Let's watch this test case

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

> P.S. I haven't looked at in detail, but I think the house example
> with numbers you list may reduce available PV power twice

If you haven't looked in detail at the link I provided, then what is
the use of your critique that follows?

Here is the link again: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html

This just tells me that you're arguing from ignorance. You're
throwing out all sorts of criticisms and hoping that something
sticks. This is just like your tactic of saying the critics are
using outdated information when you simply have no basis on which to
make that claim.

It also tells me that you don't want to see any evidence that
threatens your world view.

Really, I'm astounded that you can criticize without understanding
in detail what you're opposing!

> (perhaps using an already daily average solar energy amount and
> then factoring in peak daylight hours again),

No, I'm correcting the data you gave. You claim solar incidence on
the ground to be 1,000 W/m^2. This is a theoretical ideal. The
actual number is about 600 W/m^2 which is what a summer day at 40
degree latitude would receive.

You'll note that the AVERAGE incidence over the entire planet is 164
W/m^2. If you also look at the land distribution of the Earth,
you'll see a preponderance of landmass in the northern hemisphere,
and much of that is in the higher latitudes than on the equator.

Only a fool would design a system for a home based on summer maximum
solar illumination and then shiver and suffer through a winter with
lower solar illumination, thus the appropriate response is to design
your solar PV system to provide you with the electrical capacity
you'll need based on the winter solar illumination of 300 W/m^2.

If you disagree, then the burden is on you to explain why people
should suffer in the winter or how they'll squeeze more efficiency
from less sunlight.

> also may assume a panel that is not sloped,

A sloped panel gives you more solar cell surface area than a flat
panel. If you have a 100 m^2 of floor area under your roof, you
either cover a flat roof with 100 m^2 of PV or a sloped roof with
more than 100 m^2 because of basic trigonometry.

Considering the source of this information is the University of
Oregon, that they acknowledge array orientation with respect to the
Sun as being critical to collecting more energy, and that flat roofs
aren't that popular, I assume that they've accounted for the
increased PV cell area and the better solar incidence from a more
favorable angle for the PV arrays.

> and may also uses an overly inflated home energy use expectations

No, they explicitly state that the TYPICAL energy usage is 3,000
kW/H per month. This is appropriate methodology. What use is an
energy stoic lifestyle for your scenario? It's completely
misleading, which is one of my main criticisms of the
environmentalist argumentative styles. If you argue that everyone
can implement a solar/wind solution then you should use real
numbers, not the energy stoic lifestyle numbers. Why not be honest
and tell people that they should cut their energy use by 2/3, down
to 1,000 kW/H per month to comply with your utopian vision.

> (which probably includes assuming electric radiant heat (not heat
> pump)

Oh, so now your position has morphed into a solar PV system, a back-
up of a wind turbine for when the sun doesn't shine, a system
designed for overcapacity to charge the fuel cell during the day so
it can be called upon during the evening, a fuel cell with a
capacity of (100kW/H / 24 H/day * 18 hours of energy draw from the
fuel cell) of 4,166 kW/H and a hydrogen storage tank for 18 hours of
fuel cell use, and now ripping out an electric radiant heating
system and replacing it with a heat pump.

Hmmm, doesn't look too attractive to me.

> & no passive solar or good insulation).

On what basis do you make the claim that this isn't accounted for?
There is no mention in the link about this. They just quote
*TYPICAL* usage.

Surely you're not now advocating destroying homes and having them
redesigned to be passively solar. Insulation is easier to install in
an attic or crawlspace but much more difficult to increase in a wall
cavity.

Your proposal has to live with the existing housing stock just as
competitive energy schemes do.

> Also (guessing) probably 80% of the world's population lives
> closer to the equator than that example.

80% huh? Maybe you're right, let's take a cursury look at this.

How about the US first. These states have the majority of the land
area at or above 40 degree latitude:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/usanewd.htm

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?
ds_nameC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id000US&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1-
R&format=US-9S

STATE - POPULATION
Washington - 5,894,121
Oregon - 3,421,399
Idaho - 1,293,953
Montana - 902,195
Wyoming - 493,782
North Dakota - 642,200
South Dakota - 754,844
Nebraska - 1,711,263
Minnesota - 4,919,479
Iowa - 2,926,324
Wisconsin - 5,363,675
Illinois - 12,419,293
Michigan - 9,938,444
Indiana - 6,080,485
Ohio - 11,353,140
Pennsylvania - 12,281,054
New Jersey - 8,414,350
New York - 18,976,457
Connecticut - 3,405,565
Rhode Island - 1,048,319
Massachusetts - 6,349,097
New Hampshire - 1,235,786
Vermont - 608,927
Maine - 1,274,923
Alaska - 626,932

Sub-total - 118,918,029

US TOTAL - 281,421,906

OK, so in the US 42.26% of the population lives at or above 40
degrees latitude.

Let's look at some other countries:

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/eu.htm
Europe - 730,916,000
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/ru.htm
Russia - 145,904,000
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/ca.htm
Canada - 31,902,268

It'll take too much time to figure out the population for Asia above
the 40 degree latitude line, so I'll just forget it.

http://www.worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm
Total World Population - 6,135,000,000

So it looks like you called it pretty close, because by my rough
estimate only 16-20% live at or above the 40 degree latitude, but
almost every country above the latitude is an industrialized nation,
thus accounting for large per capita energy use, and equally
important, they have the wealth to fund an extensive energy
infrastructure.

Even though your guess was correct, I don't think it has too much
relevence to your criticism.

> And of course, again, as with point A above, the cost estimate
> ignores the announced theoretical breakthrough proposed to lead to
> PV production in a couple years with an installed cost down to
> $0.20 / watt per twenty years,

You've heard the old saying that there's many a slip betwixt the cup
and lip. This is counting your chickens before they hatch. Your
*experts* are saying your solar/wind/hydrogen scheme works now and
that this is the route we should take, so it matters not what the
future technology will yield.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that if such a breakthough is
developed that it can be installed on an SPS and thus increase the
energy yields and lower the cost threshold just as well as it can
for the terrestrial solar PV cell. The advantage isn't unique to
terrestrial solar, so it balances out and becomes moot.

> and so is again comparing Apples and Oranges (off-the-shelf PV
> now vs. idealized SPS in twenty years).

Once again, your analysis, and your conclusion, are wrong. You
should actually look at the data even though it is upsetting to your
world view. It'll save you the trouble of arguing a losing
proposition.

I'm surprised that you keep insisting I'm using some idealized
vision of SPS in the future. The SPS will be either PV cell based,
or solar thermal. The energy efficiency at converting solar
illimunation to energy is the same for a terrestrial PV cell as it
is for an orbital SPS PV cell. No magic there, just that in orbit,
the illumination is stronger and lasts for 24 hours. Look to the
reference to the earlier debate that I provided for more details on
this issue.

Here too we're comparing apples to apples in terms of the question
of efficiency.

TangoMan