Do any makers of photovoltaic cells power their facilities w

I rather doubt it.
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Yes. The company called BP (formerly "British Petroleum", now "Beyond Petroleum") has service stations across Australia which have BP Solar Panels on their rooves to power the service stations. I'm not sure however if they actually use solar electricity to make the solar panels in the first place... which was probably the intent of your question.
Here's their web site: http://www.bp.com
Cheers, Anthony.
CJT wrote:

I rather doubt it.
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

anthony.dunk@gmail.com wrote:

Yes. The company called BP (formerly "British Petroleum", now "Beyond Petroleum") has service stations across Australia which have BP Solar Panels on their rooves to power the service stations. I'm not sure however if they actually use solar electricity to make the solar panels in the first place... which was probably the intent of your question.
Here's their web site: http://www.bp.com
Cheers, Anthony.
CJT wrote: I rather doubt it.
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

It's highly unlikely that anything outside of small office areas could or would be PV powered. Employees generally insist on an air conditioned work environment and that pretty much kills PV as a viable option given the huge array that would be required to power A/C for any decent sized building. The furnaces and whatnot used in PV production also represent a load the PV would not be practical to power.
Pete C.

CJT wrote:

I rather doubt it.

Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?
Solarex (since purchased by BP Solar) powered its plant in Maryland largely with PV panels in the early '80s. It makes no economic sense to do so, though, and the load profile of a PV plant are not well suited to the supply profile of PV panels anyway. AFAIK, the only reason Solarex did it was to generate a little attention when the PV market was at an all-time low and they couldn't sell any modules.

R.H. Allen wrote:

CJT wrote: I rather doubt it.
Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?

I think the whole bootstrap thing just appeals to a lot of people. _____________ Andre' B.

I looked into the costs of a "BP" system. For my rather small but otherwise ideally placed bungalow it was going to cost �17,000. There's a 50% grant. This size of system would have to be linked to the mains, ie exporting energy when i didn't use it. Two things to watch out for:- 1, The little "p" as in 1.7KWp. (The panel electrical output) What is p? It's the peak power out, ie on the equator at midday. Everywhere else, much, much less. The other number to remember for us in the UK is 750. This is the average equivalent hours you get. ie if you have a 1 KWp panel it will generate 750 KWh (units) per year. Obviously a bigger number on the equator/California and Beruit.
2. How much your power company pays you for the electricity you export to them. �0.012, ie 1.2 pence per unit. This is the stuff they sell as "green power" for an inflated price to others.
The best thing is to install it somehow without the power company knowing. Your meter WILL run backwards through the day, and forwards at night when you're at home using electricity.
But still I think the whole thing would be grossly uneconomic.

CJT wrote:

I rather doubt it.
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Harry,
I did some analysis of the economics of installing PV on a house in Australia. My results are here:
http://adunk.ozehosting.com/SolarPanels.html
Basically if you want to install solar its not going to pay for itself at current prices. The only justification is that you'll be doing something positive for the environment.
Cheers, Anthony.
Harry wrote:

I looked into the costs of a "BP" system. For my rather small but otherwise ideally placed bungalow it was going to cost �17,000. There's a 50% grant. This size of system would have to be linked to the mains, ie exporting energy when i didn't use it. Two things to watch out for:- 1, The little "p" as in 1.7KWp. (The panel electrical output) What is p? It's the peak power out, ie on the equator at midday. Everywhere else, much, much less. The other number to remember for us in the UK is 750. This is the average equivalent hours you get. ie if you have a 1 KWp panel it will generate 750 KWh (units) per year. Obviously a bigger number on the equator/California and Beruit.
2. How much your power company pays you for the electricity you export to them. �0.012, ie 1.2 pence per unit. This is the stuff they sell as "green power" for an inflated price to others.
The best thing is to install it somehow without the power company knowing. Your meter WILL run backwards through the day, and forwards at night when you're at home using electricity.
But still I think the whole thing would be grossly uneconomic.

andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:

R.H. Allen wrote:
CJT wrote:
I rather doubt it.
Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?

I think the whole bootstrap thing just appeals to a lot of people. _____________ Andre' B.
One assumes the manufacturers are in the best position possible to

evaluate and use their own product. If they decide against such use, that speaks much louder than (marketing) words.
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

CJT wrote: ....

One assumes the manufacturers are in the best position possible to evaluate and use their own product. If they decide against such use, that speaks much louder than (marketing) words.

Doesn't mean a thing. A manufacturer that doesn't use it's own products simply means that they find it better to use something else.
For instance, say a company makes emergency electric generators. Would you expect them to get all their electricity from their own generators? How about a company that makes specialty glass? Do you expect them to use only their own glass in all their own windows?
Why would you expect a solar PV manufacturer to use PV's that are better suited for off-grid sites when they themselves are not off-grid?
Anthony

CJT wrote:

andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:
R.H. Allen wrote:
CJT wrote:
I rather doubt it.
Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?

I think the whole bootstrap thing just appeals to a lot of people. _____________ Andre' B.
One assumes the manufacturers are in the best position possible to evaluate and use their own product. If they decide against such use, that speaks much louder than (marketing) words.

You're not a big fan of natural gas turbines then, I guess. Buying electricity from the grid is cheaper than operating a natural gas turbine to generate electricity for the process, plus you can sell (and generate revenue from) the turbines you would have kept had you insisted on running your factory from them. It's not like those coal plants, which get their construction energy from mobile coal-fired power plants on the backs of trucks, right?
Obviously your argument is complete and total nonsense. Even if PV panels were the cheapest source of electricity on earth it would be stupid to tie up a manufacturing plant for several years making panels that will never be sold. The capital investment that would be required to finance that would be ridiculous, yet all it would accomplish is to increase the price of PV panels and reduce the number of people using PV. Why on earth would any sensible PV company executive think that would be a good thing?

Bear in mind however that anything new is always expensive. They're just trying to get back developement costs. Look at plasma and LCD TVs. When they've done that, prices will fall. I intend to let someone else pay these developement costs :-)
R.H. Allen wrote:

CJT wrote: andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:
R.H. Allen wrote:
CJT wrote:
I rather doubt it.
Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?

I think the whole bootstrap thing just appeals to a lot of people. _____________ Andre' B.
One assumes the manufacturers are in the best position possible to evaluate and use their own product. If they decide against such use, that speaks much louder than (marketing) words.
You're not a big fan of natural gas turbines then, I guess. Buying electricity from the grid is cheaper than operating a natural gas turbine to generate electricity for the process, plus you can sell (and generate revenue from) the turbines you would have kept had you insisted on running your factory from them. It's not like those coal plants, which get their construction energy from mobile coal-fired power plants on the backs of trucks, right?
Obviously your argument is complete and total nonsense. Even if PV panels were the cheapest source of electricity on earth it would be stupid to tie up a manufacturing plant for several years making panels that will never be sold. The capital investment that would be required to finance that would be ridiculous, yet all it would accomplish is to increase the price of PV panels and reduce the number of people using PV. Why on earth would any sensible PV company executive think that would be a good thing?

R.H. Allen wrote:

CJT wrote:
andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:
R.H. Allen wrote:
CJT wrote:
I rather doubt it.
Why does this question keep coming up lately (perhaps not in this group, but in a couple of others)...?

I think the whole bootstrap thing just appeals to a lot of people. _____________ Andre' B.
One assumes the manufacturers are in the best position possible to evaluate and use their own product. If they decide against such use, that speaks much louder than (marketing) words.
You're not a big fan of natural gas turbines then, I guess. Buying electricity from the grid is cheaper than operating a natural gas turbine to generate electricity for the process, plus you can sell (and generate revenue from) the turbines you would have kept had you insisted on running your factory from them. It's not like those coal plants, which get their construction energy from mobile coal-fired power plants on the backs of trucks, right?

Not everybody has ready access to a coal mine.

Obviously your argument is complete and total nonsense.

Says you.
Even if PV

panels were the cheapest source of electricity on earth it would be stupid to tie up a manufacturing plant for several years making panels that will never be sold. The capital investment that would be required to finance that would be ridiculous, yet all it would accomplish is to increase the price of PV panels and reduce the number of people using PV. Why on earth would any sensible PV company executive think that would be a good thing?

If it takes years of production to make enough panels to power one plant, how can they be useful on more than a minuscule scale?
-- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

wrote in message Harry,
I did some analysis of the economics of installing PV on a house in Australia. My results are here:
http://adunk.ozehosting.com/SolarPanels.html
Basically if you want to install solar its not going to pay for itself at current prices. The only justification is that you'll be doing something positive for the environment.
I suspect the reason the OP asked the question is to try to determine if solar panels are indeed good for the environment. I don't see how they can be considering the source for most of the electricity that is probably used to create the panels. If solar panels were used to manufacture new ones then they would eventually be good for the environment. The way I see it is they are a viable option for living off-grid.
Cheers, Anthony.
Harry wrote:

I looked into the costs of a "BP" system. For my rather small but otherwise ideally placed bungalow it was going to cost �17,000. There's a 50% grant. This size of system would have to be linked to the mains, ie exporting energy when i didn't use it. Two things to watch out for:- 1, The little "p" as in 1.7KWp. (The panel electrical output) What is p? It's the peak power out, ie on the equator at midday. Everywhere else, much, much less. The other number to remember for us in the UK is 750. This is the average equivalent hours you get. ie if you have a 1 KWp panel it will generate 750 KWh (units) per year. Obviously a bigger number on the equator/California and Beruit.
2. How much your power company pays you for the electricity you export to them. �0.012, ie 1.2 pence per unit. This is the stuff they sell as "green power" for an inflated price to others.
The best thing is to install it somehow without the power company knowing. Your meter WILL run backwards through the day, and forwards at night when you're at home using electricity.
But still I think the whole thing would be grossly uneconomic.