| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 88483 | 2008-03-29 01:46:00 | Solar Panels | rob_on_guitar (4196) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 653806 | 2008-03-30 03:53:00 | Has anybody got solar panels set up on their roof? Ive been interested after watching one of those crappy reality programs where a family had to cut down on the carbon emissions etc, very boring stuff, but they heated their pool with solar panels to save power. I guessing these are quite expensive to set up? No, but I know a few people that have. |
pine-o-cleen (2955) | ||
| 653807 | 2008-03-30 06:16:00 | If you go for a solar hot water heater get the glass vacum tube exchange ones as they are much better. Really? I have just read a book about solar water heating, and it basically said, that if you have to remember one thing, don't get the evacuated tube ones. I can't remember the exact reasons, but they aren't supposed to be as efficient, are more expensive, and are very easily damaged, and can fail over time. The most cost effective ones are those flat panel types, with the black panels with copper tubing within them, covered with a layer of polycarbonate or glass. There was a closeup story last year about a company who produced these, and the black panels had corroded, meaning the black colour had disappeared, making them useless. Lots of people where complaining about it, however I think that was probbaly just that manufacturer. This is also useful en.wikipedia.org |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 653808 | 2008-03-30 06:17:00 | Parents have it. Great in summer, not so effective in Winter. They have a wetback they use in the winter. Haven't spent a cent on water heating in over 9 years. Since the original outlay of 10k ish. lol. I don't think you are allowed to install a new fire with a wet back anymore, due to the new carbon emmission laws. This law however may not be in, but I did read a story about recently about this. |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 653809 | 2008-03-30 08:25:00 | Really? I have just read a book about solar water heating, and it basically said, that if you have to remember one thing, don't get the evacuated tube ones. I can't remember the exact reasons, but they aren't supposed to be as efficient, are more expensive, and are very easily damaged, and can fail over time. The most cost effective ones are those flat panel types, with the black panels with copper tubing within them, covered with a layer of polycarbonate or glass. There was a closeup story last year about a company who produced these, and the black panels had corroded, meaning the black colour had disappeared, making them useless. Lots of people where complaining about it, however I think that was probbaly just that manufacturer. This is also useful en.wikipedia.org Well I have two friends with the different types of solar hot water and the system with the evacuated tubes is way more efficient and both systems face the same way. Each tube can be replaced individualy. They might suffer with an hail storm like they get in Aussie but so far he has had no problems. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 653810 | 2008-03-30 08:54:00 | Each tube can be replaced individualy. They might suffer with an hail storm like they get in Aussie but so far he has had no problems. Possibily, however with all these things, they are always superseeding old models, so in a few years if one gets broken, they may not be able to get a replacement. I had this problem with sectiona; garage doors that were installed new just 2 years ago. One of the sections got damaged recently, and I thought I could just get a replacement section, but they said that are now made differently, so I had to replace all the sections in the door. It is difficult to compare 2 totally different systems, on two totally different houses. The flat panel type may not have been installed properly, or may have rubbishy cheap panels. The cheap ones use aluminium, and corrode overtime, making the panels go white, and meaning that they don't attract has much energy from the sun. However from my research the flat panel type is far more cost effective than the tube system, and there are some new advances in them, such as using silicon instead of metal. |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 653811 | 2008-03-30 09:29:00 | Possibily, however with all these things, they are always superseeding old models, so in a few years if one gets broken, they may not be able to get a replacement. I had this problem with sectiona; garage doors that were installed new just 2 years ago. One of the sections got damaged recently, and I thought I could just get a replacement section, but they said that are now made differently, so I had to replace all the sections in the door. It is difficult to compare 2 totally different systems, on two totally different houses. The flat panel type may not have been installed properly, or may have rubbishy cheap panels. The cheap ones use aluminium, and corrode overtime, making the panels go white, and meaning that they don't attract has much energy from the sun. However from my research the flat panel type is far more cost effective than the tube system, and there are some new advances in them, such as using silicon instead of metal. All I know is that the evacuated tube system will pull regular heat on a day when the panel type does diddly squat. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 653812 | 2008-03-30 09:56:00 | All I know is that the evacuated tube system will pull regular heat on a day when the panel type does diddly squat. From what I have read, if they are setup right, they should both heat water to similar levels, even on overcast days. Just fond this link which may help www.mirak.co.nz |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 653813 | 2008-03-31 06:27:00 | I used to work for a place that tests them only place in NZ, they issue accreditation for NZ and Oz evac tubes are definitely better. Don't ask for more info I can't give it. | gary67 (56) | ||
| 653814 | 2008-03-31 07:50:00 | I don't think you are allowed to install a new fire with a wet back anymore, due to the new carbon emmission laws. This law however may not be in, but I did read a story about recently about this. The regulations are in force but they deal with smoke emissions not carbon emissions. They don't specifically ban wetbacks...its more a case that most wetbacks can't meet the specs because of the need to keep them just ticking over (which can be the main cause of smoke). There is a massive loophole in the regs. They don't apply to multi-fuel stoves!!!!! Martynz |
martynz (5445) | ||
| 653815 | 2008-03-31 11:22:00 | We considered getting solar panels last year. Worked out it would take 15 years to pay back the cost. The lost interest of the capital outlay vs the future rising costs of electricity became the issue. In the end it just wasn't worth it. | Greg (193) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||