When will Australia will wake up. The solar stocks are so cheap as nowhere else I guess. The sun is our future. I hope the stock owner will now realise the chance of several stocks. My absolute favorite is Solar Energy Solco Ltd. The fair value of the stock is about 3 $. I have contact to guys from Germany, Austria and Sweden and they can ´t understand, why the solar stocks are deeply ignored. We should start a solar invasion. The best moment is now, because perhaps in the summer it would be too late. I bought 100.000 stocks of Solco yesterday and the results of the last half year will come next week. From 2004 to 2005 they increased their revenue by 358%. Incredible.
Solar stocks - when will Australia wake up?
- Thread starter sunboy
- Start date
- Joined
- 20 March 2005
- Posts
- 1,200
- Reactions
- 0
is this a ramp ? some would say i'd know - thats why i'm asking.
michael_selway
Coal & Phosphate, thats it!
- Joined
- 20 October 2005
- Posts
- 2,397
- Reactions
- 2
sunboy said:
do u mean SOO? what other solar stocks are there? DYE etc?
thx
MS
sunboy
have you any experience with solar panels! for e.g.
At 15% efficiency 10 panels each measuring 1 meter by 1 meter would power 1.5 bars on an electric heater. 20 panels would power an electric kettle. This of course assumes that the sun is shining
cheers laurie
have you any experience with solar panels! for e.g.
At 15% efficiency 10 panels each measuring 1 meter by 1 meter would power 1.5 bars on an electric heater. 20 panels would power an electric kettle. This of course assumes that the sun is shining
cheers laurie
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
I can comment on solar pool heating. I have 150% of the pool's surface area on north facing roof. When in full sun it will raise the water temperature by more than one degree per hour for a 50,000 litre pool. That is more than twice as efficient as an electric heat pump which costs megabucks to run as against virtually nil running costs for the solar system. So imo the solar system is extremely effective. People who say it "doesn't work" simply haven't put enough of the collector tubing on the roof. I've seen about 40% of the pool surface area on a roof and of course it doesn't work.
It seems crazy to me that we don't make more use of the sun in a country like OZ.
Having said that, I'm not about to jump into any share as a result of someone's ramping them.
Julia
It seems crazy to me that we don't make more use of the sun in a country like OZ.
Having said that, I'm not about to jump into any share as a result of someone's ramping them.
Julia
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,887
Solar thermal or solar photovoltaic?
Solar thermal as in producing heat for household hot water, heating swimming pools, heating buildings (yes it's possible with proper design) etc. It's also possible to convert ANY source of reasonable grade heat sufficient to produce steam into electricity.
Indeed this is exactly how coal-fired and nuclear (and biomass, most oil-fired and older gas-fired) power stations work. Burning fuel or nuclear reaction produces heat to produce steam which spins the turbine to turn the alternator = electricity. Only difference with solar thermal electricity (or nuclear versus coal etc) is the source of heat.
Another form of solar thermal energy is to use the heat to create natural convection currents via a tall "chimney". Simply hot air rushing up the "chimney" drawing air in the bottom. The exact same principle as how an open fire "draws" smoke up the chimney and air into the fireplace (and the reason why open fires are incredibly inefficient and resource hungry as a means of heating - they suck huge volumes of cold air into the house to replace that drawn up the chimney). In the case of solar you just install wind turbines at the base to take advantage of constant wind. A conventional (albeit very large) greenhouse warms the air and with proper design it will run day and night (though output falls at night but then so does electricity demand). In practice it's like a hydro scheme run backwards using hot air instead of water. Note that the industry prefers the term "tower" instead of "chimney" to make it clear that it's a clean technology with no smoke.
Solar photovoltaic as in "solar panels" which convert sunlight directly into electricity. These are far more expensive (both $ and resources consumed) than solar thermal technologies for equivalent energy production. I don't have the figures in front of me but some time ago Hydro Tasmania calculated the total fossil fuels consumed in the life cycle of practically every available power production technology. Bottom line is that hydro is the winner with wind coming a close second. Wave, geothermal, tidal etc (in which Hydro Tasmania has no vested interest) are not far behind. But solar photovoltaic has a pretty big environmental impact due to the enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy used in production of the panels. The overall impact wasn't a great deal less than a best efficiency (available technology) fossil fuel power station from memory.
Given the financial and resource costs I personally think solar thermal is the way to go for using solar energy in the absence of a truly dramatic improvement in solar photovoltaic technology.
It's worth noting that hydro, wind, wave, biomass, tidal etc are all indirect means of using solar energy. In a technical sense coal, oil and gas are a form of stored solar energy but in this context they're best referred to as non-renewable fossil fuels.
If you are interested in using solar energy at home then don't forget that the point is to reduce the use of conventional energy sources (electricity, gas, oil, wood, coal) rather than using solar energy per se.
For hot water the basic options you have are electricity (off-peak or continuous supply), natural gas, LPG, oil (rarely used in Australia), solid fuel (wood, coal), heat pumps (which use electricity but not much of it compared to conventional electric heating) and solar which will usually require boosting by one of the above means.
Depending on your location and usage, the most efficient option will usually be either (listed in no particular order) solar with electric boost, solar with gas boost, heat pump or continuous flow natural gas. I left solid fuel off that list since for most it's not really an option but it certainly does work. Off-peak electricity is cheap but not efficient in a technical sense (though it works fine in that the shower will be hot as long as the tank is properly sized).
Be aware that under some circumstances solar with electric boost is well down the list. It depends on climate and whether or not you have access to mains gas. Assuming you buy a commercial system then in general, if gas is an option the most efficient system will be solar with a gas booster. If gas is not an option (LPG is rather expensive so I wouldn't use if for water heating if you've got either mains gas or mains electricity at a reasonable price) then in cooler climates go for a heat pump and in warmer climates go for solar with electric boost. For intermittent or highly variable use continuous flow gas (just gas, not solar at all) is likely to be the best option.
For houshold heating the first rule is to minimise the need. If it's an existing house then this basically means insulation and not leaving windows open unnecessarily etc. With a new house you have more options for passive solar design which in many climates means you will need no heating at all. But for most people the most efficient option will be either a heat pump (reverse cycle air conditioner), gas, or solid fuel burned in a proper wood heater or pellet fire (not an open fire or "pot belly" stove).
For swimming pools certainly go solar IMO even in cool climates such as Tasmania (not that private pools are common in Tas...). As for the boosting, either a heat pump or natural gas will be the most efficient in most cases although if solar is going to provide the vast majority of the heat then direct electric boosting on the off-peak rate would be acceptable. Any form of non-solar pool heating will be expensive to run and an an all-electric system (not a heat pump) on the continuous tariff might literally send you broke.
Note that I'm taking about technical (and environmental) efficiency and not cost. The most efficient isn't necessarily the cheapest. I'm happy to answer personal questions on the subject but suggest posting them somewhere (separate thread?) rather than a PM so that everyone who is interested can read the answers.
Solar thermal as in producing heat for household hot water, heating swimming pools, heating buildings (yes it's possible with proper design) etc. It's also possible to convert ANY source of reasonable grade heat sufficient to produce steam into electricity.
Indeed this is exactly how coal-fired and nuclear (and biomass, most oil-fired and older gas-fired) power stations work. Burning fuel or nuclear reaction produces heat to produce steam which spins the turbine to turn the alternator = electricity. Only difference with solar thermal electricity (or nuclear versus coal etc) is the source of heat.
Another form of solar thermal energy is to use the heat to create natural convection currents via a tall "chimney". Simply hot air rushing up the "chimney" drawing air in the bottom. The exact same principle as how an open fire "draws" smoke up the chimney and air into the fireplace (and the reason why open fires are incredibly inefficient and resource hungry as a means of heating - they suck huge volumes of cold air into the house to replace that drawn up the chimney). In the case of solar you just install wind turbines at the base to take advantage of constant wind. A conventional (albeit very large) greenhouse warms the air and with proper design it will run day and night (though output falls at night but then so does electricity demand). In practice it's like a hydro scheme run backwards using hot air instead of water. Note that the industry prefers the term "tower" instead of "chimney" to make it clear that it's a clean technology with no smoke.
Solar photovoltaic as in "solar panels" which convert sunlight directly into electricity. These are far more expensive (both $ and resources consumed) than solar thermal technologies for equivalent energy production. I don't have the figures in front of me but some time ago Hydro Tasmania calculated the total fossil fuels consumed in the life cycle of practically every available power production technology. Bottom line is that hydro is the winner with wind coming a close second. Wave, geothermal, tidal etc (in which Hydro Tasmania has no vested interest) are not far behind. But solar photovoltaic has a pretty big environmental impact due to the enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy used in production of the panels. The overall impact wasn't a great deal less than a best efficiency (available technology) fossil fuel power station from memory.
Given the financial and resource costs I personally think solar thermal is the way to go for using solar energy in the absence of a truly dramatic improvement in solar photovoltaic technology.
It's worth noting that hydro, wind, wave, biomass, tidal etc are all indirect means of using solar energy. In a technical sense coal, oil and gas are a form of stored solar energy but in this context they're best referred to as non-renewable fossil fuels.
If you are interested in using solar energy at home then don't forget that the point is to reduce the use of conventional energy sources (electricity, gas, oil, wood, coal) rather than using solar energy per se.
For hot water the basic options you have are electricity (off-peak or continuous supply), natural gas, LPG, oil (rarely used in Australia), solid fuel (wood, coal), heat pumps (which use electricity but not much of it compared to conventional electric heating) and solar which will usually require boosting by one of the above means.
Depending on your location and usage, the most efficient option will usually be either (listed in no particular order) solar with electric boost, solar with gas boost, heat pump or continuous flow natural gas. I left solid fuel off that list since for most it's not really an option but it certainly does work. Off-peak electricity is cheap but not efficient in a technical sense (though it works fine in that the shower will be hot as long as the tank is properly sized).
Be aware that under some circumstances solar with electric boost is well down the list. It depends on climate and whether or not you have access to mains gas. Assuming you buy a commercial system then in general, if gas is an option the most efficient system will be solar with a gas booster. If gas is not an option (LPG is rather expensive so I wouldn't use if for water heating if you've got either mains gas or mains electricity at a reasonable price) then in cooler climates go for a heat pump and in warmer climates go for solar with electric boost. For intermittent or highly variable use continuous flow gas (just gas, not solar at all) is likely to be the best option.
For houshold heating the first rule is to minimise the need. If it's an existing house then this basically means insulation and not leaving windows open unnecessarily etc. With a new house you have more options for passive solar design which in many climates means you will need no heating at all. But for most people the most efficient option will be either a heat pump (reverse cycle air conditioner), gas, or solid fuel burned in a proper wood heater or pellet fire (not an open fire or "pot belly" stove).
For swimming pools certainly go solar IMO even in cool climates such as Tasmania (not that private pools are common in Tas...). As for the boosting, either a heat pump or natural gas will be the most efficient in most cases although if solar is going to provide the vast majority of the heat then direct electric boosting on the off-peak rate would be acceptable. Any form of non-solar pool heating will be expensive to run and an an all-electric system (not a heat pump) on the continuous tariff might literally send you broke.
Note that I'm taking about technical (and environmental) efficiency and not cost. The most efficient isn't necessarily the cheapest. I'm happy to answer personal questions on the subject but suggest posting them somewhere (separate thread?) rather than a PM so that everyone who is interested can read the answers.
This is definitely no ramp. I only point out that solco is stock with a potential of 1000% in the next months. If you look at dyesol, be aware that dyesol is not successful and interesting as Solco and look at the stock price. There is a huge gap. Solco must have a value of 0,50 - 1,50. That ´s a fact. Visit the homepage and realise it.
So Australia, it ´s your turn to bring Solco to the stock price that should be. No other stock in Australia in this sector has more chances than solco. On 23th there will be a new deal in Africa, a new milestone for this company. What is Dyesol? Solco is future!!
Thank you Smurf for a good post. Very informative. I was going to post on this thread about all the research I’ve done on renewable energy but I think it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. Until then put these key words into google and you’ll get an idea of what I’ve found:
solar thermal parabolic array
solar thermal fresnel array
Solar power tower <-- these are awesome. The heat transfer fluid is molten salt at around 1000 deg C.
“sun ball” <-- this was on the ABC’s New Inventors.
Solar dish sterling engine
Triple junction photovoltaic
solar thermal parabolic array
solar thermal fresnel array
Solar power tower <-- these are awesome. The heat transfer fluid is molten salt at around 1000 deg C.
“sun ball” <-- this was on the ABC’s New Inventors.
Solar dish sterling engine
Triple junction photovoltaic
I can ´t believe that Australia is so old-fashioned. In Germany and Canada, the companies in the Water-Solar-Field with a revenue of Solco, have a stock price of 0,80 Euro. I don ´t know why this stock is so cheap. Wake up. Solar is future. And if you are buying, what you should, don ´t sell within 3 days. Stay long and get the 600 %. Solco is more profitable and much cheaper than Dyesol. Why is Dyesol so expensive, there is no substance. Change to Solco and if you are not convinced check the homepage news. Bye
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 97
- Reactions
- 0
sunboy said:
Bye.
- Joined
- 2 February 2006
- Posts
- 14,009
- Reactions
- 2,891
Solar Energy is expensive to set up and many are standing by hoping for big Government hand outs at some stage. Technology will move ahead, cutting prices and improving the efficiency of the systems.
Probably best to wait, unless you have bundles of cash or have a " mind set " as far as putting in green technology is concerned.
Probably best to wait, unless you have bundles of cash or have a " mind set " as far as putting in green technology is concerned.
michael_selway
Coal & Phosphate, thats it!
- Joined
- 20 October 2005
- Posts
- 2,397
- Reactions
- 2
noirua said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1605734.htm
Solar-thermal power touted as energy solution
By science reporter Sarah Clarke
Australian scientists have developed a new way of producing electricity, which could provide all of Australia's electricity needs in 2020.
It has been developed by mixing solar energy, heat and natural gas.
In the search to find a cleaner, more efficient form of power, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) have developed what is called solar-thermal energy.
Two hundred mirrors track the sun, and focus the sun's rays towards a tower.
The heat can reach temperatures of more than 1000 degrees Celsius, producing 500 kilowatts of power.
This is then mixed with natural gas and water to produce a renewable energy.
Wes Stein from the CSIRO says the new development could provide for Australia's future energy needs.
"It would only require about 50 kilometres by 50 kilometres in the centre of Australia somewhere to provide all of Australia's electricity needs in 2020," he said.
"That's not very much of Australia."
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200603/r79335_227803.asx (video)
DYESOL used to be called STA/STI. They were trading insolvent for year or so before they decided to change their name and put out another prospectus.
The companies owners are in it for themselves. Once they make their money, thats it. Last year there was at least a cpl of months employees werent paid, because the company had no money. However the directors had plenty, son STILL went to Grammar, family STILL went of world trips. Employees were 'promised' shares in the new [dyesol] prospectus in a bid to keep them on for working for nothing.
Now the directors have made their money through the conference they gave a month or so ago and dyesol's share price soared, just watch the company go flat and youll here nothing much from DYESOL within the year in sure.
The companies owners are in it for themselves. Once they make their money, thats it. Last year there was at least a cpl of months employees werent paid, because the company had no money. However the directors had plenty, son STILL went to Grammar, family STILL went of world trips. Employees were 'promised' shares in the new [dyesol] prospectus in a bid to keep them on for working for nothing.
Now the directors have made their money through the conference they gave a month or so ago and dyesol's share price soared, just watch the company go flat and youll here nothing much from DYESOL within the year in sure.
- Joined
- 2 February 2006
- Posts
- 14,009
- Reactions
- 2,891
michael_selway said:
Said very quickly, 50Km by 50km in the whole of Australia seems pretty small, BUT, this is 2,500 square kilometres and would require massive infrastructure costing an absolute fortune.