emissions but the CO2 they produced was first absorbed from the plant that produced that oil. So the CO2 balance is nearly going to zero (you have to consider Co2 emitted when processing/transporting the plant in order to take the oil)

and the exhaust smells like tortilla chips! those early 1900s internal combustion engines ran on biofuel. none of these ideas are new. im assuming since you didnt mention ethanol we are aware that it is debatable as to whether it is even net energy positive. but back to biofuel, it is a pretty good idea - and actually algae is looking real good. but as of right now its just too expensive, you migh be more aware as europe is pushing against biodiesel the same way the US is pushing against ethanol. biodiesel is also causing serious deforestation in malaysia.

but again, speaking in terms of a long term sustainable energy plan, youre still getting sun to grow crops (photosynthesis is roughly 5% energy efficient by the way), processing them (using fuel for machinery), and then using that to fuel a car. and these are crops being grown on arable land and therefore are cutting into food production. this is svo. the amount of waste vegetable oil we generate is not going to be able to replace the amount of energy we derive from gasoline. the outlook of biodiesel from algae is looking better and better (hence exxon's huge investment) but is still experimental at best.

sorry i didnt mean to pick you apart, just providing discussion.

the bottom line is that our energy comes from teh sun. this is the energy available to us with no environmental consequences (besides technology/manufacturing). wind as well (although technically it could be said that it comes from solar). although think about the non-renewable resources that go into manufacturing these devices? solar panels are dependent on semiconductors (silicon etc), just like microprocessors. i would argue solar power generation and computer/communication are the two main technologies we would like to maintain in a future reduced energy world. and the aluminum that goes into manufacturing wind turbines, plus all of these are mined using fossil fuels, and the majority of electricity for manufacturing from coal. it goes on.

the only green technology is conservation.

edit (given posts above): the economic system as defined will cause a transition to solar as it becomes more cost effective compared to petroleum. our attempt to understand, predict these things causes interesting fluctuation in prices, as described in that article, which i would imagine to be a short cycle as part of a long term cycle as i described. we are a long way away from dangers of semiconductor availability as i suggested, but it is important to consider in an infinitely-sustainable way. in fact, our experiences show that we dont care about the fact that we're running out, as far as pricing, until it is actually harder to get. (singular, cant read that article without signing up)

[singular]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

That's not the case. There have been MASSIVE increases in PV production capacity over the last 12 months that will come on line in the next 12 to 18. There are so many players in the game right now there are fears of saturation, and my company has pulled out of it completely.

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/massi...collapse_in_2/

Supply and demand.

The article is from Dec 2008 and exactly corresponds to the global semi slump that resulted in excess capacity due to drop in demand. The semi market goes through this on a regular basis and each cycle there are fewer manufacturers that reemerge.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by singular

Supply and demand.

The article is from Dec 2008 and exactly corresponds to the global semi slump that resulted in excess capacity due to drop in demand. The semi market goes through this on a regular basis and each cycle there are fewer manufacturers that reemerge.

If you bother to read the article, the oversupply in the PV market is because of NEW production capacity, not a significant drop in demand. Of course demand has fallen during the downturn, but prior to that there was a shortage of manufacturing capability that was supporting higher prices. That shortage is gone now, and you WILL see the prices to the end user drop, which is exactly what I said to begin with.

There's more to a PV panel than just the wafer.

You said there are fewer and fewer suppliers getting into the market, and that is simply not the case. The PV market is saturated with suppliers with more new players now than at any other time in history.

[tbird]

My "dream" would be two things to see happen
1) That excess means a plummet in price, coupled with a big tax credit, so that it could get as cheap as maybe $10K to put in a full flush-mount panel system with battery backup, and have the grid as backup-only
2) There is a huge jump in PV technology in near future, in which the output of PV cells jumps up 500% or something great like that. In such, not only would panels be able to put out enough power to run an entire house from only a small sized panel, but also that maybe a car-rooftop panel could be enough to continually charge the electric car's batteries so that electric cars could go for 1000 miles before needing to be plugged in.

To note, that new BMW hybrid that they are showing off at the Frankfort Show, HOLY CRAP, now that is a hybrid I would drive. Battery pack only weighs 190lbs and charges in 2.5 hours, with car having 356hp and 530tq, that car is awesome. Doubtful it would hit market anytime soon, but wow!!

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by tbird

My "dream" would be two things to see happen
1) That excess means a plummet in price, coupled with a big tax credit, so that it could get as cheap as maybe $10K to put in a full flush-mount panel system with battery backup, and have the grid as backup-only

I'd stay away from the batteries personally. If you're going to be grid tied you don't need them unless you're thinking about hurricane backup power, but they're expensive and increase the maintanence requirements of the system considerably for something that you will only need for a few days every couple of years (on average of course, you could always get "lucky" and get hit multiple times).

[tbird]

Hurricane backup, since in SoFL. So, yes, the maintenance goes up, but it means no need for a generator.

[aesthetect]

actually here's a short video i made last year...

the conclusion is a bit rushed because it had to be cut down to 3 minutes. somebody stole my computer before i could finish the full 4 minute version

[SJ]

There's no escape from Charles Darwin and Adam Smith.