Yes! Solar Solutions Begins...PV Systems for 3 Affordable Housing Developments

[jpak]

http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAPR1107.htm

Yes! Solar Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Power, Inc. is scheduled to begin construction on three contracts executed by SPI with The Housing Authority of Monterey County (HAMC) in Salinas, California. The three developments are located in various parts of Monterey County and ultimately represent 166 apartment units and associated common areas.

The photovoltaic solar systems being designed and installed by Yes! Solar Solutions will provide a combined total of 210 kilowatts of photovoltaic powered electricity and will serve the electricity needs of most of the apartment units and the common areas of the three developments. The three developments are formally known as The Monterey Street Apartments, Fanoe Vista Apartments and the Benito Street Apartments and are located within the communities of Soledad and Gonzalez in Monterey County, California.

“These projects represent a continuation of our work within the affordable housing industry and with HAMC,” said Todd Lindstrom, President of Yes! Solar, Inc.

“Most recently we completed a retrofit project for HAMC, converting their Rippling River development in Carmel Valley, California to PV solar with a 32 kilowatt system. To date, including new buildings and retrofits, our company has completed nine major affordable housing developments representing approximately three quarters of a megawatt of installed and contracted PV solar systems,” Mr. Lindstrom concluded.

<more>

[NYC_SKP]

1. Great news, thanks! nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNadir]

5. I'm, however, not surprised that the building of suburban housing producing 300 watts of average

power generates huge enthusiasm.

But let's do happy talk.

When I installed my gas furnace, it was huge news and generated huge numbers of posts all over the internet which, predictably, burned more energy than the high efficiency furnace produced.

There are zero solar facilities in the United States that produce enough energy to run the servers that spend all of this energy saying how wonderful solar energy is.

There is, of course, no word whatsoever on how much gasoline will be burned to drive to the new suburban housing, and no word on how "affordable" it actually is.

There is, as expected, zero math done with this bit either, mostly because there is NOT ONE anti-nuke who can tell the difference between peak power and energy, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

The capacity utilization of the best solar plants - those in deserts, California qualifies - is 25%, if you're lucky.

Two hundred and ten kilowatts of power at 25% capacity utilization over 166 units represents in continuous average power, 316 watts of power. This is less than one half horsepower.

This is hardly enough to run a refrigerator and a television, never mind an air conditioner, and never mind a computer to post threads all over the internet about how wonderful solar power is.

The average power consumption of an American citizen is more than 11,000 watts, but of course you didn't know that.

You don't apparently know anything but how to whine.

Tough shit.

Denial is not neutral. Ignorance is not neutral. Ignorance kills.

[Zachstar]

7. Amen! Current solar systems are just not good enough.

People install them to greenwash so they feel ok driving their hummers around.

[kristopher]

8. Not good enough? Why not? nt

[Zachstar]

9. Pollution, Cost, Efficency, etc...

They did not work then and they aren't working now. The "Solar will save us" So far has been a failure and I am only willing to support alternatives to the china enriching and highly pollutive solar cell technology.

[kristopher]

10. They didn't work then?

You have to be more specific. Are you talking about the 80s?

[Zachstar]

11. Im talking about Year 1900- 5:50 AM CST 12th of June 2008

Nothing but an expensive failure for grid generation so far. With the only half failure being solar oil heating deep in the desert.

[kristopher]

12. I can only conclude that you are giving these half-assed answers

I can only conclude that you are giving these half-assed answers because you can't support the absurd statement you just made. You obviously are ignoring the policy position established by the Reagan administration that set our energy policy over the past 3 decades. In spite of the fact that even then renewable energy had a higher EROI than either fossil fuels or nuclear, they deliberately destroyed the DOE conservation and renewable (CORE) programs established by Carter under the guise of freeing the energy markets from intrusive government regulation. Simultaneously they massively increased government support to a nuclear industry that has NEVER been able to support itself. (Narum 1992) (Katz 1984)

Had that money and policy support been directed to renewables would you still be making your absurd claims? I don't think so.

[Zachstar]

13. Is solar cheaper than nuc per unit of energy?

[NMDemDist2]

14. it would be if it was as heavily subsidized by the tax payers and

you may want to take a look at this too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153252&mesg_id=153252

[Zachstar]

15. Wouda coulda sholda

Its not and damn well is not when you factor in the need for battery and transmission equipment.


Sorry. Give it half a decade to dramatically increase in efficiency and drop in price and come back to me.

[kristopher]

17. yes.

[jpak]

16. Stupid math (as usual) and wrong (as usual) and hypocrisy (as usual)

This project will provide each unit with a 1.25 kW PV array

Each array will provide 5-6 kWh per day.

An Energy Star refrigerator would use ~1 kWh per day, an average TV would use 0.36 kWh per day (operating 6 hours per day) , 8 CFL bulbs (operating 6 hours a day) would use 0.8 kWh per day, a PC would use 0.75 kWh per day (operating 6 hours per day).

total ~3 kWh per day

A typical window AC unit uses uses 0.73 kWh per hour. These PV systems will power all household appliances and 3-4 hours of AC per day

Nuclear energy advocates that that live in Nuclear NJ that use natural gas to heat their homes are hypocrites...

Ignorance kills!!!!111

:rofl:

[ElectricGrid]

18. wow talk about a big leap.. no one said those things...

try debating rationally. You will live longer. Also the rated power of a solar panel is it's full capacity. Your 25% number is misleading and dishonest.

[tinrobot]

19. Americans use 11,000 watts -- per what?

The average power consumption of an American citizen is more than 11,000 watts, but of course you didn't know that.

I think you mean we use 11,000 kWh per year, which is about right, the actual figure for the US in 2005 was 12,347kWh per year. California, however, is the most efficient state, it's average power use per person was 7,032 kWh per year.

Here's a handy chart for you, since I know you love them so much:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html

Of course, this figure is not just for individual homes, it's for all electricity used throughout the country/state. To derive this number, they simply take total energy used in the country/state during a year and divide by the number of people. So, this figure covers not only everything in your house, but also everything else that consumes electricity - offices, manufacturing, restaurants, even the streetlights in front of your house.

The amount used in your actual home is significantly less than the total, way less than half. For an average Californian, this would be less than 7,032/2 or less than 3516 kWh per person per year. Of course, this is average, if you use efficient appliances and did other energy saving tasks, your figure would be less than average.

These panels provide each unit with 1.25 Kw per unit. Multiply that by 10 hours (average) of available sun times 365 days of the year, and you get 4562 kWh per year, which is more than enough, particularly if the building is more efficient than average.