Community Forums

R.Wold · 01-20-2020, 04:53 PM

And if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black.....

hclarkx · 01-21-2020, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by followingsea

Thanks for reminiscing! EPRI does great work. I was anti-coal for many years until I read an EPRI source, pathways, receptor evaluation.

The misconception that promotes renewable energy is 'dirty' power. Regulations for modern power plants require an EIS finding of no insignificant environmental impact or FONSI.

One nit pick is that about base load plants do not load follow. Base load is a economic term. Plants with the lowest incremental fuel cost supply power to the grid first. So nuke plants and most efficient fossil plants are running at 100% during periods of high demand. Nuke plants in France load follow because 75% of their power comes from nukes.

Here is a link to how wind is balanced with hydro in the PNW: https://transmission.bpa.gov/busines...nd/baltwg.aspx

The nuke and fossil plants are running flat out because it is winter. I still have this site book marked because it is a good indicator of wind for sailing.

Here is a link to the well managed PJM: https://www.pjm.com/

If you learned to read a graph in grade school you can easily see solar is not viable or the future in an industrial society.

I mostly agree. But if you look closely at the CAISO duck curve, the huge afternoon sun we get here pushes way down into base-load territory including nuclear (or soon will). The combination of the normal evening peak kick-up and the solar drop-off makes for a rate of (net) demand increase that is far higher than what was normal umpteen years ago. So load following isn't what it used to be (net load that is). The CAISO pays extra for rapid response so some here-to-for base load plants are being modified for higher MW/minute capability.

And, yes, it took some time, and was expensive, but cleaning up fossil plants has come a long way.

R.Wold · 01-21-2020, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by followingsea

So twinboat did you notice before you cleverly ridiculed me, that is not what I wrote?
.

I think it’s hilarious to hear this member complain about ridicule when nearly everything he’s posted since I’ve been on this site has been riddled with ridicule.

And yes the use of the third person is intentional. I no longer engage this member. Enough previous efforts have been met with invective, vitriol, and yes ridicule, that I see it as pointless.

Hope this isn’t in violation of any site rules, but I think it’s time to point out the corrosive and counter productive nature of said “contributions“.

Edit:
Well enough of this; time for a glass of some vintage California estate grown “kool-aid....”

jcussen · 01-21-2020, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Wold

I just think it’s hilarious to hear this member complain about ridicule when nearly everything he’s posted since I’ve been on this site has been riddled with ridicule.

And yes the use of the third person is intentional. I refuse to engage this member anymore. Enough previous efforts have been met with invective, vitriol, hubris, and yes ridicule, that I see it as pointless. Hope this isn’t in violation of any site rules, but I think it’s time to point out the corrosive and counter productive nature of said “contributions“.

Agree with you. My father once said some people are just "contrary" If you say the sun rises in the east, they will automatically say it rises in the west. I think people like that are now called "trolls".

rarebear.nm · 01-21-2020, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcussen

Agree with you. My father once said some people are just "contrary" If you say the sun rises in the east, they will automatically say it rises in the west. I think people like that are now called "trolls".

I agree with you totally and also the points made by RWorld.

sibe · 01-22-2020, 04:49 AM

Wow this thread took as turn, hit a bump and.....

Personally the info on this site is good, sometimes same story, different post but that is OK, I can be a dingbat normally becasue of not reading the entire 10 pages sometimes.. LOL

But this side turn talk on energy has some cool stuff and links, that got me clicking and that is what I like on forums..

As far as solar, gennys in an RV.. we can chat and debate all day as there are a few distinct uses and intentions.. So what works perfect for me and my neighbors . may piss off the full time, quiet, retired ,solitude, RV goer.... BUT If I had to be his neighbor I would respect the condition and either adapt or move on.. Something that is missing in parts of our world, common sense and respect... in many ways.

Thanks for all the info here.. and yes I am going to set up a few solor panels on the roof of the RV, I am researching the best mounting solutions, I would love re-positional but.... for my 6-8 weekend a year i would hammer the solor use with no genny for AV and to keep batteries alive,, maybe not worth the effort. flat mount may be best with 2 extra panels to get load right even if absorbtion is less blah blah

R.Wold · 01-22-2020, 06:14 AM

Here’s a pros and cons discussion on tilt mounts. It’s tempting...
https://www.gonewiththewynns.com/tilt-rv-solar-panels

rarebear.nm · 01-22-2020, 10:26 AM

I debated the idea of tilt or no-tilt in the panels as have many others.

1. Depending on location you may gain 30 +/- % of power from tiling.
2. Unless you install automatic lift system, you have to go on the roof to set up the angle and drop them down for travel.
3. If the weather is not good, too windy or wet, I would not want to be on the roof. More so on some kinds of roofs.
4. If the panels are up and you need to move for what ever reason, you can't until the panels are in stored position. Could be a real problem sometimes.
5. If you have the roof area you can achieve the same thing by adding about 30% more panel capacity and not have to tilt at all.
6. The price of panels ($/watt) has dropped a great deal since tilting become popular.
7. Some newer panel types are much more efficient in low light conditions than others.
8. I used commercial panels, three 350 watt panels, 1050 watts total.
9. Understand with few exceptions you probably will not get a positive return on your investment. I did it only for the options and life style solar offers.
10. By designing for flat panels, the solar still does a great job while traveling between one-night stops, which is common for us.
11. If you do not spend like a week plus at a single site, the panel setup and takedown process might become a burden for shorter stays. This is a matter of preference.

As you have concluded I went with fixed panels. I turned off power converters at the breaker when I installed the panels and have never turned them back on. The solar provides us with 100% of the 12 volt power we use. The generator is seldom used for anything more than a few minutes of microwave use. Where we go, we seldom need the A/C. With the Morningstar MPPT 60 controller our four GC batteries (460 AHr) are almost always back to 100% SoC by 10am. The setup works very well in low angle and low light setups.

Bottom line, our solar system works 100% as designed and intended.

Bobby F · 01-22-2020, 11:57 AM

I looked (longingly) at going without tilt for my current crop of panels.

It gets a bit crowded up there on my C roof, and staying down here would be nice.

But I came to the conclusion that, if you were going to spend substantial time above the 45th parallel - which is halfway between the equator and the pole - your losses running flat would be too great.

R.Wold · 01-22-2020, 12:31 PM

It’s a wonderful concept, but I think it would be one of those “improvements” you use a couple times and then start rationalizing not going up and tilting them “this time” until finally it becomes an expensive complicated addition you never use. And of course a powered tilting system, with a remote even, would be cool, but would also be expensive, more complicated, and I’m sure end up being either one more thing to repair, or leave defunct when it fails.

Ive concluded that the only reason I would go to a tilt mount system would be if my power needs exceeded what I can get out of flat mounting panels, and I don’t see that happening.

jcussen · 01-22-2020, 01:11 PM

If I spent a lot of time boondocking in one spot, would probably appreciate tilting panels. But I don't, so just placed as many watts as possible on my roof to compensate.

Bobby F · 01-22-2020, 01:13 PM

Sometimes "unlimited funds" truly is a great answer!

rarebear.nm · 01-22-2020, 04:06 PM

IMO- solar installations have to be customized to the RV and user's life style.

As far as needing to tilt you'r panels its is subjective as I explained above. We spent four months in Alaska and Canada, part of the time above the Aritic Circle and never had any issues getting a full charge every day. We ran the furnace every night that draws a lots AHrs for the fan. But that was for our installation. Results will vary with other installations. Go for the tilt if that fits your needs the best. No one else can judge that for you.

Have fun and be safe...

hclarkx · 01-23-2020, 12:12 AM

I'm lucky I guess. My fixed panels are inherently tiltable ..... kind of. My 5er has a vaulted ceiling and so the roof slopes from near-front to back. It's 10 degrees, maybe more, and the panels are on that slope. The slope is enough to make a noticeable difference between facing south and facing north. We only ever dry camp so usually can face whatever direction we want. And that's north, of course. In State and National parks we plan ahead and reserve a site that points us more-or-less north.