What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 9:38 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

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.

Honda HOME Refuelling Station

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


Electrolysis is very efficient.

You put 2 electrodes in distilled water.

RAINWATER WILL WORK!

add a pinch of salt for catalyst!

you get Hydrogen bubbles on one wire and Oxygen on the other!

H2 is the perfect 100% no losses, works forever, from water, BATTERY!

IN scuba sized Tanks!

Herc

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:38 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
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.

Honda HOME Refuelling Station

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


Electrolysis is very efficient.

You put 2 electrodes in distilled water.

RAINWATER WILL WORK!

add a pinch of salt for catalyst!

you get Hydrogen bubbles on one wire and Oxygen on the other!

The electrical power required to generate the hydrogen is greater than the
amount of hydrogen produced. It's not efficient. And it's slow, so very
slow.

H2 is the perfect 100% no losses, works forever, from water, BATTERY!

IN scuba sized Tanks!

It would take years to produce enough hydrogen to run a hydrogen car for one
day using a 12V battery!

 

[Clocky]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well documented.
Driving an existing car that is already older than the life expectancy of
the typical electric/hybrid obviously reduces your carbon footprint.

Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin off a
custard.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 6:39 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.



**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.

It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 8:24 AM, Trevor Wilson 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.

You shouldn't put much store in what Graham says I said last year, since
he's unable even to track what I've said in my previous posting.

Sylvia

 

[F Murtz]

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.

What a wonderful idea, get all the cars off the road, given that you

will be charging them at the time that most use them.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 9/07/2012 6:39 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.



**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.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.

**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be another
electric car).

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 12:21 PM, kreed wrote:

On Monday, July 9, 2012 6:39:32 AM UTC+10, 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.

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

The costs involved simply don't add up compared to a similar sized
petrol or diesel vehicle.

**Strawman. Further, as oil costs rise and becomes scarcer, other forms
of transport will be more viable. Electric vehicles are likely to fall
in price, once supply exceeds demand.

Unless something has changed dramatically, why would you buy a
western made/designed vehicle, when for close to a generation
Japanese product has run rings around them in just about every area
including quality, longevity, price, resale value, comfort and
economy ?

**Personally, I wouldn't TOUCH a US built automobile (well, except for a
'64 Mustang, maybe). There would need to be a seriously convincing
argument to buy a European car as well. The Japanese and Koreans
(presently) have the market to themselves.

Either way, electric vehicles are likely to become ubiquitous in the
near future and the Volt, particularly, is an excellent design exercise.
It uses the strenghts of the electric motive system, along with an
intelligently utilised petrol engine. For my part, I expect we'll see a
lot of similar systems used in the near future, but with an even lower
emission, more efficient Diesel engine. Probably around 500 ~ 1,000cc in
capacity.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 11:59 AM, Clocky wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

The carbon footprint of building a new car is pretty well documented.
Driving an existing car that is already older than the life expectancy of
the typical electric/hybrid obviously reduces your carbon footprint.

**So, driving an old electric/hybrid is the best of all options. I get
your point.

Then there is the fact that an electric car can't pull the skin off a
custard.

**Really? How about this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/

3.7 secs to 100kph is respectable acceleration in anyone's language.

Then, of course, there is this one (not yet for sale):

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Under 5 secs to 100kph is quicker than lots of vehicles.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 09/07/12 06:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Umm, what is the point of having the Volt?
Is this for people who are at home during the day?

 

[terryc]

On 09/07/12 08:35, Graham Cooper wrote:

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

Isn't experience a bitch, but don't let that stop you actually builting it.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 2:02 PM, terryc wrote:

On 09/07/12 06:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Umm, what is the point of having the Volt?

**You would need to ask the people who the Volt that question. For many
owners, no petrol will be required, except under unusual circumstances.

Is this for people who are at home during the day?

**I merely supplied a scenario where the Volt could be charged, with no
extra burdens placed on the grid and at no cost to the owners. Many
vehicles are garaged during the day and used to (say) drop the (lazy)
kids at school, do the shopping, etc.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 6:39:32 AM UTC+10, 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.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

The costs involved simply don't add up compared to a similar sized petrol or diesel vehicle.

Unless something has changed dramatically, why would you buy a western made/designed vehicle, when for close to a generation Japanese product has run rings around them in just about every area including quality, longevity, price, resale value, comfort and economy ?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 8:35 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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.

**No. Making hydrogen from electricity is presently extremely inefficient.

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 battery technology used in the Volt is in it's early days. Battery
costs should fall with increasing production quantities. It is churlish
to use the production costs of a relatively new technology with that
which has been in production for more than 100 years. In 1960, the cost
of a field effect transistor was measured in the hundreds of Dollars.
Now they cost far less than a Dollar. As battery production is ramped
up, costs will fall.

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

*Why? An IC engine has the ability to use the enormous chemical energy
available in typical hydrocarbon fuels, but relatively poor torque
characteristics, at low RPM. Electric motors, OTOH, develop maximum
torque at zero RPM, thus allowing for excellent stop-start motoring. An
electric motor has an additional advantage in allowing for the recovery
of lost energy during braking.

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

**I never heard that claim.

Herc

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 12:09:04 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 9/07/2012 6:39 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.



**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.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.

Not only that, the cars are least likely to be used at night, would be charging, and would NOT be using solar. Even in this fictional commuter scenario quoted, where everyone drives into the city to work, then home, it would be impossible to get sufficient surface area on multi level car parks, or office buildings to place enough panels to do the job for the number of cars involved.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 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.



**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.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be another
electric car).

I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 1:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 9, 12:15 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 9/07/2012 8:24 AM, Trevor Wilson 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.

You shouldn't put much store in what Graham says I said last year, since
he's unable even to track what I've said in my previous posting.

Sylvia

huh?

good agument when I remember what you said and you don't

why don't you just cite the figure,

Huh? How did I become responsible for citing figures just because you
claim, without any evidence, that I've previously cited them. My
postings get archived. If you think I've cited something, post a URL for it.

you said 85% or 90% efficient by memory.

Previously you asserted I'd said 90%. Now it's 85% or 90%. What does
that say about your memory?

electrolysis is on par with charging a bettery in efficiency!

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

the picture is of a home hydrogen fuel pump!

I won't say anything if you just deny everything I say!

OK.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 2:49 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 9/07/2012 1:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/9/2012 12:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 9/07/2012 6:39 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.



**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.


It's the same problem. There will be days on which the sun doesn't
shine, and you'll then charge your Volt off the grid, which has to have
generation capacity in place to allow for that. If everyone charged
their Volts off the grid every day, then more efficient generation
capacity would be used than for the situation where Volts are only
charged off grid when the sun isn't shining.

Sylvia.


**Let's review the facts:

* Not ALL cars are used every day to drive 40km. In my case, a 40km
range would last me almost a week.
* I suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the PV array would be
dedicated to charge the battery of the Volt (though it could be another
electric car).


I still don't see that changes anything unless you are willing to forgo
the use of your car when you've used up the charge, or run it on its
petrol engine.

**Your initial comments (correctly) centred on the ramifications of
using PV cells and their usefulness WRT grid connected power. My
suggestion was to not bother with connecting the PV cells to the grid at
all, but to, instead, use the PV cells to keep an electric vehicle
charged. This would have several benefits:

* Reduce CO2 emissions from the vehicle.
* Have no impact on the grid.
* Reduce demands on the grid.

You might be willing, but if so I can't see most people being like you.
Most will charge it from the grid if there's no sunlight, and that
causes the problem discussed in this thread.

Sylvia.

**No one suggested that PV cells were a panacea, but there are other
ways to skin a cat.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 11:24 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

herc.of.z...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:28 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
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.

Not a room, a cool room.

of course a person producing 50W in heat isn't going to compete with
a 20W peltier!

so your INSULATION is inversely propotional to your COOLING POWER

most people off the grid buy a chest freezer and put a timer or
thermostat on it.

better insulation, and opening the door doesn't lose cool.

I might adapt some chest freezers with peltier coolers and tank of
water inside to keep thermal intertia during noon hours, running off
solar panels.

the shed is scorching in summer during afternoon, i have to get the
temperature down or I can't store ANY food!

A Peltier cooler setup that size would still likely use more energy than a
conventional freezer box which kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? I would
insulate the shed walls and ceilings as a matter of priority. Add some
panelling to make it more homely. Should be DIY simple and would make it
more homely not to mention liveable.

yeh the compressor fridges are more efficient, but peltiers work too
and are solid state so you can leave them on for years and run at
different amps, no maintenance.

I wouldn't' be able to use gas if I sealed the shed up. this will
just be a weekender once I've setup the water tank I can move on..

Easier to get a caravan or build a full house for something permanent
than do up a shed. But water, power, resources, etc. are good to have
on stand by.

I boarded off the gaps between the concrete slab and walls so no
spiders crawl in anymore

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 12:15 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 9/07/2012 8:24 AM, Trevor Wilson 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.

You shouldn't put much store in what Graham says I said last year, since
he's unable even to track what I've said in my previous posting.

Sylvia

huh?

good agument when I remember what you said and you don't

why don't you just cite the figure,

you said 85% or 90% efficient by memory.

electrolysis is on par with charging a bettery in efficiency!

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

the picture is of a home hydrogen fuel pump!

I won't say anything if you just deny everything I say!

ffs