I want to purchase some solar panels in the future, but doing a Google search is way overwhelming! Does anyone here have solar panels? How many do you need? How much do they cost? Are they really that awesome? Do tell!

You could try ebay or froogle for some deals.

What are you trying to do? Solar panels can be used for many things.

I've always wanted to hook up a solar panel to my vehicle to run a fan and vent the hot air on a warm day. :)

Its not uncommon to use a solar panel/battery to run an outside light without any other powersource. It can be cheaper than buring an underground wire for electricity.

And some people use solar panels to power their home, but last time I checked, it was still pretty expensive and made the most sense in areas where there wasn't any external source of electricity.

So what are you trying to do?

Yeah, solar panels, as a general rule, are not economical right now for urban settings. Rural is another matter altogether, of course.

If you just want to do it for the environmental impact, I'm not sure if it's possible to specifically get a renewable power supplier, but I know my college actually had a program two years ago where you could request renewable power for your dorm room. Blah.

I recently bought a couple of solar panels, from here:

http://www.partsonsale.com/products.html#anchor850177

Back in 1998, I had two solar panels (for space heating) installed. They circulate hot air into the house when the sun is shining, and on a sunny day, they heat the house from about 10 AM to 6 or 7 PM.

Shows how little I know about solar panels! I wanted them to create energy for my house, but I will be living in the city.

I live in the city, too.

Some states provide an economic incentive to put in solar panels, but I don't know if yours does. Mine formerly did this only for solar electric generating, not space heating.

The frustrating thing about photovoltaic is it's so expensive and doesn't produce much power. It is very very expensive to run a normal house on PV.

I am a recently graduated Architecture student and my area of interest has always been sustainable design. I have done a lot of research on PVs and I can tell you that at this point they do not make sense to purchase. If you are soley looking at economical and sustainable reasons they it would be best to wait several years. The energy that PVs take to build pretty much equalizes the amount of energy that they can produce.

With all of that being said the process in which PVs are produce as been on the edge of a breakthrough for several years now. Hopefully this will actaully happen sometime soon. If it does then you can expect the price of PVs will drop SIGNIFIGANTLY.

If you want to do something in the immediate future to reduce your overall energy consumption within your home you can look into solar water heaters. However, this will take extra construction because you will need to contract a plumber.

Where I live the power company is required to give you kilowatt per kilowatt credit. So for each watt you produce you get a watt credit. Plus you get a renewable energy credit each year and a tax credit on the inital credit. I live in NJ and would not affordably be able to energize my whole house (only 1150 sq ft too) but I think it would be a good thing to do. I just can't convince my husband.
d

With all of that being said the process in which PVs are produce as been on the edge of a breakthrough for several years now. Hopefully this will actaully happen sometime soon. If it does then you can expect the price of PVs will drop SIGNIFIGANTLY.

I just recently read an article saying basically the same thing - that photovoltaic are predicted to be much less expensive within the next year or two? That's good news!
I have always wanted to use solar power but have never been in a location or building where it is practical or feasable. (Well, that, and I live in rainy, cloudy Washington state. :brood: )

The frustrating thing about photovoltaic is it's so expensive and doesn't produce much power. It is very very expensive to run a normal house on PV.
Not only are they expensive, it takes 8-10 years for a photovoltaic cell to produce the equivalent of the energy used in its production. So they aren't technically "environmentally friendly" until this payback period has expired. :worried:

Not only are they expensive, it takes 8-10 years for a photovoltaic cell to produce the equivalent of the energy used in its production. So they aren't technically "environmentally friendly" until this payback period has expired. :worried:


I wonder what the payback period is on a nuke plant....

I wonder what the payback period is on a nuke plant....
Since a nuclear power plant is continually producing waste that has become increasingly difficult to sustainably dispose of, I'd say the payback period is close to infinite...

Since a nuclear power plant is continually producing waste that has become increasingly difficult to sustainably dispose of, I'd say the payback period is close to infinite...


I would agree. Yet many people are promoting nuclear as green sustainable energy. :wall:

Since a nuclear power plant is continually producing waste that has become increasingly difficult to sustainably dispose of, I'd say the payback period is close to infinite...

Probably its better than solar cells.

After thousands of years, the radioactivity of nuclear waste falls off sharply.

But there are probably chemicals used in creating solar cells that are still toxic even after thousands of years. Some chemicals are remarkably stable.

The more radioactive a substance is, the more likely that its radiation will "dry up" quickly. The less radioactive a substance is, the longer it tends to last.

I hope that clears things up.

But there are probably chemicals used in creating solar cells that are still toxic even after thousands of years.
Can you name one?

The production of fuel for nuclear reactors is an extremely dirty process, and many of the byproducs are toxic in addition to radioactive.

It is true that the most radioactive substances tend to have a short half-life, but you are still talking about tens, even a hundred thousand years to get down to safe exposure levels.

Nuke plants produce many tons of low-level radioactive waste, none of which is recyclable.

Some solar modules contain cadmium, which could be recycled.

Can you name one?

Off the top of my head? No. But I'll find some information for you.

(Warning: This is probably pretty boring unless you are a geek. There is some interesting information if you skip down. :))

Wikipedia tells me that solar cells are semiconductors, and are made like other semiconductors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Manufacture_and_devices). This seems to agree with the small amount of electrical engineering education I had in college.

Wikipedia also tells me what some of the hazardous materials used in semiconductor fabrication:

poisonous elemental dopants such as arsenic, boron, antimony and phosphorus
poisonous compounds like arsine, phosphine and silane
highly reactive liquids, such as hydrogen peroxide, fuming nitric acid, sulfuric acid and hydrofluoric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication#Hazardous_materials_note )

Unfortunately, it doesn't tell of all of the substances used, or what quantities are consumed or produced. It occurs to me that substances such as arsenic would probably form stable poisonous compounds for a very long time. But I'm not a chemist, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding this.

While looking for pollution figures, I found that "production of one 8 inch integrated circuit wafer creates 4.1 kilograms of hazardous waste". (http://www.ecct.com.tw/euroview/issue66/euroview_article59.php) (That's not to say that all 4.1 kg of waste needs to remain hazardous.) The Japanese company "Oki" has a nice chart of pollution produced by their semiconductor business (http://www.oki.com/en/otr/html/nf/otr-188-04-tab-4.html), which may be indicative of the atmospheric pollution from semiconductor manufacture. (For computer geeks, yes, Oki Data is part of Oki.)

While the above includes a fair share of guesswork and assumptions, I think its safe to say that solar panels aren't exactly friendly to the environment during production.

Then again, when you get down to it, there is not much in the world which is 100% good. Photovoltaic cells may have less environmental impact in some circumstances than the alternatives, and in other circumstances there will be better alternatives.

Now, if we want to wander back to the subject on hand, I looked up the price of solar panels on google.

Looks like $25 for 1 W, 12V panels. Which isn't alot of power. One or two of the 1 W panels may be enough to drive a small fan to vent my vehicle tin summer. I'd have to experiment, if I get the urge. I'm not really fond of having a hot vehicle on sunny days.

For bigger tasks, a 50W panel runs $300. In ideal conditions, this would be enough to run my laptop! :cool:

Btw, for each 1000 hours a 1 W panel runs for, it would cost less then 10 cents to buy the same amount of energy in most of the US. Yikes! Larger systems are cheaper per watt, but the payback times are still pretty long.

If you can get power without photovoltaic cells, its probably cheaper in almost every circumstance. Solar power generation just isn't cost effective, especially at small scales.

It can be extremely cost effective to use solar power in other ways. South facing windows on a house. Solar ovens. Solar dehydrators. And solar water heating.

There is also gardening, which uses solar energy to grow plants. This can be very efficient, as well as relaxing. It also can take very little money to start. :)

Just my $.02

Solar panels just aren't cost effective currently, you need to have some other motivation besides cost. The two panels I bought, to be used eventually for remote water pumping, cost me about $600.00 apiece.

Like das-nut says, passive solar is much more cost effective.

I think the rule is something like solar becomes cost effective if you are 1/4 or 1/2 mile off the grid to start with. That is, the cost of a solar system is just about the same as running a line about 1/2 mile from the grid.

I think the rule is something like solar becomes cost effective if you are 1/4 or 1/2 mile off the grid to start with. That is, the cost of a solar system is just about the same as running a line about 1/2 mile from the grid.


It really depends on your local utility and how much they charge for running lines, but yeah, that sounds about right. It also depends on the size of the system you're contemplating.


Solar power and solar appliances are rather expensive for any application. For instance, I'm contemplating putting our well on solar power and the appropriate pump. This will cost us about $5000.00 and that's with an existing well.

While researching my other post, I found a guy who set up his own diesel generator. His quote to run lines to his workshop was $15,000. Solar was $50,000. The generator was $10,000.

To keep costs down, it seems that the solar power crowd tries to significantly cut back energy consumption. If your hobbies or job requires a lot a electricity, then it becomes more expensive.


Solar power and solar appliances are rather expensive for any application. For instance, I'm contemplating putting our well on solar power and the appropriate pump. This will cost us about $5000.00 and that's with an existing well.


Is that going to be setup in the conventional manner where your pump turns on day and night while water is being used? Or are you just pumping water during the day into a reservoir that is elevated enough to provide pressure during the night?

While researching my other post, I found a guy who set up his own diesel generator. His quote to run lines to his workshop was $15,000. Solar was $50,000. The generator was $10,000.

And the annual costs are?