What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

On 07/07/12 15:01, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.
Do you mean like carbon capture and sequestration?
 
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:37:20 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au>:

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.
I live in Arizona, in the desert. Our nominally 6.45kW solar
photovoltaic system faces south (optimum for the US) and
usually generates a net peak of approximately 5.6-5.8kW, at
solar noon, during May when the combination of sun angle and
temperature provides the best results. The total power
generated on average in May is approximately 42kWh/day, or
less than 2kWh/h averaged over 24 hours. And although this
could be improved with the addition of solar tracking panels
(a rather expensive custom proposition for residential use),
at best it could provide around 60-70kWh/day.

And like all home photovoltaic systems I know of, it
supplies zero if grid power is lost, since the inverter has
no internal frequency generator and is required to "lock" to
the incoming line frequency in order to function.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
 
"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:a5qnejFl85U1@mid.individual.net...
"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
Wow!!!
That's the closest thing to a love-letter to Sylvia that Phil has ever posted!!!!
 
On 7/07/2012 7:09 AM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 6/07/2012 7:17 PM, terryc wrote:
On 06/07/12 16:16, 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.

What is the basis of that claim?
Grid power equals very large economy of scale.
Solar power equals expensive, high maintenance storage device.

I haven't looked at the details. Prices of panels have been dropping, and
the price of grid power (particularly in NSW) have been rising. There's
going to be a crossover point.

I've assumed in the discussion that no storage devices are involved. The
point of the posting was not to argue that solar is cheap, or cost
effective, but just to look at what will happen at some point in the
future given the way things have been going, and to raise a question
about whether solar panels are actually achieving anything other than to
line the pockets of some manufacturers.

Sylvia.

Why do they install a roof just to cover it with solar panels?
I would imagine solar panel roofing material (tiles/paint) could save in
building costs and alter the math.
It's not really very efficient, even if they were available. Unless all
of your roof is facing North and unobstructed by adjacent buildings of
shading from trees. This is very rare. I looked at this option During
the design of my current house and decided it was not cost effective,
despite half the roof facing North. A low thermal inertia roof skin with
hot water and PV panels mounted at the most effective places is a better
option.
 
On 6/07/2012 10:11 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/07/2012 7:17 PM, terryc wrote:
On 06/07/12 16:16, 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.

What is the basis of that claim?
Grid power equals very large economy of scale.
Solar power equals expensive, high maintenance storage device.

I haven't looked at the details. Prices of panels have been dropping,
and the price of grid power (particularly in NSW) have been rising.
There's going to be a crossover point.

I've assumed in the discussion that no storage devices are involved. The
point of the posting was not to argue that solar is cheap, or cost
effective, but just to look at what will happen at some point in the
future given the way things have been going, and to raise a question
about whether solar panels are actually achieving anything other than to
line the pockets of some manufacturers.

Sylvia.
It would be interesting to know what the cost per kWh would be over the
lifetime of the average PV system, amortising capital cost and eventual
disposal costs into the price. Then compare that to the average grid
feed price per kWh.
 
On 08/07/12 10:10, swanny wrote:

It would be interesting to know what the cost per kWh would be over the
lifetime of the average PV system, amortising capital cost and eventual
disposal costs into the price. Then compare that to the average grid
feed price per kWh.
That is what we are trying to educate Herc about.
 
On 8/07/2012 1:10 AM, terryc wrote:
On 07/07/12 15:01, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Do you mean like carbon capture and sequestration?
Well that's a bit different. If it can be made to work (economically!)
and provided the stuff stays where it's been put, and doesn't escape
causing mass fatalites, then it will reduce the CO2 output to the
atmosphere.

That's not the same as a technology that looks as if it should work, but
doesn't, when all the ramifications of using it are taken into account.

Sylvia.
 
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:21:08 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/07/2012 1:10 AM, terryc wrote:
On 07/07/12 15:01, Sylvia Else wrote:
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.

Do you mean like carbon capture and sequestration?

Well that's a bit different. If it can be made to work (economically!)
and provided the stuff stays where it's been put, and doesn't escape
causing mass fatalites, then it will reduce the CO2 output to the
atmosphere.
LMAO

That's not the same as a technology that looks as if it should work, but
doesn't, when all the ramifications of using it are taken into account.

Sylvia.
 
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.

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On 7/9/2012 7:23 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:39 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
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.

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.



you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!
**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18 hours
each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.
**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.

***

My dads's idea was to have nuclear reactors in the desert and cart
hydrogen in trucks to the capital cities, or a pipeline.

just have massive solar stations out of town and use hydrogen
"batteries". fuels the cars while you're at it.

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/08/honda-refueling-station-ed01.jpg


Herc

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On 7/9/2012 8:17 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.
**The 90% figure may be the theoretical figure. The actual figure is far
lower.



The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol
**Duh. Fortunately, the battery can be recharged many times, with the
'free' energy provided by PV cells.

now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18 hours
each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.


Nope! Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
V V
V V
ELECTRICITY HYDROGEN >> CARS



Herc
**Not yet. The conversion efficiency is (presently) far too low.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Jul 9, 6:39 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
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.

**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a dirty
great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy yourself a
Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the power supplied
by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in theory) a typical
Australian driver, your driving is limited to around 40km/day. That
suggests you will never use anything but renewable energy to power your
car. That would result in a useful reduction in CO2 emissions. If
several million car owners did the same thing, the results would be
significant.

you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18 hours
each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.

***

My dads's idea was to have nuclear reactors in the desert and cart
hydrogen in trucks to the capital cities, or a pipeline.

just have massive solar stations out of town and use hydrogen
"batteries". fuels the cars while you're at it.

http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/08/honda-refueling-station-ed01.jpg


Herc
 
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:30 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
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.


You just need better insulation.

In winter I get 8-9 days with ice in my esky by putting it inside a
$20 plastic crate on a foam mat.

Peltier coolers are pretty good, the lowest 12V compressor fridge
takes 2AM continuous.

You can cool quickly with a peltier with 5amp-10amp
then reduce it to 1amp or so for continuous use or use a thermostat.

The 12V peltier eskies are so bad they never bothered to install
thermostats.

I'm making a cool room with conventional electric oil heaters in them
working in reverse, having a cooling element on the top of the
radiator that cycles the cold water inside the radiator, absorbing
heat in the room and fanning it outside via the peltier heat pump

*
* WALL
*
*
===|
* | | | cool room with peltier radiator (heater filled with
water)
* |===|
* ^ ^
===============


power up a peltier device and touch it! they are instantly cold as
the inside of your freezer!
Yes but when you are trying to cool/heat a room you will soon realise that
the power required to do so using Peltier cooling (not to mention the costs)
will throw your cost effective solar powering ideas into a festering heap.

But you won't listen to reason, so good luck with it. I would like to see
what you come up with though.
 
On Jul 7, 9:30 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
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.

You just need better insulation.

In winter I get 8-9 days with ice in my esky by putting it inside a
$20 plastic crate on a foam mat.

Peltier coolers are pretty good, the lowest 12V compressor fridge
takes 2AM continuous.

You can cool quickly with a peltier with 5amp-10amp
then reduce it to 1amp or so for continuous use or use a thermostat.

The 12V peltier eskies are so bad they never bothered to install
thermostats.

I'm making a cool room with conventional electric oil heaters in them
working in reverse, having a cooling element on the top of the
radiator that cycles the cold water inside the radiator, absorbing
heat in the room and fanning it outside via the peltier heat pump

*
* WALL
*
*
|| |===|
* | | | cool room with peltier radiator (heater filled with
water)
* |===|
* ^ ^
==============

power up a peltier device and touch it! they are instantly cold as
the inside of your freezer!

Herc
 
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.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the
power supplied by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in
theory) a typical Australian driver, your driving is limited to
around 40km/day. That suggests you will never use anything but
renewable energy to power your car. That would result in a useful
reduction in CO2 emissions. If several million car owners did the
same thing, the results would be significant.
Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar array required
to power it would produce more CO2 than driving a $500 20 year old Commodore
(for instance) for the life of the Volt and the solar array.
 
*
*
|| |===|
*  |  |   |     cool room with peltier radiator (heater filled with
water)
*  |===|
*  ^     ^
===============

<fixed width>

*
* WALL
*
*
|||===|
* | | | cool room with peltier radiator
* |===|
* ^ ^
===============


Herc
 
Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.

The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol






now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18
hours each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar. cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.


Nope! Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
V V
V V
ELECTRICITY HYDROGEN >> CARS
You obviously don't know how much power and how slow the process is to get
the hydrogen using electricity.

Impractical, inefficient and not even remotely cost effective - or
environmentally friendly.

There is no free lunch.
 
On 7/9/2012 9:32 AM, Clocky wrote:
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.



**Thinking outside the box over the weekend. Let's say you plonk a
dirty great PV array on your roof in a year or two. Then you buy
yourself a Holden Volt. During the day, you plug your Volt into the
power supplied by the PV array. Given the fact that you are (in
theory) a typical Australian driver, your driving is limited to
around 40km/day. That suggests you will never use anything but
renewable energy to power your car. That would result in a useful
reduction in CO2 emissions. If several million car owners did the
same thing, the results would be significant.

Not really, remember that producing a new Volt and the solar array required
to power it would produce more CO2 than driving a $500 20 year old Commodore
(for instance) for the life of the Volt and the solar array.

**Interesting. Of course you have some data to back that claim?



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.
Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.

The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol



now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18 hours
each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar.  cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.

Nope! Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
V V
V V
ELECTRICITY HYDROGEN >> CARS



Herc
 
On Jul 9, 8:24 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
On 7/9/2012 8:17 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 9, 8:01 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
you can put your 2 electrodes into rainwater and fill your own
hydrogen tanks.

very efficient too!

**No, it is not. Around 30% efficient, in fact.

Sylvia gave a figure of 90% last year or around there.

**The 90% figure may be the theoretical figure. The actual figure is far
lower.



The car battery is going to cost you more than petrol

**Duh. Fortunately, the battery can be recharged many times, with the
'free' energy provided by PV cells.


now THAT is how you store the solar power station energy for 18 hours
each night and run hydrogen plants overnight.

no batteries - 100% solar.  cloud proof.

**Yes, it is, but there are better ways.

Nope!  Not unless you use thermal energy and masses and masses of
pissy thermal generators.

Hydrogen is how it's all done.

SOLAR >> ELECTRICITY >> HYDROGEN >> GENERATOR >> ELECTRICITY
   V                        V
   V                        V
ELECTRICITY     HYDROGEN >> CARS

Herc

**Not yet. The conversion efficiency is (presently) far too low.

You're reverse engineering your arguments with zero facts to fit the
current climate.

I agree if you have a low KM range the current technology might
provide a mediocre cost benefit charging your own $10,000 battery way
under full capacity.

The hybrid cars are PR stunt. Dumb idea having 2 engines!

Remember when the concept was out they would run off braking power
from Brisbane to Perth and back on 1 tank!


Herc
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top