What happens when solar power is cheaper than grid power?

[keithr]

On 10/07/2012 5:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Australian fuel prices have not gone up that much over the years
compared to the rest of the world. In 1998 petrol was about 85c per
litre, I moved to the US that year and was paying 90c/US gall. Now, even
here 500Km from Sydney we are paying $1.40/litre less than double,
meanwhile the yanks are now paying $3/US gall more than 3 times the
price. That's still significantly cheaper than here, but the
differential is closing.



**Perhaps I should ask:

When do you think petrol will hit 5 Bucks a Litre?

Over the last 12 years it has gone up an average of 6% per year $5/litre

is roughly 260% more than the current price so work it out.

A Golf Blue Motion which is reckoned to do less than 4l/100Km will cost
you about $29K. At $5/litre even that means that you would have to do
155000Km before you're up to the basic price for the Volt, and that
isn't counting the cost of the solar panels.

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 10, 5:02 pm, keithr <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:

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.

Every time I see a Prius, it is being driven like fury obviously not
being driven in a green manner. If you really want to save fuel and cut
emissions, buy a VW "Blue Motion" diesel Golf

Put 98 Octane Unleaded in small cars and they are twice as quick! U
turn in the middle of the road, park at high speeds! Great cars if
only for 1.

Herc

 

[Bruce Varley]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:a5ne6kFqtbU1@mid.individual.net...

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.

It's a dumb question. The inference is that one day, solar will become
'cheaper' so everyone will switch over. But things become cheaper when
people *don't* want them as well as when there's an abundant supply. The
situation already exists in places like Europe, where green generators are
having to flog their power at knockdown prices because of the large supply
variance.

 

[Clocky]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable to keep
on the road.

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.

I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that remains a
fact.

, 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.

Pigs arse.

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.

They can't even get their claims right, but you lap them up regardless.
Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my breath.

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:

I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

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

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/07/2012 9:47 PM, Bruce Varley wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:a5ne6kFqtbU1@mid.individual.net...
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.


It's a dumb question. The inference is that one day, solar will become
'cheaper' so everyone will switch over. But things become cheaper when
people *don't* want them as well as when there's an abundant supply. The
situation already exists in places like Europe, where green generators are
having to flog their power at knockdown prices because of the large supply
variance.

Though there's a difference. If green generators are having to sell
power at knockdown prices, it's because they cannot externalise the cost
of the variance - the market factors it into the price.

With domestic PV cells, and with anything like the current way things
are regulated, consumers ARE able to to externalise the cost of the
variance - they get to force the retailer to buy power from them at a
price determined by the government for political reasons, and with the
variance not taken into account.

Sylvia.

 

[Gordon Levi]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVZbqripkaI>

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

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

Only if the oxidizer is pure O2. If the hydrogen burns in
air there are quite a few byproducts, mainly nitrogen
compounds; high combustion temperatures guarantee it.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable to keep
on the road.

**Prove it.

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.



I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that remains a
fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which is,
in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.

, 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.


Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

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

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.

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.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

but you lap them up regardless.

Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my breath.

**I note that Gordon has done just that.

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:


I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?

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

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/10/2012 7:19 PM, keithr wrote:

On 10/07/2012 5:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Australian fuel prices have not gone up that much over the years
compared to the rest of the world. In 1998 petrol was about 85c per
litre, I moved to the US that year and was paying 90c/US gall. Now, even
here 500Km from Sydney we are paying $1.40/litre less than double,
meanwhile the yanks are now paying $3/US gall more than 3 times the
price. That's still significantly cheaper than here, but the
differential is closing.



**Perhaps I should ask:

When do you think petrol will hit 5 Bucks a Litre?

Over the last 12 years it has gone up an average of 6% per year $5/litre
is roughly 260% more than the current price so work it out.

**The problem is that there will not be a linear relationship of petrol
price rises over time. There are many factors in play. Petrol may
languish at present levels for some years. Or it could go through the
roof next month. I certainly cannot predict it.

A Golf Blue Motion which is reckoned to do less than 4l/100Km will cost
you about $29K. At $5/litre even that means that you would have to do
155000Km before you're up to the basic price for the Volt, and that
isn't counting the cost of the solar panels.

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.
It will not always be like this. Eventually, petrol prices will trend up
and people will start looking for more economical vehicles. The choice
may not be logical. IOW: A purchaser may opt for a (say) Holden Volt,
not because it will be a viable economical alternative, but because it
uses less fuel. That is human nature.

With specific reference to the Blue Motion, I should point out a few issues:

* It is available in a manual transmission only. That is not likely to
concern you or me, but people like my 84 year old mother would be bothered.
* The claimed fuel consumption figures for the Golf are not stop-start
motoring ones. In this area, electric and hybrids may offer superior
results. For long distances, at constant speeds, a straight Diesel may
be the best choice. This is not necessarily the case for Sydney traffic,
nor for those who drop the kids off to school each day. IC engines
(particularly Deisels) do not operate at optimum efficiency until the
engine is warm. Electric motors operate at maximum efficiency when cool.

BTW: I do not hold the Volt up as the ultimate solution to an
alternative powered vehicle. It is simply ONE possible solution. As I
have stated before, a small Deisel/electric vehicle makes more sense
IMO. VW's experience in this area would suggest an impressive result.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.

What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds. It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Electrolysis produces Oxygen at the same rate as Hydrogen needed to
recombine.

Even if it was an issue, it's not an issue.

You can whine till the cows come home, around about the same time as
your lithium battery cars come through the driveway, cars are going
Hydrogen, simple fact!

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-un...

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

So put in a BIGGER ELECTRIC ENGINE??

what a great idea! A 4 Cylinder Car Engine is already 20X the size of
the compressor motor in your Air Conditioner.

You need a $10,000 BATTERY STACK to run an air-conditioner for 24
hours.

I just bought 2 $599 Batteries to charge off solar, THEY'RE 100KG
for those 2!

They won't run a small pressure hose more than 2 hours!

******

Listen, I know the Electric Car dream is a great idea... but it's a
disappointment.

It's as disappointing to you as the Telomeraze Research PR was to me..
it's only prematurely aged (Telomeraze deficient) mice that
regenerated young again when given Telomeraze)

******

There's no production electric cars BECAUSE OF THE BATTERY!

They're hybrid so you can generate the massive power to charge the
battery!

The concept cars all cheat! They have a boot full of lithium cells.

And the Hybrid model is double redundant to start with!

You can't drive Brisbane to Perth using 'BRAKING ENERGY"



Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 10, 10:56 pm, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

Tow with a H2 Car.

Zip around in Dune Buggy size electrics to do the shopping!

Win Win!

Herc

 

[Graham Cooper]

On Jul 11, 7:09 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 7/10/2012 10:56 PM, Clocky wrote:









Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Electric/hybrids don't get old before they get economically unviable to keep
on the road.

**Prove it.











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.

I'm not wrong. They can't pull the skin off a custard, and that remains a
fact.

**Accelerating 1.2 Tonne of automobile from rest to 100kph in 3.7
seconds _IS_ serious torque. I also note that a video has been posted
showing just how well an electric motor can deliver pulling power. I
would also point you towards the reasons why all powerful locomotives
are Diesel/electric. The Diesel is used to gerate electricity, which is,
in turn, used to power electric motors to tow railway carriages.



, 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.

Pigs arse.

**Nope. Fact. Note the torque figures for the Tesla:

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

273 lb-ft at 0 - 5,400 RPM. That's the beauty of electric motors - a
flat torque curve. It means an electric vehicle can be used without a
gearbox.



Here's a new Audi:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109091421738/audi-r8-e-tron-officially-un....

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.

They can't even get their claims right,

**That is not the fault of Audi. Just the idiot who wrote the article.

  but you lap them up regardless.

Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I won't hold my breath..

**I note that Gordon has done just that.



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:

I suggest you learn something about electric motors.

**What do you suggest I should learn?



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

Do you now resile from that fact?

It remains as stated. Show me an electric car that can tow anything... I'm
waiting.

**See Gordon's post.

Do you now resile from your nonsensical claims?

Show me an electric car that can tow anything 100 km, every day for 3
months!

100KW X 1 HOUR X 100 RECHARGES

My Gel Cell stack would have to be
1000W 1 HOUR = 50KG
100KW 1 HOUR = 5,000 KG

and would only make 50KM by the 100th trip and then you throw away the
$60,000 5 tonne batteries!

Herc

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.


What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds. It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.

Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.

Sylvia.

 

[BruceS]

On Jul 9, 11:35 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 1:54 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:02 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

Too many middlemen I have no control of means ad profits don't readily
scale.

You mean the money never actually arrived in your hands. Leaving aside
the reasons, I think this is what most of us believed - and still believe.

That's it, in a nutshell. All of Graham's huge profits are a product
of sqrt(-1).

Yeh it's steady $4K a week last few months.

I've bought a house with only a few thousand in cash. If you really
had that income, you could have bought a house long ago, got a 10 year
mortgage on it, and be well on your way to financial independence.
Instead, you live in a shed, crap in one corner of it, shower with a
hose a few feet away, and dream of the day you move into a cheap
trailer. That's both very sad and a bit hilarious.

Started breaking $1000/day end of financial year so will be over $5K/
week next month.

3 Jul 2012      PROCEEDS OVERSEAS TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER
               0106566 USD4426...@1.0539 FIC INC       4,199.89

26 Jun 2012     PROCEEDS OVERSEAS TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER
              0167556 USD3810...@1.0288 FIC INC        3,703.81

19 Jun 2012     PROCEEDS OVERSEAS TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER
              0157347 USD4143...@1.0406 FIC INC        3,982.23

12 Jun 2012     PROCEEDS OVERSEAS TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER
              0126350 USD4446...@1.0142 FIC INC        4,384.35

If only the Aussie dollar was 60c again!

That's a $30/day ad budget.   Accounting won't let me scale it up!

Well, at least not until you start paying the $30/day you owe them.

Anyway, I have a 1500W solar power grid to install!

Keep dreaming. If you work very, very hard, you could get a window A/
C unit in your shed, and post videos of yourself flying your toy
helicopter between the A/C unit and the ravine next door where you
hide the bodies.

 

In sci.physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 11/07/2012 6:26 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:43:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

On Jul 10, 12:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2012 1:36 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:

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

An H2 burning air breathing internal combustion engine gives of oxides
of nitrgoen.

Sylvia.

And LOTS of them due to the flame temperatures.

not mentioned in Wikipedia.

So? Learn a bit of chemistry; Wiki isn't a comprehensive
source.


What is the Toxicity of the Nitrous compounds. It's a secondary
reaction not even worth a mention in the list of hurdles.


Perhaps it's not, but an engine that emits oxides of nitrogen cannot
reasobably be called clean, which is what you did.

Sylvia.

Oxides of nitrogen are a constituant of smog and it would violate the
smog laws for most, if not all, US states without heroic effort to
minimize the emmisions.

 

[terryc]

On 11/07/12 06:37, Graham Cooper wrote:

They're hybrid so you can generate the massive power to charge the
battery!

Not really, they are basicaly ICE cars with a battery smoother.

If you really want an electric car, then you need the gnerator running
at optimum/most efficent ICE speed powering the generation part into the
battery pack, from which the electric wheel motors are driven. Cust fuel
consumption by about 50% suppossedly.

 

[terryc]

On 11/07/12 07:50, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.

You can now buy 4WD from $25k instead of $50-80K.

 

[keithr]

On 11/07/2012 7:50 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 7/10/2012 7:19 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 5:10 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 7/10/2012 4:43 PM, keithr wrote:
On 10/07/2012 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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?

Australian fuel prices have not gone up that much over the years
compared to the rest of the world. In 1998 petrol was about 85c per
litre, I moved to the US that year and was paying 90c/US gall. Now,
even
here 500Km from Sydney we are paying $1.40/litre less than double,
meanwhile the yanks are now paying $3/US gall more than 3 times the
price. That's still significantly cheaper than here, but the
differential is closing.



**Perhaps I should ask:

When do you think petrol will hit 5 Bucks a Litre?

Over the last 12 years it has gone up an average of 6% per year $5/litre
is roughly 260% more than the current price so work it out.

**The problem is that there will not be a linear relationship of petrol
price rises over time. There are many factors in play. Petrol may
languish at present levels for some years. Or it could go through the
roof next month. I certainly cannot predict it.


A Golf Blue Motion which is reckoned to do less than 4l/100Km will cost
you about $29K. At $5/litre even that means that you would have to do
155000Km before you're up to the basic price for the Volt, and that
isn't counting the cost of the solar panels.

**People are funny (in a weird way). When petrol cracked the $1.00/Litre
mark, the sales of large 4WDs plummetted and the sales of economical
cars boomed. Recently, thanks in part to the strength of the AUssie
Dollar, petrol prices have been depressed. 4WD sales are booming again.
It will not always be like this. Eventually, petrol prices will trend up
and people will start looking for more economical vehicles. The choice
may not be logical. IOW: A purchaser may opt for a (say) Holden Volt,
not because it will be a viable economical alternative, but because it
uses less fuel. That is human nature.

Hybrids are too expensive to compete unless the price of petrol goes way
above the present level, look at Europe and Japan where petrol is double
the Australian price, Europe is full of diesels and Japan is full of
small capacity petrol engined cars, Hybrids and electric vehicles have
made little inroads despite the high cost of petrol.

At the headquarters of my employer in the US, they use hybrid vehicles
as shuttles around the campus, but I think that it is more of a gesture
than a sound economic move.

With specific reference to the Blue Motion, I should point out a few
issues:

* It is available in a manual transmission only. That is not likely to
concern you or me, but people like my 84 year old mother would be bothered.
* The claimed fuel consumption figures for the Golf are not stop-start
motoring ones. In this area, electric and hybrids may offer superior
results. For long distances, at constant speeds, a straight Diesel may
be the best choice. This is not necessarily the case for Sydney traffic,
nor for those who drop the kids off to school each day. IC engines
(particularly Deisels) do not operate at optimum efficiency until the
engine is warm. Electric motors operate at maximum efficiency when cool.

No reason (apart from cost) that cars of this class cannot be fitted
with a modern efficient auto gearbox. Modern engines warm up fast, the
ECU changes the mixture and timing to promote this, my Forrester (a not
particularly frugal car) is up to working temperature not much more than
500 metres after backing out of the drive.

I am not totally convinced by some of the technology used in this type
of vehicle. Stopping the engine when you come to a halt for instance is
fine when you stop at the traffic lights, but how does it hold up when
you are trying to turn right across heavy oncoming traffic?

BTW: I do not hold the Volt up as the ultimate solution to an
alternative powered vehicle. It is simply ONE possible solution. As I
have stated before, a small Deisel/electric vehicle makes more sense
IMO. VW's experience in this area would suggest an impressive result.

Another cost consideration with electric or hybrid vehicles is the
lifetime of the Lion batteries, they are very expensive, and, as any
laptop owner knows, their capacity diminishes with use. This is
exacerbated by high ambient temperatures such as we experience in
Australia.