What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/07/2012 2:02 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:58 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
Of course we could all start using these instead:

http://www.empasys.net/

No fuel or other enery inputs. Lasts forever. "Ambient energy conversion
with quantum coherence technology."

Sounds almost too good to be true.


You just tap the thermal energy in the Ocean.

1% energy fee to separate ocean temp down to 5 degrees.

Cheap solar heaters to get 60 degree lakes.

Mix 60 degree and 5 degree sources and you get 55/275 efficiency
stirling engine or peltier generators.

Herc

You can get energy out of the ocean, but it takes so much infrastructure
to get so little energy that it simply makes no economic sense. Which is
why no one is using it as a serious energy supply.

Indeed, why go to the ocean. Connect up a bunch of microphones, and just
collect energy from the outside ambient noise.

Economic. That's the word you need to remember. It's not sufficient for
something to be physically possible. It has to be economic before it
will be used in the mainstream.

Sylvia.

 

[terryc]

On 07/07/12 13:20, Graham Cooper wrote:

you still have 64% capacity after 1 year, that's with full 365 charge/
discharge cycles.

Not if you ever fully discharge them or discharge Gel at a rate
C(amphour capacity)/20.

No you idiot! that IS the rating given. full discharge over 24 hours
X 365

actually its probably 12hrs up and 12hrs down.

Which automatically reduces the effective capacity.
Hint, go read the fine print. Advertised capacity is rated over 20 hours.

Hint, look at tables for solar insolation/isolation. The sun doesn't
shine effectively for 12 hours. In fact, search for effective sun hours.

 

[terryc]

On 07/07/12 13:21, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 7, 12:13 pm, terryc<newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
On 07/07/12 07:31, Graham Cooper wrote:

$300 = 100AH = 1200WH = 1000W effective for 1 hour

No, you do not get to discharge that capavcity in one hour.http://www.jgdarden.com/batteryfaq/
If you start to asorb that information, then you will start to make
credible statements.

your an idiot!
definitely, look who I'm replying to.

1 hour is the conversion datum
It gives people te idea that that capacity is usable in that time and it

isn't.
Low cost batteries need time to charge and discharge.
OTOH, capacitors.
The devil in all your schemes are the conversion rates and the losses
there in, i.e the practical bits.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/07/2012 2:13 PM, kreed wrote:

if you are worrying about "emissions" I guess you should also worry about whether or not the solar panels provide a slippery surface that could be a safety issue for when Santa lands his sleigh on the roof at Christmas. This is a far more real concern.

I'm not, particularly, but clearly some people are. It would be annoying
in the extreme if I'm having pay more for electricity because people are
implementing alleged CO2 reducing technologies that don't actually work.

Sylvia

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/07/2012 1:59 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:48 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 7/07/2012 1:23 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
Coal plant? Who mentioned coal plants? Are you under the impression that
when you run your solar panels, you're reducing the consumption of coal?



Where is your DATA on your assumed halving of efficiency by varying
the load (down)?

Where did I say it was halved?

The reduction in efficiency is a result of a choice of a different kind
of generation plant. The different choice arises because of the lower
utilisation, which shifts the optimum economics towards using more fuel,
but with less capital expenditure.

Sylvia.

SOLAR GETS POPULAR
-> less energy required
-> cheaper power plants
-> no economy of scale
-> less efficient
-> burn more fuel
-> more pollution

OK, at what point does this actually produce more CO2?

Where is your DATA comparing 2 different sized power stations.

It's not that they're different sized in terms of power output, it's
that they are constructed differently.

The basic principle is this:

Capital investment incurs a cost - it's the money that could have been
earnt using the capital if it hadn't been invested in the particular
way. That cost continues day by day whether or not the generation plant
is running.

Running a generation plant incurs a cost - it's the money used to
provide it with fuel (and maintenance and other minor elements, but
mainly fuel). But unlike the capital cost, the running cost is only
incurred when the plant is running.

So for a given power capacity, there's a compromise to be made between
the capital cost and the running cost. The more capital you spend, the
more efficient you can make the plant, and the less fuel it will
consume. But the less the plant runs, the less you gain from the extra
capital. Beyond a certain point, additional capital doesn't pay for
itself in terms of reduced fuel consumption. Where that point lies
depends on the percentage utilisation.

Solar panels on roofs will reduce the time that other generation plant
is running. Essentially, the plant that would be running during the day
in the absence of solar panels will only be running when the sun isn't
shining. When it comes time to replace or build that plant, the decision
will be made that it's not sensible to spend so much capital on making
it efficient. So, for a given energy output, it will consume more fuel,
and therefore produce more CO2.

That's a qualititive analysis. I don't have the data for a quantitive one.

What ratio of size difference in power station will there be until
they do a bait-and-switch and swap to using those unearthly
inefficient smaller power stations that churn out X times CO2 due to
inefficiency of scale?

It's not an inefficiency of scale. See above.

You reduce power requirements by 50%
and CO2 emmission goes up?

Where did you think up such a bunch of tripe?

You thought it up. I didn't say it.

Sylvia.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 12:10 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On 07/07/12 06:58, Graham Cooper wrote:











http://jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SB1695&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=997#12

12V 100Ah Deep Cycle Gel Battery
$305
Very expensive.

This will deliver 1200W for 1 hour.

Definitely not unless you want to explode the battery. That rating is at
best 60watts for five hours. Any more or longer and the life cycles head
south.

that's only 5AMP!  wouldn't even get warm!

But if you fully charge and fully discharge every day..

Then you are definitely fscking it.

you still have 64% capacity after 1 year, that's with full 365 charge/
discharge cycles.

Not if you ever fully discharge them or discharge Gel at a rate
C(amphour capacity)/20.

No you idiot! that IS the rating given. full discharge over 24 hours
X 365

actually its probably 12hrs up and 12hrs down.

I quoted 1 hour to convert from AH to Watts, then used far less than
1/20 (2 weeks) in my post.

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 12:13 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On 07/07/12 07:31, Graham Cooper wrote:

$300 = 100AH = 1200WH = 1000W effective for 1 hour

No, you do not get to discharge that capavcity in one hour.http://www.jgdarden.com/batteryfaq/
If you start to asorb that information, then you will start to make
credible statements.

your an idiot! 1 hour is the conversion datum

read the entire post your moron

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 11:44 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 7/07/2012 9:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:









On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.

**I did the sums about 4 years ago. For about a week's energy needs, I'd
need to plonk down around $4k for high quality, lead/acid batteries.
With careful use of energy, that 7 days could be stretched further,
particularly given the lower energy requirements of many appliances now
(inverter air cons, LED/LCD TV sets, LED lighting, etc). $4k is less
than I spend every two years on coal generated power right now. As for
PV cells, don't forget that amorphous type cells are better at supplying
power in low/dappled light conditions. Price falls with these types of
cells are expected to be nothing short of spectacular over the next few
years. $10.00/sq Metre installed is not unreasonable, since the cells
could be incorportated into roofing materials at extremely low cost.

Let's be clear that I'm looking at the total cost and total benefit, on
the assumption that neither consumers nor suppliers will install
batteries because the government will not require them to. If amorphous
cells fall in price soon, it just brings forward the point where the
economics of the grid generation as presently configured are undermined.

I'd still like to see an analysis of the long term effects on the choice
of generation plant (I don't have access to the required input data),
and the consequential net benefit, if any, in CO2 reduction.

If installation of solar cells doesn't in fact reduce CO2 emissions, and
doesn't reduce the true cost of electricity, then the money being spent
on them is just money that's being wasted.

Sylvia

As pointed out this is scraremongering and gross abuse of simple
facts.

you can't INCREASE CO2 by REDUCING power requirements on the coal
plant.

Where is your DATA on your assumed halving of efficiency by varying
the load (down)?

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

Apart from the solar issue, I reckon they should start a national grid
system followed by an international one. That would go a long way
towards solving the shortages in one area and taking the surplus from

the only problem with solar is how to store the energy for 12 hours!

you can run a cable from Sydney to Brisbane if there's a cloud!

If people can't afford a $10K battery to run the aircon all night,

then the GRID can supply to surplus.

ALL AIRCONS should be MANDATORY RUN OFF SOLAR during the day.

You put $100MILLION solar panels just out of town on a few paddocks.

You heat a few megalitres of water or salt slew.

Thermal insulation gains with economy of scale.

VOLUME > SURFACE AREA
SIZE^3 > SIZE^2
THERMAL CAPACITY > THERMAL LOSS

as size increases.

That's one theory why Dinosaurs grew so big to combat the ice age.

You run a PELTIER GENERATOR or STERLING ENGINE or STEAM ENGINE at
night that taps the megalitre of hot water stored energy.

No battery needed.

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 1:28 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

Apart from the solar issue, I reckon they should start a national grid
system followed by an international one. That would go a long way
towards solving the shortages in one area and taking the surplus from

the only problem with solar is how to store the energy for 12 hours!

you can run a cable from Sydney to Brisbane if there's a cloud!

If people can't afford a $10K battery to run the aircon all night,

then the GRID can supply to surplus.

ALL AIRCONS should be MANDATORY RUN OFF SOLAR during the day.

You put $100MILLION solar panels just out of town on a few paddocks.

You heat a few megalitres of water or salt slew.

Thermal insulation gains with economy of scale.

VOLUME > SURFACE AREA
SIZE^3 > SIZE^2
THERMAL CAPACITY > THERMAL LOSS

as size increases.

That's one theory why Dinosaurs grew so big to combat the ice age.

You run a PELTIER GENERATOR or STERLING ENGINE or STEAM ENGINE at
night that taps the megalitre of hot water stored energy.

No battery needed.

Herc

or wind up springs!

Herc

 

[Rheilly Phoull]

On 7/07/2012 10:20 AM, terryc wrote:

On 07/07/12 10:53, Rheilly Phoull wrote:
On 6/07/2012 5:21 PM, terryc wrote:
On 06/07/12 17:53, Rheilly Phoull wrote:

Apart from the solar issue, I reckon they should start a national grid
system followed by an international one. That would go a long way
towards solving the shortages in one area and taking the surplus from
the active areas. Costly I know but the longer it's left the more
costly
it will become. The same goes for water.

Transmissin losses in both cases. You can shift electrical AC power
around and minimises the losses by bumping the transmission voltage. SFA
you can do with water, except pay monstrous power bills for pumping.


Sure of course there are losses in transmission but if you are wasting a
surplus
hint, the riverbed doesn't think so.

that might help a bit to compensate. There are some very
efficient electric transmission lines about and pumping is not the only
way to move water

I've got the chair and popcorn. Post away with the information on other,
economically feasible methods of moving water.

although the most used I guess.

You any relation to Tony Abbot ?

Thank diety,I an not related to any current politician.

Ohh, for a moment there I thought you were Doctor No
Ok so we might be able to do the electric bit, for the water I don't
profess to be an expert on all this but if there is the will, usually
there is a way.

R.P

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 1:48 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 7/07/2012 1:23 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
Coal plant? Who mentioned coal plants? Are you under the impression that
when you run your solar panels, you're reducing the consumption of coal?



Where is your DATA on your assumed halving of efficiency by varying
the load (down)?

Where did I say it was halved?

The reduction in efficiency is a result of a choice of a different kind
of generation plant. The different choice arises because of the lower
utilisation, which shifts the optimum economics towards using more fuel,
but with less capital expenditure.

Sylvia.

SOLAR GETS POPULAR
-> less energy required
-> cheaper power plants
-> no economy of scale
-> less efficient
-> burn more fuel
-> more pollution

OK, at what point does this actually produce more CO2?

Where is your DATA comparing 2 different sized power stations.

What ratio of size difference in power station will there be until
they do a bait-and-switch and swap to using those unearthly
inefficient smaller power stations that churn out X times CO2 due to
inefficiency of scale?

You reduce power requirements by 50%
and CO2 emmission goes up?

Where did you think up such a bunch of tripe?


Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 1:58 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

Of course we could all start using these instead:

http://www.empasys.net/

No fuel or other enery inputs. Lasts forever. "Ambient energy conversion
with quantum coherence technology."

Sounds almost too good to be true.

You just tap the thermal energy in the Ocean.

1% energy fee to separate ocean temp down to 5 degrees.

Cheap solar heaters to get 60 degree lakes.

Mix 60 degree and 5 degree sources and you get 55/275 efficiency
stirling engine or peltier generators.

Herc

 

[kreed]

On Saturday, July 7, 2012 11:44:07 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 7/07/2012 9:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
Opinions on this vary, but it appears that sometime in the next ten
years, domestic solar power will have an unsubsidised cost that is below
the daytime domestic grid tarrif.

I need to be clear here what I mean by "unsubsidised". I mean that the
equipment can be bought and installed without a contribution from either
the government or the suppliers(s) of electricity. I'm also assuming
that customers will be able to net off their daytime electricity
consumption by selling their surplus solar power to the utility at the
same price as they'd buy it at that time of day.

There are arguments about whether such a framework is really
unsubsidised, but that's the definition I'm using here.

The subject is "what happens when...?"

At that point, rational consumers will install solar power systems.
Further, for those that cannot raise the capital, I would envisage
business moving in to install and lease the equipment to the consumer,
because it will be possible to let the consumer have electricity for
less than the grid price while providing a profit to the lessor.

So there should be solar panels on every domestic roof that receives
enough sunlight. The grid will only be supplying electrity during the
day when the sky is overcast. This affects the economics of the power
plant. In particular, I would anticipate a move away from combined cycle
(CCGT) natural gas generation to the less capital intensive, and less
energy efficient, generation plant.

That less efficient plant will produce more CO2 per kWh than the plant
that it replaces, but will produce less energy overall (since the solar
panels are producing some). I have to wonder how that pans out. Is the
CO2 purportedly saved by having the solar panels actually simply
tranferred to the outputs of the less efficient generators?

The cost of this less efficiently generated power is higher than that
produced by CCGT. Since that higher cost must be passed on to consumers,
it means that the unit cost of grid power during the day will go up,
thus further pushing the installation of solar panels.

Of course, that's based on unsubsidised solar panels with a simple
net-off of consumption. For some bizarre reason, governments still want
to help create the problem earlier than it would otherwise occur by
subsidising installation, and forcing retailers to pay more for solar
generated power than it's worth to the retailer.

I'm left wondering whether solar power is a mirage. Is it providing any
benefit whatsoever? Or is it a complete and utter waste of money,
regardless of whether CO2 emissions are a problem?

Sylvia.


**I did the sums about 4 years ago. For about a week's energy needs, I'd
need to plonk down around $4k for high quality, lead/acid batteries.
With careful use of energy, that 7 days could be stretched further,
particularly given the lower energy requirements of many appliances now
(inverter air cons, LED/LCD TV sets, LED lighting, etc). $4k is less
than I spend every two years on coal generated power right now. As for
PV cells, don't forget that amorphous type cells are better at supplying
power in low/dappled light conditions. Price falls with these types of
cells are expected to be nothing short of spectacular over the next few
years. $10.00/sq Metre installed is not unreasonable, since the cells
could be incorportated into roofing materials at extremely low cost.


Let's be clear that I'm looking at the total cost and total benefit, on
the assumption that neither consumers nor suppliers will install
batteries because the government will not require them to. If amorphous
cells fall in price soon, it just brings forward the point where the
economics of the grid generation as presently configured are undermined.

I'd still like to see an analysis of the long term effects on the choice
of generation plant (I don't have access to the required input data),
and the consequential net benefit, if any, in CO2 reduction.

If installation of solar cells doesn't in fact reduce CO2 emissions,

if you are worrying about "emissions" I guess you should also worry about whether or not the solar panels provide a slippery surface that could be a safety issue for when Santa lands his sleigh on the roof at Christmas. This is a far more real concern.


and

doesn't reduce the true cost of electricity, then the money being spent
on them is just money that's being wasted.

Now that is more sensible and critical concern. The likely future price of power should also be taken into account when doing calculations.



> Sylvia

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 7, 3:11 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 7/07/2012 1:59 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:









On Jul 7, 1:48 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 7/07/2012 1:23 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
Coal plant? Who mentioned coal plants? Are you under the impression that
when you run your solar panels, you're reducing the consumption of coal?

Where is your DATA on your assumed halving of efficiency by varying
the load (down)?

Where did I say it was halved?

The reduction in efficiency is a result of a choice of a different kind
of generation plant. The different choice arises because of the lower
utilisation, which shifts the optimum economics towards using more fuel,
but with less capital expenditure.

Sylvia.

SOLAR GETS POPULAR
-> less energy required
-> cheaper power plants
-> no economy of scale
-> less efficient
-> burn more fuel
-> more pollution

OK, at what point does this actually produce more CO2?

Where is your DATA comparing 2 different sized power stations.

It's not that they're different sized in terms of power output, it's
that they are constructed differently.

The basic principle is this:

Capital investment incurs a cost - it's the money that could have been
earnt using the capital if it hadn't been invested in the particular
way. That cost continues day by day whether or not the generation plant
is running.

Running a generation plant incurs a cost - it's the money used to
provide it with fuel (and maintenance and other minor elements, but
mainly fuel). But unlike the capital cost, the running cost is only
incurred when the plant is running.

So for a given power capacity, there's a compromise to be made between
the capital cost and the running cost. The more capital you spend, the
more efficient you can make the plant, and the less fuel it will
consume. But the less the plant runs, the less you gain from the extra
capital. Beyond a certain point, additional capital doesn't pay for
itself in terms of reduced fuel consumption. Where that point lies
depends on the percentage utilisation.

Solar panels on roofs will reduce the time that other generation plant
is running. Essentially, the plant that would be running during the day
in the absence of solar panels will only be running when the sun isn't
shining. When it comes time to replace or build that plant, the decision
will be made that it's not sensible to spend so much capital on making
it efficient. So, for a given energy output, it will consume more fuel,
and therefore produce more CO2.

That's a qualititive analysis. I don't have the data for a quantitive one..

What ratio of size difference in power station will there be until
they do a bait-and-switch and swap to using those unearthly
inefficient smaller power stations that churn out X times CO2 due to
inefficiency of scale?

It's not an inefficiency of scale. See above.



You reduce power requirements by 50%
and CO2 emmission goes up?

Where did you think up such a bunch of tripe?

You thought it up. I didn't say it.

Sylvia.

so by "LOWER UTILISATION" you meant "CUTS IN AND OUT"

I said that the first time and you corrected me

this is a bunch of idiots going round in circles!

fuck aus groups for life!

there is not ONE person on the planet who speaks sincerely and
honestly addresses the actual intent of questions.

fucking monkeys

BOOHOOO Free Energy!

Herc

 

[F Murtz]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 7/07/2012 2:02 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:58 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
Of course we could all start using these instead:

http://www.empasys.net/

No fuel or other enery inputs. Lasts forever. "Ambient energy conversion
with quantum coherence technology."

Sounds almost too good to be true.


You just tap the thermal energy in the Ocean.

1% energy fee to separate ocean temp down to 5 degrees.

Cheap solar heaters to get 60 degree lakes.

Mix 60 degree and 5 degree sources and you get 55/275 efficiency
stirling engine or peltier generators.

Herc


You can get energy out of the ocean, but it takes so much infrastructure
to get so little energy that it simply makes no economic sense. Which is
why no one is using it as a serious energy supply.

Indeed, why go to the ocean. Connect up a bunch of microphones, and just
collect energy from the outside ambient noise.

Economic. That's the word you need to remember. It's not sufficient for
something to be physically possible. It has to be economic before it
will be used in the mainstream.

Sylvia.

all of this discussion is about research using known technologies or
derivations, what is needed and will happen someday, is some genius
thinking completely out of the square that comes up with something
totally different. the main problem with this is that it has the
potential to completely alter economies and send the world in a spin, so
the genius had better be careful.

 

[terryc]

On 07/07/12 15:29, Graham Cooper wrote:

there is not ONE person on the planet who speaks sincerely and
honestly addresses the actual intent of questions.

Well, perhaps the intent isn't being communicated freely.

fucking monkeys

boonoobo?

BOOHOOO Free Energy!

No, t isn't fscking but scratching the metal tubes in differen ways with
different signs and I' fzzt how t gives you free energy, but they clam
it does.

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:28 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the solar issue, I reckon they should start a national
grid system followed by an international one. That would go a
long way towards solving the shortages in one area and taking the
surplus from

the only problem with solar is how to store the energy for 12 hours!

you can run a cable from Sydney to Brisbane if there's a cloud!

If people can't afford a $10K battery to run the aircon all night,

then the GRID can supply to surplus.

ALL AIRCONS should be MANDATORY RUN OFF SOLAR during the day.

You put $100MILLION solar panels just out of town on a few paddocks.

You heat a few megalitres of water or salt slew.

Thermal insulation gains with economy of scale.

VOLUME > SURFACE AREA
SIZE^3 > SIZE^2
THERMAL CAPACITY > THERMAL LOSS

as size increases.

That's one theory why Dinosaurs grew so big to combat the ice age.

You run a PELTIER GENERATOR or STERLING ENGINE or STEAM ENGINE at
night that taps the megalitre of hot water stored energy.

No battery needed.

Herc

or wind up springs!

Looks like you have drifted off into fantasyland again...

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 7, 10:25 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
Graham Cooper wrote:
A small peltier device (12V esky component - $15 from Jaycar)

will keep the tank at 5 degrees, no ice needed!

they don't make coolers like that because it takes 30min to cool the
tank which catalyses the evap cooling effect.

Herc

Peltier devices are hoplessly inefficient.

NO they are not.

But all the 12V Eskies don't hook them up properly.

You put a liter of water on the metal part inside the esky, tilt it
slightly
and you can cool a bottle of coke quicker than your fridge.

They need a thermal inertia contact, don't work much just cooling the
air like the $50 car eskies.

Ideal for a Evap cooler water tank (but partition the tank into a
smaller section with the peltier and cloth) so it cools a lot quicker.

The current required as you scale up to that level of cooling is what I'm
talking about.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sylvia Else"

It would be annoying in the extreme if I'm having pay more for electricity
because people are implementing alleged CO2 reducing technologies that
don't actually work.

** Nooooooo .....

Now who ever would think a terrible thought like that ??




..... Phil