I have sparked an interest in Solar Energy

[Raelbo]

Traditionally, the problem with Photovoltaic Cells (PVCs) ie solar panels that generate electricity, is that the cost of manufacture outweighs the nett economic benefit of their output over their lifetime. In a functional system this issue is also compounded by the need to store the energy in order for it to be useful - and building a bank of batteries is not cheap, nor do those batteries last that long.

That being said, every year they are becoming more economical to manufacture, more efficient (ie more power output for the same amount of sun) and last for longer. It is clear that at some point, especially as fossil-fuel powered generation becomes more costly (due to diminishing natural resources), solar power will become economically viable. When that point will be, I don't really know. Last time I looked at it, several years ago, the technologies still had a very long way to go to get that point.

Another big thing that I have found a lot of solar suppliers to ignore when calculating their "payback" period (ie the time it takes for the system to pay for itself), is the cost of the capital. It's all very well and good to spend $35K on a system and then get $5K back every year, but did you ever ask yourself what else you could do with that capital? If you invest that money in the stock market and manage to get a 15% return on your investment every year, you would earn $5250 every year, and that's just on the capital which you would still have at the end of it all.

A technology I have personally employed is a solar water heater for my heater. They are a lot more efficient that PVCs in terms of harvesting solar energy, but obviously the limitation is they produce hot water, useful for domestic use, but not for electricity generation. They can also be used for space heating applications (ie you have another geyser which stores hot liquid to be used by radiators in the house for heating) Given that a significant chunk of any household's energy budget is used for heating, solar water heaters are the most effective economic investment for reducing your overall energy costs from utilising solar power.

edit: Last point I forgot to add:

I am not against renewable power. I think it's where we need to go in the long term, and the sooner we do so, the better for everyone. But people need to approach this both eyes open. Renewable energy is not cheap. The biggest return on your investment is not going to be dollars in your pocket. It's going to be having a habitable planet for your kids. Accept this reality and you will be fine.

[Afrospinach]

For example; I've found this website boasting a 7 year return on investment. Buy-in to the system for $35,000 CAD and receive $5000 annually for years and years to come... the panels and the system has a 25 year warranty.

Those income figures seem slightly optimistic, but 8 years for a return is about what I have always come up with with no subsidies(accounting for $$ saved on your electricity bill). Panels will lose about 20% of their generation capacity in 20 years but it is still nearly impossible to make a financial loss on them.

and building a bank of batteries is not cheap, nor do those batteries last that long.

Yep once you start talking about batteries you can forget about making a return. We were looking at a 10kva system for fully of grid and the batteries were the majority of the cost and the fastest wearing component.

[Vinho]

Yep once you start talking about batteries you can forget about making a return. We were looking at a 10kva system for fully of grid and the batteries were the majority of the cost and the fastest wearing component.

*Shakes Fist* damn you batteries.

[McTurbo]

http://www.e-catworld.com/may-2013-3rd-party-test/

On October 8th, 2014, a team of European academics released a report of their testing of an E-Cat device supplied to them by Industrial Heat, LLC which took place at Lugano, Switzerland. The report can be read in full at the following link:

http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%...portSubmit.pdf

Below is a summary of the Lugano report written by Gordon Docherty, and is posted here with his kind permission.

1. Testing was performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at [the testers’] disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA. (http://www.officineghidoni.ch/en/) Civil / Mechanical Engineering / Materials Science / Quality Control – strap-line “Quality, competence and flexibility are our prerogatives”.

2. Reactor makeup / size – alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length, ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length). Alumina, synthetically produced aluminum oxide, Al2O3, is a white or nearly colourless crystalline substance that is used as a starting material for the smelting of aluminum metal. It also serves as the raw material for a broad range of advanced ceramic products and as an active agent in chemical processing.

“Hidden energy inputs” checked and ruled out – including hidden wires, DC offset, magnetron, batteries, death ray (it would have to be)… all environmental measurements undertaken by testers experienced in their fields … at an independent site.

3. Weight of active powder sample used : 1g (0.01 kg)

4. To quote:

“Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. … After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W. Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” And: “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, … (to avoid making) … calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

5. Initial dummy test run below 500W, followed by 32 day main Test run with continuous higher input power (800 – 900W, as above). e-Cat not run in pulsed mode (which would have increased COP but made calculations and experimental evidence gathering much, much more difficult)

6. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260ºC and 1400ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5MWh.

7. Sample of fuel carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. From these combined analysis methods, significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni were found in the fuel. Further, protium but no deuterium was seen by SIMS (so, non-radiative protium main hydrogen isotope). The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with a “natural composition” before the run, while after the run it was found to have been changed substantially.

8. However, no radioactivity, alpha particles, fast neutrons or other high-energy ejecta detected, despite rigorous observations.

9. Remarkable change in ash as compared to initial fuel samples:

Lithium content in unused fuel found to be in natural ratios : 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.

Nickel content in unused fuel also found to be in natural ratios: i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).

So, the fuel is indeed changed at the nuclear level. Call it what you will, but there are definitely nuclear reactions going on.

10. Performances obtain do not reflect the MAXIMUM potential of the reactor, even at this point in its development: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 • 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 • 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (on a Ragone plot) beyond any known conventional energy source. Even if conservatively repeating the same calculations using the weight of the whole reactor (including the casing) rather just the powder, the results confirm the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 • 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 • 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.”

So, the news is truly remarkable – and VERY positive.

[Bakis]

It's a bummer there is such a big loss of energy when it travels in the grid over distances or there would already be a giant fat solar plant in Sahara etc.
My brother were telling me about a new technology with a power cable company that will reduce that loss, not operational yet from what I gathered and not its cost either.