OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:6j8soe9pajlkktrh7rb702k8tvtp8d3ekv@4ax.com:

Storing electricity in batteries to be used several hours later to
heat water doesn't make any sense.

It makes a lot of sense, dumbass. Daytime electric costs more.
Firing this need from batteries means the meter does not spin during
the day from it. The only thing gained is a bit lower electric bill.
That is all the goal was.

USING electricity FROM batteries during the day on the HWOD units,
and THEN charging the batteries at night when the electric is cheaper.
Pretty fucking simple math there.

Damn. If you cannot even follow a simple idea, you have no chance
with anything complex.

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:156d6937-3d22-4aba-be52-6a3e74187351@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:57:58 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1fb5fabb-e2e2-4fa4-9ddf-233cd61e372c@googlegroups.com:

If you want lower cost
hot water, just use natural gas, which I bet most rest rooms
are already doing.

You are thick skulled, boy. No room in there for actual brain
matter.

You were already told. Most use HWOD.

And they can also use nat gas, stupid. In fact, for on demand, a
lot more use nat gas than use electric, for obvious reasons.

Nope. Most use installations of ELECTRIC HWOD units PROXIMAL to
the point of use.

Gas fired HWOD units are further removed from the use point and are
only in those locations that had gas included in their build. Not
all commercial buildings do, even in areas where it is available.
And many of those still use tank systems.

For obvious reasons? Our campus was three buildings when I got
there. They built 6 more since then and despite it being a fully gas
serviced and entrenched region, they made all of them all electric.

All it is is you making shit up again. You stink, boy.

It's
a lot easier to get the required amount of energy from gas than it
is from electric and gas is cheaper.

No shit, you retarded fuck. My solution was for those currently
using electric HWOD systems. Get a clue and grow the fuck up.

Go take a look at Home
Depot.

Home depot is not an indutrial facility supplier, dumbfuck.

I would use a tank as I feel that hot water should be VERY hot,
and
the USER at the tap dials in the temp wanted.


Make up your mind, first you talk about on-demand systems, now you
say you want a tank.

I would use a tank at my home. My suggestion, since you are so
fucking retarded that you cannot even keep up, was about industrial
facilities. Learn to read.

And let's add more complexity and scald
people too.

You really are a retarded little piece of shit.

You are not adult enough to ever gain a spot in any facility I
would run. An idiot too stupid to heed being informed that the HOT
water IS HOT has no business working for me.

A very hot water tank is less efficient than one at a
more reasonable temperature,

No, it is not. The thermal mass is there. Once heated, takes no
more to upkeep than a smaller tank or a lower heat tank. The tanks
are quite efficient at that. The thermal mass also means that usage
'shocks' the remainder in the tank less with the colder refill
stream.

I know you have trouble with math, so I'll stop there, since that
singular point alone defeats your bullshit claim 100%.

it's one simple thing people can do
to lower their bills,

You are truly clueless. A family, especially one with children
need VERY hot water to insure sanitization of clothing, dishes,
surfaces, etc. All they need to is be mindful of it. easy peasy.
Also, less is used at the tap when mixed down that some lame full
tilt lukewarm feed, no cold side required.

Again, it is a simple caloric math thing. If they are going to
simply supply their houshold with lukewarm water, the the entire
expenditure is a waste. You cannot win this. It IS "cheaper, sure.
But it is also no longer "hot water". The degrees thing is basic
math too... so get to that remedial course, dipshit.

> which I thought was your objective.

HWOD systems provide actual hot water. Firing them from DC is max
efficient, and charging that source at night is cheaper than paying
it out on day rates. Again... math... child.

Now you
want batteries to heat a tank of water to high temperature.

You seem to have gotten lost. The tank thing is how I would set up
my house, because *I* would not use HWOD if you paid me to. The HWOD
idea is STILL POU installations that would not change. Only how they
get powered and by what means.

Homes use tanks because they take showers, make baths... etc.
Things not done in commercial factory settings.

As
for adjusting the water temperature at the sink, we've been doing
that for a hundred years, either with two valves or with a single
handle mixing faucet.

Don't need a plumbing primer from a total fucking retard. I was
plumbing lines at 12 years of age back in the seventies, when you
were just starting to pile on the lard.

That is the whole idea. HOT water, mixed at the tap, by the user,
with two valves. How you got lost is that you are actually stupid
enough to think I did not know how a sink is furnished or used. The
problem is that one cannot mix lukewarm and cold and end up with hot.
One must actually BE hot, THEN and ONLY THEN, can the user arrive at
the desired temperature.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

When it comes to commercial applications like corporate offices
and manufacturing plants, the beauty of solar is that most energy
use occurs during the day. Large commercial plants can benefit
from solar power without needing to buy a storage solution to
cover nighttime energy usage.

Nice opinion, dipshit.

It's fact, not opinion, stupid.


It shows a serious lack of grasp.

Offsetting usage events with low rate recovery periods is a viable
money saving schema.

Great, so start your storage batteries for rest rooms company.
Meanwhile, people with sense will use cheap nat gas instead or put
a solar water heater on the roof, where the collected energy is
free, the water is heated directly. End of battery story.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:28:46 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:57:07 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:a16b995f-2d69-4e96-a47c-
64e480173a99@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

Spending those hours trickle charging your
battery pack back up to peak would be far cheaper than the daytime
on-demand usage when the business rate is so high.

Who claims it's "so high" and that the cost of your scheme isn't the
same or higher?

Trader4 wants us to use google to support his opinions when he makes that sort of claim, but seems unwilling to do it himself.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:39:42 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy
companies...
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills...($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to
where coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which
was an entirely worthwhile goal.

Tell that to Germans. Their dirty coal use has skyrocketed since
giving up nuclear, even though they have massively subsidized
solar and windmills.

They used to subsidise solar and windmills, but don't have to any more.

The dirty coal use is just using existing brown-coal-burning plant as a stop-gap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

"On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. The move is projected to cost €40 billion in compensation alone to closed businesses. Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030. The final date is expected to be assessed every 3 years."

Renewables energy sources covered 31.6% of the German electricity consumption in 2015. It has gone up a bit since then.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:02:49 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:08:53 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates).

Storing electricity in batteries to be used several hours later to
heat water doesn't make any sense. Much cheaper is to use an insulated
water tank, heat the water during cheap electricity and use the warm
water when needed.

Even better, use vacuum solar collectors to heat up the water during a
sunny day, even if the outdoor temperature is below zero degrees. In
Middle East they have even a simpler system, they just put white
plastic tanks on the roofs and the water temperature is suitable for
taking a shower in the evening.

Battery storage makes sense for electric use in electronics and
lighting, not for heating water due to the low total efficiency.

What makes more sense depends on the details. Time shifting electrical loads is a useful thing in general. If this is done via batteries on a per home basis, it will get used for whatever is needed. HWOD is useful because it reduces the thermal losses of storing heat in a water tank. If it uses electricity from the battery, the total losses need to be compared to be able to say which is better.

How well does the middle east approach work for morning showers?

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

When it comes to commercial applications like corporate offices
and manufacturing plants, the beauty of solar is that most energy
use occurs during the day. Large commercial plants can benefit
from solar power without needing to buy a storage solution to
cover nighttime energy usage.

Nice opinion, dipshit. It shows a serious lack of grasp.
Offsetting usage events with low rate recovery periods is a viable
money saving schema.

You are just some lard ass spewing schmegma. Keep it to yourself.

 

[John Doe]

Typical BS from the Australian troll, nothing to do with reality...

--
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:aed:2ae6:: with SMTP id t93mr10551261qtd.384.1569599127775; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9ba8:: with SMTP id o40mr8356577qve.125.1569599127529; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!o24no4543553qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni2488qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no4543540qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qmkebp$r7k$3 dont-email.me
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.32.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <qlqs4h$14rf$1 gioia.aioe.org> <ddca1f3b-4b88-435b-af62-5de5a17e86d9 googlegroups.com> <f6e9a26d-c3f2-4447-ad1c-8e2a29f5f84f googlegroups.com> <b3ac040c-e488-4ce1-9ec8-6bcbb2124bd4 googlegroups.com> <0f124212-50cf-45be-a46f-c0c1229efdfa googlegroups.com> <qmgjo2$7gp$2 dont-email.me> <74125ebf-cd20-4f23-8b70-c716951d6270 googlegroups.com> <6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-373bf854b01b googlegroups.com> <qmgsun$1eug$2 gioia.aioe.org> <91ee0d62-1521-41f2-824b-ef22ebf599ec googlegroups.com> <qmh4fg$ere$1 gioia.aioe.org> <c8496bb3-35ce-4bb2-8759-694ecccd4369 googlegroups.com> <279d510b-538e-47a8-b197-1445a1feb307 googlegroups.com> <qmiidn$sbp$2 gioia.aioe.org> <d99a379f-fea4-4727-b810-ba0287399737 googlegroups.com> <qmkebp$r7k$3 dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3d56fa6f-94be-48ac-80ea-332ec4498bf6 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:45:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:566227

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:39:42 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd gmail.com> wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4 optonline.net> wrote

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy
companies...
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDelƒ Ts subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsenƒ Ts Crop Service and Olsenƒ Ts Mills...($10 mil
lion)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chemƒ Ts subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to
where coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which
was an entirely worthwhile goal.

Tell that to Germans. Their dirty coal use has skyrocketed since
giving up nuclear, even though they have massively subsidized
solar and windmills.

They used to subsidise solar and windmills, but don't have to any more.

The dirty coal use is just using existing brown-coal-burning plant as a stop-gap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

"On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. The move is projected to cost ƒ'Ş40 billion in compensation alone to closed businesses. Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030. The final date is expected to be assessed every 3 years."

Renewables energy sources covered 31.6% of the German electricity consumption in 2015. It has gone up a bit since then.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-
ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

And if you're so focused on having some hot water for rest rooms
and
you want to install storage batteries to use night rate electric,
why not just install a solar water heater on the roof?

Solar water pre-heat, WITH solar electric AND rooftop battery
installations (no, idiot they are not lead acid) feeding the
facility's hot water system, and trickle charging the battery set all
day with solar and topping the battery pack at night with grid.

Huge savings and you bitching about the cost is a fucking laugh,
boy.

ALL of those elements have a cost. Damn, you are thick.

Commercial
facilities typically have lots of roof space.

Nope. Only those that do. Some these days are topped with several
pitched runs. There is a postal facility in San Diego that is four
football fields in size, but does not have a flat rooftop. It has
segments where HVAC and such are installed.

Again, child, you guess as you go, and it is obvious.

It would cost less
than your battery BS,

Nope. Nice try though, dumbfuck.

wouldn't require space for batteries inside
a facility and once installed,

Who said they have to go inside? Oh that's right.... YOUR
RETARDED ASS DID.

> the operating cost for energy is ZERO.

We know the way solar works, asswipe. We do not need a googletard
coming here trying to give primers on something you are clueless
about as if you are some authourity informing the masses of things
they are unaware of. Damn you are stupid, boy. Ain't karma a bitch,
lardass?

I'd suggest the reason it's not being done is that these electric
water heating bills aren't that big, most are using nat gas, etc.

How about not being aware of the savings potential.

You been sniffing gas, boy. One can only hope that you overdo it.
Try some gasoline. Spill some around your chair. Light a match.

Go add that to your precious threat lits.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

As for your claim that solar heating is unviable for industrial,
how about this:

I never said that, you fucking retard. I said that they are not
enough to run a facility and they aren't. Your citation states that in
the very opening of their page, dipshit.

Also, you fail to note that they express that such installations
REDUCE operating costs. They in no way now or ever will they REPLACE
those costs.

Panels put out kW when factories use Mw.

Again, you have math issues, child.

And then there is that sig thing. It fits YOU well.

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

Yes, which is why I suggested you take your money and use it to
start a company to use storage batteries and night rate electric
to provide hot water to rest rooms.

I'd rather test the function of a nice deep lye pit... with you.

It would fail though because your stench is able to pervade anything.

Update your lits, child.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:39:42 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy
companies...
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills...($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to
where coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which
was an entirely worthwhile goal.

Tell that to Germans. Their dirty coal use has skyrocketed since
giving up nuclear, even though they have massively subsidized
solar and windmills.

They used to subsidise solar and windmills, but don't have to any more.

BS!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-energy/germany-to-increase-wind-and-solar-power-production-idUSKCN1NZ252

The new plan includes also cutting the subsidy for solar energy production from 11.09 euro cents ($0.1256) per kWh to 8.9 euro cents.


That's 11 cents a kwh SUBSIDY! The total cost here in the NYC area for
electric energy is just ~6 cents, which is typical for much of the USA,
so that Germany has to SUBSIDIZE solar to the tune of 11 cents is a freaking disaster.

Wrong, mostly wrong.

 

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:37:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:6j8soe9pajlkktrh7rb702k8tvtp8d3ekv@4ax.com:

Storing electricity in batteries to be used several hours later to
heat water doesn't make any sense.

It makes a lot of sense, dumbass. Daytime electric costs more.
Firing this need from batteries means the meter does not spin during
the day from it. The only thing gained is a bit lower electric bill.
That is all the goal was.

USING electricity FROM batteries during the day on the HWOD units,
and THEN charging the batteries at night when the electric is cheaper.
Pretty fucking simple math there.

Damn. If you cannot even follow a simple idea, you have no chance
with anything complex.

Take a 1000 liter water tank, heat it to 95 C and then take out heat,
until the average temperature drops to 55 C, the temperature drop is
40 C or the energy stored and extracted is 40 C x 4 kJ/kg/C x 1000 kg
or 160000 kJ or 44 kWh. That is about the typical EV battery capacity.
How much does such batteries cost ? An insulated water tank is
definitively less than that.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:41:18 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:6j8soe9pajlkktrh7rb702k8tvtp8d3ekv@4ax.com:

Much cheaper is to use an insulated
water tank, heat the water during cheap electricity and use the warm
water when needed.

In places where they are using a tank, yes. My idea was for those
places that opted to install point of use HWOD units. I made that
pretty clear.

But yes. I agree. Where there is a tank, my idea would also save
money. But most tank installed locations use gas to fire it.

That sounds like a made up statistic. Most residences don't even have gas.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:07:09 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:39:42 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy
companies...
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills...($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to
where coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which
was an entirely worthwhile goal.

Tell that to Germans. Their dirty coal use has skyrocketed since
giving up nuclear, even though they have massively subsidized
solar and windmills.

They used to subsidise solar and windmills, but don't have to any more.


BS!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-energy/germany-to-increase-wind-and-solar-power-production-idUSKCN1NZ252

The new plan includes also cutting the subsidy for solar energy production from 11.09 euro cents ($0.1256) per kWh to 8.9 euro cents.


That's 11 cents a kwh SUBSIDY! The total cost here in the NYC area for
electric energy is just ~6 cents, which is typical for much of the USA,
so that Germany has to SUBSIDIZE solar to the tune of 11 cents is a freaking disaster.

Wrong, mostly wrong.

Yes, your facts seem to be mostly wrong.

"(Uniondale, NY—May 31, 2018) - PSEG Long Island today released the Power Supply Charge for June. Effective Friday, the Power Supply Charge will be 10.3085 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)."

"in the New York-Newark-Jersey City area in May 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported"... "Electricity prices averaged 21.0 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), up from the 20.2 cents per kWh paid in May 2017"

"Residential electricity rates in NY [1]

Residential electricity rates in New York average 17.62¢/kWh, which ranks the state 3rd in the nation."

"The approximate range of residential electricity rates in the U.S. is 8.37¢/kWh to 37.34¢/kWh."

The BS detector is going off and it's pretty loud this time.

I'm confused. It seems like you are the one who is "always wrong".

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 11:02:49 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:08:53 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates).

Storing electricity in batteries to be used several hours later to
heat water doesn't make any sense. Much cheaper is to use an insulated
water tank, heat the water during cheap electricity and use the warm
water when needed.

Even better, use vacuum solar collectors to heat up the water during a
sunny day, even if the outdoor temperature is below zero degrees. In
Middle East they have even a simpler system, they just put white
plastic tanks on the roofs and the water temperature is suitable for
taking a shower in the evening.

Battery storage makes sense for electric use in electronics and
lighting, not for heating water due to the low total efficiency.

What makes more sense depends on the details. Time shifting electrical loads is a useful thing in general. If this is done via batteries on a per home basis, it will get used for whatever is needed. HWOD is useful because it reduces the thermal losses of storing heat in a water tank.

The specific heat for water is 4 kJ/kg/C, so if water is heated from
20 C to 40 C, 80 kJ/kg is needed. With only 1.2 kW heating power, you
can heat 0.015 kg/s of water or 1.5 cl/s, suitable for making a warm
drink. If you wait one minute after turning on the heat, you get
nearly 1 kg or 1 liter of water, sufficient for washing your hands,
but hardly sufficient for a shower .

If it uses electricity from the battery, the total losses need to be compared to be able to say which is better.

How well does the middle east approach work for morning showers?

The coldest time during the day was during sun rise (25 C) so the
conductive losses weren't that bad during the night. After sun rise,
the solar radiation started to heat the tank. For an office worker
with work starting at 8 or 9, the water was sufficiently warm. Of
course, if you had go to work at 6 or 7 the situation might have been
different, then you better take the shower in the evening.

Even at higher latitudes, those tubular vacuum solar collectors can
generate quite high temperatures (well above 100 C). These concentrate
sun light on a central tubing. Even in spring with outdoor
temperatures below 0 C, quite high temperatures can still be generated
during a sunny day. Thanks to the vacuum, there is very little
conductivity heat losses.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cd5895e6-0032-4bd3-
9719-fa182276c383@googlegroups.com:

Great, so start your storage batteries for rest rooms company.
Meanwhile, people with sense will use cheap nat gas instead or put
a solar water heater on the roof, where the collected energy is
free, the water is heated directly. End of battery story.

It was about EXISTING installations, you retarded piece of shit.
No gas in the building. Grow the fuck up.

Nice snip of that info too, lardass.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:02:37 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e667b299-782e-436a-8a1c-
ef3f4c180eeb@googlegroups.com:

And if you're so focused on having some hot water for rest rooms
and
you want to install storage batteries to use night rate electric,
why not just install a solar water heater on the roof?

Solar water pre-heat, WITH solar electric AND rooftop battery
installations (no, idiot they are not lead acid) feeding the
facility's hot water system, and trickle charging the battery set all
day with solar and topping the battery pack at night with grid.

Yes, let's make it way more complicated than necessary. Hello?
Solar can heat water to the temp needed for your restrooms much of
the time, not just preheat it. That can do the major part of the
required heating, making your batteries storing night time electric
because it's at a lower rate essentially useless.

Huge savings and you bitching about the cost is a fucking laugh,
boy.

Cost does matter, like the cost of your batteries. As does having
someplace to put all of them. Compared to a solar collector to heat
the water directly, it makes no sense.

ALL of those elements have a cost. Damn, you are thick.

Commercial
facilities typically have lots of roof space.

Nope. Only those that do. Some these days are topped with several
pitched runs. There is a postal facility in San Diego that is four
football fields in size, but does not have a flat rooftop.

A roof doesn't have to be flat to be useful for solar as is
demonstrated by all the solar panels installed on residential roofs.
In fact, for max efficiency, it has to be angled.




It has

segments where HVAC and such are installed.

Again, child, you guess as you go, and it is obvious.


It would cost less
than your battery BS,

Nope. Nice try though, dumbfuck.

A solar collector wouldn't cost less than your batteries? Batteries
which then still have to use electric an night, when it has to be
paid for, while the sun is free to heat water? And the night electric
is probably coming from sources that generate CO2 too. If we need
batteries, the logical use would seem to be to store free solar for
later use, not the other way around.

wouldn't require space for batteries inside
a facility and once installed,

Who said they have to go inside? Oh that's right.... YOUR
RETARDED ASS DID.

Fine, build a storage facility outside and then factor in that cost
plus the cost of running how many feet of wire to the restrooms?
Me? I'd install a nat gas water heater.

the operating cost for energy is ZERO.

We know the way solar works, asswipe. We do not need a googletard
coming here trying to give primers on something you are clueless
about as if you are some authourity informing the masses of things
they are unaware of. Damn you are stupid, boy. Ain't karma a bitch,
lardass?

funny that I had to show you that solar is being used for commercial
and industrial power, which you claimed is impossible. Like that
Tesla factory that will be pretty much totally solar powered.

I'd suggest the reason it's not being done is that these electric
water heating bills aren't that big, most are using nat gas, etc.

How about not being aware of the savings potential.

When you actually have the numbers that show these alleged savings,
let us know. My total gas bill here in summer which includes
a storage water heater and gas grilling is under $20. How much
hot water is actually used by a person washing their hands for 15 seconds,
under one of those modern low flow taps? I suspect if you add it up,
the gas bill isn't that big, which is why you don't see solar water
heating used and why no one would be interested in something that just
gives you a small rate difference benefit, but comes with the cost
and all the other issues of massive storage batteries.

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:338c7d3c-175d-4a50-8155-
7dbf2c877749@googlegroups.com:

> essentially useless.

Why yes... you are exactly that.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:338c7d3c-175d-4a50-
8155-7dbf2c877749@googlegroups.com:

Solar can heat water to the temp needed for your restrooms much of
the time, not just preheat it.

Nope. Not even close.