I've noticed the normal Google ads at the bottom of the pages .. and find them appropriate and not all that intrusive. (well done Nate) Recently I noticed a much more pronounced single ad that looked different than the rest and advertising the "what's the catch" FREE tag line?
My first thought was to just ignore this ad, but curiously got me clicking but refused to go any further fearing a MLM scam? Anybody receive their free solar panel with no strings attached. (click if you must) What's the gimmick?
CinciTDI | TDIClub | My Desultory Blog
Looks really interesting, actually. It's not free, per se. You "rent" the panels.
On a side note, I have no control over who advertises here, except to turn away certain companies (like DieselSecret). Any solar experts care to look at the fine print and break it down for us?
40 Gallon 2 Tank Biodiesel Processors, Well built, Easy to use, Quality parts. www.revolution-biodiesel.com ! Running B100 in my truck: Ford 2005 F-350 Ext Cab 4" lift 35" Mickey Thompsons
Two '96 VW TDI B4 variants, '87 MB 300TD, '97 Ram 2500 Cummins, '89 Ford F250 diesel, Kubota lawn tractor, Diesel Generator... 31 Cylinders Kicking on the Sweet Sauce of the Soybean
I'm also quite interested. Either way, if you do it, you're saving a ton of pollution from hitting mother earth. And if energy rates rise over the next 25 years (I know, I know, fat chance), you could end up saving a ton of money.
And if you get a big ol' array and have a south facing house, like I could and do, you could actually potentially make some money occasionally because of net metering.
I'm very interested. It's seems like it's definitely worthwhile. The only way it wouldn't work out financially is if electricity prices dipped (highly unlikely) or if the system didn't work properly.
Essentially, what they're doing is trying to become a power company, but one that's based on distributed solar instead of big ol' power plants. That's why they rent you the equipment... because you become a steady income stream for the next 25 years. If they get millions of homes to switch, they become a very large, very profitable company (assuming they play their cards right).
natescape: Essentially, what they're doing is trying to become a power company, but one that's based on distributed solar instead of big ol' power plants. That's why they rent you the equipment... because you become a steady income stream for the next 25 years.
25 years is a LONG time. i can barely handly the 2yr cell phone agreement. if they would tie their price to grid price, then that would be a good deal. or rent ur roof?(why not, i pay good $$$ to buy my roof, why isnt that S facing roof an asset to the PV co? a dry S facing roof with a customer already connected that is willing to pay u every month)
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo! -Virgil
Froggy alluded to another fear of mine... that in a year or two, competitors would spring up with better deals and you'd be locked in for a long time.
I don't necessarily mind the timeframe. I'm not planning on moving, ever. But that being said, the whole "there may be a better deal in a couple of years" thing concerns me.
but that is the issue, the terms. my guess is they have no intention of letting u either out of ur contract or tie the price to grid price. ahhh the business of business...
im going to coin the term 'obsolete paralysis', the inability to pull the trigger because everytime u do more research, u find a better product 6 months out :) im absolutely struck with OP. it seems Nate and Rod both have it also...maybe we need a self-help group.
froggy: im going to coin the term 'obsolete paralysis', the inability to pull the trigger because everytime u do more research, u find a better product 6 months out :) im absolutely struck with OP. it seems Nate and Rod both have it also...maybe we need a self-help group.
That's always been a big issue with me and computers. Why should I buy a 3GHz PC when in 6 months I could get a 3.5 GHz PC?
Ultimately I always though just buy whatever was the hottest thing about 6 months ago, since there's a HUGE price difference (but not much performance difference) between 6 month old technology in the computer world, and the latest, greatest thing.
With PVs though, I expect some substantial improvements in the next couple of years - the issue though is how quickly they can be commercialized. IMO though people should first do solar hot water, if they haven't already. Much quicker payback rate. I'll hopefully be doing it this spring.
The advancements vs. cost for solar has yet to be seen IMHO. What you purchase today will be quickly leapfrogged by far more efficient, and most likely less expensive panels in just a few short years -- therefore it may be better to wait.
With computers, most users don't need anything beyond what exists today ... or yesterday even ... and only a handful really need the processing speed and power of top of the line computers. Quad-core processors do little for the web surfing and the word processing needs of many ... which unlike a solar panels can be used by every house and are that much more valuable if they are a 1/3 more efficient.
Same goes for much of the software being upgraded. How many people really need a new version of Microsoft Word with more extensive features? Even in my industry, I chuckle when our graphic department 'must have' the newest Adobe Creative Suite ... yet very few even use half the features in versions that were out 2 versions ago! Then again .. I'm guilty of wanting the latest and greatest stuff that I don't use too!
My point is that we could all use a more efficient solar panels and there are still big efficiency advancements worth considering, whereas with computers and software, not everyone needs more features or faster computers.
Rich: The advancements vs. cost for solar has yet to be seen IMHO. What you purchase today will be quickly leapfrogged by far more efficient, and most likely less expensive panels in just a few short years -- therefore it may be better to wait.
I wouldn't expect new panels coming out over the next few years to be both more efficient AND less expensive. The technologies that can increase the efficiency (more layers of n-p semiconductors with increasing bandgap energies further down into the panel) also make it more expensive to manufacture. The technologies that could bring down the cost are generally also approaches that give lower efficiency than what you can buy today. So, essentially I guess I'm saying it *may* not be all that bad to buy current tech stuff, since the efficiency vs. cost ratio isn't going to change all that much over the next few years (most likely). Either the efficiency or cost alone may, but not the ratio.
With computers, most users don't need anything beyond what exists today ... or yesterday even ... and only a handful really need the processing speed and power of top of the line computers.
Computer technology is about 99% driven by high-end computer gaming. Unless you play very graphics intensive games, you don't need anything nearly as powerful as the newest technology.
Supercomputing for massive calculations doesn't really need the latest-greatest thing (we have a couple supercomputers here we've put together for doing some massive number crunching in our physics department). You can generally build a quite nice supercomputer just by putting a whole bunch of processors in parallel. A lot cheaper to do it with a bunch of 6-month-old technology than a slightly smaller number of brand new processors.
I don't think the efficiency improvements will be as big as some are making them out to be. The efficiency numbers you often see touted in press releases aren't really real world efficiencies. Simple old normal silicon panels can convert 45% of the energy in sunlight into free electron energy - the problem is that a lot of the electron/electron-hole pairs just fall right back into their non-excited states, and the additional heat energy from absorbing photons with greater than the bandgap energy goes into thermal energy of the electrons, making them harder to direct in the direction you want them to go to create a usable current. That's what brings the actual efficiencies down to 10-20%, while the actual sunlight harvesting efficiency is generally around 45% (note that that is essentially the same as the sunlight harvesting efficiency of photosynthesis. PVs can use a greater portion of the spectrum, but the energy above the bandgap energy just goes into waste heat (which further reduces the efficiency by increasing the electron thermal energy). PV's can only use 45% of the sunlight spectrum here on earth, but they absorb photons based on resonant wavelength excitation, so the full photon energy is harvested.
That has been my feeling for a few years now but at some point, you have to s_h!t or get off the pot. If everybody just waited.........what would be the incentive to produce them? "no one is buying them now so why produce them?" In a way it was and is like Biodiesel in that right now ( speaking as a buyer and not a homebrewer) it's not always the most cost effective fuel to run and production methods as of now are also not the most efficient BUT, someone in the early stages needs to take one for the team and give producers a reason to compete for business and create a better, more efficient and cost effective product.
make any sense?
Mike Briggs:Simple old normal silicon panels can convert 45% of the energy in sunlight into free electron energy - the problem is that a lot of the electron/electron-hole pairs just fall right back into their non-excited states, and the additional heat energy from absorbing photons with greater than the bandgap energy goes into thermal energy of the electrons, making them harder to direct in the direction you want them to go to create a usable current. That's what brings the actual efficiencies down to 10-20%, while the actual sunlight harvesting efficiency is generally around 45% (note that that is essentially the same as the sunlight harvesting efficiency of photosynthesis. PVs can use a greater portion of the spectrum, but the energy above the bandgap energy just goes into waste heat (which further reduces the efficiency by increasing the electron thermal energy). PV's can only use 45% of the sunlight spectrum here on earth, but they absorb photons based on resonant wavelength excitation, so the full photon energy is harvested.
so if the above is true, then why doesnt someone figure out a way to co-generate heat & electricity? maybe by somehow injecting water/coolent into the system as a heat sink with some sort of rankine cycle.
also, if everyone doesnt already know this...solar heating is by far the most cost effective way to go renewable. so it seems the cost to that part of the system is already low. seems like an easy marriage, what am i missing?