What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[Clocky]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Yes, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where maximum
torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything like the
range or performance out of the thing with a load like that.

 

[Clocky]

Graham Cooper wrote:

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'd be interested to see what you come up with and see how efficient,
reliable and cost effective it is.

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..

It could be a very comfortable weekender for little outlay. Shouldn't be a
problem since you're loaded, right?

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.

Expecting armageddon?

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

What about the gaps at the top? I found they came in through there and had
to seal that. Ended up doing it by hanging a ceiling made from silver cell
insulationl. Secured it using metal screws to the centre beam and let it
droop slightly and fastened it to the sides with a bit of overlap. Looked
quite neat and worked a treat. I ilaid some carpet and nsulated the sides of
the shed and put some panels on to make it into a very comfortable
workshop/office.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

Sylvia.

 

[keithr]

On 9/07/2012 2:21 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 7:34 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 9, 2:53 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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?


Spot on as always!

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

Herc

That would be "Sylvia gave a figure of 90% or around there last year."

I'm still waiting to see you provide any evidence.

Sylvia.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 2:53 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

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

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?

Spot on as always!

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

Herc

 

[terryc]

On 09/07/12 17:32, Clocky wrote:

Yes, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them
completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where maximum
torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

Isn't that a bit like saying a porche is useless for shipping freight.
electric cars are generally solf for a particular use.
In any case, it is simply a matter of designing the control circuits to
handle the situation.

 

[terryc]

On 09/07/12 19:49, keithr wrote:

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

Yep, these cars are sold at status symbols.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/07/2012 11:43 PM, terryc wrote:

On 09/07/12 19:49, keithr wrote:

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

Yep, these cars are sold at status symbols.

Though it's far from clear which status is being symbolised.

Sylvia.

 

[Clocky]

terryc wrote:

On 09/07/12 17:32, Clocky wrote:

Yes, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making
them completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where
maximum torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

Isn't that a bit like saying a porche is useless for shipping freight.

You can buy a Porsche quite capable of towing. You can't buy any electric
car suitable for towing or long range driving load carrying.

electric cars are generally solf for a particular use.

Restricted by their inherent problems from other uses you mean.

In any case, it is simply a matter of designing the control circuits
to handle the situation.

Electric motors don't produce torque at high revs, that's a fundamental
design limitation. If you use gearing you then increase the load and power
consumption, reducing their range.
So you end up with a light weight chassis, incapable of towing and bloody
expensive to produce.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 2:28 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

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

You said 40%!

An electric motor is 70%! Charging a battery is 70%. 0.7^2 = 49%.

A H2 "battery" uses WATER!

The H2 engine gives off WATER VAPOUR for exhaust! It's clean!

No biproduct. You're comparing that to a chemical reaction energy
store.

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.

http://jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SB1695&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=997#12
$305
12V 100AH DEEP CYCLE GEL BATTERY
Deep-cycle gel performance for solar installations



You can't do it! Not with a 2 tonne car to carry a 50kg person!

Electric bike maybe! Technology is ripe for bikes, Aus has a 200W
limit.

Those 200km/hour electric cars that travel 100km+ range have a BOOT
FULL OF BATTERIES! Concept cars!

NiCads got up to 200 recharges.
NiMetalHydride got up to 1000.
Gel Cells are about 365 charges.

This is the best you can get!

http://jaycar.com.au/products_uploaded/SB1695_Spec_Sheet.pdf

capacity after 3 months = 91%
capacity after 6 months = 82%
capacity after 12 months = 64%


A car is moving 1 tonne from 0-100km in 5 seconds...

it's not a battery application! FFS!

You're not going to beat 1000 recharges per battery - EVER

those hybrid cars turn the petrol engine on every time you put the
pedal down.



Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 7:59 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 9/07/2012 7:34 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 9, 2:53 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 9/07/2012 1:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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?

Spot on as always!

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

Herc

That would be "Sylvia gave a figure of 90% or around there last year."

I'm still waiting to see you provide any evidence.

Sylvia.

seems to be a pet topic of yours.

Results 1 - 10 of about 22 for author:else electrolysis

going through those would be like putting on a Willie Nelson tape

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 10, 1:36 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SB1695&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=997#12
$305
12V 100AH DEEP CYCLE GEL BATTERY
Deep-cycle gel performance for solar installations

I could fit 20 of these in my boot. 20KW x 1 hour.

What's a V8? 300KW!

but replacement is $6K/year and range is halved by 12 months.

(that's not covering electricity cost)



Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 9, 6:41 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

Right, but if you could afford to pay 3-5 years power bill upfront
you can make substantial savings by investing on top of your roof!

It's like going from Perfect Competition to Monopoly where there is
a greater barrier to entry for greater (partly free) sustained
benefit.

It's like incandescent bulbs, they should just tax the hell out of
them
not ban them. $3 flouro bulb, $10 incandescent.

People making over $50K per year should be paying double for grid
power!

And the people who can afford extra solar panels have an option to
trickle in actual profits with the grid feed system.

It's a potential small business to invest your capital in..
... that's if the power companies every paid you for

solar credits > your electricity usage.

Herc

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 5:32 PM, Clocky wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Yes

**Good. I accept your admission that you are wrong.


, but as revs increase the torque tapers off to nothing making them

completely useless for towing (beyond taking off perhaps where maximum
torque is available at 0 revs) or high speed acceleration.

**Bollocks. Electric motors are quite unlike IC motors, in that maximum
torque is generated at zero RPM and continues all the way to maximum,
with virtually no fall-off.

Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-unveiled-with-4500nm-of-torque-video

4,500Nm or torque seems like quite a bit to me. Not enough for you?

The figure seems over-stated to me. 450Nm sound closer to reality.
Still, that's plenty of torque for pulling the skin off a rice pudding.

The X might be able to carry 7 midgets but you won't get anything like the
range or performance out of the thing with a load like that.

**I suggest you do some learning about electric motors. In any case, I
was simply addressing your claim:

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

Do you now resile from that fact?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 6:41 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:> On 9/07/2012 2:55 PM, Trevor
Wilson wrote:

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.



One needs to take a pragmatic view. Some people may be willing to adjust
their lives to address CO2 emissions, but most people will simply follow
the path of least financial resistance.

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.

The Government needs to ensure that that path doesn't represent an
increase in total cost without a commensurate environmental gain. As
things stand, that's very much in doubt.

**Regardless, we are facing a number of issues that threaten our present
lifestyle. These are:

* Dwindling supplies of cheap oil.
* Increasing demand for oil.
* An increasing need to deal with CO2 emissions.

None of the solutions will be without cost. Intelligent thinking can
reduce those costs.

You made the point that PV cells were not a nett benefit for the grid. I
accept that POV as valid. Given the cost reductions of PV cells, the
rise in prices of fossil fuels (both supply related and taxation
related), then alternative forms of personal transport will likely be
more common. Electric vehicles are ONE, viable form of personal
transport. Marry PV cells and electric vehicles and several problems can
be dealt with efficiently.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 7:49 PM, keithr wrote:

On 9/07/2012 2:21 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

**Now, that is true. Do you imagine that it will always be the case?

In 1908, the average US automobile cost US$3,000.00. In 1909, Henry Ford
introduced mass production techniques to the US auto industry and lower
the price to $850.00. Further refinements and economies of scale allowed
Ford to reduce the price of the Model T to $550.00.

Right now, electric automobiles represent a miniscule proportion of
production. Witness the Telsa Roadster. It's performance approximates
that of a cheap(?) Ferrari. It is priced similarly. It is built in
similar numbers. It is reasonable to accume that, when EVs are built in
huge numbers, that costs will fall.

What do you think people will be driving when fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/9/2012 7:49 PM, keithr wrote:

On 9/07/2012 2:21 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

With the Volt going to cost $60k plus the cost of the panels, the
economics are highly suspect.

**I thought a little more on this comment. Buying a Volt is no more
suspect that buying a BMW X5 so mum can drop the kids to school.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 10, 6:58 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**When fuel hits 5 Bucks a Litre, you will likely see a lot of
innovative ideas.

Innovation doesn't go forever. What's changed since 1990?

iPhones? MP3 players? cheap video projectors?

The Space Shuttle uses the same rocket fuel as the V2!

Batteries are already in mass production with a lot of research for a
long time.

There's a few more quantum leaps in innovation left in the next
century, but I doubt near perfect high power compact and cheap
batteries will be one.

Electric systems have their place, but we'd all be driving around
bumper cars before we dismiss the Internal combustions engine.

100KW to power a car, that's 50 air conditioners. You can barely run
1 air conditioner with a $100,000 half tonne solar setup.

Herc

 

[BruceS]

On Jul 9, 1:39 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

Graham Cooper wrote:
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'd be interested to see what you come up with and see how efficient,
reliable and cost effective it is.

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..

It could be a very comfortable weekender for little outlay. Shouldn't be a
problem since you're loaded, right?

Graham lives in a shed. It's bigger (I think) than the storage shed I
just had built, but not as nice. Yes, he's clearly "loaded", but he
would get even more loaded if he sealed up the shed and used gas in
it. Better yet, Graham, seal up the shed and just open the gas valve
a bit, with no flame. Then you won't have to worry about CO
poisoning. Happy dreams!

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.

Expecting armageddon?

More like expecting the authorities.

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

What about the gaps at the top? I found they came in through there and had
to seal that. Ended up doing it by hanging a ceiling made from silver cell
insulationl. Secured it using metal screws to the centre beam and let it
droop slightly and fastened it to the sides with a bit of overlap. Looked
quite neat and worked a treat. I ilaid some carpet and nsulated the sides of
the shed and put some panels on to make it into a very comfortable
workshop/office.

You just can't get much better than a person who pretends to be rich
having to go extra lengths to keep the spiders out of the shed he
lives in, and dreaming of the day he can move on up to a caravan.