alt.energy.homepower

bealiba@ wrote in
news: @ :

> On Sep 14, 11:32 am, drydem wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 4:18 pm, beal...@ wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 14, 1:46 am, drydem wrote:
>>
>> > > Solar PC: Turning Sunlight into Computing Power
>> > > Frank Volkel. September 6, 2007
>> > > (1st in a series of 3 articles of powering a PC via solar
>> > > panels)http
>:// /2007/09/06/technical_foundations_diy_sola...
>>
>> > > an overview of solar panel technology and industry
>>
>> > > Do-It-Yourself Solar-Powered PC
>> > > By Bert Töpelt ... September 13, 2007 10:36
>> > > ( 2nd in a series of 3 articles of powering a PC via solar
>> > > panels)htt
> p:// /2007/09/13/hardware_components/
>>
>> > > Using readily available components an AMD
>> > > Athlon 64 X2 BE-2350 motherboard
>> > > desktop using 61w on idle and 115W on
>> > > full duty cycle/load.
>>
>> > > The final article will cover a step-by-step
>> > > description of a solar-powered energy
>> > > collection and storage system.
>>
>> > Is this supposed to impress people. I and many others have been
>> > running our computers off solar power for years.
>>
>> > I think you may have missed the boat.-
>>
>> Tom's Hardware normally focuses on computer performance. They opted
>> out of using a notebook which are designed from the top down to be
>> more
>> energy efficient because it was less of a challenge and they wanted
>> to make something with more computing power. This is the first time
>> I can recall them addressing computing energy efficiency.
>
> Seems to me to be a case of closing the barn door after the horse has
> bolted.
>
> I have run all my computers off solar for as long as I have had
> computers.
>
> Despite poor wayes assertions my latest iMac uses 59 watts while being
> used for simple word processing and can use as much as 150 watts when
> pushed to more demanding work. It was a choice between that and and
> eMac that had a higher energy requirement.
>>
>> My gut reaction was that the full electrical load
>> of 115w is a tad excessive but Tom's Hardware Group
>> wants a very fast workstation and they're willing to
>> build a bigger solar array system to accomodate it.
>
> 115 watts sounds high, yes. But then equipment uses what it uses for
> the application it is used for. Best to design for the possible load
> rather than have not enough energy when you need it. Especially if you
> are making money from the computer.
>>
>> Yet ISTM if I'm out in the middle of nowhere with
>> a computer running on batteries and a few
>> solar panels - I would be thinking more than twice
>> about wasting any of precious battery power
>> on anything more than the basics like
>> internet, email, word processing, and a
>> power grid monitor. I'm expecting that the cost
>> the electrical storage system is about half the
>> cost of a solar panel system.
>
> Well now, consider this.
>
> A printing company at the end of the grid. Presses being run and an
> office full of computers.
>
> Now the owner did not care if the presses ran a bit slow from time to
> time due to grid not being up to his demands.
>
> But he put the office on solar. No computer problems, no down time, no
> lost data.
>
> So if it comes down to a) being out in the middle of nowhere and you
> are making money from your computer and need it to its fullest
> capabilities or b) just checking your email. You have to decide how
> much you are going to limit your ability to use your computer.


I use via c3 processor with microATX + 15 inch LCD when I need to run off
solar and it draws a shedload less than any AMD or Intel.